Issued September 4, 2009
Numerous media outlets have contacted 911truth.org, asking us to “make
sense” of Van Jones’ “strange” behavior. We have issued the following
As the eighth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, what doesn’t make sense to
us is that media outlets choose to impugn the character of the signatories
rather than carry out your responsibility as watchdogs to call attention to
the as yet unanswered questions raised in the 2004 statement. Five years later,
we challenge you to finally print those same unanswered questions and pursue
their answers with the same vigor with which you pursue the signatories.
We are overwhelmed by all the messages of support that we have received in the last 24 hours. We apologize that we can not possibly respond to each individual message, but please know we do read each one and are grateful for your support. For those of you asking what you can do to help, we encourage you to use the questions of this 2004 Statement as talking points for calls to your local media outlets and national call-in programs, and letters to the editors. Perhaps with your help, we can finally get answers to these lingering questions. Thank you.
For readers’ convenience, following is the actual Truth Statement signed onto
by Van Jones in 2004, currently being discussed in the media.
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found… Continue reading
August 31, 2009
posted at 911oz blog at 911blogger.com
Visit our podcast page:
Tonight we welcome Dr. Frank Legge back to show for an extended discussion on one the most vexed questions about 9/11: what hit the Pentagon?
As Dr. Legge stresses, there are two essential points to note:
Many researchers… Continue reading
Dear friends who’ve just viewed the National Geographic Conspiracy Theory on 9/11,
Thank you for taking time to come here and find our contact information in order to share your thoughts. We ask that if you are interested enough in this issue to write us hate mail because you actually believe the nonsense National Geographic states we “all believe” that you take a few minutes to click on a couple of the links to your left, in the “New to 9/11″ section. What you will find is that essentially nothing that producer presented as the “beliefs” of “Truthers” actually reflects the real questions being asked by 9/11 truth advocates, as represented at this website.
This silly attempt to boil down the “Truthers” (what, people who are not actively pursuing answers to 9/11 questions are not in favor of truth? ridiculous…) to a few people who believe there was no plane at the Pentagon and the buildings were brought down by “thermite” is just that — silly. Since you’ve come this far, why not have a look at a few of the 40 Questions or the Family Report Card and ask yourself why, after nearly eight long years, family members and other Americans are still wanting for answers to these core questions … and ask yourselves why you’re still not allowed to have those answers. And have a look at the articles on the front page at 911research.com or Journal of 9/11 Studies, and learn what the scientists are… Continue reading
by Philip Giraldi
Posted on August 27th, 2009
The American Conservative
Those who are interested in issues like widespread corruption of our elected officials by foreigners have no doubt followed the ex-FBI traslator turned whistle blower Sibel Edmonds saga for the past few years. Sibel has finally testified in court under oath about some of the things that she learned while working for the bureau. The testimony was in a court in Ohio about two weeks ago. A full transcription and a useful summary appear at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374. In short, she names a number of Congressmen including former Speaker Dennis Hastert who took money from Turkish lobbyists. She also identifies senior State Department and Pentagon officials who apparently did the same, including our friends Marc Grossman, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith. Interestingly, she claims that Grossman blew the cover of Valerie Plame’s company Brewster Jennings back in 2001, causing CIA to shut it down, so Robert Novak was not guilty of exposing the CIA cover mechanism. In another interview given a few weeks ago, Edmonds claims that CIA was working closely with al-Qaeda in the Balkans and continued to do so until 9/11.
As I have reported before, Edmonds is a credible witness who is ignored by the mainstream media and congress because her tales, if true, would be devastating to both political parties and to the Israel and Turkish lobbies. She is dismissed as a crackpot. She might in fact be blowing smoke, but now that she has testified under oath and in considerable detail making very specific accusations isn’t it time for someone in the administration to review the FBI files and stand up to say whether her accounts are true or not?…Continue reading
PRESS RELEASE: For Immediate Distribution
August 17, 2009
Movie screening: “9/11: BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH”
Friday 09/11/2009, 5:20 PM, at Riverview Theater in Minneapolis (8th anniversary
In this 60-minute director’s cut edition of “9/11: BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH, The
Architecture of Destruction,” San Francisco Bay area architect, Richard Gage,
AIA, provides a series of abridged versions of the full research copy. The stunning
multimedia presentations will deliver myth-shattering scientific evidence surrounding
the explosive demolition of all 3 World Trade center buildings.
This free screening is sponsored by the family of Patricia J. Statz, who died
in the Pentagon on 09/11/2001. This screening is endorsed by the Minnesota Alliance
of Peacemakers (MAP), the War Resisters League MN, Veterans For Peace, Ground
Zero Minnesota, MN 9/11 Truth and We Are Change Minnesota.
3800 42nd Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55406-3504
5:20 pm, Friday September 11, 2009 (doors open at 5 pm)
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
” In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Dwight David Eisenhower, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech,” 1961, 1
” My observation is that the impact of national elections on the business climate for SAIC has been minimal. The emphasis on where federal spending occurs usually shifts, but total federal spending never decreases. SAIC has always continued to grow despite changes in the political leadership in Washington.” Former SAIC manager, quoted in Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, “Washington”s $8 Billion Shadow.” Vanity Fair, March 2007 2
“We make American military doctrine” Ed Soyster, MPRI 3
In The Road to 9/11 I summarized the dialectic of open societies: how from their energy they expand, leading to a higher level of more secretive corporations and agencies, which eventually weaken the home country through needless and crushing wars. 4 I am not alone in seeing America in the final stages of this… Continue reading
By Reid Wilson
August 10, 2009
A bipartisan pair of governors is opposing a new Defense Department proposal to
handle natural and terrorism-related disasters, contending that a murky chain
of command could lead to more problems than solutions.
Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R), chairman of the National Governors Association,
and Vice Chairman Gov. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia penned a letter opposing
the Pentagon proposal, which they said would hinder a state’s effort to respond
to a disaster.
Current law gives governors control over National Guard forces in their own
states as well as any Guard units and Defense Department personnel imported
from other states.
The letter comes as the Pentagon proposes a legislative fix that would give
the secretary of Defense the authority to assist in response to domestic disasters
and, consequently, control over units stationed in an affected state.
"We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter
would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency
planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors’
constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens,"
Douglas and Manchin wrote to Paul Stockton, assistant secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs.
"One of the key lessons learned from the response to the terrorist attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, and to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 was the need for
clear chains of command to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure the most
effective use of… Continue reading
By Tom Burghardt
August 2, 2009
The 2001 anthrax attacks underscore the dangers posed to our health and safety
by the Bioweapons-Industrial Complex.
The killer(s) employed a military-grade version of the deadly pathogen, a four-mutation
blend of anthrax prepared at the government’s test site at the remote Dugway
Proving Ground in Utah. Based on available evidence it’s a near certainty that
the weapon came from stockpiles at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute
of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Ft. Detrick, Maryland.
Before the dust cleared prominent opposition politicians had been attacked,
five people were murdered, 10,000 more were exposed and representative government
ground to a halt as panic set in.
According to multiple media reports, federal investigators concluded that the
anthrax spores in the letters addressed to former Senate leader Tom Daschle
(D-SD) and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) could only have been
produced in a state-run lab. The weaponized version of the pathogen contained
as many as one trillion spores per gram, a concentration sufficient enough
to kill half the American population if widely distributed.
But rather than giving pause to Pentagon weaponeers, Big Pharma who profit handsomely
from vaccine production, the $100 billion agribusiness empire that drives research
and the politicians who do their bidding, decades-long U.S. biowar programs
have miraculously morphed overnight into a new growth industry: “biodefense.”
What had once been Washington’s dirty little secret has now blossomed into a
$50 billion cash-cow for academic and corporate grifters, according to the Washington,… Continue reading
Militarization of public health in the case of emergency is now official
by Michel Chossudovsky
July 31, 2009
According to CNN, the Pentagon is “to establish regional teams of military
personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak
of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials.”
“The proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The officials would not be identified because the proposal from U.S. Northern Command’s Gen. Victor Renuart has not been approved by the secretary.
The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.
It has yet to be determined how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces.
Civilian authorities would lead any relief efforts in the event of a major outbreak, the official said. The military, as they would for a natural disaster or other significant emergency situation, could provide support and fulfill any tasks that civilian authorities could not, such as air transport or testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients.
As a first step, Gates is being asked to sign a so-called “execution order” that would authorize the military to begin to conduct the detailed planning to execute the proposed… Continue reading
by Kevin Ryan
July 30, 2009
The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a new paper by Dr. Frank Legge, entitled
“What Hit the Pentagon?”, available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLegge.pdf
Here are some excerpts:
“The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11 knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another.”
“There are two essential points to note:
1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.
2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not.”
The Corbett Report
17 July, 2009
Government sources immediately began blaming North Korea for the recent cyberterror attacks on South Korea and the U.S., despite having no evidence to back up those claims. Now, an examination of the evidence by independent computer experts show that the attack seems to have been coordinated from the UK. The hysterical media coverage in the attack’s wake, however, echoing the government line that it was likely the work of North Korea, served to cement in the minds of many that this was an act of cyberwarfare.
The idea that this surprisingly unsophisticated attack could have come from a well-organized, hostile state or terrorist group comes as a blessing in disguise to those groups, agencies and advisors who have been calling for greater and greater federal snooping powers in the name of stopping a “cyber 9/11″ from happening.
The “cyber 9/11″ meme stretches back almost to 9/11 itself. Back in 2003, Mike McConnell, the ex-director of the National Security Agency (NSA), was fearmongering over the possibility of a cyber attack “equivalent to the attack on the World Trade Center” if a new institution were not created to oversee cyber security. Since then, report after report has continued to use the horror of 9/11 as a way of raising public hysteria over “cyber terrorism,” a subject more often associated with juvenile hackers and lone misfits than radical terrorist organizations.
The real reason behind the invocation of 9/11 in the context of “cyber terror”… Continue reading
The CIA assassination programme that was recently in the media was actually first partially revealed by the Washington Post in 2005, when details enabling his originator to be identified were published. The programme made news in the last few days as CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted that the agency withheld information about it from Congress, although the CIA never actually used it to assassinate anybody. Nevertheless, the programme’s “duties” seem to have been taken over by something journalist Seymour Hersh called an “executive assassination wing” that was run out of the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney, and this grouping did go on missions and kill people.
The programme was first mentioned in Dana Priest’s groundbreaking article that highlighted the existence of the CIA’s network of black sites, CIA Holds Terror Subjects in Secret Prisons, which was published in November 2005. Priest wrote of the programme:
The CTC’s chief of operations argued for creating hit teams of case officers and CIA paramilitaries that would covertly infiltrate countries in the Middle East, Africa and even Europe to assassinate people on the list, one by one.
But many CIA officers believed that the al-Qaeda leaders would be worth keeping alive to interrogate about their network and other plots. Some officers worried that the CIA would not be very adept at assassination.
“We’d probably shoot ourselves,” another former senior CIA official said.
This section of the article was ignored… Continue reading
Below are key excerpts of important news articles you may have missed. These articles include revealing information on US government plans to launch swine flu vaccinations in the fall, a report of widespread torture at the US secret prison at Bagram, Afghanistan, revelations that weapons inspector David Kelly’s mysterious death may have been related to his intention to expose a worldwide black market in weaponized anthrax, and more. Each excerpt is taken verbatim from the major media website listed at the link provided. If any link fails to function, click here. The most important sentences are highlighted for those with limited time. By choosing to educate ourselves and to spread the word, we can and will build a brighter future.
With best wishes,
Tod Fletcher and Fred Burks for PEERS and the WantToKnow.info Team
Important Note: We’ve been hit hard by the ecomonic downturn. Donations this year are less than half what they were at this time last year. We would deeply appreciate support from any of you that can afford it. To help further this work, please click here.
July 10, 2009, Washington Post
School-age children will be a key target= population for a pandemic flu vaccine in the fall, and they may be vaccinated at school in a mass campaign not seen since the polio epidemics of the 1950s.…Continue reading
By Gareth Porter
July 8, 2009
Official government documents reveal new side of defense secretary’s legacy
Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1967, took many secrets with him when he died Monday at 93. But probably no secret was more sensitive politically than the one that would have changed fundamentally the public perception of his role in Vietnam policy had it been become widely known.
The secret was his deliberate deceit of President Lyndon B. Johnson on Aug. 4, 1964 regarding the alleged attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Documents which have been available for decades in the LBJ Library show clearly that McNamara failed to inform Johnson that the U.S. naval task group commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, had changed his mind about the alleged North Vietnamese torpedo attack on U.S. warships he had reported earlier that day.
By early afternoon Washington time, Herrick had reported to the Commander in Chief Pacific in Honolulu that “freak weather effects” on the ship’s radar had made such an attack questionable. In fact, Herrick was now saying, in a message sent at 1:27 pm Washington time, that no North Vietnamese patrol boats had actually been sighted. Herrick now proposed a “complete evaluation before any further action taken.”
These documents were reviewed by this reporter in researching my book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.
McNamara later testified that he had read the message… Continue reading
June 28, 2009 (updated July 7, 2009)
by Mark H. Gaffney, Author of The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America
The evidence was crucial because it undermined the official explanation that Hani Hanjour crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at high speed after executing an extremely difficult top gun maneuver. But to understand how all of this played out, let us review the case in bite-size pieces…
In August 2004 when the 9/11 Commission completed its official investigation of the September 11, 2001 attack, the commission transfered custody of its voluminous records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). There, the records remained under lock and key for four and a half years, until last January when NARA released a fraction of the total for public viewing. Each day, more of the released files are scanned and posted on the Internet, making them readily accessible. Although most of the newly-released documents are of little interest, the files I will discuss in this article contain important new information.
As we know, the 9/11 Commission did not begin its work until 2003——more than a year after the fact. By this time a number of journalists had already done independent research and published articles about various facets of 9/11. Some of this work was of excellent quality. T he Washington Post, for example, interviewed aviation experts who stated that the plane allegedly piloted by Hani Hanjour [AA Flight 77] had been flown “with extraordinary skill, making it highly… Continue reading
“War on Terror” advocates want civilians to die to justify “War on Terror”
The Corbett Report
6 July, 2009
CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s recent call for bin Laden to kill more Americans would be shocking if we hadn’t already heard it dozens of times before from other “War on Terror” advocates. “It’s an absurd situation,” Scheuer told FOX News personality Glenn Beck on his program last week. “Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.”
The comments have provoked much shock and outrage among pundits and websites like Jon Stewart and NewsHounds who may have considered him to be on their side. After all, he seemed to be a vociferous and effective critic of the neocons, having authored books like Imperial Hubris and having supported Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential debates by asserting that 9/11 was merely blowback for American interventionism in the Middle East. With his latest comments, Scheuer is now relegated to the ignoble company of neocon shills like Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who dreamed of another terrorist attack back in 2007 to rally people around the flag (and, presumably, George W. Bush) once again; Donald Rumsfeld, who complained in 2006 that the Bush regime was a victim of its own success in the “War on Terror” and that another terrorist attack was needed to remind people that the war was still necessary; and… Continue reading
Court won’t hear Sept. 11 claims vs. Saudi Arabia
June 29, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept.
11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over
charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.
The court, in an order Monday, is leaving in place the ruling of a federal
appeals court that the country and the princes are protected by sovereign immunity,
which generally means that foreign countries can’t be sued in American courts.
The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the
justices to pass up the case.
In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government’s court
brief filed in early June was an “apparent effort to appease a sometime
ally” just before President Barack Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia.
At issue were obstacles in American law to suing foreign governments and their
officials as well as the extent to which people can be held financially responsible
for acts of terrorism committed by others.
The appeal was filed by relatives of victims killed in the attacks and thousands
of people who were injured, as well as businesses and governments that sustained
property damage and other losses.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously upheld a federal
judge’s ruling throwing out the lawsuits. The appeals court said the defendants
were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove
that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S.…
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
June 10, 2009
In his remarkable speech at Cairo University on June 4, President Obama promised “a new beginning.” In the words of the Israeli commentator Uri Avnery, the speech offered “the map of a new world, a different world, whose values and laws he spelled out in simple and clear language — a mixture of idealism and practical politics, vision and pragmatism.”1
Much of what Obama had to say was new, and warmed the hearts of observers like myself, who had become increasingly concerned about the new president’s fidelity to the financial and military policies of the previous Bush-Cheney administration. But while Obama broke new ground on Israel-Palestine issues, he glossed over troubling issues pertaining to the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also glossed over one of the fundamental issues alienating the Muslim world: America’s relentless efforts to preserve its threatened financial status by moves to dominate the region’s oil resources. Here his careful ambiguity was ominously reminiscent of the Bush era.
The speech reaffirmed a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq by 2012, as the U.S. committed itself to do in a signed agreement last December. In addition Obama asserted that “we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan… We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan.”
But Obama’s remarks did not address the statement on May… Continue reading