The Kennebunkport Warning claimed that a group of 9/11 and anti-war activists joined together to sign a document warning of a false flag terror attack and resulting war with Iran. Like most, I first believed that the Kennebunkport Warning and the signatures were legitimate.
While the warning may or may not be valid, the signatures of Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, and others have been contested.
Initially, John Leonard, Webster Tarpley’s book publisher claimed that "as far as Dahlia Wasfi is concerned, I was a guest on Webster's radio show last night so I heard Bruce Marshall and Janice Weir say they saw her sign the statement." The controversy however is not the fact that a document was signed—the controversy is over which document was signed.
Dahlia S. Wasfi, MD claimed "I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document." Elsewhere she stated "I don't know about the validity of this ‘warning,’ but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird."
Cindy Sheehan via MySpace called the warning “shady”, and confirmed that "the same thing happened to me as happened to dahlia." A few days later, this joint release was posted, further suggesting that an alternative document involving impeachment was signed:
With five individuals claiming that they did not sign the warning, and providing essentially the exact same story that a document involving only impeachment was signed—it is very hard to believe that they are not telling the truth and dismiss their accounts. However, a scanned copy of the signatures eventually emerged providing yet more intrigue and controversy. Admittedly, it is not confirmed at this point that the signatures were taken from another document and put onto the Kennebunkport Warning as the anti-war activists allege. However, the five corroborated statements should not be dismissed easily.
Many of those who supported previous warnings dispute the claims of the anti-war activists. Among these are Kevin Barrett according to Captain May and Webster Tarpley, an author of the Warning. Kevin Barrett says that "it is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying, and that they signed, then had second thoughts and backed out... or, just possibly, did not fully digest what they had signed when they signed it." Laurie Dobson and others claim (or rather, insinuate without evidence) that “it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid.” This claim does not appear to have merit since no evidence is given to support it, and Cindy Sheehan had appeared several times on Alex Jones’ radio show and elsewhere to discuss her 9/11 questions and support for a new investigation saying that the collapse of the twin towers looked “like a controlled demolition.” In fact, Sheehan even warned of a “distinct possibility” of a US-sponsored false flag attack. She has never retracted these comments due to “fear”. An important distinction here is the difference between “distinct possibility” and “massive evidence” as alleged in the Kennebunkport warning. The other alleged signers all indicated that they supported another 9/11 investigation. These facts seem to suggest that the possibility of retracted signature from the warning due to “fear” is implausible and unlikely.
After the controversy of faked signatures emerged, Webster Tarpley, the supplier of the “massive evidence” outrageously asserted:
"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashionabout what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond thesewretched individuals.[sic]"
· No apologies for these accusations and ad-hominems
· Direct support for the highly dubious directed energy weapons (Fetzer, Tarpley, Craig Hill (citing Judy Wood), Daniel Abrahamson and Morgan Stack have all supported this theory in some form).
The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack: “The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.” Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst
A mystery trader has risked losing around $1 billion dollars by placing 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, leading many analysts to speculate that a stock market crash preceded by a new 9/11 style catastrophe could take place within the next month.
There are 65,000 contracts @ $750.00 for the SPX 700 calls for open interest. That controls 6.5 million shares at $750 = $4.5 Billion. Not a single trade. But quite a bit of $$ on a contract that is 700 points away from current value. No one would buy that deep "in the money" calls. No reason to. So if they were sold looks like someone betting on massive dislocation. Lots of very strange option activity that I haven't seen before.
The entity or individual offering these sales can only make money if the market drops 30%-50% within the next four weeks. If the market does not drop, the entity or individual involved stands to lose over $1 billion just for engaging in these contracts!
Clearly, someone knows something big is going to happen BEFORE the options expire on Sept. 21.
Bear in mind that the last time anyone conducted such large and unusual stock option trades (like this one) was in the weeks before the attacks of September 11.
What exactly do Iraq, 9/11, and oil have to do with each other?
While many object to the Iraq war for its conduct:
“Suppose that a President invaded another country, and adopted the unusual tactic of sending our troops in unarmed and unprotected, one platoon at a time, holding signs that said: We want to take over your country! Please surrender! And suppose that, unsurprisingly, the result of this was that those troops were all killed, one after the other. Suppose that the President was urged to adopt a different strategy, but refused, on the grounds that admitting mistakes would give comfort to our enemies; and that when some people began to mutter: not as much comfort as making those mistakes in the first place, he accused them of being defeatists. Finally, suppose that after several thousand troops had been killed in this way, the American people stopped supporting this President and his war. It would be beyond galling for the President to lecture them on their lack of will, or their insufficient concern for the people of the invaded country, when the reason for their lack of support was that his own idiocy had made any good outcome impossible.” -- Obsidian Wings
George Bush truly is a master of this disinformation technique.Take for example, the claim that Iraq had a connection with 9/11. Here is what Bush has to say about the subject:
The Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission claim that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even Bush admitted it once. But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised about the repetition of lies after hearing:
Question: When did the US administration decide it wanted to go to war with Iraq? Was it after 9/11, or before 9/11?
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
Why would they want to do this?
Before 9/11, Dick Cheney arranged secret Energy Task Force meetings. Judicial Watch sued for the release of documents from these meetings:
"These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001.
Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD is the latest in a huge line of scholars (150+), senior military, intelligence, and govn't personnel(110+), professional engineers & architects (190+), pilots and aviation professionals (50+), and 9/11 survivors and family members (180+) who have joined together to go on the record questioning the 'official' story of 9/11
The History Channel released a new documentary about those who question the “official story” of 9/11. While “9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction” is professionally edited, and interviews many different commentators, it is also highly biased. It frames the entire discussion in this way:
· "No, that's not true" (Without explaining why: Begging the question)
· The government is too incompetent!
· We're an EXPERT! See the Graphic!
After some twenty dozen mentions of the dirty word "conspiracy", we come mercifully to an end.
While Popular Mechanics continues its lame and pompous efforts at defending the official "conspiracy theory", their "debunking" efforts are objections that have been frequently answered elsewhere. Take for example, their section on the controlled demolition theories.
Controlled Demolition: "Conspiracy" Theorist, "Expert", and Responses
1.Conspiracy Theory: The speed of the collapse was too fast
1A. [Prof. Steven Jones] You would expect the tower to absorb the shock but not just fail completely, and certainly not in less than 15 seconds as we observe.
1B. [Sofia Shafquat] That's basically free-fall speed. I have a hypothetical demonstration. A collapse is clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, floor by floor. Say that 110 times, and a major Republican tried this, he took his watch with the second hand and he said clunkety clunk 110 times, it took him over 3 minutes.
"Expert" Response 2A. Controlled demolitions always begin from the bottom of the building. You cut the bottom columns and then the building falls. If you look at the World Trade Center, both of them began at the impact wounds of the planes.
Straw-man: A controlled demolition is “controlled”. Explosives can be set off in any pre-planned order.
2B. What they're trying to say is all kinds of explosives that were perfectly timed, and that top section fell a lot faster than it would have if it had to force all this other debris down, and that's just not true, it's just factually inaccurate.
Begging the Question: Why is it not true? This “expert” statement is “factually inaccurate”; conservation of momentum has existed long before the existence of Yellow Journalism, Hearst, and Popular Mechanics.
3. Conspiracy Theory: WTC fires did not burn hot enough to melt structural steel.
3A. No building built out of structural steel that is designed to house people has ever collapsed before or since 9/11 due to structural fire. And there are many, not just one or two, there are many instances where fires have burned much hotter and much longer, and stood.
3B. [Sofia] Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, that's all. It maxes out in a controlled burn at 1800 degrees. Steel starts melting at 2750 degrees. Now we're 1000 degrees apart, and office fires burn at this really low temperature of 600-800 degrees. So regardless of the fuel, the temperature of an office fire is not sufficient to weaken steel.
"Expert" Response 4A. As the debris flew through the building at almost 500 mph it caused equivalent to sandblasting all the steel. So all the fireproofing came off and that meant that the steel was naked, it would have been subject to the fire.
4B. Engineers do agree it would have taken a much hotter fire to melt the steel supporting the floors. But they say it didn't have to melt to compromise the building's structural integrity.
4C. The fires burned at a temperature of about 1100 degrees in some cases. That's sufficient for the steel to lose half its strength. Now if it only has half its strength it doesn't have the ability to support the floors above it any more.
5. Conspiracy Theory: Demolition explosives are visible just before the Twin Towers collapse.
5A. Excerpt from Loose Change. In all the videos of the collapses, explosions can be seen bursting from the buildings 20 to 30 stories below the demolition wave.
5B. [Sofia S.] If you just look at the videos and you just see these puffs coming out floor by floor by floor, it's apparent that the floors are being blown out of the way as the building was falling.
5C. There were a lot of things happening on the screen that I would not normally expect to see in just a structural failure, specifically, jets of what appears to be gas or possibly explosions, coming out of the sides of the buildings long before any of the debris had gotten down there.
6. "Expert" Response. [Cartoon of WTC-shaped squishy gray popsicle going splat over and over]
6A. As the buildings collapsed they literally pulverized the materials inside the buildings, the concrete floors of the building were essentially turned to dust as were the sheetrock walls, that's why you saw this light gray colored dust forming as the buildings collapsed.
Special Pleading: This feature is characteristic of Controlled Demolition. This argument therefore, does not disprove it was a controlled demolition.
6B. A building like that is like a giant accordion, it's full of air. When the top of that building comes down, all that air has to come out, and where it comes out, it comes out the windows, it blows out the windows.
6C. There was just an enormous amount of energy that was being formed by the collapse of the building and that energy compressed the air and caused the dust to be blown out the side of the building.
7A. [Sofia] The witness testimonials are fantastic, because these people spoke absolutely reflexively when they were there about what they heard and experienced, and they used the word "explosion" over and over.
7B. [Narrator] Some of those accounts were reported in the chaotic moments just after the attacks. "We received word of a secondary device that is another bomb going off."
7C. [Jason Bermas] Pat Dawson talked to some members of the FBI and they expressed that they believed that secondary explosives were used to demolish the WTC and that was onsite moments after the collapse of the building.
"Expert" Response. 8A. In fact, Dawson, who became a part of the story himself when conspiracy theorists cited his report, never interviewed FBI officials at Ground Zero. It was Fire Chief Albert Turi he spoke to just minutes after the North Tower collapsed, when confusion and rumors were rampant.
Response: Yes, and Chief Turi said he heard “bombs”—see response below.
8B. [Fire Chief Albert Turi] There was a secondary explosion, probably a device that had been planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode and it exploded an hour later.
8C. [Pat Dawson] What is important to remember is what Chief Turi said and what he didn't say. What he said was that he thought he heard secondary explosions in the building prior to the collapse. What he didn't say was that he heard bombs.
8D. There are things that happened inside the building, pieces coming loose as a result of the extreme impact very well may have been interpreted as explosions.
9. Conspiracy Theory: Rigging of Twin Towers with explosives was an "Inside Job"
9A. [Jim Fetzer] There were odd security lapses in Buildings 1 and 2 the North and South Tower for the two weeks before the events took place, where large sections of the buildings were shut down, the employees were sent home, the security apparatus was turned off and teams of so-called engineers were given access to the buildings, which raises the question is it then possible that there were previously positioned explosives in Buildings 1 and 2.
9B. [Webster Tarpley] No force can do that, except a force inside the US command structure itself, who is capable of preparing the Twin Towers and Building 7 for controlled demolition. That's got to be a force that's massively present here in the United States
"Expert" Response 10A. It would take an army of workers, it would take months, you'd have to strip all the sheet rock off the wall, you'd have to run 100's of miles of wiring all throughout the building in order to wire a building for demolition so this idea that some crew in black would sneak inside during the night and then wire a building for demolition, it's absurd
10B. The biggest problem for me is how do you put explosives in those exact spots where the plane hit before the plane hit. Because that's where the building failed. Everyone can agree on that.
Like all good hit pieces, there are some guilt by association smears like:
· Jim Fetzer and his faked Zapruder film book mentioned (Guilt by association)
· The highly speculative (and family member alienating) Voice Morphing
· "The 'Jews' did 9/11" (Guilt by association)
· “Holocaust Denial” (Guilt by association)
In the final analysis, “9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction?” is so bad that it will actually help the 9/11 Truth movement. This is because the documentary is so obviously condescending to the intelligence of the viewer, and brings up so many questions that it might lead some to actually research the facts—questioning the “fictions” supplied by The History Channel and Popular Mechanics.
Respected journalist Robert Fisk comes out and questions 9/11 in a leading UK newspaper:
My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?...
I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11...
Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.
“Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
“If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)
An organization called “Family Security Matters” with links to Dick Cheney promotes the idea that Bush should be dictator for life:
“He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court. President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming ‘ex-president’ Bush or he can become ‘President-for-Life’ Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."[2] Philip Atkinson, Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy [sic]
This embarrassing article was quickly deleted, presumably over negative feedback.
“If you thought Stu Bykovsky's call for a new 9/11 was the lowest the Neo-Cons could sink, think again. A right-wing foundation with links to Dick Cheney has called for Bush to be made lifetime president, ruler of the world, and for Iraq to be ethnically cleansed of Arabs by means of a nuclear holocaust… Though FSM chose to delete the article from their website after it started to get bad press, the cache is still available and Atkinson's previous articles betray the fact that he is a real columnist and he really believes this crap!”[4]
While many would reject the idea of Bush as permanent dictator as offensive, unlikely, and absurd, this article echoes a document signed by President Bush himself, which would theoretically give him a dictatorship in the aftermath of a “Catastrophic Emergency”. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive signed on May 9, 2007 reads:
“’Catastrophic Emergency’ means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions… The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government.”[5]
While the media has remained silent on this document, many including Craig Paul Roberts,[6] Webster Tarpley,[7] and others[8] have spoken out on its significance. Lee Rogers writes:
“This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power andwill make the President a dictator in the case of a so called ‘Catastrophic Emergency’.It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers.”[9]
Is the Family Security Matters article a precursor to more Neo-conservative propaganda promoting the idea that Bush should be Dictator for life?
I had my suspicions about “Family security matters” when I read this from the website a few days before this Bush as dictator article came out:
An August 20, 2007 article by Family Security Matters writer Luke Sheahan derides Kevin Barrett and the 9/11 Truth movement:
“Columbus 9/11 Truth is an organization in Ohio that argues that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job. Got that? In June the organization hosted the ‘Truth Film Festival,’ which screened a number of documentaries questioning the government’s role in the attacks. The last two films explicitly argued that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks…What would make distinguished professors at a major American research university fall for the patently absurd ideas propagated by the likes of Columbus 9/11 Truth? Or even allow themselves to be associated with such clearly unsavory fellows as Abukar Arman and Ahmad Al-Akhras? This isn’t just your run of the mill anti-Americanism, its full blown crazy black helicopter conspiracy theories. However, there is a connection. The vision that makes some academics anti-American also lends itself to making them conspiracy theorists.”[10]
While weak, ad-hominem filled attack pieces on the truth movement are common, I think it is reasonable to consider Family Security Matters a biased source of information, and likely a direct propaganda arm of the Bush administration itself.
[2] Philip Atkinson, Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy [sic], The Family Security Foundation, Inc., http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/, August 3, 2007 [embarrassing article removed from internet]
“Philip Atkinson, ‘Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy’, Family Security Matters, August 3, 2007. (This is an archived version of a FSM article that has now been removed from their site).”
“A spate of new reports of al Qaida resurgence appears to be laying the foundation for a fake attack on the US to bolster support for the ‘war on terror’ and Bush's sagging political fortunes.”
“This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever.”
“There are already some on the left and right warning about new emergency plan that would go into effect after a terrorist attack that would essentially put the executive wing in charge of the entire government.”
The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias.
Hayes “take” on this event is rather surprising and could be interpreted in other and more unflattering ways—one of which is high treason “defining” Mr. Cheney’s presidency.
What is not clear however, is whether or not Mr. Hayes got this story directly from Dick Cheney—which is possible, since he is a biographer of the infamous Vice President, or from Norman Mineta. It is worth contacting Hayes (without mentioning Mineta) to find out where he got this story from. This could be a big find if the vice president himself confirms the Mineta Testimony.
Here is how Mineta described this event:
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
David Ray Griffin explains the significance of the Mineta Testimony:
Stephen F. Hayes is a columnist for The Weekly Standard, a prominent American Neoconservative magazine. Hayes has been selected as the official biographer for Vice President Richard Cheney.
Hayes authored a book on this subject entitled: The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America
The title of this book fully demolishes the credibility of Mr. Hayes. Al Qaeda's involvement with Iraq was debunked by even George Bush of all people.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Firefighter John Schroeder, assigned to Engine Company 10 directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex, holds back tears and describes his first-hand experience on Sept. 11th. His story directly contradicts many aspects of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks any corroborates many other eyewitnesses testimony.
“We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like ‘What is going on here?’ and then went straight into the Marriot building” From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his way to the lobby of the North Tower. “It looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as many people as we could.”
As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”
Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on the failing radios that another plane was coming in. That plane would hit the South Tower, though for some reason, “We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn’t believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn’t make sense”.
The stairwells were black, and at that point, firefighters were making the decision to head back down stairs. In making there way down to the third floor, they were not able to find an exit. “The lobby was like a war zone. We could not find our way out. Then, all of a sudden, one of the maintenance workers had a key that opened a back door that got us out of there. He saved my life.” That worker was Willie Rodriguez. “I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart."
Firefighter Schroeder today has lost 40% of his lung capacity. “We haven’t been treated properly at all. From the day of the attack, our physical and mental health has deteriorated and it seems as if no one cares. To lose friends, to have to recover their bodies in the days after, to be offered no protections against that horrific-smelling dust that was everywhere even though the government said the air was OK to breathe is just not right.” Some of Firefighter’s Schroeder’s best friends have gotten out of the FDNY altogether while others accepted money and trips to help. “I stayed right here and did the right thing and now it feels as if I’m suffering the most. Where is our government to help the one’s with the toughest jobs on that day and the days after?”
While Constitutional experts and even sectors of the corporate mainstream media have denounced the latest power grab by the Bush administration as unnecessary and highly dangerous, the President himself has confirmed that he will seek even more authority from Congress and will attempt to pass more legislation aimed at granting the government unques
The top ten advances towards tyranny in the United States during the tenure of the Bush administration, from the Patriot Act to the latest expansion of the illegal eavesdropping surveillance program.
Note by Arabesque: a new paper by Victoria Ashley references several of my articles on Disinformation and tackles the "Big Tent" 9/11 Truth Phenomenon as seen in the website "Patriots Question 9/11".
Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11 by Victoria Ashley
PatriotsQuestion911.com is not unique in its mixing of nonsense-advocates with real researchers, but due to this site's high visibility the need to address this issue is all the more important. Efforts to get these small needed changes -- for the sake of the basic credibility of the entire 9/11 community -- have been fruitless. Hence, in order to keep the public aware of the basic role of the insertions of nonsense into our work which sites like PatriotsQuestion911.com are ignoring, this essay was created.
As we enter the 6th Anniversary of the attacks, the nonsense advocates are meeting for their own conference about TV fakery, nukes, UFOs, and space weapons, meaning that essays such as this are unfortunately increasingly necessary to provide a basic resource for journalists, researchers, and average readers who are questioning the 9/11 attacks, but are coming upon ideas so absurd, so often, that it might seem like most of the entire 9/11 community is simply nuts. But if one looks closely one finds that, in general, these people also appear to have held reasonable jobs and have even won grants for tens of thousands of dollars from the government.
This basic contradiction which we see again and again -- nonsense combined with expert credentials or high competency -- is a red flag in which only two possible rationales reasonably exist: either the person has begun a tragic course of Alzheimers (or some other organic disorder of the brain) which has apparently not yet been diagnosed nor affected any of their other abilities to function independently, or they are intentionally protecting the official story by attempting to discredit those who are questioning it by association. There are other possibilities - i.e., ego, spite, ideology etc. -- but most of those necessitate such a level of reckless disregard for the truth that they amount to an intentional effort to discredit, nothing more.
Some will argue that such essays and research as this are only negative, waste time, and risk getting us too involved in debunking and divisiveness rather than the positive work we should be doing instead. Indeed, the individuals described in this essay would likely feel the same -- "Shut up about the disinformation already, and lets all get along!" This is the basis for Big Tent, an organizing strategy which tends to welcome all ideas, no matter their content, for purposes of "unity."
The truth is, each of us has our own path, interests, fascinations, and abilities, and we can each contribute our best work by following what we feel most strongly about. Sometimes writing about mis- and disinformation is a cathartic exercise which can allow researchers to move forward knowing they have done as much as they can do to expose the charades. I recall discussing disinformation briefly on stage at a 9/11 event while waiting for the main speaker to arrive. Audience members were confused about some of the information they'd recently learned that made no sense to them and someone brought up a question. When I explained a little about mis- and disinformation, the history of it, the examples we know of, the likely possibility that this may be at the root of the topic they were confused about, there was a palpable relief in the room, almost an audible sigh that went across people. It surprised me: people understood immediately and in a gut way, gaining a knowing look on their faces as if to say, "Ah, of course . . . now I get it." After such situations are resolved, I've noticed, events move forward positively. I've witnessed such relief in a number of audiences when false claims have been brought up -- "But I think nukes were what really caused those clouds at Ground Zero!" -- and quickly decapitated by individuals like Dr. Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman and architect Richard Gage.
We are engaged in a 2-front information war, and pretending that we are not won't make one side go away. There are more than enough of us for all the different types of efforts -- outreach, organizing, group building, physical evidence research, petitions, lawsuits, FOIAs, and refuting false claims -- to move forward in unison.
The good news is that more and more people are seeing the nonsense and are rejecting it openly in their posts to forums, in their own essays, on blogs, and in films. Creating a firewall between the genuine research and the nonsense will take more than ignoring nonsense, it will take uniting against it. And that takes courage, as anyone knows who has attempted to expose mis- and dis-information and has been met with vitriolic public attacks and threats.
“The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.”[1] Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst in the film 9/11: Press for Truth
“We’re an Empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”[2] “Senior Bush Advisor”, New York Times, October 17, 2004
"This is a battle… for the future of civilization."[3] Dick Cheney, February 15, 2006
“In every State of the Union Address since the attacks on 9/11, the President has raised the specter of another attack.”[4] Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Robert Byrd, July 19, 2007
“Bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else.”[5] Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson
“Those who want the United States to stay in Iraq indefinitely and those who want to widen the war into Iran… constantly [try] to obscure the nature of the violence in Iraq. Foremost among this crew of charlatans is President George W. Bush who (along with members of his administration) runs around telling the American public that the United States is primarily fighting al-Qaida, or, as Bush put it in a recent press conference, ‘the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.’[9]This is an absurd statement for multiple reasons: It ignores the true nature of the violence… it implies that Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9-11 (it didn't) and it implies that al-Qaida was in Iraq before the U.S. invasion (it wasn't). Nevertheless, it is used by war supporters to try and trump up support for staying in Iraq permanently.”[10] Jason Stahl, July 18, 2007
“Stranger still is [Bill] Kristol's speculation that, had Saddam been left in power, ‘his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.’ Connections with al Qaeda? Just this April, the Washington Post (yes, the same paper running the Kristol piece) ran an A1 article about a declassified DoD report from before the war stating that Saddam was not working with al Qaeda. What about Zarqawi, you ask? He went to Iraq in 2002, but only joined bin Laden's al Qaeda network after the U.S. invasion.”[11] Carolyn O'Hara, July 16, 2007
“A newly formed non-profit organisation made up of former Bush administration officials is to spend $15 million to run pro-war television and radio ads in more than 20 states whichfalsely link the 9/11 attacks to the war in Iraq in an effort to strong arm Congress into withdrawing support for a de-escalation.”[12] Infowars, August 23, 2007
“Al Qaeda is a creation and a tool of our own CIA. The CIA through the Pakistani Intelligence Bureau called the ISI funds it. The facts are that we wired $100,000.00 to ISI that has links to al Qaeda . In late September 2001 there was an FBI source that published a report that determined that the FBI and CIA were linked to the ISI. General Ahmad, the head of the Pakistani ISI wired $100,000 to al Qaeda, in fact, to Muhammad Atta, the leader of the group that staged the 9/11 attacks. This was in the Summer of 2001. This was in a press report that was covered by the MSM, and talked about the ‘money man’ that financed and supported the 9/11 hijackers. This General Ahmed was in Washington when the attacks on 9/11 occurred. He met with George Tenent, Richard Armitage and Senator Joe Biden.”[13] Tim Gatto, August 17, 2007
War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (9/11)
“I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.”[16] Fox News, July 13, 2005
“I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.”[17] Fox News“August 2, 2007”
“In an attempt to reverse plummeting approval ratings, the Bush administration is mounting an unprecedented, sustained campaign of disinformation on the terrorist threat confronting the United States. Even the mainstream media has noted how the White House has attempted falsely to tie al-Qaeda to the war in Iraq, with President Bush increasing the number of references to the group in speeches made during the month of July.”[18] Philip Giraldi, July 31, 2007
“Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network has been active in the Balkans for years, most recently helping Kosovo rebels battle for independence from Serbia with the financial and military backing of the United States and NATO… The United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo.”[20] National Post, March 15, 2002
“The American people have been seriously misled about the origins of the al Qaeda movement blamed for the 9/11 attacks, just as they have been seriously misled about the reasons for America’s invasion of Iraq. The truth is that for at least two decades the United States has engaged in energetic covert programs to secure U.S. control over the Persian Gulf, and also to open up Central Asia for development by U.S. oil companies. Americans were eager to gain access to the petroleum reserves of the Caspian Basin, which at that time were still estimated to be ‘the largest known reserves of unexploited fuel in the planet.’[21] To this end, time after time, U.S. covert operations in the region have used so-called ‘Arab Afghan’ warriors as assets, the jihadis whom we loosely link with the name and leadership of al Qaeda.[22] In country after country these ‘Arab Afghans’ have been involved in trafficking Afghan heroin.”[23] Peter Dale Scott, July 9, 2005
“The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say. One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being ‘run’ in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.”[24] Raw Story, April 13, 2006
“‘The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan,’ the London Telegraph reported yesterday. Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror.”[25] Prison Planet, May 28, 2007
"I believe there are cells in the United States, or at least people who aspire to create cells in the United States. To assume that there are not those cells is naive and so we have to take that threat seriously. Am I concerned that this will happen this summer, I have to be concerned that it could happen any day." Air Force Gen. Victor "Gene"[31] Renuart, July 24, 2007
“Al Qaeda terrorists are continuing to plan attacks against the United States and are seeking nuclear and other unconventional arms for the strikes, a senior Pentagon official told Congress yesterday… ‘Al Qaeda has and will continue to attempt visually dramatic mass-casualty attacks here at home, and they will continue to attempt to acquire chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials.’”[32] The Washington Times, July 26, 2007
“Two congressional representatives were meeting with Capitol Hill security officials Friday as workers dealt with an increased security presence related to unspecified al-Qaida threats as the sixth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks approaches. The fears were stoked Thursday when Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said it would be a good thing for congress to leave town until September 12.”[34] ABC News, August 3, 2007
“Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo [said] the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina. Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday that he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.”[35] CBS News, August 3, 2007
“Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey tells NewsMax in an exclusive interview that terrorists could strike the American homeland — possibly with a weapon of mass destruction — this summer or early fall. He also warns that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it. ‘I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real,’ Woolsey said. A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons was ‘a real possibility.’”[36] NewsMax, August 7, 2007
“The two sales are being referred to by market traders as "bin Laden trades" because only an event on the scale of 9-11 could make these short-sell options valuable. The entity or individual offering these sales can only make money if the market drops 30%-50% within the next four weeks. If the market does not drop, the entity or individual involved stands to lose over $1 billion just for engaging in these contracts! Clearly, someone knows something big is going to happen BEFORE the options expire on Sept. 21…Bear in mind that the last time anyone conducted such large and unusual stock option trades (like this one) was in the weeks before the attacks of September 11.”[37] Marc Parent, August 26, 2007. Possibly related, Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers says, "I do not think we yet have… a basis of making a prediction that there will be a recession, but I would say that the risks of recession are now greater than they've been any time since the period in the aftermath of 9/11."[38] August 27, 2007
“Fearing a possible coded signal to attack, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are studying an unusual pattern of words in the latest audiotape from al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri… ‘Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness. Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness. Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness.’”[40] The Blotter, July 13, 2007
“These unprecedented [warnings of a new attack] are based on the realization that al-Qaida has achieved its goal of developing nuclear and radiological weapons for a simultaneous attack on seven to 10 American cities… News of the American Hiroshima—the plan to detonate seven nuclear devises in seven major U.S. cities—was uncovered from the laptop of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaida's military operations chief, who was arrested in Karachi on March 2, 2003.”[41] NewsMax, July 16, 2007
“’Their intentions are mass casualties larger than 9/11 inside the United States… A very large building. The Sears Tower, or some large building in Seattle or L.A. or Dallas."[42] The Blotter, July 20, 2007
“It’s hard to argue that Al Qaeda in Iraq is separate from bin Laden’s Al Qaeda when the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.”[43] George Bush, July 24, 2007
“A new al Qaeda propaganda ad, headlined ‘Wait for the Big Surprise’ and featuring a digitally altered photograph of President George Bush and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf standing in front of a burning White House.”[45] The Blotter, August 1, 2007
“People like Santorum and Milligan (and Dana Rohrabacher, the stupidest consequential public figure not named Bush or Hannity) ache for disaster. They pant after it with vulgar, undisguised lust. They are tremulous with unconsummated desire for validation in the form of dead Americans and ruined cities. Revolting and vile as this is, it is not unique. In fact, these repellent people are firmly and squarely in the interventionist tradition of American politics, in which cheerfully anticipating the death of Americans has a long and venerable history.”[46] William Norman Grigg, July 11, 2007
“With a great deal of evidence suggesting that the American people were fooled over the 9/11 attack in 2001… Indications that a new attack (equally horrific) might be on the way… Many leading figures in the government (and military) have been hinting at such an event, and if we are to believe the signs, this could happen in just a matter of weeks.”[47] Ian Brockwell, July 22, 2007
“More adults in the United States believe their country will be targeted by terrorists soon, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 57 per cent of respondents think it is very or somewhat likely that there will be another terrorist attack in the U.S. within the next few months.”[49] Angus Reid Poll, July 24, 2007
“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House. ‘It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again.’”[52]
“Recent events have put a great deal more pressure on President George W. Bush, who has shown little regard for the constitutional system bequeathed to us by the Founders. Having bragged about being commander in chief of the ‘first war of the 21st century,’ one he began under false pretenses, success in Iraq is now a pipedream… Things are going to hell in a hand basket for this administration, and Bush/Cheney have shown a willingness to act in extra-Constitutional ways, as they see fit…”[53] Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, July 27, 2007
“[After 9/11] it became clear that the political right would try to substitute the 'global war on terrorism' as an excuse not only for keeping the national security state intact but for undermining the political institutions of the old democracies. I was terrified that the Bush administration would carry American public opinion with it, and would succeed in brushing the liberties of the citizen aside… sooner or later, some terrorist group will repeat 9/11 on a much grander scale. I doubt that democratic institutions will be resilient enough to stand the strain."[54] Philosopher Richard Rorty, Summer 2007
“In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fear mongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor ‘politics as usual,’ but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate — which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.”[55] John S. Koppel, civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981, July 5, 2007
“Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not feel bound by the law or the Constitution when it comes to the war on terror. It cannot even be trusted to properly use the enhanced powers it was legally granted after the attacks… This is not, and has never been, a debate over whether the United States should conduct effective surveillance of terrorists and their supporters. It is over whether we are a nation ruled by law, or the whims of men in power. Mr. Bush faced that choice and made the wrong one. Congress must not follow him off the cliff.”[56] New York Times Editorial, August 3, 2007
“While Constitutional experts and even sectors of the corporate mainstream media have denounced the latest power grab by the Bush administration as ‘unnecessary and highly dangerous’, the President himself has confirmed that he will seek even more authority from Congress and will attempt to pass more legislation aimed at granting the government unquestionable power over the people.”[57] Steve Watson, August 7, 2007
“[“War on Terror” is] a Bush-created political phrase… This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his ganghave used to justify anything they want to do. It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans.”[58] John Edwards Rejects the "War on Terror", May 2, 2007
“He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court. President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming ‘ex-president’ Bush or he can become ‘President-for-Life’ Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."[59] Philip Atkinson, Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy, The Family Security Foundation, Inc., August 3, 2007
"These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001.”[60] Judicial Watch, July 17, 2007
“The Democrats certainly don’t contest Bush’s Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran… The Democrats don’t really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they did they would have halted its funding long ago. Likewise, if they really preferred to challenge the Bush falsehoods regarding Iran, they would do so. Instead the Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of holding Iran accountable for the killing of US soldiers, seem to want to handle Iran militarily.”[67] Dissident Voice, July 19, 2007
“Several candidates referred to the Iranians killing American soldiers, an allegation that has been around for some months and is clearly becoming the focal point for efforts to create a consensus that Iran must be stopped, no matter the costs or consequences. The rhetoric is particularly significant in that it parallels recent developments in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, where hope springs eternal that Iran will be nuked before the sun sets on the Bush administration. Cheney is reportedly very interested in obtaining definitive evidence confirming that Iran is arming the Taliban against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and it appears that he has been sending his staffers to get the goods by attending the weekly Afghanistan Interagency Operating Group.”[68] Philip Giraldi, June 13, 2007
“In spite of repeated Pentagon denials that a military option is imminent, the United States is again putting pressure on Iran that could easily lead to an armed conflict, a conflict that is desired neither by the American nor Iranian people… It is widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser David Wurmser have deliberately limited the playing field becausethey have no desire to engage Iran amicably and are instead fixated on regime change in Tehran as the only acceptable solution to the ‘Persian problem.’ Cheney has been ably seconded by fellow hawk Elliot Abrams at the National Security Council, who has been working to undercut Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to avoid a war. Wurmser, meanwhile, has been advising the like-minded at the American Enterprise Institute that Cheney does not believe in negotiations and has promised that the Bush Administration will deal with Iran militarily before its term of office ends… The Cheney-Wurmser-Abrams axis is opposed to Administration figures like Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the intelligence agency chiefs, all of whom are reluctant to do a replay of Iraq in Iran… The [Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007] also calls on the President to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group [note: this prediction came true—see below] and to block assets of any entity providing support to it. That is in spite of the fact that the Revolutionary Guards constitute an integral part of the Iranian government and have never attacked the United States or US citizens.It would enable the Department of the Treasury to block accounts and transactions relating to the normal operation of the Iranian government and to pressure other countries and banks to do likewise, a very dangerous step that could again escalate into something unintended, forcing Iran to react in ways that might be unpredictable.”[69] Philip Giraldi, July 10, 2007
“Why attack Iran? War hawks in Washington are having trouble answering that question. Even their dire warnings about Iran's nuclear program have not been enough to alarm Americans already weary of Middle East conflicts… The Bush administration is testing a new rationale for attacking Iran: We must strike because Iranians are killing our soldiers in Iraq. This is not simply a charge made by one state against another in the hope that a misguided policy will be changed. It is also part of a calculated effort to find an argument for bombing Iran that Americans will accept… Not even Americans are likely to swallow that one. Most reject the various rationales the Bush administration has so far offered to justify a possible attack on Iran. If they remain hostile to the idea, President Bush will eventually have to ask himself a fateful question: Should I attack anyway?”[70] The Guardian, July 11, 2007
“It is appalling, if unsurprising, to read the neoconservative cheerleader Oliver Kamm arguing… the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran… The ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the treaty, the US, and the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory, Israel, are contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear limitation.”[73] The Guardian, August 7, 2007
“Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the [Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard], maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities. An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will. But frankly they're guessing; after Iraq the White House trusts no one, especially the bureaucracy… And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. ‘IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran.’”[75] Former CIA field officer Robert Baer, August 18, 2007
“John Bolton appeared on Fox News and was asked a question based on Bob Baer’s report. Bolton ‘absolutely hopes’ it is true that bombs will start falling on Iran within six months… Fox News is intimately intertwined with the Administration’s propaganda machine, as a study of its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War shows (and similarly, its decision to all but pull the plug on more recent coverage of the dismal situation in Iraq).”[79] Harper’s Magazine, August 23, 2007
“Bolton’s calls for strikes against Iran mirror those of other neocons, such as Bill Kristol and Michael Rubin, who also pushed for the Iraq invasion. Bolton’s claim that “Iran is interfering in Iraq and is posing a direct threat to our troops” is not a reason to strike the country. In reality, both Gen. Peter Pace and the National Intelligence Estimate have confirmed that Iran is ‘not likely’ to be a major driver of violence in Iraq.”[81] Think Progress, August 22, 2007
“Another former CIA case officer with experience in the Middle East said that some in the administration have continued to make a case for limited or surgical strikes inside Iran, and that preparations are well underway for such an operation to occur before next year’s presidential election. ‘If you were to report that a US surgical strike against key targets in Iran were to happen sooner rather than later, you would not be wrong,’ said this source, who wished to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of the topic… Some officials speculate that the administration is trying to provoke the Iranians into an incident that will justify an airstrike in response, suggesting that the combined effect of circumstantial evidence tying Iran to the IEDs and an event or incident involving the Iranian Revolutionary Guard might ‘just be enough’ to justify military action against Iran.’”[82] Raw Story, August 24, 2007
“The problems of the Middle East and Islamic civilization have the… potential to engulf the world."[84] U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad, August 27, 2007
“Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al-Quds camps for months.”[85] Patrick J. Buchanan, August 28, 2007
“[French] President Sarkozy called Iran’s nuclear ambition the world’s most dangerous problem yesterday and raised the possibility that the country could be bombed.”[86] The Times, August 28, 2007
“Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) called the Administration's latest idea to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organizationanother step in the lead-up to war with Iran. ‘The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is inevitable,’ Kucinich said. ‘This is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet another war - this time with Iran,’ Kucinich concluded.”[88] Congressman Dennis Kucinich, August 15, 2007
“A U.S. decision to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization fuelled speculation yesterday that the White House is laying the groundwork for air strikes against the hardline Islamic nation before President George W. Bush leaves office. Foreign policy analysts were surprised yesterday by the reported White House decision, which would mark the first time in history that the U.S. has formally declared the armed forces of a sovereign nation to be terrorists. ‘The United States has chosen to up the ante against Iran. This is a warning, or an indicator, that a major policy shift is unfolding within the Bush administration,’ said retired U.S. air force colonel Sam Gardiner, an Iran policy specialist and former war games planner at the National War College. ‘From a policy perspective, it's huge. Never in the history of warfare has another country declared another's armed forces to be a separate instrument from the state.’”[89] Ottawa Citizen, August 16, 2007
“Iranian Parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel... told reporters that the U.S. president’s attempt to convince U.S. public opinion that one guilty party or another is responsible for its failures in Iraq has become a comedy… 'The Americans, who always try to accuse others… are now blaming a government which has come to power through the vote of the majority.’ However, the invasion of Iraq is the root cause of the U.S. failures, he observed. The White House neocons, who were too 'proud and intoxicated', spurned the warnings of all the 'wise people' in the world about the danger of invading Iraq.”[93] Tehran Times, August 28, 2007
“It was also reported that senior British officers are urging the Prime Minister to pull out the 5,500 troops without delay because there was ‘nothing more’ they could achieve in Basra.”[94] Telegraph, August 20, 2007
“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”[96] The National Security Advisor to former President Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007
“The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling… Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.—possibly with nuclear weapons. I am concerned… that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.”[98] 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, January 11, 2007.
“Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future… Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued… False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.”[100] Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts, July 17, 2007
“Today, we see the signs of two parties operating as two pockets of the same pair of political pants, walking all over the constitution and the will of the American people. We don’t have much time left. A staged ‘terrorist’ attack on this nation just prior to the election would create an immediate condition of martial law.”[101] Mike Green, August 2, 2007
“They still need a trigger [to attack Iran] and I would not be surprised if we will see some event in Iraq which implicates the Iranians. They need a pretext.”[102] Raw Story, August 24, 2007
“The War Party is thus seeking an excuse to launch air strikes on Iran, as that would trigger Iranian counterstrikes on our forces. Then they will have their long-sought casus belli for U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities… If there is a rush to war here, it is not on the part of Iran. As Bush is preparing for war on Iran, if he has not already decided on war, where is Congress, which alone has the constitutional power to authorize a war?”[103] Patrick J. Buchanan, August 28, 2007
“But I am sure that I reject the absolutist grandstanding of so many of the president's critics, who would turn international law into a suicide pact. That such views are now espoused even by some supporters of the war on terrorism is a sign of how complacent we have become. I hope it doesn't take another 9/11 to alert us to the mortal danger we still face.”[105] Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations, January 20, 2005
“Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets."[107]Washington Post, 23 April 2006
“In that spirit, the best terrorist plan I have heard is one that my father thought up after the D.C. snipers created havoc in 2002. The basic idea is to arm 20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrange to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country."[115] Steven Levitt, August 8, 2007
“It is time to think about the "unthinkable." The Bush Administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election… The real question is not how or when they might do it. It's how, realistically, we can stop them… What's also clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution. When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) assaying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement. Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn't they?…Today we must ask: who would stop this administration from taking dictatorial power in the instance of a "national emergency" such as a terror attack at a nuclear power plant or something similar?”[119] Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis, July 30, 2007
“A lot has happened over the past two years, most of it aimed at amassing greater power for the government while undermining the rights of American citizens… President Bush quietly claimed the authority to allow government agents to open the private mail of American citizens, proclaimed his right to assume control of the federal government following a ‘catastrophic emergency,’ and assumed the power to declare martial law and use the military as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any ‘other condition.’”[121] John W. Whitehead, August 4, 2007
“A Pastor has come forward to blow the whistle on a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to ‘obey the government’ in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.”[123] Prison Planet, May 24, 2006
“In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.”[125]Frank Morales, October 27, 2006
“Members of the 1st Battalion 265 Air Defense Artillery have mobilized and are on a plane headed first to Ft. Bliss, then for federal active duty in the capital region. The troops will be deployed for a year… They are ordered by the president to the nation’s capital.”[126] WESH.com News, August 22, 2007
“’Catastrophic Emergency’ means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions… The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government.”[131] National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, May 9, 2007
“This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power andwill make the President a dictator in the case of a so called ‘Catastrophic Emergency’.It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers.”[132] Lee Rogers, May 21, 2007
“We’ve got a man who’s proclaimed himself dictator right now. We’ve got a constitutional crisis. If we go three years shying away from that subject because it isn’t popular… to mention; that our president is not only committing crimes, and violating the constitution, but he’s proclaiming his right to do it! We’re in a situation like Germany [before WWII]… because the next 9/11 is going to be our Reichstag fire. The day after it, our freedoms are gone.”[135] Daniel Ellsberg, June 9, 2006
“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these [the rights of the population], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness… [W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”[136] Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
“Getting U.S. militarism back to a level of incontestable, integral ideological hegemony has been a long sought goal that appeared well in reach after 9/11. The shock and awe unleashed on Iraq in 2003 was to restore U.S. militarism as the premier ideological construct. Behind this construct U.S. power could fluidly unfold, as the world’s only superpower demonstrated that no form of nationalist defiance would go unpunished. A new era of neoliberal militarism was consolidating, according to the architects of the new model—Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld (among others)… The bellicose architects and their many supporters in the Senate and House of Representatives—many dumbstruck by 9/11—could count on the money, allegiance, enthusiasm, trust, (press-led) jingoism, and short attention span of the U.S. citizenry.”[137] James M. Cypher, June 2007
“There is a new enemy stalking the United States. No one can say what it is. Some call it uncertainty. We call it You Never Know. We know You Never Know is dangerous, but it is hard to say how dangerous. That is the problem. You never know. You Never Know is a powerful enemy. It cannot be defeated. Think you have a handle on uncertainty? Are you sure? You never know. Planning against You Never Know is difficult. What weapons do you buy to fight it? What organizations do you fund? What plans do you make? The answer tends to be whatever you already have. That is the catch. You Never Know is phony. It is an antidote for another threat: the threat of no threats. The threat of no threats is not a threat to most of us, who are glad to go unthreatened. But no threats is a threat to those who work to protect us from threats, the military services, defense contractors, defense think tanks, Congress, foreign policy pundits, even security studies programs. Without plausible threats to worry us, they champion merely possible ones by saying, essentially, ‘You never know’… The dirty secret of American national security politics is that we are safe. Americans might be the most secure people in history. But we worry. We are told that our enemies may be organizing our destruction in pockets of disorder, which are growing. We are taught that the world is chaotic, awash in civil war and terrorism, which could strike us ‘any place, with virtually any weapon.’ We hear that our satellites are ripe for attack, that pirates prey on our shipping, that Iran’s nuclear weapons portend disaster, and that China is a growing threat. At base, however, most arguments claiming America’s insecurity rely on implausible scenarios. The futures these arguments fear are not probable but possible. It is possibility that justifies the defenses they advocate.”[139] You Never Know(ism), Benjamin H. Friedman and Harvey M. Sapolsky, Spring 2006
“Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday. The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.”[143]
“More than 200 years later, we have another King George. In the last six years, George W. Bush has sought to accumulate all governing powers in the same hands -- his. In the Declaration of Independence, the framers charged that the King ‘refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.’ Bush has repeatedly violated the Constitution's command that the President ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ by breaking some and refusing to enforce others. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws; after both houses pass a bill, the President can only sign it or veto it. Bush, however, takes a different tack. He has vetoed just three bills, then quietly attached ‘signing statements’ to more than 1,000 congressional laws, indicating his intent to follow only those parts with which he agrees.”[145] President of the National Lawyers Guild, Marjorie Cohn, July 16, 2007
“Bush and Cheney would have been impeached long ago if Congress was carrying out the will of We the People, especially since last November. By taking impeachment "off the table", Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic power structure are abetting the formation of dictatorship and the shredding of the Constitution. Why is this happening? The answer can be summed up in two words: "Corporate Personhood". Ever since the late 19th century, clever corporate lawyers have been gaining the rights and privileges of persons for the fictitious persons that are corporations.”[147] Carol Wolman, August 13, 2007
“The reality of Vice President Dick Cheney’s unprecedented, awesome and totally illegal power and authority over the people of America, the United States Congress, the Supreme Court, and all bureaus and agencies of American government, serves not only to invalidate totally the Constitution and the very founding of the United States, but proves correct as well the fears the Founders voiced when recognizing the threat of political parties… There is absolutely no other way of dealing with this American domestic and massive international crime wave than by the immediate and total impeachment of both Vice President Richard Cheney and President George Bush.”[148] Ted Lang, July 26, 2007
“There is an orderly remedy written into the Constitution aimed at preventing a president from usurping the power of the people and acting like a king; the process, of course, is impeachment… With impeachment under way, such senior officers might be reminded that all officers and national security officials swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—NOT to protect and defend the president.”[149] Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, July 27, 2007
“Serious critics of both Mr. Bush and the Democrats ask why the latter do not undertake the impeachment of the former… If one takes the trouble to examine the matter from the perspective of the machinations that dominate all political behavior… though Republicans and Democrats have their personal and minor policy differences, they are in agreement on one basic point: their ‘bipartisan’ support for the preservation and aggrandizement of the power of the state. They understand – as do members of the mainstream media – that their principal obligation is to serve the well-being of the political power structure that long ago laid uncontested claim to the ownership of modern society.”[150] Butler Shaffer, July 17, 2007
“We owe the truth to the victims, survivors and those affected by 9/11… I lost 200 friends on 9/11—two hundred people who don’t have the ability to call for the truth. They don’t have a voice. I’m alive because of a miracle… When I started asking questions, they all went the other way… I don’t care about anything else—I want the truth… Please stand up, take it upon yourself to ask real questions and make a change. We need activism. We need you to ask those people in power to tell you what really happened. They have an agenda. They have used our tragedy to create this world ‘war on terrorism’ which is just a fallacy. Everybody else in the world is more prepared and have more information about 9/11 than we do. Get the facts.”[153] 9/11 Survivor William Rodriguez
“So it's understandable that many administration critics now conclude, with some satisfaction, that the neocon conception of how ‘reality’ works has been permanently discredited. If empires can choose to create their own realities, why hasn't Bush's American Empire created a stable, more peaceful world? Why aren't we safer than we were before 9/11? The neocons deluded themselves into imagining they could control reality, but in the end, aren't they the ones who've just been mugged?”
“The ‘war on terrorism’ is a foreign policy weapon favored by an elite and ironclad Anglo-American consensus, supported equally by Washington’s political factions. The surge of "Al-Qaeda" covert operations and "terrorism" propaganda over the past three weeks, and reports of “renewed Al-Qaeda power”, marks the beginning of intensified false flag deception.”
“…after noting that it was up to Iran to prove that it is a stabilizing force in the world, Bush proceeded to lie: ‘After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon.’ We can be sure that Bush lied, because virtually everyone, except for a few morons, knows that ‘the Iranian government has never articulated such a desire and in fact has repeatedly claimed, genuinely or disingenuously, the opposite.’ [Farideh Farhi, "Afghanistan, Iraq and the Bush Administration's Incoherent Iran Policy," Informed Comment Global Affairs, Aug. 7, 2007]”
“Earlier today, I posted this article from Fox News entitled, "U.S. Terror Attack — 'Ninety Days at Most." This particular story was picked up today by Freemarketnews.com, canadafreepress.com, and familysecuritymatters.org. As it turns out, this story was originally published by Fox News on 7/13/2005.”
[21] Michael Griffin, Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan (London: Pluto Press, 2001), 115. Exploration in the 1990s has considerably downgraded these estimates.
[22] Western governments and media apply the term “al Qaeda” to the whole “network of co-opted groups” who have at some point accepted leadership, training and financing from bin Laden (Jason Burke, Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam [London: I.B. Tauris, 2004], 7-8). From a Muslim perceptive, the term “Al Qaeda” is clumsy, and has led to the targeting of a number of Islamist groups opposed to bin Laden’s tactics. See Montasser al-Zayyat, The Road to Al-Qaeda: The Story of Bin Lāden’s Right-Hand Man [London: Pluto Press, 2004], 100, etc.).
“We assess that al-Qaida will continue to try to acquire chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems a sufficient capability."
“Giuliani—together with Mitt Romney and John McCain—has publicly advocated a military strike against Iran to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons. He has also not ruled out the use of America’s own nuclear weapons if that should prove necessary to deter Tehran.”
“According to practically every available intelligence report, the summer of 2007 is eerily similar to the summer of 2001: numerous, compounding threats, without specificity, emanating from a souped-up al-Qaeda with save haven in South Asia.”
“Last year John McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful and an advocate of keeping the military option against Iran on the table, was asked what the consequence of an attack on Iran would be. His response was only one word: ‘Armageddon.’”
“Citizens take note: whatever Senators wanted to enforce FISA restrictions on the president in these circumstances should, in our humble opinion, be kicked out of office. We are not playing paddycake with terrorists who lust for our deaths. This is all out war and our “leaders” need to get serious but fast about winning it.”
Signed: CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN, GEORGIA, CINDY SHEEHAN, CANDIDATE FOR U.S. CONGRESS, CALIFORNIA, ANN WRIGHT, COLONEL US ARMY RESERVE, FORMER US DIPLOMAT, JAMILLA EL-SHAFEI, ORGANIZER OF KENNEBUNKPORT PEACE DEMONSTRATION , KENNEBUNK PEACE DEPARTMENT, DAHLIA WASFI, M.D. http://www.liberatethis.com/, GEORGE PAZ MARTIN, JOHN KAMINSKI*, MAINE LAWYER, IMPEACHMENT ADVOCATE, WEBSTER G. TARPLEY, AUTHOR, 'UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY OF GEORGE H.W. BUSH' & '9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR: MADE IN THE USA', CRAIG HILL, GREEN PARTY OF VERMONT, CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, BRUCE MARSHALL, ORGANIZER OF PHILADELPHIA EMERGENCY ANTIWAR CONVENTION, PHILADELPHIA PLATFORM, WWW.ACTINDEPENDENT.ORG, GREEN PARTY OF VERMONT
“A spate of new reports of al Qaida resurgence appears to be laying the foundation for a fake attack on the US to bolster support for the ‘war on terror’ and Bush's sagging political fortunes.”
“As I pointed out in my column last week, Next 9/11, Summer 2007?, Operation Noble Resolve, to be conducted in August, will involve extensive mobilization of Homeland Security and U.S. military forces to simulate a wide range of catastrophic terror events in Oregon. The grand finale will be the simulation of a ten kiloton atomic bomb in Portland. But what if they decide to use a real bomb rather than simulate it?”
“In May, the White House released what it called a National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive for how the federal government would respond to a ‘catastrophic emergency.’ This directive states that if the president determines that a catastrophic emergency has taken place—loosely defined as ‘any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy or government functions’—the president would have the power to take over all government functions until the emergency is declared over.’ In other words, a dictatorship.”
“The top ten advances towards tyranny in the United States during the tenure of the Bush administration, from the Patriot Act to the latest expansion of the illegal eavesdropping surveillance program.”
[59] Philip Atkinson, Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy, The Family Security Foundation, Inc., http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/, August 3, 2007 [embarrassing article removed from internet—see below]
“After four and a half inconclusive years of fighting, British forces are to pull out from their last base in the oil port of Basra and trust their Iraqi comrades to take their place.”
“Over the past half year, events have followed Brzezinski’s scenario closely. Blaming Iran for the missed benchmarks in Iraq is now the daily stock in trade of the Bush administration and the US Central Command, who whine continuously about Iranian interference in Iraq. There have been several military provocations in Iraq which the US has tried to pin on Iran… That leaves us with Brzezinski’s third scenario point: a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran. What Brzezinski is talking about here is high treason, insurrection, genocide, high crimes against humanity under US law and the Nuremberg Code. Why has he not been called upon to tell all he knows about this sinister plot, so obviously operating through the Cheney-Addington office, and through Eliot Abrams at the White House? Because the Democrats who heard that warning Senators Biden, Dodd, and Obama on the committee, plus Hillary Clinton have done nothing to raise a hue and cry, hold hearings, issue subpoenas, demand documents, or begin impeachment hearings against those involved. The Democratic Party must therefore be seen as fully complicit under the Nuremberg Code in any future crimes by Cheney regarding a wider war in the Middle East.”
“We should stop investing our money into companies that do business with terrorist states. Yet Congress has done nothing about this. Could it be that it is because 36 members of Congress invest in companies that do business with terrorist states?”
“John ‘The Albino Vampire’ Gibson all but agrees with Neo-Con slug columnist Stu Bykofsky that America needs another 9/11 to defeat the terrorists. That's right - we need more terror or the terrorists will win!”
“This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever.”
"A few days ago, a group of lawyers from western Massachusetts met with the local congressman, Democrat John Olver. Their request was that Olver take part in the urgent effort to impeach Bush and Cheney. Olver responded by saying that he had no intention of doing anything to support impeachment. He went further, offering the information that the United States would soon attack Iran, and that these hostilities would be followed by the imposition of a martial law regime here."
“’The problem is that the vice president and some other law enforcement and security agencies believe that they should decide which information they can keep secret, regardless of the law, the rules or what the needs are of our local law enforcement community,’ Harman told Leonard, the office's director, during the June 28 hearing.”
“There are already some on the left and right warning about new emergency plan that would go into effect after a terrorist attack that would essentially put the executive wing in charge of the entire government.”
“Daniel Ellsberg, the State Department official and Vietnam War Veteran who leaked 7,000 hand Xeroxed top secret ‘The Pentagon Papers’ to The New York Times 30 years ago, is urging those within the Administration who have knowledge of secret war plans to do as he did and leak. leak. leak.” See also:
"[The 9/11 attacks were] almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
“It is a well-established and deliberately unaddressed historical fact that the CIA created “radical Islam” and Islamic “terrorism” during the Cold War. It is also a documented fact that the US, its allies, and their intelligence agencies (CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, Britain’s MI-6, etc.) have -- from the 1970s to the present day -- continued to use and guide terrorist groups, including “Al-Qaeda,” as intelligence and propaganda assets. “Islamic terrorism” is a manufactured weapon of Western geostrategy, serving Anglo-American interests.”
“Everything in life is a matter of degree, and while FDR, Nixon, McCarthyism, and Clinton were occasionally lawless, Bush is systematically so. Thus he is the greater danger. The rule of law can survive a beating once every five or ten years; it cannot survive beatings every five or ten minutes.”
A Blog Devoted to Discussing 9/11 News, Research, and Disinformation
"When we act, we create our own reality"
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"
“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11
