Richard Gage, American Institute of Architects (AIA), founder and CEO of the non-profit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), presented a 40-minute version of the two-hour presentation 9/11: Blueprint for Truth to a sold-out crowd at the prestigious Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on Tuesday, September 8th, which was also live-streamed on AE911Truth's website. This event kicked off a very full week of engagements for the 8th anniversary of 9/11.
John Sutter, a member of the Commonwealth Club and an AE911Truth petition signatory, worked tirelessly behind the scenes to negotiate this strategic and opportune breakthrough. After the event was initially canceled due to its controversy, he worked diligently to restore this event, and after an internal battle at the club, he fortunately prevailed. The standing ovation received after Gage's presentation confirmed his instincts that the event would be well-received.
Founded in 1903, The Commonwealth Club of California has played host to a diverse and distinguished array of speakers, from Teddy Roosevelt in 1911 to Erin Brockovich in 2001. Along the way, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates have all given landmark speeches there. Outside the Bay Area, The Club's weekly radio broadcast — the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 — is carried across the nation on public radio stations.
The Commonwealth Club is the oldest speaking club in the United States, and has had such eminent speakers as David Ray Griffin, Christopher Hitchens, Patty Duke, Reza Aslan, P.J. O'Rourke, George Shultz, Madeleine K. Albright, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman and Ted Turner recently, and in years prior, Cecil B. DeMille, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Edward Teller, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Robert F. Kennedy, Benjamin Spock, Katherine Graham, Jesse Jackson, Queen Noor al Hussein of Jordan, Carl Sagan, Desmond Tutu, and Gore Vidal.
The event was preceded by the haunting melodies of internationally acclaimed musician Alan Tower on the huaca, a double-chambered, clay-fired flute. Tower is a 9/11 skeptic who used his exceptional talent to soothe what possibly was an uneasy audience, a little fearful that they were about to be confronted with information that would make them uncomfortable. They could not have anticipated the extent to which their preconceptions were about to be shattered by Gage's solid evidence.
Twenty-one people believed fire alone brought down the buildings, and 41 were unsure. Only two people still believed the fire hypothesis, and 15 remained unsure. While nearly one-third of the audience began the evening skeptical of AE911Truth's conclusion, more than 90% were convinced beyond a doubt that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, once they heard and saw even this abbreviated version of the evidence.
This success rate has been consistent in every venue, and in many cases there is a 100% conversion rate. This proves that logic, facts and scientific evidence can win over most skeptics who previously clung to the official story, which was inculcated through the mainstream media moments after the planes hit the towers.
Coming up: See Richard Gage and Dr. Steven Jones at The Hard Evidence, Down Under Tour. Tour dates: Sydney: Sat-Sun 14-15 Nov, Melbourne: Tue 17 Nov, Brisbane: Thu 19 Nov, Wellington, NZ, Sat 21 Nov. See thehardevidence.com for further information.
Editorial note: The article below appeared on 911blogger. After posting it, I had second thoughts, prompted in part by charges of anti-semetism against Cossiga in a LarvatusProdeo forum. I posted the following comment to the forum on 911blogger.com in response to this article - JS.
I did post this to our web site, but I have had second thoughts, prompted by a charge of anti-semetism against Francesco Cossiga on a forum on which 9/11 is being discussed in Australia.
Firstly, learning that the quote is two years out of date makes this problematic.
Also the term "Zionist world" does make it appear anti-Semetic.
Even if it is not ant-Semetic, I still have concerns with the viewpoint that seems to place Israel and Zionism at the centre of nearly everything that is wrong with the world today and that is what the translated statement appears to imply.
I can accept that Mossad may have played a role in 9/11 and had an interest in getting the US and European nations go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, but, until I see stronger evidence I am not conviced that Israel and Mossad were the principle instigators of 9/11 as Cossiga seems to be saying.
If Fancesco Cossiga himself had a role in setting up Operation Gladio I need to better understand why he blew the whistle on it. One person here has suggested he had no choice.
So has Waarheid911 been premature in claiming Cossiga as amongst those who question 9/11?
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:
"All the [intelligence services] of America and Europeknow well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."
Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.
Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and '80s. Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they termed "false flag" operations-terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcher Webster Tarpley saying "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. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America's propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.
Sydney, Australia, September 14, 2009 -- Truth Action Australia and 911oz.com will host an International Conference called "The Hard Evidence" to critically examine the three building Collapses in New York on September 11, 2001. The official explanation of these building collapse 1, 2 and 7 of the World Trade Center Complex have been attributed primarily to fire damage causing a "global collapse", which independent scientific research has found an entirely insufficient explanation. A group of Architects and Engineers, approaching one thousand members, is demanding a new investigation of these building collapses based on hard physical evidence, witness testimony, video evidence and strict structural analysis using the original blueprints.
The one day event will be comprised of two presentations and an expert panel discussion, inviting members of the press and public to ask hard technical questions of the relevant experts. The morning lecture will be from experienced Architect Richard Gage AIA, representing "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", presenting "9/11: Blueprint for Truth -- The Architecture of Destruction". The afternoon presentation will be from Professor Steven Jones Ph.D presenting research based on his scientific team’s recent published findings asking "What is Nanothermite a High-tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust from WTC Building Collapses on 9/11?" A late afternoon Panel discussion will follow comprised of highly qualified experts including Paul Mason Structural Engineer, Chemist Dr Frank Legge and Dr David Leifer a Senior Lecturer in Architecture at Sydney University.
Date: Saturday, November 14th 2009.
Venue: Tom Mann Theatre 136 Chalmers St,
Surry Hills, Sydney NSW (Walking distance from Central Railway station)
Seating Capacity: 292
Full Conference Details:
Website: www.TheHardEvidence.com Email: johnbursill[AT]gmail.com Ph: 1300 153 372 (Sydney option) or direct +61 414878499
Truth Action Australia and 911oz.com represent Australian 9/11 Truth Activists dedicated to the cause of getting a new, independent, international investigation of the events of September 11th 2001 which is supported by the family members of the 9/11 victims and the worldwide 911 Truth Movement.
Although this one day event in the heart of Sydney is the main event it is also the beginning of an Australian and New Zealand Tour as follows:
The Hard Evidence Tour Downunder 2009
Melbourne: Tuesday the 17th of November 2009 Brisbane: Thursday the 19th of November 2009
Wellington, NZ: Saturday the 21st of November 2009
The Sydney "Hard Evidence" Event will be followed on Sunday the 15th of November by a 9/11 Truth Activist Forum called "Truth in Action" and will have presentations from the lead 9/11 Truth Activist worldwide, including a key note address by the Executive Director of www.911Truth.org Janice Matthews. This forum will explore many aspects of 9/11 activism and will be arguing that we must be cautious and present only the best evidence and research to the public and focus on building credibility with the press and our academic institutions.
Media Contacts: for interviews with the conference organisers, please call
John Bursill: 0414878499 or +61 414878499 We will also assist you to arrange interviews with any of the conference presenters.
Originally published on Information Clearing House on 15 Sep 09. ICH needs your support. Please donate.
*An article in the journal, Sociological Inquiry, casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda. Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail. Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.*
The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: "In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation."
What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves.
What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.
The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant "USA, USA, USA" than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.
The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government.
The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government's line, they know what they are talking about.
Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience:
The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.
Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists' findings and Hitler's observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do? What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented? Scoff some more? Become enraged?
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don't believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.
For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of "evidence" that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi's and Libya's guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.
I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn't one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhatten from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.
What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?
People don't even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers' destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.
The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted. It is simply ignored.
Dr. Jones' experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was one of the 20th centuries great scientists. At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student. Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.
As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical absorbtion. Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it. Even when Polanyi was one of the UK's ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory. One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley. The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was "Polanyi's old error." It turned out not to be an error. Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth. How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong. Polanyi's answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.
That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy of Muslims and 9/11.
As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marx's theories, and about the supply-side impact of fiscal policy. Today I experience readers who become enraged just because I report on someone else's work that is outside their belief system. Some readers think I should suppress work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author of the work into the ground. These readers never have any comprehension of the subject. They are simply emotionally offended.
What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11.
What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11. How can this be, I ask them. Did the government slip up once and tell the truth? My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government's 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.
Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered "blowbacks." Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government's propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.
The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people. With 9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government so that they don't feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic, and they are very fearful of being called "terrorist sympathizers." Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered "blowbacks." Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government's propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.
Naive people think that if the US government's explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up. Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding. A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career. If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.
An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract. In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.
In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.
Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists?e
Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know who are content with the government's official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.
Most of the people I know who are content with the government's official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.
There are, of course, some kooks. I have often wondered if these kooks are
intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.
Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as "terrorist sympathizers" and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American. It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized. Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as "terrorist sympathizers" and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.
Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event.
Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event. In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously. They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.
As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching Americans to trust the government as their protector. This took with the left and the right. Neither end of the political spectrum is capable of fundamental questioning of the government. This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives the people.
Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case.
Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case. In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe. The notion that "we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead" is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion. I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government. Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent.
The US government's response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever. Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were. America's financial capability and living standards are forever lower. Our country's prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.
The most disturbing fact of all remains: The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.
AUSTIN, Texas Sept. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Appearing on The Alex Jones Show today to discuss his video address to Barack Obama, Charlie Sheen has challenged those who have publicly attacked him for speaking out on 9/11, particularly Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, to debate him on CNN's Larry King Live.
'We're not hiding,' states Sheen as he calls out McCain, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly
AUSTIN, Sept. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Appearing on The Alex Jones Show today to discuss his video address to Barack Obama, Charlie Sheen has challenged those who have publicly attacked him for speaking out on 9/11, particularly Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, to debate him on CNN's Larry King Live.
Following the publication of Sheen's "20 Minutes With The President," a fictionalized account of a meeting with Barack Obama in which Sheen implores the President to reopen the investigation of 9/11 in light of the majority of the 9/11 Commission members publicly denouncing the official story as a deception, McCain attacked Sheen on ABC's top rated show The View, comparing people who question 9/11 with holocaust deniers.
"I quoted Charlie Sheen yesterday about his experience with prostitutes, so really you're the one I should be listening to about 9/11? . . . I am not going to take my political advice from Charlie Sheen," stated McCain, daughter of the former Republican nominee John McCain.
McCain's sophomoric reliance on attacking Sheen on the foundation of decades old events in his personal life, while failing to address even one of the 20 pieces of evidence raised in his letter to Obama, is typical of the media response to Sheen's challenge thus far.
Amongst the scoffers and debunkers, not one corporate media outfit has managed to actually address a single point Sheen raised in his letter, resorting instead to childish quips and badly researched proclamations.
A familiar theme arising out of such hit pieces is an effort to imply that Sheen's questioning of the official 9/11 story is somehow an "outrage" and hurtful to the family members of the victims, despite the fact that the majority of victims' family members share the same questions.
Furthermore, claiming that people who doubt the government story are on par with holocaust deniers completely ignores the fact that six of the ten 9/11 Commission members, along with scores of other highly credible former and current government officials, intelligence professionals, military officials, scientists, structural engineers and architects, and legal scholars have all publicly questioned the official version of events behind September 11.
Fox News talking heads Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, as well as popular radio host Rush Limbaugh, have also attempted to attack Sheen's credibility while failing to discuss any of the subjects he actually raised.
In response, Sheen told The Alex Jones Show that he is challenging any one or all of McCain, Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly to a debate about 9/11 on CNN's Larry King Live or any other television show in Los Angeles, adding that the show must be broadcast live to prevent bias editing.
Should the debate go ahead, Sheen will be accompanied by Bob Mcilvaine, a 9/11 families representative who lost his son Robert in the attacks. Sheen suggested that his adversary in the debate be accompanied by representatives from Popular Mechanics, who have routinely sought to debunk questions surrounding 9/11.
"Let's do it," Sheen told the Alex Jones Show Friday. "I issue the challenge to debate Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Sen Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, bring them all, Bob Mcilvaine and I will join you on Larry King Live and you guys bring whatever you've got ... and we'll show up with the truth and we'll just see how it goes - we're not hiding," added Sheen.
For media requests on this subject email sheen [ AT ] infowars.com
The Alex Jones Show broadcasts live from Austin, TX from 11AM-3PM Central. Alex Jones' show and websites infowars.com and prisonplanet.com are a focal point and a forum where many prominent figures from academia, the political world and Hollywood have spoken out about what really happened on September 11th.
This release was issued on behalf of the above organization by Send2Press(R),
a unit of Neotrope(R). www.Send2Press.com
SOURCE The Alex Jones Show
Rob Dew, or Mike Nelson, both of The Alex Jones Show, +1-512-448-4252,
sheen [ AT ] infowars.com
On Monday 31 August as the 8th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist atrocity was fast approaching, ABC's Four Corners broadcast a BBC documentary "Conspiracy 7/7 - The London Bombings" which purported to "assess the truth behind the conspiracy theories" behind the London Tube Bombings of 7 July 2005. In fact, it did nothing of the sort. It merely attempted to discredit the whole British 7/7 Truth movement by focusing on a few questionable individuals within it. By broadcasting this rubbish and refusing to broadcast other well-researched material which blows apart the Official 7/7 story, as well as the Official 9/11 story, the ABC has shown itself, far from being biased to the left, to be be little better than another arm of global corporate propaganda.
See also:The July 7 Truth Campaign. Urgent: Please attend protests to mark the eight anniversary of 9/11 and demand proper inquiries into 9/11, 7/7, Bali etc. In Brisbane, meet outside Central Station at 11AM, In Sydney meet outside the ABC Centre at Ultimo at 11AM (further information here).
What you can do: It is critical that the ABC's shameful collusion in the coverups over 7/7 and 9/11 and its general pro-corporate bias not go unchallenged.
Please make your objections known to both the ABC and 4 Corners and send us any copies of your complaints.
Attend protests to mark the eight anniversary of 9/11 and demand proper inquiries into 9/11, 7/7, Bali etc. In Brisbane, meet outside Central Station at 11AM. In Sydney meet outside the ABC Center at Ultimo at 11AM (further information here).
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the documentary for myself. The usual "Video On Demand" facility has not been made available, almost certainly for arcane copyright reasons, even though both the BBC and the ABC are publicly funded. I am basing this article on the views of others whose opinions I trust and the content of 4 Corners feedback pages in which viewers overwhelmingly condemned the BBC's sham documentary. - JS
Four Corners' promotion of the BBC 'documentary' presumed that its viewers would unquestioningly accept their out-of-hand rejection of views which questioned the UK Government's ludicrous account of the July 7 bombings. The overwhelming repudiation of this program on their viewers' feedbackpages proved them wrong. See also:The July 7 Truth Campaign.
ABC 4 Corners peddles UK Government 7/7 Big Lie, censors 9/11 widows
On Monday 31 August as the 8th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist atrocity was fast approaching, ABC's four corners broadcast a BBC documentary "Conspiracy 7/7 - The London Bombings" which purported to "assess the truth behind the conspiracy theories" behind the London Tube Bombings of 7 July 2005. In fact, it did nothing of the sort. It merely attempted to discredit the whole British 7/7 Truth movement by focusing on a few questionable individuals within it. By broadcasting this rubbish and refusing to broadcast other well-researched material which blows apart the Official 7/7 story, as well as the Official 9/11 story, the ABC has shown itself, far from being biased to the left, to be be little better than another arm of global corporate propaganda.
The program, like so much other sham reporting ostensibly criticising Western government 'blunders' over 9/11, Afghanistan, etc. in recent years, the documentary purported to be a fearless indictment the UK government, specifically it promised to tell of "how a government blunder opened the door for conspiracy theorists to claim the London bombings of 2005 were an inside job".
Its real effect was to shore up the UK Government lies over 7/7 used to further its war aims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Official story of the London Tube Bombings is in contradiction with the physical evidence of the bombed trains and bus and eyewitness accounts, but the BBC and the UK media failed to demand proper explanations for those inconsistencies. Moreover, there has been no inquiry into 7/7, not even one like the rigged 9/11 Commission. The July 7 Truth Movement has consistently demanded a proper inquiry.
Having spoken to several people who viewed the program, it sounds as though that the program had the intended effect on a large number of viewers of convincing them that 7/7 Truthers, as well as 9/11 Truthers were fruit loops and that the Official accounts of 7/7 and 9/11 were right after all.
However, judging by the comments, even on 4 Corners' heavily censored and edited feedback pages, few properly informed viewers were fooled. Here are some
farcical (6 Sep): Another hysterical comedy, albeit for the innocent dead and maimed of course, from the bbc (and yes 'big brother corporation' is exactly right) - seconded by our so-called flagship current affairs program 4Cs...!! pathetic!!
Erik @ Sydney (4 Sep): Peter Powers told us on two seperate media outlets on the day that they
"were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning"
Wow, how fortuitous! And what a co-incidence!
This is the KEY to the false flag operation on that day.
There are two kinds of people in this world. Ones who are awake and ones who are asleep. When you wake up you can start to see the bullshit as it happens. It's not that we are paranoid, it's just that we are alert and immune to the lies.
The ones who sleep, they can't help but not notice anything. They love to eat up every government line and official story that's regurgitated by the Main Stream Media like Four Corners. They also like to proclaim how right they are because the believe the government, that makes them Holy.
Four Corners you should really be ashamed of yourself for posting this BBC hit piece. I am disgusted in you and so are many others.
iracund (regarding 9/11) (3 Sep): In the week before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, why would the producer of Four Corners chose to present a B-grade tabloid program, whose very title implies that anyone who doubts any official conspiracy theory is as "loony" as the subject of that program?
As a "loony troofer", who is used to the deafening wall of silence emanating from the ABC and other MSM organs, I'm more than loony enough to present the following facts:
In New York on Sept 11 2001, three first world over-engineered skyscrapers completely collapsed suddenly, swiftly and symmetrically, through their own structure. There is and always has been only one possible explanation for that.
In a hundred+ years of steel frame high-rise construction, the only buildings to collapse in that manner, have all been the result of controlled demolitions.
Both Towers not only imploded through their paths of most resistance, they also exploded, expelling materials upward and outwards over a distance of 4 to 5 hundred feet. The material included virtually all the concrete, which was pulverised to the consistency of talcum powder: huge girders, which were expelled laterally with enough force to impale themselves in neighbouring buildings: and smithereens of human bone, which were found in rubble deposited on the roof of the Deutche Bank building, in April 06.
How is any of this possible from a gravity-only driven collapse?
When challenged by members of the US public on the "fall time" of WTC7, the National Institute of Standards in Technology (NIST) was forced to revise its belated report and admit that this building spent at least 2 seconds in free fall. For any building to achieve free fall, it has to have its supporting structures synchronously cut, through its entire cross section. This is only possible with the assistance of expertly placed explosives.
The recently discovered evidence that a heavily engineered form of military grade, "nano-ized"thermitic material was discovered in the dust from the 9/11 WTC catastrophe merely confirms what was already known: that all three skyscrapers were demolished. Not only is controlled demolition the Occam's Razor for those collapses, it is the only possible explanation.
To quote a fictional character to compliment the fiction of the official story: "Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable is the "troof".
NB (3 Sep): WHEN YOU INSULT 9/11 TRUTH YOU INSULT THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES. 9/11 TRUTH IS THE FAMILY MEMBERS! They are the ones pressing for a proper investigation. Their valid questions deserve answers.
Shame on you ABC. Millions of people worldwide have examined the extensive and conclusive EVIDENCE concerning the truth of 9/11. How much longer can you continue your pathetic and desperate cover up?
I laughed out loud at the comment by "grizzlysmit" about not having found 9/11 Truth on the internet. Try putting "9/11 Truth" into Google - over 93 million hits. Can you work Youtube? Start by watching World Trade Centre 7 (47 storeys) fall to the ground in 7 seconds (not hit by a plane) and the comments by Larry Silverstein (who took over the leases of the 3 WTC buildings 6 weeks before 9/11) where he discusses giving the order to "pull" the building. You don't even need to go any further than the ABC website. Go to their "Unleashed" section and search for Hereward Fenton's excellent article. Once you have caught up, check out the peer-reviewed study on the nanothermite (explosive) found in the dust at the Twin Towers.
The number of politicians, eyewitnesses, architects, engineers, physicists, scientists etc standing up for 9/11 Truth is truly staggering. Check out Scholars for 9/11 Truth. You want celebrities? Start with Channel 9's star, Charlie Sheen.
The ABC's role in this shameful cover up is criminal. Those at the very top at the ABC will be held accountable. As for the ABC "journalists" who know the truth, stand up together. You are not only going to have to answer to the general public, but your families and children as well.
9/11 Truth is not going away. It is growing every day as more and more people find out.
Harry Tuttle (2 Sep): Nobody that was charged with terrorism on 7/7 has ever been convicted in a court of law, despite £100m being spent on an investigation. [Read Guardian article.]
However the Big Brother Corporation (BBC) claims they are guilty - so they must be!
In the future could the ABC should show BBC "documentaries" in a fiction time slot (along with Doctor Who etc), so as to not tarnish the Four Corners reputation.
PABULUM (2 Sep): What is interesting in the BBC article is that Binny Netanyahu has recanted of his previous statement that he received a warning to stay in his hotel room prior to the actual bombing. Netanyahu originally stated that the warning came from Scotland Yard, Scotland Yard has denied warning Netanyahu. The next statement from whom, I don't know, was that the warning from Scotland Yard went first to the Israeli Embassy. There was no more about the warnings made public after that statement, that I am aware of.
So now Netanyahu is still stating that he received a warning from Scotland Yard, but only after the first bombs went off. Oh dear!!!!!!!!
Apparently Binny had forgotten, and the journalist had ignored the fact because it had been stated earlier on in this BBC article that the first bombs, that is the bombs that went off on the trains simultaneously were initially reported as being 'power surges'. They were never reported as bombs until after the bus was blown up outside Tavistock House in Russell Square.
What we now have is corroborating statements from Binny that he was personally involved with the London Bombing.
The one major piece of evidence that was totally ignored was the article written by Efraim Halevi that was printed in 'The Jerusalem Post on 7/7/05 in regard to the London Bombing. Halevi's article tells us who the perpetrators were, and that the same people were responsible for 911.
(PABULUM 02 Sep 09): ON 7/7 THE SPOOKS were conducting a similar operation/exercise strangely at the very same location on the very same day.???
Also on 9/11 SPOOKS conducted some 5 military exercises on the very same day of America being attacked.???
Strangely also the yankee military carried out exercise ops.in 1932 and 1938 of Hawaii being attacked by carrier borne aircraft.
History sure repeats itself.
Wake up-- they who lead us lead us astray.
(PABULUM 02 Sep 09): FOUR CORNERS at the top says, "Investigative TV journalism at it's best." ? ...
May I issue a challenge forthwith to all these intrepid men and women to reveal the absolute truth about this claim.
Prove to me categorically that WTC 7 NYC 9/11 WAS NOT IMPLODED.
Go to it folks your time starts from now.
911oz (02 Sep): Subject Welcome to the War on Reason!
This message is directed not at the ABC editors who I believe are beyond help, but at those thoughtful readers who have posted here or who may be browsing this page.
We are faced with an epic struggle of science and reason Vs dogma and mass hysteria. This kind of struggle is not new in human history. The fight must be won again, as it was won in past ages.
And we WILL win folks.
wezthebikie (2 Sep): As an Australian taxpayer, I am quite concerned that the ABC, has now attached itself to the bottom of the barrel, along with the Commercial Television Stations. I would hope that after that disgraceful farce, that 4 Corners has described as, 'Investigative Journalism', the Government will now concede, that we should no longer have to pay for the running of the ABC. Please feel free to reimburse my taxes, that have been spent, running the ABC. I am also convinced that, A Current Affair and Today-Tonight, will be happy to have company at the bottom of the barrel, where ABC 'Journalism', has now placed itself. P.S. How about a new 'Investigative Journalism' effort, into the Nano-Thermite, that has been found in the dust of the World Trade Centre Buildings. Let's see if you can make as big a disgrace of yourselves, as what your 7/7 'Investigative Journalism, did.
bbc hit piece (2 Sep): I've noticed almost everyone who has commented on the BBC 7/7 program has been appalled not only by the journalism but by the obvious debunking of the conspiracy theory that British intelligence and the British Gov were behind the tube station bombings. What better way to debunk the conspiracy theorists than to pick a couple of crazies out of several million sane and intelligent "truthers" and let them dig their own graves. Is it possible the demolition van was planted at Tavistock Square [address of British MK Ultra mind control think tank!] to later debunk those who were not thorough enough on their research? To suggest governments have not or do not carry out terror on their own populations is to show a complete lack of historical knowledge. Please read up on Operation Northwoods and make up your own mind. Also, anyone who believes the official 9/11 tale is an idiot.....plain and simple.
iracund (02 Sep): It's a sad day for Australian TV journalism when the ABC's flagship, Four Corners is forced to run the trash like the "Conspiracy Files", a term which is bandied about to divert public attention away from asking legitimate questions about 9/11, 7/7, Bali et al.
At least the BBC's Third Tower, gave a voice to Professor Steven Jones and Richard Gage, two of the leading lights of the 9/11 Truth Movement, for the first time on Oz TV. This one seems to have simply picked on one (possibly mentally ill) person in order to taint anyone with legitimate questions or feasible alternative theories to the official ones.
In the case of 9/11 for example, (the Crime of the Century) there has been no investigation by Four Corners on the actual events and evidence of that day. Or the many serious questions remain ignored, unanswered or inadequately answered by the official conspiracy theories.
Could it be that the once great Four Corners have programed this twaddle a week before the anniversary of 9/11 to reinforce the official view that all so called "conspiracy theorists" are all loonies? Especially this year, when the producer of that program knows that highly qualified scientist have a published, vigorously peer-reviewed, and unchallenged paper, which provides conclusive evidence that all three buildings in NY on that day were demolished by cutting edge, military grade explosives. (Cf: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe).
Dare I suggest that your failure to report on this and many other suspicious events on that day, puts you in breach of your charter.
9/11 Truther Kim Bax attempted to post comments but said they seemed censored or were heavily edited (see Appendix 1 below). This led to phone calls and exchanges (mostly one-way) of e-mails between her and 4 Corners staff. In her e-mails, she asked why after all these years, no-one on the ABC had interviewed the "Jersey Girls". The "Jersey Girls" are widows who lost their husbands on that day and forced the Bush administration to finally hold an Inquiry into 9/11, as rigged that it turned out to be. Details of Kim Bax's correspondence can be found at www.kimspages.org/abc4corners.htm
Even Phillip Adams, an ostensible left-winger and opponent of US Foreign Policy, who on one occasion praised the "Jersey Girls" refuses to interview them and maintains that all the 9/11 Truth Movement (presumably including the "Jersey Girls") are "nutters". For the correspondences between Kim Bax and Phillip Adams, please go to www.kimspages.org/phillipadams.htm.
Appendix 1: Edited comment by 7/7 and 9/11 Truther Kim Bax
I am at a loss to understand why my comments (posted below), were so heavily edited, and I have emailed 4 Corners privately, asking for a written explanation (they have my full contact details). The information that was cut were links, freely available to anyone on the net who cares to use a google search engine , to check the truth of the facts in my "Letter to the Editor."
Further, I am also at a loss to understand why there is no response from ABC 4 Corners (on this message board), to the two very legitimate questions I have posed in that post...
The core of the matter seems to be that the British Government has (to this day), strenuously resisted all calls for a public inquiry into 7/7, and that the 9/11 Commission was only formed after a 14-month fight by bereaved family members - further still, these same family members (who ABC 4 Corners seems to have consistently ignored), are grossly dissatisfied with the 9/11 Commission, and they have been calling for a new judicial review since 2004. What Planet does ABC 4 Corners live on for that not to be "News"?
Again, I very much hope this entirely legitimate post of mine is allowed on the ABC message board. I'll certainly be posting it on my own blog, and circulating the info.
wiccedwoman (02 Sep):
Subject An open question to 4 Corners
Yesterday, I circulated this 136-word "Letter to the Editor" to 100's of local papers all over Australia (I collated the email addresses ages ago, when I was involved in other community campaigns):
"As another anniversary of 9/11 comes round, the World should pay its respects to the widows and mothers of that day by a single voice demanding truth and justice. Without Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg, nicknamed "The Jersey Girls," The 9/11 Commission would not have existed. They fought Bush for 14 months, before he caved to an inquiry. Even so, it cost over three times less than the investigation into Clinton’s sex life and finances, over 70% of the women’s questions remain ignored, and to this day, they are still fighting for an independent judicial review. Bizarrely, even "Respected" Australian journalists like Phillip Adams refuse to interview them. For a deeper look at this issue, I strongly recommend "9/11 Press for Truth," which was screened by The History Channel in 2007."
. . . and as a result, my questions to 4 Corners are, (as we approach the 8th anniversary of 9/11), wouldn't it have been more appropriate to interview "The Jersey Girls" in depth about their continuing campaign for a new judicial review of 9/11, rather than screen this BBC piece (of doubtful quality in my opinion)? And secondly, has the ABC ever interviewed "The Jersey Girls" about their continuing campaign?
Further, here are the links I also sent out with that short letter to back up the points I make (and especially as regards the point I make about Phillip Adams, you are more than welcome to speak with him directly about the veracity of my correspondence with him). Lastly (before I publish those mentioned links), I'll also be posting this comment yourselves on numerous Australian email lists (and to my various other contacts), with a comment as to whether or not you allowed to be published on your board. I very much hope it is, and I very much hope I get some direct answers to these very reasonable questions.
Appedix 2: Comments in support of BBC 'documentary'
pixie 4 Sep): It's really great to hear what the conspiracy/no moon landings crowd think !
I hope 4Corners runs the same show next year.
Pythinia (3 Sep): Amazing what a little technology jargon will do for a conspirator theorist - what hate has been spilt on the pages by posters on the Four Corners airing of the 7th July 2005 bombing, plus dragging in other tragedies to up the anti.
Note: A link to my submission is on the page referred to just above. A mouse click on that page should cause a copy of the pdf file to be downloaded although other means of downloading, such as the use of the Linux utility wget does not. So the command "wget http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/submissions.nsf/list/D459E9F1D35E1BA9CA25762A00063C12/$file/James_SINNAMON_AGWW-7T293B.pdf" won't cause the file to download. - JS, 21 Jun 11.
I learnt on 2 September that it was not to be published because it was claimed that "the content of the submission could be construed to be defamatory." In a response, I asked that the defamatory content be shown to me. I pointed out that the closest thing I could find to a defamatory statement was, in fact, a statement of the truth. That was the following statement:
"Many who question the official version of 9/11 go as far as to argue that, because of mountains of physical evidence which contradicts the official story and the fact that senior members of the Bush administration have been caught out lying and contradicting themselves, there is a prima facie case that members of the Bush administration themselves were complicit in the September 11 attacks."
Moreover, I pointed out that statements, made since 11 September 2001 by former President George W Bush, President Barack Obama and our own Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, without any proof, that Islamist extremists, operating from sanctuaries inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, had orchestrated the terrorist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, the London Tube Bombing, the Madrid Train Bombings, etc., were, in fact defamatory, or, indeed worse than defamatory, because they had become the pretexts for wars of aggression and the deaths of at least many hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the maiming of hundreds of thousands more and the displacement of millions.
I pointed out that to censor my document, without any proper legal basis, would have made a mockery of the purpose of the Human Rights Consultation, given that one of the issues it was meant to investigate was "Freedom of Expression".
Happily, my points were taken and I learnt only today that all four submissions, including my submission on "National security and terrorism" had been published.#main-fn3">3
I include the submission further below, together with a minor correction, which will be pointed out that I asked them to make.
I expect that many will find the content as confronting as I did, when people tried to put the same to me until up to two years ago.
Nevertheless, I strongly urge people not only to consider carefully what I have written, but also do your own research. By all means, also read material which purports to debunk the views of those who reject the official explanation of 9/11 Two such sites are www.debunking911.com and ae911truth.info/ (the latter being what I found to be a very unconvincing response to the web-site of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" (ae911truth.org/)). I found it especially useful, in the early stages, to read debates between 9/11 Truthers and 9/11 Deniers. That made it possible for me to judge the comparative quality of arguments put forward by both camps and, indeed, which side of the discussion was even addressing the evidence. It also allowed me to learn what are the major arguments use on both sides of the discussion. One such discussion is the now finished Online Opinion discussion "9/11 Truth".
Please don't be put off if you happen to stumble across people for whom you have had high regard who assure you that the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement is "completely nuts" as Phillip Adams is fond of saying. If they won't bother explaining why they think so (except to appeal to the authority of other supposedly credible people and personally attack 9/11 Truthers), then remain sceptical. People whom I previously had a high regard for who insist on the truth of the Official Conspiracy Theory discourage any independent verification of the 9/11 controversy, include Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn editor of the the ostensibly left wing US magazine CounterPunch, the aforementioned Phillip Adams and famous supposed 'sceptics' James Randi and Michael Shermer. Nearly all the alternative newsmedia and incredibly, the far left, seemingly unanimously, promote the Official Conspiracy Theory and dismiss the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. (see also Why do Larvartus Prodeo, WebDiary and other alternative news sources impede discussion of 9/11?)
One thing we can all be certain of is that if I am wrong, as so many have insisted that I am, then the Human Rights Commission will face little difficulty in shooting down my arguments in flames and making me appear to be a fool.
I am not expecting this to occur.
Submission to Human Rights Consultation concerning Terrorism and National Security
This submission disputes the entire justification for the draconian anti-terrorist laws that have taken away from ordinary citizens, basic human rights and civil liberties that were once taken for granted in Australia.
As few cannot be unaware the justification for these draconian laws and the associated imposts upon our daily lives such as airport security checks#main-fn1">1 was the spectacular and deadly terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, the anthrax scare that shortly ensued and a number of other deadly terrorist attacks that have occurred since then - Bali, the Madrid bombing and the London Tube bombing.
Much of Australian public opinion had come to accept that the curtailments of our rights are a price well worth paying in order to prevent similar tragedies from ever occurring on our own shores.
Official account of 9/11, the basis for anti-terrorist legislation, disputed by many credible authoritative public figures
However, a large number of credible, authoritative and well known figures as well as a substantial sections of public opinion in the United States, and even more so, outside the United States question the official explanations of these attacks. They argue that the evidence that the attacks were perpetrated by a ubiquitous world wide terrorist network known as 'al Qaeda' has never been produced. They also argue that the investigations by the 9/11 Commission and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) failed to ask many critical questions and ignored a great deal of evidence submitted to them.
The supposed evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt that was given to NATO by Colin Powell in order to win NATO's participation in the so-called 'war on terror' has never been made public and the evidence promised by Colin Powell to the United Nations, that would have legally made the United Nations a participant in the 'war on terror', was never produced.
Many have therefore called for the holding of a new and thorough investigation that would properly examine all the physical evidence, take account of all witnesses' statements and have the power to subpoena key players in the events of 9/11 including former President George W Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice.
Indeed, it seems as if the City of New York may very well soon be conducting its own investigation into 9/11 as the group New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYCCAN - http://nyccan.com) has succeeded in collecting, as of 14 June 2009, 47,767 signatures of residents of New York City which asks that New York City hold a ballot within 3 months to decide whether or not an investigation into 9/11 be set up by New York City. This number exceeds the number of 45,000 that would make the holding of the ballot mandatory.
Many who question the official version of 9/11 go as far as to argue that, because of mountains of physical evidence which contradicts the official story and the fact that senior members of the Bush administration have been caught out lying and contradicting themselves, there is a prima facie case that members of the Bush administration themselves were complicit in the September 11 attacks.
People who are calling for a new investigation include:
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). Colonel Bowman was a fighter pilot who who flew 100 missions in the Vietnam war. He served on President Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program.
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret) former head of NATO.
Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) Colonel Nelson is an experienced air crash investigator who states that the physical evidence at the crash sites of United Airways Flight 95 flatly contradicts the official account. (see http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson).
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Raymond L. McGovern - Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates. Responsible for preparing the President's Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
William Christison - Former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world. 29-year CIA veteran.
US Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission.
Morgan Reynolds#main-fn2">2 - Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001 - 2002.
Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan.
Daniel Ellsberg - Author of "The Pentagon Papers" which told the world the truth about the Vietnam War.
Paul Hellyer - Former Minister of National Defense of Canada.
Michael Meacher - Former Under Secretary for Industry, Under Secretary for Health and Social Security, Minister for the Environment, and Member of the House of Commons (UK).
Tony Benn - Former Member of British Parliament 1942 - 2001.
Andreas von Buelow, PhD - Former State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Defense of West Germany.
Horst Ehmke, PhD - Former Minister of Justice (West Germany). Former Minister for Research and Technology.
Francesco Cossiga - President of Italy (1985 - 1992) and Former Prime Minister.
Yukihisa Fujita - Member, House of Councillors (the upper house), National Diet of Japan.
Jeanette Fitzsimons - Greens Member of Parliament, New Zealand, 1996 - present.
General Leonid Ivashov - Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces.
Abundant solid evidence in contradiction with the official account of the 9/11 attacks can be found on many sites including http://ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) and http://911truth.org
If these people are right -- and I believe they are -- then Australia's efforts to combat terrorism are not directed towards where the real terrorist threat lies.
In regard to the terrorist threat much closer to home, on 12 October 2004 former president, Abdurrahman Wahid said in an interview with SBS that he believed that either the Indonesian military or the Indonesian police planted the second larger bomb which destroyed the Sari Club. This allegation has never been properly investigated.
Before discussing the appropriateness or otherwise of the measures now in place to combat terrorism, the Human Rights consultation needs to evaluate firstly how real is that threat and secondly from what quarters the terrorist threat, if it exists, is likely to come from.
The Human Rights Consultation should therefore at least seriously look at the abundant evidence which stands in contradiction to the official accounts of terrorists atrocities in recent years and try to bring about renewed and proper investigations. Furthermore, it should give its full support to those people overseas who are seeking to bring about proper investigations into 9/11, the London Tube Bombings, the Madrid Train bombings, the Bali bombings etc.
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1.#main-fn1-txt">↑ My initial submission erroneously added "and
the banning of the ownership of megaphones". I had been told that Prime Minister John Howard had deemed the megaphone a 'terrorist weapon' and had outlawed them, but I could not obtain any corroboration for that statement.
#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2.#main-fn2-txt">↑ Morgan Reyolds holds views not shared by the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth Movement and which are easy for the 'debunkers' to debunk. These include that the WTC Twin Towers were destroyed by particle beams from outer space and that the aircraft seen to fly into each of the respective WTC Twin Towers were, in fact, holograms. Many people purporting to be 9/11 Truthers promote such views in obvious attempts to discredit the 9/11 as a whole. What motivates such a high profile 9/11 Truther as Morgan Reynolds to promote views which are damaging to the 9/11 Truth Movement is unclear. Had I been aware that he held these views I would not have included his name in this list.
#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3.#main-fn3-txt">↑ Correction made on 30 May 2011. Sentence before correction omitted the concluding words "had been published.".
Firstly (very late notice - apologies), please attend the Brisbane Truth Action for August on Tuesday at Central Station from 11AM. Truth Action protests are to be held on the 11th of each month all over the world until justice is achieved for all the victims of 9/11.
I am hosting a screening of "9/11 Blueprint For Truth" this Sunday 16th August at 3pm at the Brisbane Square Library.
This is the DVD put out by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truthfeaturing Richard Gage. It clearly and succinctly presents the scientific and forensic evidence of the explosive controlled demolitions of all 3 World Trade Centre high-rises.
I will be showing the 1 hour version. (There are also 30min and 2hour versions).
The screening is free and I will provide coffee and nibbles afterwards to entice people to stay and chat.
The library is on the ground floor of the Brisbane City Council Building across from the Casino.
If you want to come - you must bring a 9/11 virgin with you! Or you could just grab someone from the mall and tell them there is a free movie and coffee!
Please email or call me if you are thinking of coming. I would love to meet you all.
If you have DVDs you would like to give to people - bring them too.
66% of New Yorkers, including many who lost loved ones on 11 September 2001 and many first responders who are dying from having inhaled the toxic dust that resulted from the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers and Tower 7, want a new and proper investigation into the events of that day. Although, so far, 70,076, more than 40,000 in excess of the required 30,000, have signed a petition asking that New Yorkers be asked in a ballot that a new inquiry be set up, when general elections are held in November, the Clerk of New York City has refused to accept the petition, claiming that most of the signatures are invalid, even though it is not possible for the signatures to have been checked so far.
The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (nyccan.org) is determined to fight this outrageous arbitrary denial of procedural fairness in the courts. Please give generously to nyccan.org/donate.php so that the perpetrators of 9/11 can be unmasked and brought to justice.
SEVENTY THOUSAND New Yorkers signed the NYC CAN petition, raising their voices in support of NYC CAN’s demand for accountability. They have chosen to place the decision to create a new 9/11 investigation – a REAL 9/11 investigation – exactly where it belongs: before the voters of New York City this November. The voices of SEVENTY THOUSAND Americans who believe in democracy and believe that government exists to serve the people – and not the other way around – have been GAGGED by ONE so-called "PUBLIC SERVANT" – The New York City Clerk – who denied the petition and the voice of the people.
Welcome to America. Democracy denied.
Did you REALLY expect those in halls of power to honor the WILL OF THE PEOPLE? Did you expect this demand for accountability to go uncontested by those who have forgotten the very meaning of the word? Perhaps this obstruction of democracy would go unchallenged in THEIR America. Not in OUR America.
9/11 family members, first responders and survivors expected nothing less than business as usual and ARE NOT HAVING IT. They are preparing to take the City of New York to court to challenge the wrongful denial of our right to decide on the creation of a new 9/11 investigation.
Friends, your determination and generosity have brought us to this crucial moment. TRUTH IS AT THE CROSSROADS, DEMOCRACY UNDER FIRE AND THE DEFINING MOMENT IN THE QUEST FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IS UPON US. This is YOUR movement and nothing may bring you closer to attaining truth than NYC CAN. Stand in the light and demand ANSWERS, not in the shadows of those who would deny you such answers.
THE BIG NEWS: the most experienced election lawyer in New York City stands ready to represent the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors in court in an HISTORIC FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY AND TRUTH. BUT WE DESPERATELY NEED YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. This is your chance – your ONE chance – to stand with the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors, and demand accountability. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE WORKED FOR, AND WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE IF WE STAND TOGETHER NOW.
Donate over $25 and we’ll mail you a free NYC CAN button. Donate over $50 and you will receive a free NYC CAN button and a well-made NYC CAN t-shirt.
ACT RIGHT NOW. Go to – nyccan.org/donate.php – and donate whatever you can to bring the quest for answers to the biggest stage it has ever had: THE NEW YORK CITY BALLOT.
On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) filed a petition containing 52,000 signatures calling for a referendum on the creation of a New York City independent commission to investigate the events of September 11, 2001.
9/11 Family Members Maureen Hunt and Manny Badillo, and First Responders Charlie Giles of the Feal Good Foundation and Bill Gleason of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation, arrived at the City Clerk’s office to deliver the petition and speak in behalf of all the proud and concerned citizens who deserve an unbiased, nonpolitical investigation of the tragedy that has affected us so deeply.
Thank you for getting us this far! City Council now has until August 24 to approve the placement of the referendum on the November 3 ballot. As hundreds more 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors join NYC CAN’s campaign for a new investigation, lobbying their council members to support the petition, our chances grow.
In the unlikely event City Council does not approve the placement of the referendum on the ballot, NYC CAN is prepared to deliver an additional 30,000 signatures on August 24 to guarantee it gets on the ballot. We already have 8,000 of the additional 30,000!
Now more than ever is the moment to stand with the families, first responders and survivors of September 11 and stand up for what we have worked so long for. This is how you can help:
DONATE. We need money to pay our amazing petitioners. We need money to pay a legal team. We need money to launch a full-scale PR campaign once the referendum is on the ballot.
TELL FAMILY MEMBERS, FIRST RESPONDERS and SURVIVORS. We have a Statement of Support on NYCCAN.ORG that every family member, first responder, and survivor is welcome to sign. We have already accumulated over 60 signatories in the last week. If you know someone who was directly affected and wants accountability, send them to NYCCAN.ORG. The more New York-based family members, first responders and survivors who sign on, the more City Council will hear from the constituents it simply can’t ignore.
TELL YOUR FRIENDS. Nothing works like word of mouth.
There is no better place than New York City and no better time than NOW to make a real investigation happen. Stand with us now.
Donna Marsh O’Connor
The story begins debunking a UFO story and then for no logical reason, uses the opportunity to take a cheap shot at the 9/11 Truth Movement:
But where UFOs were once the main source of paranoid fixations, it is now incidents like the 9/11 terror attacks that are the focus of such obsessions.
Clinical psychologist Anthony Gunn told ninemsn that while conspiracy theories about UFOs have decreased in recent years due to more frequent distribution of footage by NASA, the basic psychology behind the phenomenon remained strong.
"When a lot of people feel they are in a situation where they don't have much power, figuring out conspiracy theories gives them a sense of control," he said.
"It's a huge area, the whole conspiracy thing — it can also be fuelled by paranoia, which in turn can be fuelled by drugs or stress, but it usually comes back to power or control issues."
Mr Gunn attributed the behaviour to cognitive dissonance, where people who are forced to hold two conflicting beliefs re-correct one to alleviate the psychological pain.
... (blah, blah, blah) ...
"Coming back to conspiracy theories, people may have learnt that 9/11 didn't happen the way they suspect it.
... (blah, blah, blah) ...
Of course, Anthony Gunn would not consider 'paranoid' a belief in the existence of a world-wide Islamic terrorist network known as 'Al Qaeda' that is so diabolical and deadly that we must unquestioningly accept changes in our constitution, removal of basic democratic rights and civil liberties, the degrading searches that we undergo every time we board an airplane and the militarisation of our society such as what occurred during the 2007 APEC summit in Sydney.
The mountains of hard physical evidence upon which the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement is founded, of course, is never discussed by the Australian newsmedia.
This moving 50-second piece released by New York City Coalition for Accountability Now features 9/11 Family Members Jean Canavan, Bob McIlvaine and Manny Badillo asking the unanswered questions and calling upon all New Yorkers to "Vote For Answers" in order to set up a new, independent 9-11 commission. For more information go to www.NYCCAN.org Please help them to find the answers they seek by spreading this video far and wide.
"Osama bin Laden is the world's best-known terrorist, but how much of what we think we know about him is real? David Griffin examines this question in greater depth than any previous author. Based on the evidence, he suggests that bin Laden may have been dead for some time. If so, this means that some covert operators have been fabricating tapes to keep Osama bin Laden alive in the public's imagination."---Terrell E. Arnold, former deputy director of the US State Department Office of Counterterrorism; author of A World Less Safe witing of David Ray Griffin's, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
The US's political discourse and foreign policy in recent years has been based on the assumption that Osama bin Laden is still alive. George W. Bush promised as president that he would get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" and has been widely criticized for failing to do so. The US's present military escalation in Afghanistan is said to be necessary to "get Osama bin Laden." The news media regularly announce the appearance of new "messages from bin Laden." But what if Osama bin Laden died in December 2001---which is the last time a message to or from him was intercepted?
In this book, David Ray Griffin examines the evidence for the claim--- made by everyone from former CIA agent Robert Baer to Oliver North--- that bin Laden is surely no longer with us. He analyzes the purported messages from bin Laden and finds that, as many have suspected, they do not provide evidence of bin Laden's existence after 2001. This leads naturally to the question: if Osama bin Laden did indeed die in 2001, how and why have dozens of "messages from bin Laden" appeared since then?
Griffin's meticulous analysis supports above all one simple and urgent conclusion: if Osama bin Laden is dead, the US should not be using its troops and treasure to hunt him down.
David Ray Griffin has published 35 books on philosophy, religion, and politics. His most recent book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, was a Publishers Weekly "Pick of the Week" in 2008.
"David Ray Griffin, one of America's most careful and judicious political analysts, specializes in subjects the mainstream media and most politicians prefer to ignore. Three cheers to him now for taking on the question of whether Osama bin Laden died some years ago and should therefore no longer be a reason for the United States to continue its war in Afghanistan. There are powerful forces both in the United States and some of its allies that undoubtedly want a clash of civilizations. Some of these forces may well have acted secretly in the past, and may still be working, to create situations, real or false, to bring about more warfare. Griffin's new book, with its evidence that "messages from bin Laden" may have been fabricated, should encourage a complete rethinking of the mission in Afghanistan." --- William Christison, former senior CIA official
"This book is part of a growing body of non-fiction that illuminates the cataclysmic gap between those with power, who do as they please, and those with knowledge, who are not heard. At least 80% of what is done ‘in our name' with our tax dollars is wasteful, lacks intellectual integrity, and does great harm to humanity both at home and abroad. Unless President Obama breaks out of the closed circle of power to connect with the kind of independent knowledge found in this book, he will remain a captive ‘front' for the Empire Enterprise."--- Robert David Steele Vivas, recovering spy, founder of the USMC Intelligence Center, CEO of OSS.Net, and CEO of Earth Intelligence Network.
Noam Chomsky, a supposed US dissident, in fact, uses his influence amongst progressive people to convince them of ideas that serve the interest of the same US elites he purports to oppose. These include acceptance of the lone crazed gunman explanation of the JFK assassination and the dismissal of the overwhelming evidence pointing to senior figures within the administration of former US President George W Bush as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity.
Chomsky insists that Oswald, acting alone, murdered President John F Kennedy, but also says that even if it was not the case, and he was, indeed, murdered by people within the US administration, why should it matter?
The answer should have been obvious. If it was purely bad luck that Kennedy was murdered, then other political figures, opposed to the establishment, would have little to fear. People such as Barack Obama who were (once) thought to pose a threat to the US corporate elites would have had little reason to fear that those corporate elites would be so ruthless and so unconscionable as to conspire to have him killed, contrary to what many of his supporters openly feared would happen. Strangely, even people such as Australia's Phillip Adams, who refuses to consider JFK and 9/11 'conspiracy theories', expressed this fear for Barack Obama before he was elected.
If, on the other hand, there was a conspiracy to murder JFK as many credible people argue, because he posed a threat to powerful vested interests who wanted to escalate the Vietnam War, then surely others, who stand opposed to those vested interests, should also fear assassination.
Clearly it must matter whether or not a gunman acting alone murdered JFK and Chomsky could not possibly have been so stupid as to not have understood that. The only possible reason why Chomsky would choose to insist that it does not is to allow him to avoid having to openly defend the lone crazed gunman theory, which has happily peddled on other occasions.
In fact, in the same decade, three of the other most charismatic and effective leaders opposed to the US establishment also met violent deaths in suspicious circumstances that were never properly investigated - Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert F Kennedy.
In all cases, Noam Chomsky insisted that there was nothing suspicious. Almost certainly, because of the influence he wielded amongst progressive circles, many who would have otherwise followed the trail that would have led to the killers of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK were dissuaded from doing so.
Thus the left of the 1960's was decapitated and those responsible were never unmasked and brought to justice.
Shortly after the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 Chomsky pronounced that Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden had indeed master-minded the attacks, just as George Bush had insisted. Those who questioned the official account and pointed to the glaring contradictions and absurdities of the official account of 9/11 were dismissed by Chomsky as conspiracy theorists.
Once again, many, who held Chomsky in high regard, were dissuaded from questioning the official 9/11 fiction, thus leaving unchallenged the huge propaganda advantage that made it possible for the US rulers to overcome public opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous attacks on civil liberties and democratic freedoms in the West.
During my participation in the protest movement against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I never personally doubted the official 9/11 explanation nor was I aware of anyone else who questioned it, such was the influence of the likes of Chomsky on the anti-war movement in Australia.
how Noam Chomsky is a practitioner of the 'bait and switch' technique. The 'bait' is his many scholarly works which show up many of the crimes of the US rulers (although rarely accompanied by practical suggestions as to how to prevent these crimes). The 'switch' are ideas that serve the interests of the US rulers. These include acceptance of the lone crazed gunman explanation of the JFK assassination and the dismissal of the overwhelming evidence pointing to senior figures within the administration as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity.
Postscript: (19 July) In spite of the damning critique of Noam Chomsky by Zwicker, and Chomsky's failure to acknowledge, let alone respond to that critique, many progressives, even amongst those aware of the truth of 'false flag' attacks such as 9/11, still accord Chomsky credibility that he clearly does not deserve. One of many possible examples is the publication of the article "The Grim Picture of Obama's Middle East" also republished by Information Clearing House. Whatever may be the merit of that article, the fact remains that Chomsky has done enormous harm to the causes he claims to support and will continue to harm those causes until more people are able to see him for what he is.
Appendix 1: Online forum discussion about influence of Noam Chomsky in Australia
So, far, on two occasions, when I have participated in online forums, my detractors have referred to my low regard for Noam Chomsky as expressed in this article in attempts to discredit the views I had put to those forums. The following are recent posts to a Larvatus Prodeo discussion about 9/11:
Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.
They'll link to some complex document that has a lot of equations and fancy theories that explains how such a freak occurrence is possible and there’s nothing untoward about it happening three times on one morning in one place. There’s citations of various experts who've written debunking articles but those I've read can’t explain it either.
Can you? Can you understand? Because this is what Noam Chomsky refers to when he talks about the manufacturing of consent. The issue is inherently outré . This is how Foucault describes our power structure as a demarker of normality, morality, sanity and those that fall outside.
And it’s interesting that people who've read books by both men somehow play the game they’re describing. By all means ban Daggett. S/he’s obviously crazy.
My comment: Whilst Chomsky was cited in my defence here, I felt most anxious that the undeserved credibility given to Chomsky not be left to stand. I was helped somewhat in this, when further along, one of my detractors wrote:
Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.
To be fair, Adrien, this happens even when you don’t ask the free-fall question.
Why is the Australian far-left seemingly unanimous in its resolve (as Paul Craig Roberts pointed out #comment-825585">above (on LP)) to defend ground which accepts that terrorists, from the region in which our armies are now fighting wars that they say they oppose, did launch 9/11, 7/7 the Madrid bombings, Bali, etc, but refuse to even contemplate examining evidence that would enable them to shift to ground which I would have thought would be much easier to defend, that is, the ground on which it is maintained that the US government itself committed the crimes which it has knowingly and falsely blamed on so-called Muslim extremists. (Words self-plagiarised from earlier discussion on Online Opinion about the movie 'Balibo'.) Why, instead of calmly asssessing the evidence to determine whether it just might be true, do so many on the supposed left of Australian politics, instead, spill bucketloads of electronic ink personally attacking 9/11 Truthers?
Of course, part of the reason, but only part, must lie with the influence of Noam Chomsky, who is regarded as an unquestionable guru by many in Australia. In spite of the fact that Noam Chomsky has written some good ideas as Missy Higgins #comment-825973">pointed out, I am, nevertheless, convinced that he is a fraud.
In fact, Noam Chomsky, himself, has acted contrary to many of his own good ideas.
Very shortly after the 9/11 attacks, he produced an article which essentially accepted the Official US Government 9/11 Conspiracy and has spent much of his energy since then attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement.
This, together with Chomsky's absurd insistence that there was nothing suspicious about the murders, in the 1960's, of all four of America's most charismatic and effective political leaders who were prepared to stand up to America's oligarchy -- JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK -- has resulted in some, including an erstwhile protege, Canadian Barrie Zwicker to question Chomsky's true motives.
I would be most interested to know if GregM concurs with Chomsky's view:
I mean, who knows? And who cares? I mean plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F Kennedy?
I consider Chomsky's ludicrous #comment-826015">position on Cambodia, which he inexplicably held on to even as late as early this century to be a component of his overall disinformation effort.
Sometime earlier this decade I heard an interview of Chomsky by fellow left gatekeeper Phillip Adams. In that interview he accused the media of being hypocritical for focusing on Cambodia in the late 1970's instead of on East Timor. It may well be that for a while some of the media was hypocritical, but his point seemed ludicrous. If anything, the Cambodian genocide was an even greater crime than Indonesia's invasion of East Timor.
Sadly, some on the left had an emotional need to deny that those who had 'liberated' Cambodia in 1975 were gencocidal killers, but surely years after the Khmer Rouge had been used as a tool by the West against the Vietnamese who removed that genocidal regime, that emotional need should have long disappeared.
However, the greatest harm that is done when Chomsky effectively apologises for Khmer Rouge crimes, is not to himself, but to others who oppose US foreign policy, whom the broader public assumes to share his views.
#appendix2" id="appendix2">Appendix 2: Comments from forum in response to video "America is not a Democracy"
The publication of a particularly unoriginal and unremarkable 10 minute video "America is not a Democracy," featuring Noam Chomsky on information Clearing House, attracted, so far 56 comments, many of them highly critical. Here are some, including a response from myself:
I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.
Chomsky offers an analysis that only considers part of the factors. He picks and chooses to suit his preordained conclusion. In real science, that is not acceptable. Chomsky knows this. When you skew the analysis to fix the results, you end up being no different than a propagandist or a crook. It's dishonest. It prevents real solutions to problems being pursued. It makes the problems worse. He may provide valuable information sometimes, but there is always important pieces missing from the story. Important parts whose absence prevents a person really understanding what they are up against and making workable personal choices to work on turning things around. I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.
Anonymous and chumpsRus wrote: "I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs."
You've stolen my thunder.
It is striking how little useful advice Chomsky has ever had to offer, in over four decades, to those who may want to build an alternative to the political system he ostensibly denounces.
I thought his attempt to diminish those who fought to reverse the rorting of the 2000 Presidential elections was particularly low.
Yes, obviously the alternative to Bush was far from ideal, but how can Chomsky then conclude from that, that when Fox News and the whole US oligarchy acted in concert to ensure that their chosen glove puppet was installed rather than Al Gore, the candidate who legally won those elections, it was of no concern?
That stolen election laid the groundwork for 9/11 and well over 1 million deaths in wars that 9/11 was used as a pretext for, but of course, as noted by others, Chomsky refuses to speak the truth about the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack and, before that, the murders of JFK. Malcolm X, MLK and RFK.
The most evil political propaganda manipulators are the ones who give the most truth and the most subtle lies.
The most evil political propaganda manipulators are the ones who give the most truth and the most subtle lies.
The essence of a good shill is that they hardly ever lie and are full of true facts and real information. Chomsky may sound good and he may have many good facts but anyone who shilled for token Obama must be called out as a political liar. Obama has been a disaster so far for USA and the rest of the world.
The essence of a good shill is that they hardly ever lie and are full of true facts and real information.
Just like the bible says you have to be very careful of wolves in sheep clothing. this Chomsky is a very skilled and highly trained intelligence asset. If he wasn't why would he be allowed to criticise government for all his life while holding government posts? After all it would be pretty easy to neutralise him.
Editorial comment on previous comment: I think the concluding paragraph is largely correct, but, in a way that was probably unintended, it could be seen as an excuse, if not for obvious US Government shills like Chomsky, at least for academics who remain silent about crimes committed by the US Government.
If Chomsky had spoken the truth about the assassinations of JFK, etc. back in the 1960's, then, obviously he would have faced retaliation. Anyone who sincerely opposes an unjust status quo has to be prepared to pay a price for doing so.
However, there is no automatic guarantee that such retaliation would have succeeded. Had Chomsky been sacked or obviously victimised in some way, there would be every reason to hope that the American public would have rallied to his support.
Furhermore, there is every reason to expect that the efforts of people like Jim Garrison to bring to justice the murderers of JFK would have succeeded. They, and those who protected them within the US state and the corporate sector would have been unmasked, tried and, at least, jailed for the rest of their lives. The hold of the Invisible Government over US politics would have been broken, the Vietnam war would have been ended years sooner, sparing millions of lives in Indo-China and tens of thousands of US lives and the course of history of the latter half of the 20th century would have been altogether different.
However, instead, Chomsky used the considerable prestige he enjoyed amongst most progressive people, to cause Jim Garrison to fail. Consequently, the history of the late 20th century and early 21st century world history turned out the way it did, largely thanks to Chomsky.
#syria">Appendix 1: The role of media disinformation in Syria
Editorial comment: whilst the above interview contains useful material to counter lies against Syria from the mainstream media and phony anti-war activists in the mould of Noam Chomsky, I take exception to a supporter of Syria needlessly giving ammunition to enemies of Syria with claims that Syria needs to be 'reformed'.
Whilst no country, particularly one which has fought foreign aggression for almost 3 years as Syria has done, can claim to be perfect, many aspects of the Syrian system are vastly better than those of most other countries, particularly countries whose governments are hostile to Syria. Examples include: free education all the way to tertiary level and free medicine. Rather than advocating 'reform', supporters of Syria should make known to the wider world how the Syrian government helps its ownpeople and campaign for their own governments to emulate Syria's fine example.
#corbett">Appendix 2: James Corbett on Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1.#main-fn1-txt">↑ If you follow this link, you will notice on the top left-hand an image and a caption which implies that the plane which struck the South Tower was a holographic image (as of 29 Aug 09). The image shows Flight 175 plunging into the South Tower with the comment, "Real planes don't do this." From that distance at that instant Flight 175 appears to be flying through South Tower as if either the South Tower was not real, Flight 175 was not real real or both were not real. This has led some to claim that the flights which hit the Twin Towers were holographic images.
In fact, it is hardly surprising that it should appear thus given that passenger airlines such as the Boeing 767-222 which was used for the doomed Flight 175 are constructed of light weight aluminium and that the much of the material comprising the outer walls of the Twin Towers were not of great strength, unlike the inner core of the buildings.
That some in the 9/11 Truth Movement have seized upon this to claim that Flights 11 and 175 must have been holographic images is unfortunate. Undoubtedly, many working to to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement on behalf of the US Government give such people every encouragement. Other ludicrous claims made by ostensible 9/11 Truth activists include that the explosions that brought down the Twin Towers were, in fact, caused by by mini-thermonuclear bombs (i.e. mini hydrogen bombs) or that the Twin Towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Such claims have been repudiated by serious knowledgeable 9/11 Truth activists.
In spite of that unfortunate image caption on 'Ningen's blog' on which the interview with Barrie Zwicker is embedded, the video is well worth the 45 minutes it takes to watch. The direct link to the video is here.
President John F Kennedy once famously cited the words of the ancient Greek Law maker Solon, who decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. Yet many supposedly independent web-sites do precisely that. These include #comment-729088">Larvartus Prodeo and Webdiary. in regard to the burning controversy over the 9/11 attacks.
In February this, year a post I made to a discussion on Larvatus Prodeo concerning 9/11:
"I think it's time people questioned the very pretext of the so-called 'war on terror'. Starting in September 2008, 7 years later than I should have, I began to seriously research the controversy over the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I have carefully considered the claims of the '9/11 Truthers' and the '9/11 debunkers' and have arrived at the firm conclusion that 9/11 was a 'false flag' terrorist attack planned and orchestrated by the cabal centred on Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush to advance their geo-political goals.
"I urge others to seriously consider the evidence. It shouldn't take long form anyone with an open objective mind to see that a massive cover-up has occurred. And where there's a cover-up a crime has usually occurred.
"Many credible and very well credentialed people, for example, those listed at patriotsquestion911.com are demanding that new proper investigations, unlike the cover-ups conducted by NIST and the 9/11 Commissions, be held.
However, it was deleted by the site owner Mark Bahnisch. On 19 February, Mark Acknowledged that he had deleted the post, stating:
"I'm not prepared to host 9/11 truther discussions."
In response, on the same day, I asked:
"Do you consider the issue unimportant?
"... or do you believe you know for a fact that the account of the 9/11 attacks given by the Bush administration is true?"
Mark Bahnisch's response, also on the same day, was:
"James - it's not our practice to enter into discussion of moderation decisions, as the comments policy indicates."
I left it for a while to respond further. On 6 March, whilst I was also campaigning as an independent candidate in the Queensland State elections, I wrote:
"Please consider again, what I wrote. I did not study the question properly until 7 years after it happened.
"Until the middle of 2007 it never seriously entered my head that the Bush administration would have been so monstrous as to deliberately commit the crime of 11 September 2001.
"I point this out only to show that I was not the kind of person who has lightly come to the view that I have."
I will quote the last post (not made by myself) on on Online Opinion discussion about this question:
'If there was a possibility of complicity by sectors other than the alleged Saudi / UAE "hijackers", which if you read BOTH sides of the argument there seems to be, then this is a most important subject, to be discussed and investigated.
'Any one who says one side has "been completely debunked" needs a self-inflicted slap in the face.'
"If you persist in your decision to censor discussion of this critical issue, I don't believe that your site visitors will thank you in the longer term.
"... why are so many truly independent websites - globalresearch.ca, www.culturechange.org - constantly crying out for money, whilst those ostensibly alternative independent websites, who accept corporate funding, have become obviously compromised (for example, by refusing to discuss the 9/11 controversy)?"
This drew a few interested responses, including from one who said he didn't realise that 9/11 was a taboo topic. A subsequent post I made was placed in the moderation queue, but did not appear, whilst my post following that one did appear. The #PostNotPublished" id="PostNotPublished">post which did not appear was:
"Well, I certainly hope the LP moderators will reconsider what I was told was their policy of imposing a blanket ban on discussion of the topic to which you referred. Not long ago I #comment-234274">put to John Quiggin that his disapproval of discussion of that topic on his website was misguided. Some discussion ensued. I would say that I won that relatively short argument, but even if I had not, his expressed fears that it would derail discussion were never realised.
"In fact, in my own experience, questioning the principle justification for the so-called 'war on terror', the removal of our rights to free speech, habeus corpus and other civil rights, previously taken for granted, does more than anything else to put such discussions back on the rails.
"If you still truly believe 'Al Qaeda' 'did it', then I urge you to spend ten minutes to view the first part of a two part YouTube broadcast, which I believe was made by US High School Physics teacher David Chandler. If you agree with me that his case is sound and solidly backed by the evidence, then perhaps you will want to then view the second part.
I don't think you will regret having spent your time doing so.
The following #comment-155280">post, which was published, but the content of which appears to have been ignored in regard to the previous post, was:
"I believed for many years that Lindy Chamberlain killed baby Azaria.
"I also believed for many years that what I considered to be ruthless dangerous Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan had largely got what they deserved after 2001. I now know better (even though I still have concerns about political Islam and high immigration) because I have taken the trouble to study the evidence.
"You should do the same
"It would greatly help if the LP moderators were to heed the words of JFK when he cited the views of Solon in support of the open, democratic and accountable society he was trying to bring about:
'… the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.'
… and accordingly approve this, as well as my previous post.
The responses, so far, from a few regular LP contributors, dispute the case of the 9/11 Truth movement, but at least they demonstrate that unlike the LP moderators, they are interested in discussing 9/11.
However, as one post has not been approved and the previous post from February was deleted, there is no guarantee that a fair and balanced discussion can proceed.
See also:#comment-238137">"The end of the Taliban?" of 29 May 09, a discussion on johnquiggin.com in which two of my posts were deleted and I was banned for 24 hours, "John Quiggin censors JFK's speeech against secret societies" of 31 May 09, a discussion forum on 911oz.com, #comment-14119">"Pakistani refugees" of 1 Jun 09, a very helpful article about the current conflict in Pakistan.
Astonishing Incongruities - Is It Time to Bail Out of the US
January 28, 2009 "Information Clearinghouse" -- California State Controller John Chiang announced on January 26 that California's bills exceed its tax revenues and credit line and that the state is going to print its own money known as IOUs. The template is already designed.
Instead of receiving their state tax refunds in dollars, California residents will receive IOUs. Student aid and payments to disabled and needy will also come in the form of IOUs. California is negotiating with banks to get them to accept the IOUs as deposits.
California is often identified as the world's eighth largest economy, and it is broke.
A person might think that California's plight would introduce some realism into Washington, DC, but it has not. President Obama is taking steps to intensify the war in Afghanistan and, perhaps, to expand it to Pakistan.
Obama has retained the Republican warmongers in the Pentagon, and the US continues to illegally bomb Pakistan and to murder its civilians. At the World Economic Forum at Davos this week, Pakistan's prime minister, Y. R. Gilani, said that the American attacks on Pakistan are counterproductive and done without Pakistan's permission. In an interview with CNN, Gilani said: "I want to put on record that we do not have any agreement between the government of the United States and the government of Pakistan."
How long before Washington will be printing money?
On January 28 Obama announced his $825 billion bailout plan. This comes on top of President Bush's $700 billion bailout of just a few months ago.
Obama says his plan will be more transparent than Bush's and will do more good for the economy.
As large as the bailouts are--a total of $1.5 trillion in four months--the amount is small in relation to the reported size of troubled assets that are in the tens of trillions of dollars. How do we know that by June there won't be another bailout, say $950 billion?
Where will the money come from?
Obama's bailout plan, added to the FY 2009 budget deficit he has inherited from Bush, opens a gaping expenditure hole of about $3 trillion.
Who is going to purchase $3 trillion of US Treasury bonds?
Not the US consumer. The consumer is out of work and out of money. Private sector credit market debt is 174% of GDP. The personal savings rate is 2 percent. Ten percent of households are in foreclosure or arrears. Household debt-service ratio is at an all-time high. Household net worth has declined at a record rate. Housing inventories are at record highs.
Not America's foreign creditors. At best, the Chinese, Japanese, and Saudis can recycle their trade surpluses with the US into Treasury bonds, but the combined surplus does not approach the size of the US budget deficit.
Perhaps another drop in the stock market will drive Americans' remaining wealth into "safe" US Treasury bonds.
If not, there's only the printing press.
The printing press would turn a deflationary depression into an inflationary depression. Unemployment combined with rising prices would be a killer.
Inflation would kill the dollar as well, leaving the US unable to pay for its imports.
All the Obama regime sees is a "credit problem." But the crisis goes far beyond banks' bad investments. The United States is busted. Many of the state governments are busted. Homeowners are busted. Consumers are busted. Jobs are busted. Companies are busted.
And Obama thinks he has the money to fight wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Except for the superrich and those banksters and CEOs who stole wealth from investors and shareholders, Americans have suffered enormous losses in wealth and income.
The stock market decline has destroyed about 45% of their IRAs, 401Ks, and other equity investments. On top of this comes the decline in home prices, lost jobs and health care, lost customers. The realized gains in mutual funds and investment partnerships, on which Americans paid taxes, have been wiped out.
The government should give those taxes back.
Americans who have seen their retirement savings devastated by complicity of government regulators and lawmakers with financial gangsters should not have to pay
any income tax when they draw on their pensions.
The financial damage inflicted on Americans by their own government is as great as would be expected from foreign conquest. While Washington "protected" us from terrorists by fighting pointless wars abroad, the US economy collapsed.
The financial damage inflicted on Americans by their own government is as great as would be expected from foreign conquest. While Washington "protected" us from terrorists by fighting pointless wars abroad, the US economy collapsed.
How can President Obama even think about fighting wars half way around the world while California cannot pay its bills, while Americans are being turned out of their homes, while, as Business Week reports, retirees will work throughout their retirement (which assumes that there will be jobs), while careers are being destroyed and stores and factories shuttered.
Americans are facing tremendous unemployment and hardship. Obama doesn't have another dollar to spend on Bush's wars.
Taxpayers are busted. They cannot stand another day of being milked by the military-security complex. The US government is paying private mercenaries more by the day than the monthly checks it is providing to Social Security retirees.
This is insanity.
The banksters robbed us twice. First it was our home and stock values. Then the government rewarded the banksters for their misdeeds by bailing out the banksters, not their victims, and putting the cost on the taxpayers' books.
The banksters robbed us twice. First it was our home and stock values. Then the government rewarded the banksters for their misdeeds by bailing out the banksters, not their victims, and putting the cost on the taxpayers' books.
The government has also robbed the taxpayers of $3 trillion dollars to fight its wars. About $600 billion are out of pocket costs, and the rest is on the taxpayers' books.
When foreign creditors look at the debt piled on the taxpayers' books, they don't see a good credit risk.
Washington is so accustomed to ripping off the taxpayers for the benefit of special interests that the practice is now in the DNA. While bailouts are being piled upon bailouts, wars are being piled upon wars.
Before Obama gets in any deeper, he must ask his economic team where the money is coming from. When he finds out, he needs to tell the rest of us.
The last thing that Battalion Chief Oreo Palmer expected as he surveyed the dwindling flames on the 78th floor of the World Trade Center South Tower at 9:54am on 11 September 2001 was, seven minutes from then, for the South Tower to come crashing down on him and to collapse almost completely into dust at a rate barely slower than free fall. Many scientists and engineers, who have since disputed the official US Government explanation of the World Trade Center collapses, would have agreed with Palmer's judgement on the day, however the ABC's Science Show, presented by Robyn Williams seems reluctant to let its listeners know of their views.
Veteran firefighters at impact scene expected South Tower to remain standing
At 9:54AM on 11 September 2001, seven minutes before he perished in the first of the two Twin Tower collapses, Battalion Chief Oreo Palmer radioed his unit, Ladder Company 15, this message, from the 78th floor, close to where United Airlines Flight 175 had slammed into the World Trade Center South Tower, only 51 minutes earlier :
"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."
The Port Authority of New York refused to release the recording for over a year after the attack until forced to do so by the New York Times.
When Oreo Palmer's widow heard the recording of her doomed husband, she said:
"I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly."
Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald Bucca had caught the elevator to the 44th floor#main-fn1">1 and had then climbed 34 floors to the 78th, the floor immediately below where flight 175 had hit. Palmer had found wounded needing evacuation and fires he had judged could be doused with water pumped from two fire trucks.
Palmer and Bucca had every expectation that the South Tower would remain fully standing as they proceeded to extinguish the flames and attend to or evacuate the wounded.
The last thing that Palmer, Bucca and many other veteran firefighters, then making their ways up to 78th floor, expected to happen only 7 minutes from then was for the whole of the South Tower to collapse in an explosive spectacle that has imprinted memories round the world.
The point to take in here is that, seven minutes before that final collapse, the temperature on the 78th floor was not sufficient to cause professional fire-fighters to panic, let alone present a threat to their lives or the steel structure of the building.
Whilst each of the two towers had suffered, respectively, the unprecedented impact of a jet-fueled passenger aircraft, both had withstood the impact with most supporting pylons in their cores undamaged and few entirely severed. The buildings had been designed in the 1960's to withstand a head-on impact from a Boeing 707, comparable in size to the Boeing 767's which had struck the towers. Even if the structure had been fatally weakened, the collapses should have occurred at the time of the impact and not 58 minutes later, in the case of the South Tower, when the strength of the oxygen-starved fires had greatly diminished.
Oreo Palmer's assessment of the situation he faced on the 78th floor, and, indeed, the fact that he was even able to be there, stands in flat contradiction to what 'structural engineer' Chris Wise told the BBC on 13 December 2001:
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
Many well-credentialed and credible scientists and engineers, stand by the judgment on that day of Oreo Palmer and the other 342 members of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) who unexpectedly perished there. These scientists and engineers disputed Chris Wise's pronouncement about the inevitability of the unprecedented engineering failure which occurred on that day. These include:
Steven Jones, Physics Professor, Brigham Young University (BYU)
Kevin Ryan, former Department Head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) company which certified the steel which went into the World Trade Center buildings at construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001;
They argue, firstly, as Palmer intuitively knew, that there should have been abundant strength left in the structural steel of the towers to keep both standing. They maintain that, even if the structure of the towers had somehow failed, it would have been impossible for these buildings to have collapsed at a rate barely slower than free fall straight down, through the path of most resistance. Rather, they would have expected the collapses to have been more irregular, and the buildings to have toppled in one direction or another. They don't believe it possible that the impacts and fires could have caused the structural steel to have been almost completely dismembered and for nearly all the concrete in the buildings to have been pulverised to dust simply as a result of the planes' impact and the fires afterwards.
"No office-building has collapsed just because of fire."
They argue that the only explanation which fits all the recorded evidence and all observations made, was that all three towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. They have called for new investigations into the collapses which would not rule out in advance the controlled demolition hypothesis and which would take full account of all the available evidence.
As the controlled demolition explanation must necessarily implicate many senior figures within the US Government, fierce controversy has raged over these questions for more than seven years.
Science Show uncritically broadcasts controversial 'collapse' explanation
Australians rightly esteem and enjoy Robin William's popular and educational Science Show, but this listener was disappointed and irritated by what seemed one-sided treatment of this issue.
On the Science Show of 20 September 2008, Dr Sergei Dudarev of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was presented to the listeners of the Science Show as having the final word on the controversy.
Dr Dudarev's argument relies on the idea that the towers would have reached a temperature of around 600 degrees centigrade. Even though this temperature is well below the 1,500 degrees centigrade melting-temperature of steel, Dudarev thinks it likely that, at 600 degrees centigrade, changes to the steel's magnetic properties - similar to those exploited by blacksmiths when forging metals - would have caused a fatal weakening in its strength. That weakening would have started the collapse.
Even if we were to accept that theory, it remains inconceivable that Oreo Palmer would have been able to stand on the 78th floor as he did, only seven minutes before the collapse, if the steel above and below him really were at temperatures reaching 500 degrees Centigrade. Dr Dudarev's theory also fails to explain how the temperatures could have subsequently risen so dramatically, in such a short time, when the ferocity of the fires was diminishing.
If, in spite of that failure of his argument, we were to accept that the fires around the impact scene could somehow have initiated the collapse, Dudarev's theory could only possibly explain the commencement of the collapse and not its subsequent astonishingly rapid progression and its totality.
In regard to Dudarev's hypothesis of structural steel being weakened, in a letter dated 9 November 2008, Judy Shelton of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, pointed out that tests conducted by the the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) showed that steel in the towers was unlikely to have reached temperatures anywhere near 600 degrees as a result of the fires#main-fn2">2 (see #LetterFromJudyShelton">Appendix 1 below).
Robyn Williams final question to Dr Sergei Dudarev was:
"Does this scotch some of those many conspiracy theories (I'm sure you're familiar with them) and explain actually what happened?"
Sergei Dudarev answered:
"The answer to the terrible tragedy is had the thermal insulating panels been glued better to the steel structures, nothing would have happened, or at least the buildings could have been evacuated before they collapsed. It is a predictable outcome of very strong fire in a building where a conventional steel proved to be unsuitable for the purpose, so partially the answer might be in the use of different steel that remains mechanically stable at high temperatures, or partially in the design of better protected structures using thermal insulation materials."
Science Show and 'right of reply' request
Although Dudarev had not directly answered the question, Robyn Williams pursued it no further, so the impression that many Science Show listeners would have gained was that all controversy had ended.
Knowing this not to be the case, I contacted the Science Show on Sunday 2 November. I wrote:
I note that Sergei Dudarev's theory which ostensibly explains how the Twin Towers collapsed at www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm is hotly disputed by many credible scientists, engineers and architects, including whistleblower Kevin Ryan who was sacked from Underwriters Laboratories for publicly questioning the way his company was investigating the collapses.
Is the Science Show intending to let its listeners know why they [meaning the abovementioned scientists and engineers et al] believe Sergei Dudarev to be wrong?
Would the Science Show be intending to cover the science of the WTC collapses and other aspects of the 9/11 attacks some time and allow all sides of the raging controversy to be aired?
Robyn Williams gave the following general response to my question in his response of Wednesday 5 November:
"Dudarev was at a conference organised by the BA and vetted accordingly. His paper was put to in depth questioning by science journalists for one hour before I took over.
"When new evidence appears, vetted by the usual processes, we shall report it. It is a recurring topic."
A rather circular correspondence followed, which I have appended below this article. I argued that either Sergei Dudarev was wrong or that his explanation for the collapses was at the leading edge of science and opposed to current knowledge of physics and structural engineering. In either case, I believed that listeners were entitled to be made aware of all sides of the controversy. I only got general replies which gave me the impression that the Science Show must think that peer review among the scientists for 9/11 Truth is perhaps inferior to peer review among scientists from the ITER Project, to which Sergei Dudarev belongs, and which he managed to publicise in his comments about 9/11.
Perhaps if the 9/11 Truth science project were backed to the tune of 10 billion Euros, like the ITER Project, the BBC and Australia's ABC would take it more seriously. After reading particle physicist, Michael Dittmar's damning analysis of the ITER project, "Fusion Illusions," in Sheila Newman (ed) The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto UK, 2008, however, I think the Science show should be more cautious about Dr Dudarev's ITER-association, let alone his theory on 9/11 building-collapse.
Unfortunately, the Science Show is far from alone in keeping the Australian public ignorant about the of 9/11 controversy, despite its enormous political consequences. That is a subject for another article, except to say that rest of the ABC, together with the corporate newsmedia and even, surprisingly, the 'alternative' media and the supposed far left of politics have acted almost in uniformity to suppress open discussion on this seminal issue of the twenty first century.
As a consequence, Australians remain amongst the most ignorant in the world about this issue.
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1.#main-fn1-txt">↑I thought I had read somewhere of Ronald Bucca having ascended all 78 floors on foot, but it is difficult enough for me to imagine anyone ascending 34 floors on foot, let alone 78 in 51 minutes at most.
#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2.#main-fn2-txt">↑ Judy Shelton's e-mail does not directly address Dr Dudarev's argument about the likelihood of magnetic properties of steel changing to fatally weaken steel at 500 degrees - 600 degrees Centigrade, but #10;<h3><a href=" id="LetterFromJudyShelton">Appendix 1: Letter of 9 Nov 08 from Judy Shelton refuting Sergei Dudarev's explanation#main-fn2">2
Many learned scientists have been drawn to the challenge of trying to explain the anomalies of the World Trade Center collapses, and some have offered imaginative, creative, and ingenious theories. Dr. Dudarev's information on the magnetic and quantum mechanical properties of steel is very interesting, but it's not very illuminating because there is no evidence that the World Trade Center steel suffered the 600 degree Centigrade temperatures Dr. Dudarev's theory relies on. NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.
NIST has said that the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes, and that office fires burn at most twenty minutes in a given area before the fuel is consumed. Firemen radioed from the south tower at the impact zone, reporting that they saw a couple of isolated pockets of fire. Photos of the burning towers show black smoke, indicative of oxygen-starved fires.
It is well to consider all hypotheses, but Dr. Dudarev's theory is not consistent with the evidence.
#LetterToScienceShow-9nov08" id="LetterToScienceShow-9nov08">Appendix 2: Letter to the Science Show of 9 Nov 08
Dear Robyn Williams,
Firstly, thanks for your reply.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, you wrote:
> Dear James Sinnamon,
> Dudarev was at a conference organised by the BA and vetted accordingly.
> His paper was put to in depth questioning by science journalists for one
> hour before I took over.
Is there any record of this questioning - perhaps an MP3 recording or a transcript?
It seems to me that more likely that Dudarev is plain wrong, but if he is not wrong, then he is
at the leading edge of a change in scientific knowledge with profound implications for
In either case, what he said should be subject to closer scientific scrutiny than what I was
able to read on the Science Show at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm If you believe that the one
hour questioning by science journalists amounted to proper scientific scrutiny, then perhaps
that should be shared with your audience.
However, I think it would be easier and fairer to just allow someone who completely rejects
Dudarev's hypothesis, in line with current engineering knowledge and physics, to be given a
right of reply, so that, at least your audience can know that Dudarev's views are far from
> When new evidence appears, vetted by the usual processes, we shall
> report it. It is a recurring topic.
There is a good deal of 'old' evidence of which I am aware, which, as far as I know, has not
been given air time on the Science Show. Examples include scientific peer-reviewed articles
on http://journalof911studies.com/ and a good deal of material on the site of Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth at http://ae911truth.org
I myself did not even seriously entertain the idea that the US government itself was
implicated in September 11 attacks until little over a year ago. Now, having studied a great
deal of evidence and having given what I believe to be a fair hearing to both sides of the
argument, I can't come up with any other explanation which would account for the strange
phenomena, unusual behaviour, suppression of documents and astonishing coincidences
associated with the September 11 attacks.
If the 9/11 Truth movement are right, then the implications for US and world democracy are
Whatever the Australian public should at least be made aware of the controversy and made
aware that many well-credentialed and highly credible people reject the Official US
Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks and want a proper investigation unlike the joke
that was the 9/11 Commission so that they can make up their own minds.
Some who question the official explanation are listed at
#LetterFromScienceShow-12nov08" id="LetterFromScienceShow-12nov08">Appendix 3: Letter from the Science Show of 12 Nov 08
Dear James Sinnamon,
Could you exchange points of view with him? I was simply covering an event.
No, the PC was not recorded but several press reports ensued.
#LetterToScienceShow-30nov08" id="LetterToScienceShow-30nov08">Appendix 4: Letter to the Science Show of 30 Nov 08
Dear Robyn Williams,
Thanks for your further reply and my apologies on my part for my slow response.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, you wrote:
> Dear James Sinnamon,
> Could you exchange points of view with him? I was simply covering an
I am afraid that this doesn't address the concerns I raised in my previous e-mails.
I requested that you allow other scientists, who reject Sergei Dudarev's explanation of the
collapses of the Twin Towers in accord with current knowledge of engineering and physics,
be given the opportunity to do so on the Science Show.
I would appreciate it if you would indicate to me whether or not you would be prepared to
agree to this.
If your listeners are not given the opportunity to hear from those who reject Sergei
Dudarev's explanation, then it seems to me that they will have been misled into believing
that his views are not controversial and that the collapses of the Twin Towers have been fully
It is noteworthy that even though the implications of Sergei Dudarev's theory would have to
be groundbreaking, if true, that nothing more has been heard of it since September, as far as
I can tell.
So this further confirms my suspicion that Sergei Dudarev is plain wrong.
I will include a response to Sergei Dudarev in an e-mail I received from Judy Shelton of
Achitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on 9 November :
"Many learned scientists have been drawn to the challenge of trying to explain the anomalies
of the World Trade Center collapses, and some have offered imaginative, creative, and
ingenious theories. Dr. Dudarev's information on the magnetic and quantum mechanical
properties of steel is very interesting, but it's not very illuminating because there is no
evidence that the World Trade Center steel suffered the 600 degree Centigrade temperatures
Dr. Dudarev cites (at least, not as a result of office fires; higher temperatures did occur, but
office fires don't burn at 600 degrees Centigrade). NIST has not one piece of core steel
showing heating above 250 degrees C.
"NIST has said that the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes, and that office fires burn at most
twenty minutes in a given area before the fuel is consumed. Firemen radioed from the south
tower at the impact zone, reporting that they saw a couple of isolated pockets of fire. Photos
of the burning towers show black smoke, indicative of oxygen-starved fires.
"It is well to consider all hypotheses, but Dr. Dudarev's theory is not consistent with the
I am sure that if you were to contact Judy Shelton through http://www.ae911truth.org/contactus.php
she would be more than willing to find a suitably qualified and knowledgeable scientist who
would be willing to respond on your program to Sergei Dudarev.
#LetterFromScienceShow-1dec08" id="LetterFromScienceShow-1dec08">Appendix 5: Letter from the Science Show of 1 Dec 08
I'm afraid I have to make 32 programs in the next two weeks. We shall no doubt
return to this topic.
#LetterToScienceShow-4dec08" id="LetterToScienceShow-4dec08">Appendix 6: Letter to the Science Show of 4 Dec 08
Dear Robyn Williams,
Further to my previous e-mail included below.
I would appreciate at least a response, one way or another, to my request that a scientist
who disputes Dr Sergei Dudarev's highly unorthodox views about engineering and physics,
be, as soon as is practical, given air time on the Science Show to rebut those views.
#LetterFromScienceShow-8dec08" id="LetterFromScienceShow-8dec08">Appendix 6: Letter from Lynne Malcolm of 8 Dec 08
I am writing in response to your most recent email (4th December) to Robyn Williams,
presenter of Radio National's Science Unit program, "The Science Show ".
Please note that Robyn Williams has stated that the program will return to the matter in due
course, as we see fit.
Thank you for your interest.
ABC Radio National
#LetterToScienceShow-12dec08" id="LetterToScienceShow-12dec08">Appendix 7: Letter to Lynne Malcolm and Robyn Williams of 12 Dec 08
Dear Lynne Malcolm,
Firstly, thank you for having contacted me.
I will take your reply as meaning that my request, that the audience of the Science Show be
given an opportunity to hear views opposed to Dr Sergei Dudarev's novel and controversial
explanation of the collapses of the World Trade Center twin towers on 11 September 2001 at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm, has been refused.
In my view, that is poor journalistic and scientific practice for reasons that should already be
implicit from my previous correspondences.
I will now be pursuing my complaint through other channels.
David Ray Griffin has been writing groundbreaking, compelling research guides rebutting the official 9/11 narrative since 2004, when he first published "The New Pearl Harbor." This review in Publishers Weekly is an exciting and welcome acknowledgment, finally, of his important work. In celebration of this achievement, 911truth.org has put all of Dr. Griffin's books on sale at our online store, with a number of other excellent materials. Your purchases from the 911truthstore directly support the work of 911Truth.org, which in turn helps support the work of grassroots organizers around the world who continue to persistently distribute materials, talk with people on the streets, show films and host discussion groups, and thus hold our own feet to the fire, compelling each of us to stand up and make a difference. We appreciate your support.
The nearly 40% of American people who doubt the official account regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks will be gratified to learn that their misgivings have become recommended reading by a pillar of the book trade, Publishers Weekly.
The leading starred review on PW's "Web Pick of the Week" is Dr. David Ray Griffin's newly released The New Pearl Harbor Revisited (Interlink/Olive Branch press, 2008).
In its November 24, 2008 online issue, PW writes:
Griffin "addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers' collapse to the Commission's failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST's contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims.
"Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, [Griffin's] detailed analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call for a new investigation more convincing than ever."
Weekly reviews from this trusted and prestigious publisher have guided the book trade, including booksellers, publishers, librarians, and literary agents, for 136 years.
Dr. Griffin's book can be found at good bookstores or purchased at a discounted price from 911Truth.org.
The review is copied below.
Elizabeth Woodworth Professional Librarian Victoria, BC, Canada
Web Pick of the Week
The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé David Ray Griffin. Interlink/Olive Branch, $20 (386p) ISBN 9781566567299
Author and professor Griffin (9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press) knows his work is referred to by officials and the media as conspiracy theory, and he has a rebuttal: "the official theory is itself a conspiracy theory." In this companion volume to 2004's The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, Griffin provides corrections, raises new issues and discusses "the two most important official reports about 9/11," the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the Twin Towers, both "prepared by people highly responsive to the wishes of the White House" and riddled with "omission and distortion from beginning to end." Griffin addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers' collapse to the Commission's failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST's contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims. Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, Griffin's detailed analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call for a new investigation more convincing than ever. (Oct.)
"Circuses use people to clean up their elephants--a dirty job, but someone has to do it. The 9/11 Commissioners evidently likened themselves to circus workers, cleaning up after the (Republican) elephant. They did a very sloppy job, making it easy to see that 9/11 was an inside job. The contrary view--that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Arab Muslims--has been the source of innumerable evils, which threaten to destroy our country and the world itself. David Griffin's New Pearl Harbor Revisited contains everything needed by Congress and the press to see through the most massive crime and cover-up in our history." -- Edward Asner, actor and citizen
"Citizens in many countries are waging a war on the cover-up of the basis for the so-called war on terror--this basis being the official interpretation of the 9/11 attacks. Along with the Internet, which has equipped both public figures and ordinary citizens to wage this war on the cover-up, David Ray Griffin has revealed dozens of omissions, distortions, and contradictions in the official story in a way that provides undeniable evidence of its falsity. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited presents a powerful exposé of the false narrative that has been driving the mainstream political agenda since 9/11. It is now up to politicians and journalists around the world to expose this truth to our peoples." -- Yukihisa Fujita, member of the House of Councilors, the Diet of Japan
"David Ray Griffin stands at the center of one of the most impressive citizen research projects in history. In this superb new volume, he draws together a great quantity of recent evidence and demonstrates beyond question the fraudulent nature of the official account of 9/11." -- Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Founder of McMaster University's Center for Peace Studies
"Mr. Griffin has again painstakingly laid bare the many lingering questions and inconsistencies of the official story regarding the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. Sadly, millions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered on investigations that yielded no accountability, few answers, and fewer reforms. Yet, the attacks of September 11, 2001 have been wantonly used as political and policy fodder. Without truth, there can be no accountability. Without accountability, there can be no real change. Without change, we remain at risk." -- Monica Gabrielle, widow of Richard Gabrielle, who was killed at WTC2 on 9/11/01, member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission
"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have many questions to answer in light of this book. This time they should have to testify separately and under oath. Unlike their testimony at the 9/11 Commission, behind closed doors, this should be open testimony." -- Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota, 1999-2003
This is intended to be a summary of the discussion on Online Opinion entitled "9/11 Truth" about the devastating Terrorist attack on 11 September 2001.
Background to this discussion
My request to discuss the September 11 terrrorist attacks on Online Opinion was initially rejected. After I questioned the reasons for rejection (see below), it was subsequently approved.
However, the discussion was marred by relentless personal attacks and the usual time-consuming debating ploys, which comprise much of the 280 contributions posted to the discussion. In spite of this the forum contains a lot of useful material, and those who are prepared to wade through the forum will find very good contributions and, I believe, will see that the case of the 9/11 Truth movement does withstand the test of argument.
Nevertheless, that is a difficult undertaking for most users. This article is intended to guide users through the maze and to deconstruct the attempts to prevent them from understanding the issues.
Unsurprisingly, I was attacked relentlessly for having questioned the official U.S. Government explanation of the September 11 attacks, not only from the usual right-wing suspects, but also from ostensible left-wingers. One who claimed to be a member of the Greens Party was particularly venal.
The discussion was frustrated by the limitations of a forum such as Online Opinion and this was not helped by the moderator's hostility to me. At one point, when I made a simple request that a post I made which contained an error be deleted after I had re-written it without the error, he responded:
There is a limit to how much I am going to do to clean-up others mistakes. In this case I'm going to decline.
Instead of composing and sending me this e-mail, he could have simply clicked at most two times, I would have thought, in order to remove the redundant post and helped remove at least a small amount of confusing clutter from the discussion.
During my research, I learnt that in September 2005, British soldiers, dressed as Arabs, had been caught by Iraqi police in Basra, in a booby-trapped car just before a religious ceremony. They were arrested on suspicion of planning to blow up the car around crowds fo worshipers to make it appear as a sectarian attack. However the local British commander attacked the Police station with 10 tanks and helicopter support, even though they were supposed to be cooperating with the Iraqi police in the fight against terrorism. Local Iraqis tried to defend the Police station, but the British soldiers broke in and freed the suspects before they could be questioned. The British Government later 'apologised' to the Iraqi Government over this incident. See story in Global Research, Canada.
I requested a forum be started up to discuss this with the title. "Who is responsible for the sectarian killings in Iraq", but it was refused. The moderator wrote to me:
Your general discussion thread entitled "Who is really behind the bloody sectarian killings in Iraq?" has been rejected by the moderator.
I can't see this going anywhere that the previous thread didn't.
Requests to prevent one other contributor who had stated openly he intended to disrupt the discussion were met with either hostility or indifference.
Clearly Online Opinion is not the free and open discussion that it's chief editor Graham Young would have everyone believe it to be. Honest well-meaning debaters, including, I would hold, myself, are often subject to intense abuse by people whose conduct would be easily recongnised by any responsible moderator as disruptive, so much so, that a good many people I know simply don't consider Online Opinion worth participating. On top of that, requests to discuss very relevant and current issues which are likely to attract considerable interest, are rejected, whilst discussions on many seemingly well-worn and less momentous topics are approved.
Of course, that's the right of the managers of Online Opinion to do so, but there should be no pretence that this is not the case.
(To be continued)
Appendix - Email Questioning stated reasons for rejection of proposed "9/11 Truth" forum
Dear National Forum administrator,
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Forum Administrator wrote:
> Dear James Sinnamon,
> Your general discussion thread entitled "9/11 Truth" has been rejected by
> the moderator.
> Can you reword? I don't have an in-principle issue with the post, but I
> don't want to encourage the propagation of multiple threads relating back
> to other threads. If it is a genuinely new thread, then that's OK, but if
> it is a response to discussion on another thread, then it should go on the
> original thread, not a new one.
I don't follow your argument. Why can't a discussion thread be both a new
thread and relate back to another thread? What is wrong with referring to
other discussions on OLO, or, indeed, anywhere else?
My motivation was to repond to what was written about on another thread
on "Winning the Iraq War" without dragging the discussion into claims and
counter-claims about the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Would you prefer that the discussion of the 9/11 attacks as well as discussion
on "Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight
the 'evil' of 'communism'?" to have continued on the Forum about the Iraq War
at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#45928 , or
would you prefer that the discussion not be held at all?
The following was originally published on the ABC's Unleashed web site on 16 May 08. It attracted 546 comments before discussion was closed only three days later. I am republishing it here, with the kind permission of its author Hereward Fenton. Hereward's biographical note from the ABC unleashed site is reproduced here:
Hereward Fenton is a researcher in the 9/11 truth movement in Australia. He is a senior computer programmer and holds a BA in anthropology and religious studies. His passion for truth has led him down some deep rabbit holes, 9/11 being the deepest. He is editor and webmaster of www.911oz.com.
Click above image to see YouTube broadcast of WTC7 collapse side by side with controlled demolition.
The collapse of New York's World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.
At the time of writing, 357#main-fn1">1 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.
The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation, states, in part:
"... the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."
This alarming statement is based on evidence from many sources, including observations of the structural behaviour of the towers as they collapsed, the known characteristics of steel framed buildings, eyewitness testimony of explosions, and research into the chemical composition of dust recovered from the collapse zone.
Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.
The membership of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is worldwide, and qualified Australians have made contributions. Dr. Frank Legge, a chemist, has co-authored a peer reviewed paper, and Dr. David Leifer of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Sydney is a registered member of the group.
A major focus of research is the mysterious collapse of the 47 storey WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers) Building, which was not hit by any plane, yet suddenly collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.
Building 7 came down in six and a half seconds, generating a massive dust-cloud similar to the one that had enveloped Manhattan when the Twin Towers collapsed earlier the same day.
Researchers contend that only explosives could have provided enough energy to cause the pulverisation of thousands of tons of concrete into dust, and they highlight the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of the building through the path of greatest resistance, indicating that the supporting columns offered no resistance to the falling mass above.
Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed sequence.
This procedure is known as controlled demolition, and requires a precise placement of explosives which are designed to cut through supports successively, usually from the bottom up, pulling buildings down under their own weight.
The essence of why we need a new investigation into the World Trade Center collapses is summed up in a recent paper by Dr. Frank Legge:
"As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur.
The organisations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants."
The hypothesis of controlled demolition finds further support in many eyewitness accounts, including live TV coverage, which described massive explosions in the lower levels of the World Trade Center prior to the collapse.
William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.
The New York Fire Department's oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.
There is a groundswell of public pressure from family members of victims and ordinary people the world over, to re-open the investigation of 9/11. As seen in the groundbreaking film 9/11: Press For Truth, it was due to the pressure of a group of victim family members, known as the Jersey Girls, that the 9/11 Commission was created, and yet that same commission failed to answer the majority of questions raised by these courageous women.
Films such as Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries have been viewed by millions on the internet, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a large proportion of the public does not accept the official narrative of 9/11. Many believe there has been a major cover-up, while others believe that September 11 was an "inside job".
As an Australian, I believe there is an urgent need for a new investigation for several reasons.
First, there is the war in Afghanistan, which has already claimed thousands of lives, and appears to have no end in sight. If the 9/11 official narrative proves to be false, then the attack on Afghanistan may be a war crime.
Second, there is the continued erosion of civil liberties in the form of anti-terror legislation, and increases in police powers of surveillance and detention, which relies largely on 9/11 as the primary justification.
Finally, there are core values of truth, decency and justice at stake, which I wish to uphold and which I ask all Australians to join me in upholding as I say to our elected leaders, with all due respect, we need a new investigation.
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1.#main-fn1-txt">↑As of 25 October 2008 the number is 517. See www.ae911truth.org. This number vastly exceeds the number of qualified architects and engineers who are independent of the US Government and who are prepared to publicly state that they accept the US Government's explanation. A site opposed to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ae911truth.info doesn't provide a list of its supporters.
The 7th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is approaching and it seems like a good time to reflect on what our nation has lost since that tragic day and what we can do to go forward.
I do not think that anyone alive on that day will forget the shock that struck our nation when the symbols of US capitalism and militarism were struck out of the clear blue sky. I was in panic mode for a few days, because I did not hear from Casey who was stationed at Ft. Hood on that day and his base went into lock-down and he was too busy to call. Even though we mourn with our fellow Americans, the loss of over 3000 innocent people and the pain their families have had to deal with, the attacks of 9-11 have touched every American.
There are several ways to look at 9-11:
9-11 was planned and executed by the US government.
BushCo did not plan 9-11, but they knew it was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it and, in fact, may have allowed it to happen.
9-11 was planned and executed by a group of 17 terrorists (14 of them from Saudi Arabia) without the foreknowledge of the US government and we were attacked because the terrorists "hated our freedoms and democracy."
Whichever of the theories is true, one thing is for sure: the Bush regime's response to 9-11 was woefully inept and criminal, and many people have been killed, wounded, displaced or destroyed because of the Bush regime's exploitation of the tragedy to use ultra-violence against the innocent people of two nations in response to a criminal act perpetrated by a few. Watching the recent RNC was a reminder of 9-11 hysteria used to justify implementing the Project for a New American Century and excusing BushCo for the crimes they have committed on the non-existent graves of our brothers and sisters who perished that day and whose remains were never recovered.
Instead of taking a hard and critical look at the corporate-imperialistic policies of our government and trying to objectively figure out why we were attacked, we set off on a nationalistic flag waving fervor of mass fear that was only to be cured by shopping, traveling and allowing George and Dick to make a demented response to it. After 9-11 our country lost a real opportunity to search our souls and make amends to the world for our greed and violence. An apt response would have been to punish the perpetrators of the crime in a court of law and not by rabidly seeking the first country to destroy. Attacking Afghanistan was like bombing Sicily to oblivion for the crimes of the Mafia. Attacking Iraq was just for neocon kicks.
George Bush was handed a Presidential Daily Briefing in Crawford, Texas on August 6th, 2001, that read: "Osama bin Laden determined to strike in the United States." According to journalist Ron Susskind, Bush told the agent who delivered the message: "Okay, you've covered your ass." Instead, our collective asses are twisting in the wind of the abuses and excesses of the last 7 years.
Our economy is being destroyed by 7 years of seemingly endless occupations that have made Dick and his cronies wealthy, but have harmed the rest of us. The price of gas has almost tripled since 9-11, thus causing all other consumer goods to skyrocket. People are losing their jobs and homes because this war economy cannot be sustained with Monopoly money printed and devalued to cover our rising deficits. We have become the worlds' worst debtor nation and our treasury is trillions in debt.
Our famous "freedoms" that the terrorists "hated" have been eroded due to the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act and the violent response to protest from our robo-clad police state. We can be guaranteed that any call, email or text message that we send or receive is being read and if we dare protest we will be pepper-sprayed, maced, tear gassed, tasered, or beaten with a Billy club by our employees: law enforcement; authorized by our other employees: government.
My opponent, Nancy Pelosi, has cooperated and collaborated with the Bush regime to allow torture and incarceration without due process and NSA spying on Americans without warrants. She opens her Gucci bag and doles out billions for his War OF Terror while sitting in her mansion, children and grandchildren out of harms way, while our country implodes and Iraq and Afghanistan burn. She has legitimized BushCo's crimes and refuses to hold them accountable for the destruction they have unleashed upon our world.
It's not only time for new leadership in our government, but it's time for a new 9-11 Commission that has subpoena power and is not facilitated by the crooks who either perpetrated the crime and/or collaborated with it. Government abuses cannot be credibly investigated by government commissions: A citizen's investigation that is independent from the federal government and where people like George and Dick will actually have to give their testimony in the light of day, under oath and not holding hands, must be empowered and empanelled.
But most importantly, Cindy for Congress sends our deepest condolences to those who lost family members on 9-11 and anyone else on this planet who have lost their jobs, homes, or lives due to George's tragic response to the tragedy of 9-11.
My son is one of the ones whose life was ended prematurely. I mourn deeply for him each day, but the way forward is towards healing, peace, accountability, environmental sustainability, and economic equality and away from the violence and greed that has colored every aspect of our lives since that sad day.
Most opponents of George Bush's policies have assumed that the 9/11 attacks were probably the result of incompetence which conveniently served the goals of the Bush administration. Those who have held the view that the Bush administration itself may have had a hand in the attacks, have, up till recently been dismissed as crank conspiracy theorists.
However, a growing number of authoritative, reputable commentators are disputing the official Bush Administration's conspiracy theory.