By David Ray Griffin
My purpose in publishing this essay is to introduce a perspective, relevant to the debates about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, that thus far has not been part of the public discussion.
One way to understand the effect of 9/11, in most general terms, is to see that it allowed the agenda developed in the 1990s by neoconservatives—often called simply “neocons”—to be implemented. There is agreement on this point across the political spectrum. From the right, for example, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke say that 9/11 allowed the “preexisting ideological agenda” of the neoconservatives to be “taken off the shelf . . . and relabeled as the response to terror.”1 Stephen Sniegoski, writing from the left, says that “it was only the traumatic effects of the 9/11 terrorism that enabled the agenda of the neocons to become the policy of the United States of America.”2
What was this agenda? It was, in essence, that the United States should use its military supremacy to establish an empire that includes the whole world–a global Pax Americana. Three major means to this end were suggested. One of these was to make U.S. military supremacy over other nations even greater, so that it would be completely beyond challenge. This goal was to be achieved by increasing the money devoted to military purposes, then using this money to complete the “revolution in military affairs” made possible by… Continue reading
by Bryan Sacks
“If independent reporters ever want to gain evidence that proves that elements within the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks but failed to defend against them, or even anticipated and then enhanced the impact of the events for future effect, then transcripts of bin Laden’s U.S. intercepted communications between January — September 2001 would most likely make the case.”
–Ed Haas, Muckraker Report, September 21, 2006 http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id301.html
Most people will remember the infamous “bin Laden confession video” which was reportedly ‘obtained’ by US forces in Afghanistan after the fall of Jalalabad in November, 2001. The video, which has been offered as proof by the Bush administration that Osama bin Laden ordered the September 11, 2001 attacks, was broadcast in media outlets beginning in December 2001.
But now, a researcher claims that several kinds of evidence related to the video show that the US military’s story of its origin is false.
Drawing on information gleaned directly from translations of the audio, public statements by Tony Blair and mainstream news articles, researcher Maher Osseiran has offered a compelling account of the origin of the video. His shocking conclusion is that the video was not ‘obtained’ by US forces in Jalalabad; rather it was very likely the product of a US-sponsored ‘sting operation’, possibly conducted with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, in late September, 2001.
Osseiran has been researching and publishing articles about the story for more than a year now, but now he has… Continue reading
Outraged truth community demands answers
from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage
agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, February 19, 2007
The BBC’s Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue
of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to
end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting
this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement
and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response
in its aftermath.
Separated into two categories below are a number of questions
intended to highlight Guy Smith’s production for what it was
– a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured
around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We
invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds
of others that are already being asked by furious and informed
community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by
Smith’s yellow journalism hatchet job.
GROSS FACTUAL INACCURACIES AND YELLOW JOURNALISM
1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation
from PBS’ Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin
towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate
of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate,
the tower’s 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely
by Joseph Murtagh
February 12, 2007 — When it comes to 9/11, America right now is divided between two camps, those who trust the official account of the attacks, and those who, well, have questions. It’s occasionally the case that the first camp will publicly denounce the second camp as a bunch of nutcases, and when this happens, it’s usually the rowdier section of Camp Two, the Loose Change , bullhorn-wielding, “death to the New World Order” crowd, that takes the most heat.
What tends to get ignored, however, is the quieter section of Camp Two, and especially a group of widowed mothers from New Jersey and New York who over the last six years have worked harder than just about anyone to protect the country from terrorism. Few people realize that had it not been for the tireless efforts of the “Jersey girls” — Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, and Monica Gabrielle — not only would the 9/11 Commission never have happened, but there most likely never would have been any investigation into what was the worst loss of life on American soil since the Civil War. No inquiry into our failed military defenses, or the collapse of the towers, or just why it was that President Bush sat in that Florida classroom for a full seven minutes after the second plane struck. No scientific reports, no effort to discover what went wrong, no hearings of any kind. No attempt to figure out the details… Continue reading
BBC explores 9/11 conspiracy
Submitted by Netherlands IFP on Sun, 2007-02-11 16:15
Was it an inside job?
September 11 conspiracies will go mainstream on Sunday as BBC
airs an hour long documentary (article below) that investigates the growing
number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
9/11: The Conspiracy Files, will try to answer the question that has
been doing the rounds on the Internet ever since the hijacked planes crashed
into the twin towers of the World Trade Center: “Is it an inside job?”
According to the BBC, investigators have travelled across the United States
speaking to eyewitnesses trying to separate fact from fiction.
The programme produced by Guy Smith raises another important question: “Why
was America so unprepared when terror attack warnings had been received?”
According to a Scripps Howard poll, 36% of 1,010 Americans believe that the
government is responsible for the attacks either by omission or by commission.
The official 9/11 commission report concluded that “there were specific
points of vulnerability in the plot and opportunities to disrupt it.
“The outrage caused by September 11th allowed the present administration
to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were
otherwise infeasible,” according to the main conspiracy website, 911Truth.org,
which receives thousands of visitors every day. “9/11 was exploited to
launch an open-ended, perpetual “war on terror,” actually a war against
any and all enemies the US government may designate. The case of Iraq shows
that the target countries of this war need have nothing whatsoever to do with
The Conspiracy Files
We all know what happened on 9/11, the day the world changed.…
By Sander Hicks
In defense of the “9/11 truth movement.”
[Alternet] Editor’s note: The role of the alternative press is to offer perspectives that the commercial media won’t touch. Having run a number of articles critical of the “9/11 Truth Movement” by Matt Taibbi , Joshua Holland , Matthew Rothschild and others, we asked Sander Hicks, a prominent voice within the movement, to share his perspective. For more of Sanders’ views, see his book ” The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistle-Blowers, and the Cover-Up .”
No matter what you believe about who was responsible for 9/11, and how it went down, we’re all amazed at how much political capital the events of that day produced for this administration: A bipartisan consensus on torture; an era of permanent war; detentions without trial; “no fly” lists for activists; the Bill of Rights gone with the wind, and a cowed professional media willing to self-censor and suppress pertinent information. The 9/11 “America Attacked” story has distracted us from the natural outrage we should feel over illegal wiretaps, stolen elections, hundreds of billions of dollars missing at the Pentagon, war profiteering, Enron and Cheney’s secret energy policy.
But with Bush’s popularity… Continue reading
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer
January 9, 2007
Burlington voters on Town Meeting Day will be the first in the country to vote
‘yes’ or ‘no’ on reopening the investigation into what happened Sept. 11, 2001.
As of Jan. 4, a local group had gathered 1,240 of the approximately 1,350 signatures
(5 percent of registered voters) required to put the question on the ballot,
and a member of the group, Burlington attorney Frank Haddleton, expressed confidence
Monday that they now have more than enough signatures.
The question would ask the Vermont congressional delegation to “demand
a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation” to answer
“the many questions” the group says remain about what happened the
day planes commandeered by terrorists smashed into the World Trade Center and
In September, the council unanimously passed a resolution promising they would
honor the Vermont tradition of allowing such questions if they garner enough
signatures, “whether or not they like the questions or agree with the petitioners.”
Monday, the council agreed unanimously that they wouldn’t vote on putting the
9/11 question on the March ballot after City Attorney Joe McNeil said the September
resolution had put the council views on record and that the question would be
on the ballot if the signatures were submitted by Jan. 25.
The group said in a letter to the council that it doesn’t “advance any
particular alternative theory” about what happened Sept. 11, 2001, but
thinks the day’s aftermath, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are so serious
that a new investigation is warranted “to get answers to hundreds of questions
raised by independent researchers, members of the intelligence community and
family members of 9/11 victims.”
The attacks, the letter said, have been cited as justifications for the wars,
“wiretapping, the USA PATRIOT Act, torture, indefinite detentions without
charges, and the recently passed Military Commission Act that suspends the writ
of habeas corpus.…
Published: Sunday, December 31, 2006
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer
A Burlington group has gathered nearly enough signatures on a petition to put a ballot question before voters on Town Meeting Day urging a new investigation of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Spokesman Marc Estrin, a Burlington writer and musician, said the group has been meeting for several months and has more than 1,200 of the roughly 1,350 signatures needed to place the matter on the ballot. The question would advise the Vermont congressional delegation to demand a new 9/11 investigation.
Estrin said Burlington would be the first city in the country to formally make such a demand.
The group includes Burlington attorney Frank Haddleton, University of Vermont physics professor Joanna Rankin, Charles Simpson, chairman of the department of sociology and criminal justice at SUNY Plattsburgh, a chemist, an engineer, a video producer and former city councilor Doug Dunbebin.
Dunbebin, a graphic designer, has created a Web site for the group that explains the weaknesses it sees in the 9/11 Commission Report of July 2004.
The city’s director of elections, Jo… Continue reading
Send 500,000 impeachment letters to Pelosi by her first day as speaker,
While arguing about whether we should demand impeachment in another thread,
someone said there had to be a “groundswell of support” like there
was for the impeachment of Nixon and cited this article:
“More than 50,000 telegrams poured in on Capitol Hill today, so many,
Western Union was swamped. Most of them demanded impeaching Mr. Nixon.”
John Chancellor, NBC News on a Special Report on October 20, 1973
We already have more support than that. When John Conyers took Bush his petition
demanding he answer questions about the Downing Street Memo, it had 540,000 signatures, over
ten times as many as wrote about Nixon. I would bet most of those people would
write to demand impeachment of Bush, probably more.
The great thing is, now we have someone to focus this demand on who can and
possibly will act (in spite of her protests to the contrary): Nancy Pelosi.
She should have a half million signatures waiting for her her first day as
Speaker of the House.
I think she and the many of the Democrats want to do this, but to overcome
the reluctance of the DC establishment and big money interests who are afraid
their ox will be gored along with Bush & Cheney, she needs constant overwhelming
evidence of public DEMAND not just support for impeachment.
Fax or snail mail the letter below or your own variation to:
2371 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
450 Golden Gate Ave.…Continue reading
Published today, 12/18/06, in New York Megaphone, print run: 40,000, circulation: 66,700, NYC and Environs
by Sander Hicks
Daniel Hopsicker is an independent journalist working in Venice, Florida, outside the decommissioned military airstrips where three pilots from the 9/11 attack were trained. Hopsicker found the secret life of 9/11 ring-leader Mohamed Atta, who lead the operation by piloting the first plane into the World Trade Centre. Hopsicker found Atta’s American girlfriend, Amanda Keller. What she said broke new ground for truth-seekers worldwide. Atta had social connections and a party-boy life that indicated there was more to his story than people had been told. The American media establishment turned a blind eye to Hopsicker’s work, however. He has been called a “conspiracy theorist” in mainstream media in Florida, when he’s paid any attention at all.
Yet, in November, 2006, Hopsicker’s career turned a corner. Sources connected to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) told The Megaphone that his work began to be used to track Atta’s former associates. A researcher close to JTTF, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Megaphone that the “JTTF relied heavily on Daniel’s research on Atta and Amanda [Keller]. I faxed them pages from [Hopsicker's book] Welcome to Terrorland.”
The lead paid off: on November 16, 2006, the Joint Terrorism Task Force issued a “Terror Alert” for a certain Wolfgang Bohringer, a German-born, naturalized U.S. citizen who had reportedly partied with and protected Mohamed Atta in Florida. Bohringer’s name came up often in interviews with Amanda Keller.…Continue reading
by Michael Keefer
December 4, 2006
The first thing to say by way of preliminaries (and I’d better get it in quickly before someone suggests that I’ve turned up late or over-weight for a pre-match weighing-in) is that I’m not overjoyed with the pugilistic metaphor of my title.
But some sort of response to the volley of attacks on 9/11 researchers and activists with which the Counterpunch website marked the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 seems called for.
Michael Keefer strikes just the right tone in responding to Alexander Cockburn’s attempt to banish “conspiracy nuts” from the kingdom of the left.Keefer accounts for Cockburn’s hostility to conspiracy by locating him in the “class of academics and public intellectuals, for whom a migration of power into military, deep-political, and corporate-media hands may…. be difficult to acknowledge.” We’d add that when those intellectuals are wedded to a brand of analysis that cannot satisfactorily account for what they see transpiring before their eyes, that difficulty is only magnified.
Slowly but surely, the academic left is coming to understand that the deep politics paradigm offers the most promising analytic tools for understanding the dynamics of geopolitical struggle. Don’t be surprised by the discomfort associated with the paradigm shift to continue to produce rhetorically overheated, but substantively lacking, complaints like Cockburn’s for quite some time. But really, that’s his problem.
Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn set the tone of these pieces with an article describing theologian and ethicist David Ray Griffin, the author of The New Pearl Harbor (2004) and of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), as a “high priest” of the “conspiracy nuts””whom Cockburn denounces as cultists who “disdain all answers but their own,” who “seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant,” and who “pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, [".] contemptuously brush[ing] aside” evidence that contradicts their own “whimsical” treatment of “eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence.”
It’s a characteristically forceful performance, if at times slipshod. One small sign of carelessness may be the manner in which Cockburn slides from calling 9/11 skeptics a “coven” to comparing them, a few sentences later, to “mad Inquisitors” torturing the data (as the old joke goes about economists) until the data confess.” Readers brought up to think that the victims and perpetrators of witch-crazes have not customarily been the same people may find this unintentionally amusing.
Despite the sometimes distinctly nasty tone of this polemic, the idea of exchanging even metaphorical blows with Cockburn and his colleagues is unappealing. The overall quality of the essays that he and Jeffrey St. Clair publish in Counterpunch makes it easy on most days of the week to agree with Out of Bounds Magazine‘s description of it (trumpeted on Counterpunch‘s masthead) as “America’s best political newsletter.” And I’ve admired Cockburn’s own political essays for many years: he’s written movingly, sometimes brilliantly, on a wide range of subjects1 even if his flashes of brilliance sometimes alternate with breathtaking pratfalls: among them his dismissal, as recently as March 2001, of the evidence for global warming; his scoffing, in November 2004, at the rapidly gathering indications that the US presidential election of 2004 had been stolen; and a year later, his mockery of the well-established theory of peak oil and his adherence to the genuinely daft notion that the earth produces limitless quantities of abiotic oil.2 One can forgive a journalist’s slender grasp of the rudiments of scientific understanding. But given his self-appointed role as defender of the progressive left against a horde of fools, It’s dismaying to find him sliding as frequently as he does into positions that seem not just quirky but (dare I say it) unprogressive. Continue reading
By Sibel Edmonds
“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.”- – Justice Felix Frankfurter
It used to be the three branches – congress, the executive, and the courts – that we considered the make-up of our nation’s federal government. And some would point to the press as a possible fourth branch, due to the virtue of its influence in shaping our policies. Today, more and more people have come to view corporate and foreign lobby firms, with their preponderant clout and enormous power, as the official fourth branch of our nation’s government. Not only do I agree with them, I would even take it a step further and give it a higher status it certainly deserves.
Operating invisibly under the radar of media and public scrutiny, lobby groups and foreign agents have become the ‘epicenter’ of our government, where former statesmen and ‘dime a dozen generals’ cash in on their connections and peddle their enormous influence to the highest bidders turned clients. These groups’ activities shape our nation’s policies and determine the direction of the flow of its taxpayer driven wealth, while to them the interests of the majority are considered irrelevant, and the security of the nation is perceived as inconsequential.
November 15, 2006
THE HIGHJACKING OF A NATION
Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor
By Sibel Edmonds
In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America must be constantly awake against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence…since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”
Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power.
Foreign governments and foreign-owned private interests have long sought to influence U.S. public policy. Several have accomplished this goal; those who are able and willing to pay what it takes. Those who buy themselves a few strategic middlemen, commonly known as pimps, while in DC circles referred to as foreign registered agents and lobbyists, who facilitate and bring about desired transactions. These successful foreign entities have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying influence in Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few ‘Dime a Dozen Generals,’ bid high in the ‘former statesmen lobby auction’, and put in your pocket one or two ‘ex-congressmen turned lobbyists’ who know the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.…Continue reading
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
November 9, 2006
It only took six years for Americans to comprehend George Bush and the Republican Party and to realize that the Republicans were not leading America in any promising directions.
Exit polls and interviews with voters across the country by CNN political analyst Bill Schneider show that the November 2006 election was a vote against both Bush and the war in Iraq. Schneider reports that voters did not even know the name of the Democrats for whom they voted. Voters said: “I am going to vote Democrat, because I don’t like Bush, I don’t like the war. I want to make a statement.”
I believe that voters recognized that the peril of one-party rule is that political accountability exists no where except at the ballot box. With the Republican built and programmed electronic voting machines, even accountability at the ballot box was disappearing.
Americans realized that they had made a serious mistake giving power to one party, and they rectified it.
With Republican control of the legislative branch ended, Pentagon Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was immediately swept from power. With the troops, generals, and the service newspapers calling for Rumsfeld’s head, only the delusional warmonger, Vice President Richard Cheney, wanted to keep Rumsfeld in power.
It was a battle that Cheney lost. Cheney’s defeat is an indication that reality has elbowed its way back into Republican consciousness, pushing hubris and delusion away from the control they have exercised over political power.
The lust for unbridled power proved to be too strong a temptation for normally cautious Republicans.…Continue reading
In November 2004, more than 200 million people were eligible to vote in the presidential election… but almost 40% of them stayed home.
That nearly 80 million people didn’t make it to the polls that day was a special punch in the gut to my friends and me, because we were watching the election results from deep within Iraq’s Sunni Triangle. Some Americans heard political commentary that night- we heard mortar fire.
Our country is at war. A 60% voter turnout isn’t good enough. To find your local polling place, click here.
Just like in 2004, your vote today will affect the lives of every man and woman serving on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan (Ed.: and every civilian living there). Your choices will determine how long we fight in Iraq, what kind of equipment we have on the ground, and what treatment we receive when we get home.
Today, you can make your voice heard. Please vote today, and forward this email to remind your friends and family to make it to the polls.
Veteran, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan)
Panelists raise doubts over 9/11
Speakers at CU say government deceiving citizens
By John Aguilar
Monday, October 30, 2006
The idea was to turn the concept of a conspiracy theory on its head.
A panel of scientists and scholars, gathered in a classroom Sunday afternoon at the University of Colorado at Boulder, suggested to several hundred vocal supporters that the true conspiratorial types when it comes to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are the federal government and the mainstream media.
“They pounded a script into our heads that we now know is backed by zero evidence,” said Kevin Barrett, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Barrett was one of a trio of speakers who came to CU to lay out their case that the World Trade Center towers didn’t collapse as a result of jet fuel melting and softening of the buildings’ steel structure, but rather from a deliberate demolition effort perpetrated by the United States government to justify its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and assert its power around the world.
“Three thousand lives were lost at the World Trade Center as a means to global domination,” Barrett said.
He characterized the 9/11 attacks as a “false flag operation” carried out by the United States with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of its people.
“A false flag operation is a contrived event — shocking and spectacular — used to achieve political ends, start wars and justify suppression,” he said.…Continue reading
By Carla Binion
October 21, 2006
Consortiumnews Editor’s Note: Many Americans are in denial about what
is happening to the United States. They don’t want to believe that a totalitarian
structure could be put in place in their own country. They don’t want to view
the various pieces of George W. Bush’s “anti-terror” system in that
broad a context. They hope that someone or something — the Supreme Court
maybe — will strike down the excesses of the Republican-controlled Congress
and the Executive Branch.
Though there are still obstacles that stand in Bush’s way — the Nov.
7 elections, for instance — America’s march down a road to a new-age totalitarianism
has advanced farther than many understand, as freelance reporter Carla Binion
argues in this disturbing guest essay:
On October 17, George W. Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act
of 2006. This new law gives Bush power similar to that possessed by Stalin or
Hitler, and grants agencies within the Executive Branch powers similar to those
of the KGB or Gestapo.
Bush justifies this act by claiming he needs it to fight the “war on terror,”
but a number of critics, including former counterterrorism officials, have said
the administration has greatly exaggerated the threat and used illogical methods
to combat terrorism. (Examples are listed below.)
Except for MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, few television news reporters have bothered
to mention that the Military Commissions Act has changed the U.S. justice system
and our approach to human rights. As Olbermann said of the new law on his October
17 Countdown program, the new act “does away with habeas corpus, the right
of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have been imprisoned.”
Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor,
was Olbermann’s guest.…
Among Hundreds of Books, The Strongest Approach to Truth
October 7, 2006
Reviewer: Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States)
It is with great sadness that I conclude that this book is the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon, almost all non-fiction. I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war (see my review of Jim Bamford’s “Pretext for War”), and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d’etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations (see my review of “Crossing the Rubicon” as well as “State of Denial”). Most fascinatingly, the author links Samuel Huntington, author of “Clash of Civilizations” with Leo Strauss, the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons.
This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism.
The author draws on historical examples of US fabrication of threats (e.g. the bombing of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor) and many others (Jim Bamford publicized Operation Northwoods). It is an undeniable fact that the U.S. Government has been willing to kill its own citizens and fabricate attacks as part of moving the public.…Continue reading