Ακατέργαστη ιστορία

Το Jon Stewart φιλοξένησε New York Times» Philip Shenon τη Δευτέρα νύχτα για να συζητήσει το νέο βιβλίο του, Η Επιτροπή: Μια μη λογοκρηθείσα ιστορία της Επιτροπής 9/11. Ο συντάκτης περιέγραψε την κωλυσιεργία λευκών οίκων κατά τη διάρκεια του επίσημα-εξουσιοδοτημένου του Σεπτεμβρίου. έρευνα 11.

«Είναι αξιοπρόσεκτο οι προσπάθειες ότι ο λευκός οίκος των Μπους πήγε κατευθείαν να προσπαθήσει να αποτρέψει την Επιτροπή 9/11 από να πάρει τις πληροφορίες που χρειάστηκε,» ειπωμένος ο Shenon Stewart. «Το πρόσωπο που ήταν το πιό αρμόδιοτο για εκείνη την ένταση ήταν προηγούμενος γενικός εισαγγελέας Alberto Gonzales που ήταν έπειτα η συμβουλή λευκών οίκων.»

«Καλά είναι πραγματικά ωριμασμένος από τότε, δεν ξέρω εάν έχετε δει μερικές από την εργασία του πρόσφατα,» Stewart αστειεύτηκα στην απάντηση.

Ο Stewart ρώτησε επίσης Shenon για τον εκτελεστικό διευθυντή Philip Zelikow της Επιτροπής και τη σχέση του με το Karl Rove. Σύμφωνα με το συντάκτη, «οι συναγερμοί» πήγαν μακριά για το προσωπικό όταν άκουσαν για το πολλαπλάσιο περιπλανώμαι τηλεφωνημάτων είχαν κάνει σε Zelikow.

«Έπειτα Zelikow καλεί μέσα το γραμματέα του και λέει προφανώς σε την για να σταματήσει τα τηλεφωνικά αρχεία των συνομιλιών του με το λευκό οίκο,» Shenon που εξηγείται.

«είμαι βέβαιος ότι είναι όλη η αθώα ουσία,» ο Stewart.

Επιτευχμένο από το σχετικό Τύπο, Zelikow παρείχε ότι μια δήλωση 131 σελίδων με τις πληροφορίες είπε παρέχηκε για το βιβλίο. Σε το, Zelikow αναγνωρίζει για και ρύζι κατά τη διάρκεια της της επιτροπής εργασίας παρά μια γενική υποχρέωση που έκανε όχι. Αλλά είπε την εξετασμένη πολιτική συνομιλιών ποτέ.

Ένας τηλεοπτικός συνδετήρας από το επεισόδιο Δευτέρας της νύχτας της κωμωδίας κεντρικό η καθημερινή επίδειξη με Jon Stewart παρουσιάζεται κατωτέρω:

(με τις εκθέσεις καλωδίων)

Jim Hogue | Η Βαλτιμόρη εξιστορεί κατά γράμμα

Μια έρευνα είχε γίνει σχετικά με το έγκλημα της αποτυχίας να αρχειοθετήσουν οι «εκθέσεις συναλλαγής νομίσματος» Αυγούστου 2001, κατόπιν θα ξέραμε ποιος έκανε τις αποσύρσεις μετρητών σε $100 λογαριασμούς που ανέρχονται σε κύμα $5 δισεκατομμυρίων.

When reviewing the record of July and August of 2001, Bill Bergman noticed a $5 billion surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply—the third largest such increase since 1947. Bergman asked about this anomaly—and was removed from his investigative duties.

It’s been over six years since 9/11, but U.S. regulatory entities have been slow to follow through with reports about the complex financial transactions that occurred just prior to and following the attacks. Such research could shed light on such questions as who was behind them—and who benefited—and could help lay to rest the rumors that have been festering.

Warning bells about anomalies in the fiscal sector were sounded in the summer of 2001, but not heeded.

Among those who has since raised questions was Bill Bergman. As a financial market analyst for the Federal Reserve, he was assigned in 2003 to review the record of July and August of 2001. He noticed an unusual surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply (cash circulating outside of banks) during that period. The surge totaled over $5 billion above the norm for a two-month increase.

The increase in August alone was the third largest single monthly increase since 1947, even after a significantly above-average month in July.

Surges in the currency component of M1 are often the result of people withdrawing their cash to protect themselves lest some anticipated disaster (such as Y2K) befall the economy. In January of 1991 a surge was recorded (the then second-largest since ’47), which could be attributed to “war-time hoarding” before the Iraq I invasion, but could also be attributed to financial maneuverings and liquefying of assets relating to the BCCI enforcement proceedings.

Bergman points out that the August 2001 withdrawals may have been, to a large extent, caused by the Argentinian banking crisis that was occurring at the time. However, he raises the point that no explanation has yet fully answered the important question: Why was the cashing out of billions of dollars just before the 9/11 attacks never investigated?

It’s possible that the answer to this question is also the answer to the other follow-the-money questions surrounding 9/11; and despite an embarrassing heap of evidence, neither the press, nor Congress, nor any agency with investigative responsibility has done its job on our behalf. On the contrary, their inaction might reasonably be construed as a cover-up.

Bergman “followed the money,” including developing a framework for working with money-laundering data and “suspicious activity” reports for monitoring and investigating terrorism. The questions he asked about what happened during the summer of 2001 should have led to investigations, which should have resulted in the prosecution of those with foreknowledge of the attacks.

Those who follow the history of the 9/11 fact-finding movement know that there is a laundry-list of unanswered questions that are just as compelling as those put forth by Bergman.

And there is also a laundry-list of whistle-blowers who have been fired and subsequently ignored. So it is not at all surprising that Bergman was removed from his investigative duties, and that his concerns were not publicly addressed.

Bergman’s supervisor instructed him to follow up on an unanswered question he had raised pertaining to an August 2, 2001 letter from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to the 12 Reserve Banks. This letter urged scrutiny of suspicious activity reports. Bergman learned of the pervasiveness of the warnings of the 9/11 attacks, and wondered how thoroughly these warnings had permeated the financial system.

In this capacity as Federal Reserve investigative point-man, and with his money-laundering portfolio being guided by his supervisor’s directive, he asked the Board why they had issued their August 2, 2001 directive, and whether this related to any heightened intelligence of a terrorist threat. His position was then eliminated, and a crucial investigation was terminated before it could even begin.

Another 9/11 Commission Misrepresentation

Footnote 28 of the Staff Monograph on Terrorist Financing from the official 9/11 Commission Report states that the National Money-laundering Strategy Report for 2001 “didn’t mention terrorist financing in any of its 50 pages.”

True? No. The NMLS Report mentions it 17 times.

One gets the impression that the commission staff (under Philip Zelikow) was trying to paint the picture that there wasn’t a lot of co-operation between those involved in counterterrorism and the banking regulators in 2001.

Why do they paint this picture, inasmuch as the contrary is the case? In fact, anti-terrorism was an important element of the National Money Strategy, and it was included and emphasized in its Report annually. It may have been part of the reason why the August 2, 2001 letter urging scrutiny of suspicious activity reports was issued in the first place.

In turn, the billions in currency shipments of July and August 2001 are completely omitted in the 9/11 Commission Report.

I make bold to point out that the official story-line is that the attacks were accomplished by “the evil-doers” on a shoe-string budget with little money changing hands. Therefore, according to Zelikow et al., it is pointless to look at large flows of money in an investigation of the attacks. That makes perfect sense—unless you happen to have a brain.

To state the obvious, there are two reasons why Zelikow et al. made the false statement regarding there having been no references to terrorism in the National Money-laundering Strategy Report.

One reason could be to justify and encourage more scrutiny (legal or otherwise) of small transactions generally, e.g. via USAPA, and the other could be to establish (read: invent) a reason for missing the evidence pertaining to the attacks. (’Transactions too small. No one could find.’) And since the real money trail points to foreknowledge within the financial community at large, and, possibly, the Federal Reserve specifically, the “low-budget terrorism” story-line that the 9/11 Commission had established needed to be protected.

If such a lack of attentiveness to a financial transaction of $5 billion goes unnoticed in August 2001, then a reason had to be established for this lack of attention. And Bergman’s attentiveness to the Board of Governor’s August 2 letter was the fly in the ointment, as this letter proves that the Board was indeed attentive to suspicious transactions, even very, very large ones. Bergman’s question of “Why” is therefore key to yet another avenue of inquiry.

All the News that’s Permissible to Print

Note that a few dollars sent to an Islamic charity could warrant arrests, investigations, front-page stories, and, sometimes, torture and many years in jail. That’s Propaganda 101: ‘Large amounts of money do not fund major acts of terrorism. Small amounts do. Small amounts covered the 9/11 tab, therefore large amounts didn’t.’ The news coverage, creating high-profile prosecutions for relatively small transactions, reinforces this scenario.

With this in mind, we suggest that the reader follow the story of Mark Siljander (major coverage) on the one hand, and also follow the Times UK reports from Sibel Edmonds (verboten in the US mainstream press) on the other hand. Edmonds told me recently of the major foreign media outlets that had offered to report her story. Not one major outlet did so in the US.

R.T. Naylor suggests, in his wonderful book Satanic Purses, that any major terrorist event that involves a lot of money is ’state terrorism,’ and this is independently confirmed by Sibel Edmonds’ statements as to the enormous sums changing hands at the time of the 9/11 attacks. I suggest that her testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (Leahy and Grassley) gave the lie to the official financial myth of 9/11.

If Bergman had been allowed to continue his investigation, I suggest that he would have uncovered the same thing. Note that the drug money and other illicit transactions described by Edmonds occurred during the same time period, and the amounts in the billions are comparable.

The Law

To members of the constabulary: the operable statutes are

1) The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act that imposed new financial reporting requirements to facilitate the tracing of questionable transactions and

2) the 1986 Money Laundering Control Act that criminalized the act of money-laundering.

Also operable, and of particular relevance in a historical context, is the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act that was relied upon in October of 1942 to seize the assets of “Hitler’s Bankers in America,” Union Banking, (involving bank vice president Prescott Bush under his father-in-law and bank president, George Walker).

The law is not always followed, and the required “currency transaction reports” are sometimes not filed. The 9/11 Commission Report and the National Money-laundering Strategy Report for 2001 did not identify those who are involved with large cash transactions. Had the paperwork been done in August of 2001, or an investigation done into the crime of failing to file the “currency transaction reports,” then we would know who made the cash withdrawals in $100 bills amounting to the $5 billion surge.

Information about what transpired took years to develop after the fact. For example, the Federal Reserve fined United Bank of Switzerland and Riggs Bank in 2004.

Mr. Bergman states that he doesn’t want to be a dog barking up the wrong tree, but the authorities, apparently under orders from our top officials, are preventing a standard investigation and the most obvious prosecutorial methodology from going forth.

Congress could step in; a prosecutor could step up. But don’t hold your breath.

Jim Hogue, a former teacher, is now an actor who tours his performance of Ethan Allen. He also operates a small farm in Calais, VT. His seminal articles about Sibel Edmonds and CIA Whistleblower “Miss Moneypenny” may be found in this newspaper’s archives. Bill Bergman currently works in Chicago as an equity analyst for a private sector firm. From 1998 to 2004 he was a senior financial market analyst for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, where his areas of expertise included Insolvency Issues in Derivatives Markets, Money Laundering, and Ethics and Payment System Policy. He holds an M.B.A. in Finance and an M.A. in Public Policy from the University of Chicago.

By Joseph A. Lopisi

Lee Rogers UPDATE2: Upon further review, it looks as if this was reported a few minutes after the actual collapse at 5:20 PM, so it might not have been a live shot. So it isn’t as damning as the BBC and CNN clips are, but it is still strong evidence indicating that someone was feeding the media with the structural damage story in advance. The fact that they were parroting the official story of the WTC-7 collapse minutes after the event is ridiculous even after they watched the building come down at free fall speed.

UPDATE: I might have rushed to get this out a bit too quickly last night without verifying the time stamp on the clip. I’ll review the archives again and double check to see if the timestamp matches up with the actual building collapse. The thumbnails indicate that this might have been reported a few minutes past 5:20 PM EST. If it doesn’t match up with the actual time of the event than they might have been looking at a taped version of the collapse. Either way, there is no disputing the BBC and CNN clips of foreknowledge and there is no doubt that Fox-5, the BBC and CNN were being fed the same information for the cover story of the collapse. Even if they are watching a taped version, it is ridiculous that they already had a prepared report that mirrors the official story of the collapse minutes right after the building fell.

It is a known fact that both CNN and the BBC reported on September 11th, 2001 that WTC-7 a 47-story building had collapsed despite the fact that the building was still standing in their own video footage. These video clips are proof that someone fed information to the media with a cover story for the WTC-7 building collapse knowing full well that the building was going to be brought down in advance. The only way that they could know that the building was coming down in advance, is if the building was to be intentionally brought down with explosives. How could anyone predict a building coming down that had very little fire damage unless they knew that a controlled demolition was set to take place? The official story of structural failure just doesn’t add up. Amazingly, it appears now that CNN and the BBC weren’t the only news agencies to have been fed and reported on this information prior to WTC-7’s actual collapse. Video footage straight from the September 11th, 2001 Internet archives shows the news anchors from Fox’s Washington DC affiliate Fox-5 reporting that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown New York City and just moments later their own video footage shows the same building they said already collapsed, collapse at free fall speed. The video clip is surreal. Watch the approximately three-minute long segment below. The raw WMV file can be downloaded here, or view the full clip from the Internet Archive, here.

The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.

Following the collapse both news anchors state that the building must have come down due to structural failure which has of course been the official cover story for the WTC-7 collapse. Neale appears visibly flustered after she realizes that she reported on a building collapse in advance of the collapse actually happening. After the collapse, Neale’s co-anchor states the following which is incredibly surreal considering all the information that has now come out about the events of 9/11.

“We are seeing video today that only Hollywood could have produced at another time. We have seen the Twin Towers come apart right in front of our eyes. We have seen aircraft smashing in the side of them. Just now, we saw another building as a part of that complex go down. It is so unbelievable; it is so surreal, that it is very hard for most Americans, most anyone in the world to be able to grasp what is really taking place here. The folks running who are running things however do have a grasp of it.”

Below are the other known clips of media foreknowledge of the WTC-7 collapse from both CNN and the BBC.

BBC Reports WTC-7 Collapses Before Actual Event

CNN Reports WTC-7 Had Collapsed Before Actual Event

Can there be any doubt at this point in time that WTC-7 was brought down in a controlled demolition? We now have three major news networks reporting that WTC-7 collapsed before the event took place indicating that people had foreknowledge of the building collapse. The building fell in 6.5 seconds at free fall speed despite the building only have minor fire damage. Demolition experts have also watched the collapse of WTC-7 and have concluded that it was a controlled demolition.

Being that WTC-7 is a clear cut case of a controlled demolition, there is no way that a 47-story building could be wired with explosives in 8-hours worth of time right after the planes hit the Twin Towers. WTC-7 must have been wired with explosives in advance, indicating that someone knew what was going to happen on 9/11, meaning that the events of 9/11 were an inside job. This is just one of many pieces of evidence that indicate the official story is a complete and total fraud. The 9/11 Commission was formed to white wash the official story with establishment cronies like Phillip Zelikow placed on it to ensure that the investigation didn’t get too close to the Bush administration. This video clip is more proof that high profile individuals like Willie Nelson and Charlie Sheen who have come out questioning the official story of 9/11 are the true patriots and people like Bill O’Reilly who refuse to investigate this information and name call those who do are the real pinheads.

Willie Nelson appeared Monday, February 4, 2008, on the nationally-syndicated Alex Jones Show in a ground breaking interview where the country music legend said the twin towers were imploded on 9/11. “I saw those towers fall and I’ve seen an implosion in Las Vegas - there’s too much similarities between the two, and I saw a building fall that didn’t get hit by nothing,” added Nelson, referring to WTC Building 7, which collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11.

Nelson said he was not surprised by the recent revelations concerning the impartiality of the 9/11 Commission - namely Phillip Zelikow, who has close ties to the Bush Administration.

“How naive are we - what do they think we’ll go for?” asked Nelson, pointing out that his doubts began on the very day of 9/11 during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show.

The audio and full story can be found at: prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020408_towers_imploded.htm

Willie joins the ranks of many celebrities who have spoken out to question the official 9/11 story on the Alex Jones Show, including such notables as: Charlie Sheen (see: prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm), Ed Asner (see: prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306asnershares.htm) and rapper Paris.

Other celebrities who have questioned 9/11 include Ed Asner, Rosie O’Donnell, Martin Sheen, James Brolin, David Lynch former Dallas Cowboys lineman Mark Stepnoski, actor Mark Ruffalo and many others.

Alex Jones is syndicated over the GCN Radio Network and airs on over 80 AM and FM stations across the country. Jones has been called the father of the 9/11 Truth Movement and has produced several films on September 11th and orchestrated terrorism, including, TerrorStorm and End Game. Both of these films reached the top 10 on Amazon.com’s best-selling list for documentary films.

No celebrity endorsement claimed or implied.

Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous

By Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

In late 2007 a British academic, Dr. Keith Seffen of the University of Cambridge, published a new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre – however the paper contains several ridiculous claims. Now a formal request has been made by Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI, who recently debunked the paper, to Dr. Chris Burgoyne, the Head of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, highlighting these errors and appealing for the misleading paper to be corrected.

The request points out that Dr Seffen’s paper defies several key laws of physics, i.e. conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

Mr Blacker’s request also states:

“All the floors offered the same flimsy resistance, when in fact each had different construction characteristics, is beyond any logic as the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.”

Such glaring errors should be an embarrassment to one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious universities.

Dr Seffen’s paper essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance. Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity.

Another inaccuracy in the paper is the fact it does not take into account the energy needed to convert the 300,000 tons of concrete and steel to dust.

“The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. What about cross bracing?” states Mr Blacker.

“The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature?”

Simply put, for the University of Cambridge to continue supporting this absurd theory is to present a fictional view of physics.

Download the request here in PDF format.

New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building, said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission:

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense 5 Frames video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, Pandora’ss Box: Chapter 2, available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearchq=Pandora’ss+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 .

According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. We have developed four lines of argument that prove–conclusively, in my judgment–that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot’ss study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon.

Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot’ss results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building, including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’sReilly admitted when one was shown on The Factor. At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory–flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level–physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a smoking gun proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government’ss official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

Don’st be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later, Fetzer said. In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them. The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact. Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11, Fetzer said. Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless, he added, they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue ’sbeyond a reasonable doubt’s. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Was 9/11 Truth Giuliani’s Demise? You’ll be AMAZED What Corporate Media Hid from YOU!

by Bill Douglas  

Peggy Noonan, a Republican speechwriter (Reagan’s among others), was perplexed last night on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart as to “why Rudy fell.”  It was a mystery to her.  Probably because she gets all her information from FOX News and the other corporate media. 

Of course those who’s heads aren’t buried in the corporate idiot box, know that 9/11 truth was Rudy’s demise. 

First of all, how did Rudy, a Mayor even become a possible GOP nominee.  Corporate media and the Bush Administration began a myth about Rudy Giuliani beginning on 9/11/2001? 

Evidence suggests that a quid pro quo may have begun Rudy’s ascendance, whereby Rudy would help destroy the WTC steel BEFORE A FORENSIC 9/11 INVESTIGATION COULD OCCUR (by sending it to India and China to be melted down) . . . and in exchange the powers made him President. 

Of course that didn’t work out quite the way Rudy wanted.  Rudy even began using remains of WTC victims to fill pot holes because he was in such a rabid hurry to get rid of evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV4fNPnQ  

Over 6 months ago, when Rudy Giuliani was expected to be a shoe-in for the GOP nomination as Mr. 9/11, he was confronted on the campaign trail by a very courageous young woman, Sabrina Rivero, who’s father died in the 9/11 attacks, and by Luke Rudkowski, and Tom Foti of WeAreChange New York, a 9/11 truth organization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGYB4LvfY0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n7uJnKGTGg 

This video made network news after being posted on YouTube and flying fiercely around the internet.  The original video on YouTube has been viewed over 61,000 times, however this video has been posted by others and linked through countless websites and articles.  Corporate media tried to laugh it off, but viewers who watched began to re-think Mr. 9/11 Giuliani. 

In this video, Giuliani was confronted because he’d told network news on 9/11 that he and his command team had been warned that World Trade Center 7, which mysteriously collapsed at 5:20 pm on 9/11/2001, was about to collapse “before” it actually did.  It was not hit by a plane and its damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was much less severe than other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, which did not collapse.  See video of WTC 7 as well as 1 and 2, at:

http://www.ae911truth.org/   

No one in the world knew that WTC 7 would collapse on 9/11, so Ms. Rivero wanted to know who told Giuliani that it was about to collapse.  She also wanted to know why Giuliani didn’t warn people like her father who were present in the WTC complex on 9/11, in order to save lives, rather than just evacuating the building and not warning others.   

Giuliani denied having told network news that he knew WTC 7 was going to collapse, and denied anyone told him it would on 9/11, even though it is public knowledge that the Command Center was evacuated by his command crew.  Not only did Giuliani know BEFORE it came down that it would come down but police and emergency workers were told by someone it would “blow up.”  See Giuliani’s admission he was told, at:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4lWM0BECZ8 

WTC 7 fell in a classic controlled demolition fashion at near free fall speed of about 7 seconds for a 47 story building, tipping in in the center just like the Vegas hotels we’ve all seen blown on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A 

The BBC oddly enough also knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse, and in fact announced that it HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED 23 minutes BEFORE it actually did (see above video link).  When asked by 9/11 truth activists who told the BBC, they replied by mumbling something about “losing” the archive video of 9/11, and being unable to respond to the question.  This actually violates BBC law, which requires 3 archived videos of significant events, to be held in 3 separate locations. 

CHECK OUT THIS AMAZING VIDEO THAT PROVES THAT THE BBC WAS TOLD 23 MINUTES “BEFORE” WTC 7 WAS TO COLLAPSE, THAT IT ALREADY HAD.  The BBC still refuses to tell us who told them what no one else in the world knew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkFpmZxyWEI

Rudy’s troubles only began with WeAreChange New York confronting him.  His troubles continued with 9/11 truth activists around the country.   Rudy was confronted at Ground Zero by Sabrina Rivera (daughter of 9/11 victim) and 9/11 truth group WeAreChange at Ground Zero on 9/11/2007.  Media was gathered to document this confrontation and Giuliani’s desperate attempts to escape the 9/11 family member.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OcRw0BZvPs 

In September of 2007, Tulsa Oklahoma’s 9/11 truth activists confront Rudy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFUn45l7vaA 

9/11 truth activists may have influenced the Fire Fighters Unions of New York City as well as Fire Fighter Union members across the nation.  Some fire fighters who were at ground zero knew first hand we’d all been lied to about 9/11, as they’d heard blasts and explosions, some before the planes struck, and in lower levels of the buildings before the collapse. I personally emailed information and fire fighter’s testimony as it came out to firefighters union members, officials, and offices not only throughout the United States but throughout the world. 

I knew it may have had some impact when I was holding a “What is Bush Hiding About 9/11?  Stop the 9/11 Cover Up!” sign, when a Kansas City hook and ladder truck drove by, and blasted its horn and all four firefighters gave me a thumbs up. 

Although other firefighters didn’t all come out and accuse Giuliani of being involved or at least a knowing accomplice in the demolition of WTC 7, but the fury firefighters showed for Rudy, indicate that they may have been saavy to it.  This may have added fuel to the fire of the spontaneous protests of “9/11 Mayor” Rudy that haunted him throughout the nation. 

Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar on ABC’s The View, also brought up the inconsistencies with corporate media’s coronation of Rudy as “Mr. 9/11” and his real record on 9/11/2001, which was not only sad but suspicious. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFEDtrEqBPI 

October, 2007, 9/11 truth activists WeAreChange Florida confronts Rudy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7GDz-MJfBM 

In November of 2007, 9/11 truth activists confront Rudy in Loveland Colorado:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIy6MAdtOjA 

In November of 2007, 9/11 truth activists WeAreChange confront Rudy in Minnesota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCIq19-ryIA 

Nov. 2007, 9/11 activist calls in on C-SPAN to National Review writer regarding Rudy’s WTC 7 warning, and his false denial of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFSXR5-vyqQ 

These types of videos go on and on.  9/11 truth activists are having an impact in our nation, but those who don’t know about it will deny it . . . WHY?    Because corporate media denies it. For a fanciful few in America who ONLY get their media from corporate news . . . that is their reality, even though it is not reality. 

Reality is that 9/11 truth is growing and gaining strength.  So, why did the corporate media and the powers that be allow the fall of Rudy?  We know they can be kingmakers by selectively giving good or bad press.  We know they can manipulate voting machines, vote counting machines, and even paper votes. 

It well may be that they broke their deal with Rudy, even though he did his job and got rid of the WTC forensic evidence.  Because as 9/11 truth grew and spread throughout the world, and protests grew larger and more forceful . . . having a President Rudy would keep the demand for 9/11 truth at a fever pitch.  The powers that be may have simply dumped their errand boy, to save having to work harder to keep the cover up going. 

But 9/11 truth seekers will not give up, they will never give up, so long as the lie stands.   

NOW WE NEED TO BREAK THE MEDIA BLOCKADE, TO GET 9/11 TRUTH INTO THE MAINSTREAM DIALOGUE.  HOW? 

On January 22nd, 2008 an explosive new novel by NY Times best selling author, Steve Alten was released.  “The Shell Game” is a powerful truth telling edu-tainment novel that uses real quotes as chapter lead ins including quotes from 9/11 researchers David Ray Griffin and Mike Ruppert. Their books are linked to from the book’s website http://www.theshellgame.net/ and also video trailers that alert Americans they’ve been lied to about the wars and about 9/11. 

If you know the nation has been lied to about 9/11, and want millions more to join you in demanding a new 9/11 investigation . . . you have a tremendous opportunity to make that happen.  VIEW THE BELOW BOOK TRAILER, AND SHARE IT WIDELY:

Do everything you can for the next 90 days to get as many people as possible to get “The Shell Game” available at all major book stores and sellers.  WHY? 

If we as a 9/11 truth movement can drive this to #1, we can break 9/11 truth into the mainstream. Now is the time to really dedicate yourself.  Use the links and video trailers at http://www.theshellgame.net/ to email, blog, post, and get out any way you can as wide, far and fast as you can. 

Urge all you send it to to do the same. We can make history.  This successful author has put his career on the line to write this explosive novel.  It has 90 days to soar or fall.  We can make it #1, and force corporate media to cover 9/11’s lies.

by Citizen Sage

The unanswered questions about 9-11 can no longer be ignored. A new, more comprehensive investigation by the US Congress is required, given all of the unusual circumstantial evidence on 9-11. Although it happened 6 years ago, the questions just won’t go away. Unless such an investigation is done, the conspiracy theories will only gain more traction with the American people and call into doubt what really happened forever more. Because of the importance of 9-11 in launching America on a War on Terror and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the issues demand closer review, than what now appears to have been a whitewash by the first 9-11 Commission.

In Project for a New American Century, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other prominent neo-cons called for a new “Pearl Harbor” in order to create a pretext for curtailing American civil liberties and embarking on pre-emptive wars against regimes they did not like. It is now known that Cheney, Rumsfeld and other neo-cons within the Bush Administration were planning a war on Iraq long before 9-11, just as they are now planning for pre-emptive strikes on Iran in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the American people.

On 9/11/2001, Dick Cheney was coordinating multiple war games intended to prepare for the type of terrorist strike that happened. Due to the war games, military personnel that would otherwise be available to respond to 9-11 were otherwise engaged. Cheney instructed NORAD defenses to stand down that day. He even instructed that flight 77 be allowed to proceed without being intercepted. Why would that be, if it was not a false flag event?

After the first plane flew into WTC, George W. Bush was strangely unperturbed and continued to read a book to elementary school children, despite it obviously being an disaster of international proportions. When he finished his visit to the school, he was unable to reach Dick Cheney for an additional period of about 20 minutes, vital time that could have been used to send rescue helicopters to WTC. Could it be that it was not a complete surprise?

George W. Bush claimed that there were no prior indications of a 9-11 event, however in August, he received an intelligence briefing report that specifically indicated that Osama Bin Ladin was thought to be planning a major terrorist event and that hijacking of planes was a possible scenario. A NORAD war game planning event before 9-11 made specific reference to Osama and hijacking. There were numerous warnings from foreign intelligence services indicating a heightened risk for terrorism. However, Bush was either ignoring these indicators and/or being dishonest about it.

Marvin Bush, George W. Bush’s brother, was directly responsible for the security of the World Trade Center buildings from the 1992 terrorist bombing attack until September 11, 2001. Ownership of the WTC buildings was changed and insurance for terrorist acts was increased dramatically only several weeks before 9-11.

Various survivor/witnesses of 9-11 reported hearing explosions just before and as the buildings collapsed. Authorities attempted to suppress these stories. Brigham Young Physics Professor J. Jones analyzed dust from the collapsed WTC buildings and found evidence of demolition explosives. When the buildings collapsed, they came down at free fall speed, despite having been built to withstand many times their weight and specifically, a plane wreck. Photos of the metal beams show visual evidence of liquidization of the metal, due to demolition chemicals. Videos of other high rises that were purposefully felled by demolition show similar free fall characteristics.

However, where demolition was not done, collapsed high rises do not fall so neatly and larger pieces remain standing. The heat required to melt the structural elements of the WTC buildings would not be created by aircraft fuel, similar to kerosene. Also, the amount of debris from the WTC buildings’ should have been much greater and there should have been many more larger pieces of debris if the building’s collapse did not involve additional accelerants.

Some analysts indicate that the preponderance of fine dust is indicative of possible use of small hydrogen bombs, of the type only available from Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Reactor. There were several suspicious Israelis who were detained after the 9-11 WTC terrorist explosions, apparently after being seen repeatedly giving each other “high five” celebratory congratulations. They were quitly released, without explanation. This sequence of events could be seen as eerily paralleling what happened in 1967 when Israel was accused by American survivors of deliberately attempting to sink the USS liberty and kill all aboard. Israel has a history of fabricating pretexts for pre-emptive strikes on Arab neighbors, including in 1956 and 1967 against Egypt. Israel has been a srong proponent first of the war on Iraq and now on Iran.

That the FBI confiscated and destroyed all photos of the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9-11 begs the question of why all the secrecy, if there was nothing to hide? Sure, there was damage done and people killed, but why no photos of the airplane as it came in or after it collided? Some conspiracy theorists believe it might have been a different plane or even a missile that hit the Pentagon. Some believe that one of the planes that hit the WTC was actually a Boeing fueling plane

Why WTC7 collapsed at 5:30 pm, many hours after the planes collided into the other two towers is very curious indeed. It also fell without any resistence from its structual beams. Physics cannot explain how that would hapopen unassisted. The only logical explanation is that it was helped along with demolition charges and indeed such evidence was found in the debris.

Despite assurances that a recurrence of 9-11 was impossible, five years later, a small plane again flew into a New York City highrise. This time it was an American baseball player who was the pilot and it was an apartment building that was hit. What if it had been al-Qaeda and the plane had been full of explosives? Just as with the WTC terrorist event, there was not a single government official who took responsibility for allowing this to happen! If Americans had to give uyp civil liberties, due tot he so-called “Patriot Act”, why shouldn’t someone in government be required to accept responsibility and resign? In other countries, that would happen.

Whether there was active participation by the Bush Administration or 9-11 was merely allowed to happen, whether or not there was involvement by Israelis or even whether or not it was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, we deserve a full and open investigation. There are enough loose ends that 9-11 conspiracy theorists will always be convinced that we were not given the whole story, unless a comprehensive investigation is made public. We deserve to know what really happened, regardless of where the chips fall. The implications are too profound to ignore and pretend that it has been put to rest. The evidence points towards a cover-up or worse. The issues are too serious to leave things as they are. America deserves answers, not obsfucation.

Book Charges Zelikow May Have Interfered With the 9/11 Commission’s Report

By JUSTIN ROOD

The former executive director of the 9/11 Commission denies explosive charges of undisclosed ties to the Bush White House or interference with the panel’s report.

The charges are said to be contained in New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s unreleased book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” according to Max Holland, an author and blogger, and generally confirmed by the book’s publisher. Although the book is not slated to hit stores until early next month, Holland says he bought a copy of the audio version at a bookstore. (Attempts to purchase the book, in any format, at the Barnes & Noble across the street from ABC News headquarters were unsuccessful.)

9/11 Commission co-chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton hired former Condoleezza Rice aide Philip Zelikow to be executive director, Zelikow failed to tell them about his role helping Rice set up President George W. Bush’s National Security Council in early 2001 – and that he was “instrumental” in demoting Richard Clarke, the onetime White House counterterrorism czar who was fixated on the threat from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, according to Holland’s version of Shenon’s tome.

“[Zelikow] had laid the groundwork for much of what went wrong at the White House in the weeks and months before September 11. Would he want people to know that?” Shenon writes, according to Holland.

Zelikow denied that was the case. “It was very well-known I had served on this transition team and had declined to go into the administration. I worked there for a total of one month. I had interviewed Sandy Berger, Dick Clarke and most of the NSC staff.” He noted he recused himself from working on the section of the panel’s report addressing the NSC transition, and that other staffers had held conflicting positions in the Clinton administration.

In his book, Shenon also says that while working for the panel, Zelikow appears to have had private conversations with former White House political director Karl Rove, despite a ban on such communication, according to Holland. Shenon reports that Zelikow later ordered his assistant to stop keeping a log of his calls, although the commission’s general counsel overruled him, Holland wrote.

Zelikow told ABC News he was under no prohibition that barred his conversations with Rove, and did not recall asking his assistant to stop logging his calls, although he did speak to her about leaving phone messages in a publicly visible place. “Two other people took my calls as well, and neither have a recollection” of Zelikow asking for calls not to be logged, he said. Further, Zelikow said 9/11 Commission general counsel Daniel Marcus did not raise the matter with Zelikow at the time.

Reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Marcus declined to confirm or deny the events.

Zelikow flatly denied discussing the commission’s work with Rove. “I never discussed the 9/11 Commission with him, not at all. Period.”

What’s more, the idea of Zelikow and Rove conspiring over the commission’s work was unrealistic, the ex-director indicated. “I was not a very popular person in the Bush White House when this was going on. There’s a lot of carryover of that to this day.”

Holland reports that Shenon discovered some panel staffers believed Zelikow stopped them from submitting a report depicting Rice’s performance as “amount[ing] to incompetence, or something not far from it.”

“I don’t think that staffers will bear that out,” Zelikow said. Out of 85 staffers, half a dozen were disgruntled, Zelikow told ABC News. “Under the circumstances, that was a pretty low fraction,” he said. “But they all talked to Shenon.”

Halfway into the panel’s operation, Zelikow told his bosses under oath of the once-hidden ties, Holland’s blog says Shenon’s book reports. Upon hearing the details, Shenon writes, Marcus concluded Zelikow “never should have been hired,” according to Holland.

“That’s not right,” Marcus said when told of the account. “That’s certainly not true.”

Shenon directed calls to his publisher, Twelve Books, a subsidiary of Hachette Book Group.

Cary Goldstein, a spokesman for Hachette, confirmed the blog’s characterization of the book’s contents, but said he could not confirm direct quotes.

“It’s not a surprise,” Goldstein said when asked his reaction to the leak of the book’s details before its Feb. 5 publication date. “I think people are really curious to see what the report had looked like if it hadn’t been neutered in [the panel’s] effort to be unanimous.”

by Hal. C. Sisson, QC

In mid January 2008 united 9/11 Truth Movements across Canada, spearheaded by Victoria and Vancouver branches, sent a petition letter to the heads of all Canadian political parties and to every Member of Parliament. The letter requested two things:

The first request (a) follows in the wake of questioning in the Japanese Parliament (Diet) by Yukihisa Fujita of the Japan Democratic Party, as to the conspiracy theory of 9/11 presented by the U.S. Bush Administration. He asked just how terrorists could possibly have attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

Six years ago the U.S. Administration and their intelligence agencies stated they would present convincing evidence that foreigners of a Muslim Arab persuasion were the perpetrators of the tragic crime of 9/11. This evidence has never yet been forthcoming. People ask why? Can’t the United States prove their allegations in court? And why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence of the involvement of Osama bin Laden?

On the other hand, millions of people around the world have amassed a great deal of solid evidence of incomplete investigation, missing evidence, unsubstantiated conclusions and outright lies as to the facts and the full story of 9/11. So much so that it is impossible not to conclude that at the very least the events were in some measure allowed to happen - the motive being the persuasion of the American public to condone the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq — and is Iran next?

The Japanese queries were presented at about the same time as former Italian President Francesco Cossiga told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, the Corriere della Sera, that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that all the intelligence services in America and Europe know it was an inside job of a false flag nature.

Who else is of the same opinion? Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, lawyers, university professors, engineers and architects challenging the Bush government’s story. Former German Secretary of Defence Andreas von Bulow said, “The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one.”

Every action the U.S. government or its intelligence services take, good, bad or indifferent, is now prefaced by the words “since 9/11 we have to do this, we have to do that, we have to do the other” — every atrocity anywhere in the middle east or in the world is immediately attributed to a vague group called al Qaeda and the concept of a perpetual but profitable to some ‘War on Terror’.

The Canadian Government can no longer deny that the official story told by the Bush Administration is complete nonsense. This discredited version of 9/11 events as promulgated by the Bush Administration is the justification for Canada’s bloody involvement. If Bush’s version of 9/11 is a lie, like his story on “weapons of mass destruction”, then Canada must ask why it should continue to sacrifice its sons and daughters and spend its resources in a distant country that never attacked or threatened Canada’s security.

Truthers think that the Canadian Parliament should seriously and openly discuss and investigate these matters before they continue their present course of action or run the risk of being drawn into wider conflicts in Iran and Pakistan That is why they are calling on the Canadian Government to launch its own independent investigation and Official Enquiry into 9/11

Addressing point (b) - the request that there be an open parliamentary discussion of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agreement (a grandiose extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)). The most recent meeting was August 20, 2007 when Stephen Harper, President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon went to Montebello, Quebec for a secret meeting of the SPP, more transparently described as the North American Union, part of the larger Globalization agenda called the New World Order. Many organizations including 9/11 Truth tried and are trying to inform Canadians what was and is being discussed in a veil of secrecy and a deafening wave of silence from the Canadian and American media. Big decisions at committee level are being made behind closed doors while publicly masking the true intention.

This writer proposes to use a cautionary tale to illustrate the approach that should be taken before entering any Agreement whose implementation involves the dismantling of Canadian sovereignty, and which seeks, in the words of MP Denise Savoie, ‘to merge our security policies and practices with those of the United States, leaving Canada with a government with less authority, less control over our natural resources and less autonomous and sustainable economic, social, cultural and environmental policies’.

Warning – the anecdote I am about to relate contains a scene involving sex and therefore may not be acceptable to the sensibilities of those who wish to remain unaware that such an activity may be rampant in our society. Reader discretion is therefor strongly advised:

“Fast Eddy wanted desperately to have sex with this really cute, really hot girl in his office… but she was dating someone else. One day Eddie was so frustrated that he went to her and said, “I’ll give you $100 if you let me have sex with you…“

The girl looked at him, and then said, “NO!”

Eddie said, “I’ll be real fast. I’ll throw the money on the floor, you bend down and I’ll finish by the time you’ve picked it up.”

She thought for a moment and said that she would consult with her boyfriend… so she called him and explained the situation. Her boyfriend says, “Ask him for $200, and pick it up the money real fast. He won’t even be able to get his pants down.”

She agreed and accepts Fast Eddy’s proposal. Over half an hour goes by and the boyfriend is still waiting for his girlfriend’s call. Finally, after 45 minutes the boyfriend calls and asks, “What happened…?”

Still breathing hard, she managed to reply, “The bastard had all quarters!” …

The lesson to be learned here is one of business management, and certainly is one that should be adopted by the Canadian Parliament in relation to the SPP — “Always consider a business proposition in its entirety before agreeing to it. Otherwise you are likely to get screwed!”

And if the Canadian public doesn’t want to be forever picking up Fast Eddy’s American quarters they had better figure out how to stop the SPP, now, before it is too late.

About the writer:

Hal Sisson, Q.C., R.C.A.F. armourer in World War II, is a reformed lawyer who practiced law in Peace River, Alberta for thirty-five years and has been resident in Victoria, B.C. since 1985. Author of ten published books including the best selling Coots, Codgers and Curmudgeons (with his partner Justice Dwayne Rowe); and his latest Modus Operandi 9/11 that exposes the White House lies about 9/11, the machinations of the New World Order and the “War on Terror”, and does so featuring salty humour in the form of a novel. International croquet and marble player and collector, his major hobby was stand-up comedy and writing and performing in Western Canada’s longest running (25 years) burlesque revue, Sorry ‘Bout That. LINK.

By Stephen Demetriou 

 From 2001 through most of 2007, I didn’t think much about this subject. I had casually wondered if the fires could actually be responsible for bringing the towers down, thinking about the heat and thermodynamics necessary to weaken the steel columns. I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, and find thermodynamics very interesting. The idea that fires fueled by office materials and jet fuel (enhanced kerosene) could weaken steel beams, resulting in total failure of the entire structure seemed vaguely unlikely. After all, there have been other large steel-structured office building fires that had not resulted in complete, catastrophic collapse, but I didn’t dwell on my vague doubts.

I have since learned there have been no complete, catastrophic collapses of steel-framed buildings due to fire recorded, ever, like these. There have been partial collapses, involving a few floors, and considerable damage due to fire, but no complete collapses ever of steel-framed buildings. On 9/11, we are given to believe there were three.

In September of last year I read an article on “conspiracy theories” about 9/11, and I learned of the website I wrote about this past October, www.patriotsquestion911.com. This site is nothing more than a compilation of names of people who have publicly questioned the official account, and their statements. It is not an organization, or membership association; the people on the list are not necessarily associated with one another in any way, except for having doubts about 9/11 and having made public statements to that effect. Names on the list include Louis Freeh, former FBI director, Wesley Clark, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Sec. Of the Treasury, Curt Weldon, Mary Shiavo, former Inspector General US Dept of Transportation, Col. Robert Bowman, Dennis Kucinich, Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist in the Bush Labor Department, with about one thousand other people who have doubts about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. A quick look at this list will give you a sense of the caliber and qualifications of those who have spoken out in one way or another about these events.

            Two other names on this list are men I have read extensively in the past four months: Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Dr. Steven E. Jones. Dr. Griffin is a PhD professor emeritus of religion and philosophy at Claremont College in Calif. Dr. Steven Jones is a PhD physicist formerly with Brigham Young. Both have long established academic careers, have published numerous books or articles, and are respected intellectuals in their fields.

            Dr. Jones has well established academic and research credentials for his work with metal-catalyzed fusion. His work has been reproduced and confirmed by independent labs in a couple of countries. Overcoming initial controversy to his findings, his fusion results are now considered the basis for further work. Examining evidence taken from the World Trade Center site he employs the accepted forensic techniques of analysis arson investigators use. He has confirmed a “eutectic” of sulfur in once-molten steel, which a FEMA analysis also found but did not explain, and confirmed the presence of once-molten iron spheres the USGS discovered in dust samples. These samples contain evidence suggestive of explosives: sulfur, aluminum, barium, manganese, with other compounds, in unusually high concentrations.

            Dr. Griffin has exhaustively examined the 9/11 Commission report. Comparing known reports gathered from the news media, from authors, academics, government documents, Dr. Griffin has written extensively on the evidence the Commission focused on in great detail, and the evidence it inexplicably omits. And the devil really is in those details. Many people hold the Commission report in high regard as the most complete investigation of the events of 9/11. Dr. Griffin’s books convincingly show that the evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory received special treatment, while witnesses who brought contrary testimony, along with those who came forward but were ignored, are inexcusably rejected or marginalized, their evidence unreported.

Scant mention is made in the Commission report of the documented meetings of the chief of Pakistani intelligence at the time, General Mahmoud Ahmad, with CIA director Tenet, officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and National Security Agency from Sept 4 through Sept. 13, 2001. The report completely denies what the Times of India discovered, and which the Wall Street Journal editorialized, “…US authorities sought [Ahmad’s] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud…” Instead the Commission report states, “…we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding.”

The back-stories of halted FBI investigations, credible whistleblowers silenced by federal gag orders, FBI field agents’ reports of suspicious behavior ignored, or requests for warrants altered or denied, all make compelling arguments for foreknowledge and complicity by some in the administration. But all these are difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court of law.

The science, though, is compelling. Pools of flowing molten iron were found under the rubble of the three World Trade Center buildings. They persisted for 100 days. Office material fires simply cannot produce heat to melt steel or iron. Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology and FEMA studies clearly state that fact in their reports, and neither study so much as attempted to answer the question of what caused those pools of molten metal. And then there is Building 7. Not hit by a plane, not substantially damaged by the other collapses, Building 7 fell straight down in the exact same manner as if by controlled demolition. To this day, no official explanation has been issued explaining how this happened.

I no longer have vague doubts. I have important questions. Nearly 3000 people were murdered on September 11, 2001, and even the accused perpetrators have not been brought to justice. I am one of many calling for a new, independent investigation into 9/11. The elaborate cover up we have now is an utter disgrace to this country, and the basis for what many scholars consider near tyranny.

David Edwards and Adam Doster

Raw Story

Families of firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center rallied in Orlando Tuesday in anticipation of the state’s upcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately for Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, the firefighters are not in his corner.

“We want America to know that [the Giuliani campaign] is lying to America and to the American pubic,” said Jim Riches, a deputy chief in the New York Fire Department, “telling all of Florida that the New York City Fire Department backs him, when that’s another lie.”

Firefighters and their families vowed to dog the former New York mayor at all of his Florida campaign stops because the state figures prominently in Giuliani’s big-state primary strategy. The protesters think that Giuliani was aware that firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attack were carrying defective radios and did not hear the order to evacuate.

“He didn’t prepare us before, during, or after,” says Riches.

Giuliani has campaigned strongly on his leadership during the attacks on New York, claiming he is the best suited to prevent an “Islamic terrorist war against us.” But the firefighters were quick to question that courage.

“Yeah, the decision he made was, which direction he was going to run,” says Riches. “And he ran north, and that’s all he did.”

The Giuliani campaign labeled the display a misleading, partisan attack. The former mayor is also emphasizing his ability to deal with the economy, distancing himself from the 9/11 pitch.

This video is from CNN.com, broadcast January 22, 2008.

When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?

David Ray Griffin

With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck) and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called the “bunker,” under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge—that he was either making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.

According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58” (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth 9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission’s time is correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20 are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time.

Mineta’s Report of Cheney’s Early Arrival

The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.”

This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney, according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta’s 9:20 arrival. If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute contradiction between Mineta’s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report. Why would such an enormous contradiction exist?

One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story, however, is in line with that of many other witnesses.

Other Reports Supporting Cheney’s Early Arrival

Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10. After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke “suggested he join the Vice President” (Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.

In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney’s White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney’s office and said, “Sir, you have to come with us.” During this same program, Rice said: “As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, ‘You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President’s already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” ABC’s Charles Gibson then said: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta” (“9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002).

The 9/11 Commission’s Late-Arrival Claim

The 9/11 Commission agreed that the Vice President was hustled down to the PEOC after word was received that a plane was headed towards the White House. It claimed, however, that this word was not received until 9:33. But even then, according to the Commission, the Secret Service agents immediately received another message, telling them that the aircraft had turned away, so “[n]o move was made to evacuate the Vice President at this time.” It was not until “just before 9:36” that the Secret Service ordered Cheney to go below (9/11CR 39). But even after he entered the underground corridor at 9:37, Cheney did not immediately go to the PEOC. Rather:

Next, after Lynne Cheney “joined her husband in the tunnel,” the Commission claimed, “Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the tunnel to the shelter conference room” after the call ended, which was not until after 9:55. As for Rice, the Commission added, she “entered the conference room shortly after the Vice President” (9/11CR 40).

The contradiction could not be clearer. According to the Commission, Cheney, far from entering the PEOC before 9:20, as Mineta and others said, did not arrive there until about 9:58, 20 minutes after the 9:38 strike on the Pentagon, about which he had learned in the corridor.

Cheney’s Account on Meet the Press

The 9/11 Commission’s account even contradicted that given by Cheney himself in a well-known interview. Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president… I went down into… the Presidential Emergency Operations Center… [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit.” Cheney himself, therefore, indicated that he had entered the PEOC prior to the (9:38) strike on the Pentagon, not 20 minutes after it, as the Commission would later claim.

Dealing with the Contradictions

How did the 9/11 Commission deal with the fact that its claim about the time of Cheney’s arrival in the PEOC had been contradicted by Bohrer, Clarke, Mineta, Rice, several news reports, and even Cheney himself? It simply omitted any mention of these contradictory reports.

Of these omissions, the most important was the Commission’s failure to mention Norman Mineta’s testimony, even though it was given to the Commission in an open hearing—as can be seen by reading the transcript of that session (May 23, 2003). This portion of Mineta’s testimony was also deleted from the official version of the video record of the 9/11 Commission hearings in the 9/11 Commission archives. (It can, however, be viewed on the Internet.)

During an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2006, Hamilton was asked what “Mineta told the Commission about where Dick Cheney was prior to 10 AM.” Hamilton replied: “I do not recall” (“9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: Lee Hamilton,” CBC News, 21 August 2006). It was surprising that Hamilton could not recall, because he had been the one doing the questioning when Mineta told the story of the young man’s conversation with Cheney. Hamilton, moreover, had begun his questioning by saying to Mineta: “You were there [in the PEOC] for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice President.” And Mineta’s exchange with Timothy Roemer, during which it was established that Mineta had arrived at about 9:20, came immediately after Hamilton’s interrogation. And yet Hamilton, not being able to recall any of this, simply said, “we think that Vice President Cheney entered the bunker shortly before 10 o’clock.”

Obliterating Mineta’s Problematic Testimony

To see possible motives for the 9/11 Commission’s efforts to obliterate Mineta’s story from the public record, we need to look at the conversation he reported to the Commission. He said:

Mineta’s story had dangerous implications with regard to the strike on the Pentagon, which occurred at 9:38. According to the 9/11 Commission, the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it “had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington” (9/11CR 34). That claim was essential for explaining, among other things, why the Pentagon had not been evacuated before it was struck — a fact that resulted in 125 deaths. A spokesperson for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, when asked why this evacuation had not occurred, said: “The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way” (Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001). Mineta’s testimony implied, by contrast, that Cheney and others knew that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before that strike.

Even more problematic was the question of the nature of “the orders.” Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the plane shot down. But the aircraft was not shot down. Also, the expected orders, especially on a day when two hijacked airliners had already crashed into buildings in New York, would have been to shoot down any nonmilitary aircraft entering the “prohibited” airspace over Washington, in which “civilian flying is prohibited at all times” (“Pilots Notified of Restricted Airspace; Violators Face Military Action,” FAA Press Release, September 28, 2001). If those orders had been given, there would have been no reason to ask if they still stood. The question made sense only if the orders were to do something unusual — not to shoot the aircraft down. It appeared, accordingly, that Mineta had inadvertently reported Cheney’s confirmation of stand-down orders.

That Mineta’s report was regarded as dangerous is suggested by the fact that the 9/11 Commission, besides deleting Mineta’s testimony and delaying Cheney’s entrance to the bunker by approximately 45 minutes, also replaced Mineta’s story with a new story about an incoming aircraft. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, here is what really happened:

The 9/11 Commission thereby presented the incoming aircraft story as one that ended with an order for a shoot down, not a stand down. And by having it occur after 10:10, the Commission not only disassociated it from the Pentagon strike but also ruled out the possibility that Cheney’s shootdown authorization might have led to the downing of United Flight 93 (which crashed, according to the Commission, at 10:03).

Given the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s account of Cheney’s descent to the bunker contradicted the testimony of not only Norman Mineta but also many other witnesses, including Cheney himself, Congress and the press need to launch investigations to determine what really happened.

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga says global intelligence agencies assert the 9/11 attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad.

Although Osama bin Laden has confessed to launching the attacks, now all the European and American intelligence services are well aware that the attacks were planned by the CIA and the Zionists’ Mossad, Cossiga told Corriere della Sera.

The disastrous attack was aimed to put the Muslim world under powerful accusations and drum up support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the former Italian president added.

Cossiga first expressed doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley’s book titled 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in the USA as stating that, “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel.

He went on to add that the attack could not have been accomplished without penetration into the ranks of radar and flight security personnel.

CS/HAR