By: KEITH PHUCAS, Times Herald Staff
While the 9/11 Commission Report inquiry has its share of critics, Jonathan
Gold’s misgivings about the official findings go far beyond skepticism. In fact,
the 33-year-old Plymouth Meeting resident is convinced the report is covering
up Bush administration complicity in the deadly terrorist attacks.
Gold’s unorthodox view has caused many jaws to drop and heads to shake. When
asked for proof, he calmly rattles off a long list of like-minded people, and
what he called a growing body of “evidence” that the government orchestrated
the attacks as a pretext for the global war on terror.
“There’s so much evidence out there,” he said.
For those who scoff at him, he recommends comparing the official Sept. 11 account
to the Cooperative Research Center’s Sept. 11 times lines, reading David Griffin’s
“The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” and entries
on 911Truth.org just for starters.
A quick glance at the Internet’s voluminous material critical of the 9/11 Commission
Report published in 2004 could be this generation’s Warren Report.
Gold was not always a skeptic, admitting his conversion to Sept. 11 truth seeker
was a gradual process. But by 2002, he was convinced the official story was
a monumental cover-up.
His suspicion grew with the Bush administration’s initial reluctance to cooperate
with a probe into the Sept. 11 attacks, and when former Sen. Tom Daschle was
asked to limit the scope of the investigation.
Considering nearly 3,000 people had been killed, Gold was irked it took… Continue reading
By Eli Lake
April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON — A new U.N. Human Rights Council official assigned to monitor
Israel is calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives
may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
On March 26, Richard Falk, Milbank professor of international law emeritus
at Princeton University, was named by unanimous vote to a newly created position
to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian
Arabs. While Mr. Falk’s specialty is human rights and international law, since
the attacks in 2001, he has devoted some of his time to challenging what he
calls the "9-11 official version."
On March 24 in an interview with a radio host and former University of Wisconsin
instructor, Kevin Barrett, Mr. Falk said, "It is possibly true that especially
the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the
world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether
they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen
or not, I don’t think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say
is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation
of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do
these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of
the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently
Mr.… Continue reading
Neocon John Bolton claims that “in 100 years,” people won’t remember two of the biggest stains on Bush’s record, Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib:
“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he was strong and decisive and that was critical for both the country and for the Western world,” believes John Bolton. “In 100 years people aren’t going to remember Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib, they’re going to remember 9/11 and Bush’s reaction to it.”
Is he right?
60 years after Hitler, the exact thing which we most remember are his concentration camps.
Do we remember the false threats he drummed up to scare his people? The fake threat from Poland, for example, which is the exact parallel to the Neocon’s fake “war on terror”?
Well, people either understand that Hitler used false flag terror in the same way that the Neocons, or else they don’t know anything about Gleiwitz Incident, the Reichstag fire and other precipitating incidents which Hitler used to drum up fear of an imaginary enemy.
One thing is for certain. In 100 years, 9/11 will be seen as an American Gleiwitz Incident, and the Neocons will be recognized as the tyrants they are.
10 false flags operations that shaped our world
Tuesday, 06 March 2007
From Nero to 9/11, via Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin incident… Joe Crubaugh provides an “all time greatest hits” of false flag operations, whereby one scenario is repeated… as the world keeps falling for the same lie.… Continue reading
May 26, 2009
Posted by Reprehensor at 911blogger.com
Intro: This story originally appeared in the Spanish Publico on May 9, 2009. Predictably, the U.S. press ignored it. Below find an English translation, and note that the translation is cross-posted at the Daily Kos, and DemocraticUnderground.com.
U.S. Lawyers point to Bush for the tortures
The lawyer of Martin Luther King’s family contributes a thorough report to the Spanish lawsuit to reinforce the charge — The American Civil Liberties Union offers their collaboration
Pere RusiÃ±ol in Madrid (PÃºblico)
Translation: Lynn Strother
A group of lawyers in the United States, led by William F. Pepper, the veteran human rights lawyer linked to Martin Luther King’s family, have joined the Spanish lawsuit about Guantánamo and the tortures of the Bush administration. Pepper has contributed a 121 page document to the prosecution, in which he defends Spain’s right to investigate, and suggests that the proceedings be widened to charge former president George W. Bush directly.
The U.S. lawyers also contribute 45 documents to the lawsuit — some, declassified recently; others, of public knowledge for years — that permit the “tracking of the process of decision making” that led to the application of methods equivalent to torture with the detainees of the “war against terrorism”.
All of these documents are now part of the lawsuit that the judge Eloy Velasco is preparing in the National High Court against six lawyers who built the “legal scaffolding” which led to Guantánamo. They will also be… Continue reading
By Glenn Greenwald
We now have an extraordinary situation that reveals the impunity with which political elites commit the most egregious crimes, as well as the special privileges to which they explicitly believe they — and they alone — are entitled. That a large bipartisan cast of Washington officials got caught being paid substantial sums of money by an Iranian dissident group that is legally designated by the U.S. Government as a Terrorist organization, and then meeting with and advocating on behalf of that Terrorist group, is very significant for several reasons. New developments over the last week make it all the more telling. Just behold the truly amazing set of facts that have arisen:
In June, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law . In that case, the Court upheld the Obama DOJ’s very broad interpretation of the statute that criminalizes the providing of “material support” to groups formally designated by the State Department as Terrorist organizations. The five-judge conservative bloc (along with Justice Stevens) held that pure political speech could be permissibly criminalized as “material support for Terrorism” consistent with the First Amendment if the “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with , or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (emphasis added). In other words, pure political advocacy in support of a designated Terrorist group could be prosecuted as a felony — punishable with 15 years in prison — if the advocacy is coordinated with that… Continue reading