But Jenny Sparks points out this surprising fact: 91% of the users of the Total911TruthNOW website do not have a blog. Does this hold true for other 9/11 forums? Think about this for a second: if you are serious about exposing the 9/11 cover-up, this means you are going to have to get your voice heard by effectively promoting 9/11 information. Joining a forum is a start, but if you are tired about the MSM not reporting 9/11 information, why not do something about it by starting your own blog?
... I would recommend it for anyone who is serious about 9/11 awareness...If you don't speak up, no one will hear you and the 9/11 cover-up will continue. It's that simple. I've had people tell me that reading my stuff has made a difference for them, and that's good enough for me... Even just creating a blog and linking to credible 9/11 sites... improves search rankings and brings new visitors to these sites.
Don't wait for someone else to expose the 9/11 cover-up. Get involved by reporting and promoting 9/11 information. Every person who speaks out by spreading credible information, 9/11 truth websites, and films will make a difference. If the MSM is not going to report 9/11 information, are you just going to keep waiting for them to do this, or are you going to take action and do something about it? Instead of passively reading information and listening to radio shows, why not get involved by spreading this information by promoting it on a blog? As Col Jenny Sparks explains, starting a blog is free:
And of course, 911blogger.com. Along with participating in the 11th Day of the Month Campaign and other types of activism, all of these things will all add up together and the MSM censorship blockade and gatekeepers will be completely irrelevant.
If you start a new blog in part because of this article, link to it here so that others will add your blog to their links. Websites that are connected by many links get more traffic and are found higherin search rankings. For example, I get around 100 visitors a day to my blog and a lot of this traffic comes from search engines. This is why it is worthwhile to create your own separate blog: it can improve the rankings of sites like 911blogger.com and 911truth.org.
Don't forget to link to other 9/11 websites and blogs. Here are some that I especially recommend (although everyone will make their own list and have their own preferences):
Create a new blog, publish at least one post and I will add your site to this list. Post your blog link at 911blogger.com or truthaction. Any sites that wish to endorse the campaign I will add to the endorsement list.
I encourage all participating sites to link to each other and I will add all new sites to my link list.
I came across an October 20, 2008 article entitled '9/11 Skeptics Resurface' from a link posted by a user at 911blogger.com. In this article, Adrian Humphreys of the National Post writes:
While the 9/11 election scandals were short-lived, soon buried by the stock market meltdown, it served to ignite-- or perhaps reinvigorate -- a cross-country campaign to get 9/11 conspiracy theories on to the Canadian public's agenda. On newspapers' letters pages, on Web sites and in blogs, 9/11 skeptics burst out of the closet and urged others to follow suit, apparently convinced they formed a silenced majority.
Clearly, we can dismiss this without examination as simply another one of those "conspiracy theories". Members of the 9/11 Commission told the Washington Post that, "Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation." Of course we know that instead, key officials were promoted and never charged. Clearly, it was just some of those nutty conspiracy theorists in the 9/11 commission.
The "esteemed" mainstream media continuously fails to report on any of these facts in any serious way; instead producing a copious number of vapid and insulting (to our intelligence) attack pieces that ridicule fringe claims while ignoring any serious and unanswered questions about 9/11, such as questions from the family members which never got answered. The bankrupt use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" clearly indicates bias and lack of honest examination into the facts of 9/11. In retrospect, the embarrassing and shameful coverage of 9/11 by the mainstream media will be judged harshly by history.
Anyone who has even paid remote attention to the way that the Mainstream Media (MSM) portrays the 9/11 truth movement is sure to notice that it is portrayed in a certain way. Certain issues are ignored in favor of bogus theories and disinformation. A good example of this is exposed in Jim Hoffman's article, Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man. Hit pieces that rely on attacking obviously suspect "theories" instead of addressing much of the compelling 9/11 evidence as mentioned by Jim Hoffman are frequently seen from the mainstream media. In another obvious attack piece smearing the 9/11 truth movement with the tactic known as "guilt by association", Nick Schou focuses on controversial 9/11 researcher/theorists Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. Ranke explains:
When he arrived at Aldo's residence, Nick seemed affable enough. From the beginning, he expressed his intention to focus on our personal back-stories and involvement with personalities within the 9/11 truth movement first in the article. He would get into the evidence later, he said.
What makes this hit piece particularly striking is the fact that it appears that Ranke and Marquis actively offered damaging "gossip" to this reporter. Ranke explains that:
We understood how some of this wasnecessaryfor aninterestingarticle and were happy to oblige.
Source: thepentacon.com/NickSchou.htm
In other words, Ranke and Marquis willingly gave "gossip" to a reporter who proceeded to use this information in his hit piece:
Their relationship quickly soured. E-mails posted on conspiracy chat rooms show that what started as a professional disagreement about how to prove that the U.S. government was behind 9/11 had become a highly personal grudge match. Here's a typical e-mail from Ranke to Pickering:
And from Pickering to Ranke: "You are a mentally ill little man, and until you get some help, you always will be. A disgrace to truth . . . Fuck yourself. . . . Fuck you."
Even more striking is that I could not find the comment from Pickering on any online sources apart from this article. This meant that it was directly provided to Schou by Ranke himself. Ranke acknowledged this saying that part of the private email exchange was posted online (it is unknown if it was done with permission by Ranke):
Ranke admitted he did not publish the quote online, saying, "Schou wanted proof that Pickering really did quit the movement and spiral out of control so yes I forwarded him the exchange." Now, the obvious thing to do would have been to refuse to discuss 9/11 truth member "gossip" in the first place. After all, if CIT was sincerely interested in discussing their theory about what happened on 9/11, they should have stuck to their theory and nothing else. As Ranke explains:
However, despite our desire to delve into the evidence itself, Nick skillfully kept the conversation on a superficial level. In retrospect, his main interest did not seem to be the evidence, but rather juicy gossip or controversial quotes which, taken out of context, could be construed as outrageous claims on our part (with the release of his article, this has proven to have been the case).
Does Ranke think that the mainstream media is on the same side of the 9/11 truth movement and reports 9/11 information fairly? Does Ranke believe that by reporting this "gossip" to the reporter, that he would not cover it? That this information would reflect favorably on the 9/11 truth movement? Does Ranke believe that after the fact, he has the right to complain about a hit piece in which material that he provided was used against him? Apparently, the answer to the last question is "yes":
There can now be no question that Schou went into this articlewith an agenda and a clear desire to portray us a certain way. It's rather apparent he was unwilling to put in the necessary effort to validate, refute, or even understand the evidence and preferred to focus on gossip instead.
Apparently, Ranke could only figure out this was a hit piece in which a reporter was asking for "gossip" after the article was published. In fact, no one can force anyone to talk about something that they do not wish to discuss. Ranke admitted he was "happy to oblige" in reporting this gossip to this reporter. Clearly, this hit piece was a self-inflicted wound.
How does one tell the difference between good and bad information? The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website describes misinformation as, “information that is incorrect but not necessarily an attempt to mislead. Misinformation often arises from poor research, biases, and misinterpretations.” On the other hand, disinformation is the deliberate promotion of misleading, false, or inaccurate information. I believe that understanding disinformation and misinformation is of critical importance to the 9/11 truth movement. Why? Because, the official story of 9/11 itself is an example of disinformation.
What can you do about this betrayal? The answer is simple, obvious, and effective: You can report the information that the MSM refuses to talk about by starting a 9/11 blog. If you are up for the challenge, you can take part in breaking the imposed silence of the corporate sponsored media simply by starting a blog.
“Your first question about the internet and its role, there's only one thing that will move the mainstream media, and that's business, whether it starts to hurt their business, and it is, it has, they're terrified of the bloggers, and they're terrified of the internet, because they realize that it is taking business away from them, people are reading them... they're playing around with having their own reporters do blogs to try to co-opt the thing and it's not working very well, and there's a lot of crap on the internet - I would think that a large percent of what bloggers write is absolutely nonsense, and opinion without any fact, they're not trained as journalists… but there are a lot of important bloggers who are doing better work than mainstream journalists, they're doing it without pay! They're doing it because they want to show anywhere where the press is not doing its job… And the blogosphere is showing that there are people… who are really starting to lead the way. And they aren’t professionals in the same sense of the training, but they are filling in where the mainstream press is failing - we've seen government run amok because of that, as you know - eight years of the Bush administration.”
Anyone can start a 9/11 blog, but the question is how can you make the most effective use of your time and resources? Obviously, writing blogs that mistakenly reported bad information or promoted attacks, slander, and gossip about other 9/11 activists would be counterproductive to forwarding the visibility of the 9/11 truth movement. So how does one tell the difference between good and bad information? There are several steps that you can take to make sure the information you promote is credible and accurate.
Fact Checking
There are two kinds of sources; primary and secondary:
“Primary sources have been described as those sources closest to the origin of the information or idea under study… Primary sources have been said to provide researchers with ‘direct, unmediated information about the object of study.’... In scholarly writing, the objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources.”
Anyone who has read a newspaper article will see quotations that the reporter has collected to add context and relevant information. In this case the primary source is the "quotation" and the secondary source is the reporter:
“In library and information science, historiography and other areas of scholarship, a secondary source… is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.”
For example, if you encounter an article about 9/11 where the author claims that "X happened", or "this person said X", or "I conclude X because of this source", it is important to go back to the original source (when possible) to confirm that the reporter is correctly citing the information because mistakes in reporting can happen. Instead of simply assuming that a secondary source is reporting correct information, by checking the original source you are taking steps to avoid spreading misinformation. This is particularly true when the secondary source is known to be not reliable or credible. What if there is no way to confirm the original source of any given information?
Fact Corroboration
Corroboration is defined as “to make more certain; confirm: He corroborated my account of the accident.” A claim or report is more credible when it can be supported and confirmed by additional sources. For example, take the example of the attack on the WTC. Corroborating information for this event would include:
Video Evidence
Photographs
Witness Statements
All of the available evidence can corroborate an event. The more times an event is corroborated with sources, the more certain and credible the claim. As Ray McGovern explains in the film 9/11 Press for Truth, “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.”
There are many misleading claims presented to explain both the official story and "disprove" it. There are false statements, misleading statements and everything in between. Often, disinformation is supported by flimsy arguments that can be easily exposed by collecting and analyzing as many sources as possible. It is noteworthy that the Scientific Method demands that all information must be accounted for when reaching a conclusion. In contrast, disinformation largely depends on omission.
Fact Citing
Citing sources is also important because without doing this, readers can get the false impression that you are simply “making things up”. If you cite your information, the facts of 9/11 can be less easily dismissed. It is a good idea to develop the habit of always posting references (such as an internet link) whenever a claim is made. By doing so, you reduce the chance that you are promoting misinformation. This is helpful for readers so that they can confirm anything you say. By making this a habit, you are in effect training yourself to avoid promoting information without first fact checking and corroborating your sources. By doing this you are far less likely to promote misinformation.
The facts about 9/11 are out there. If the MSM chooses not to report them there is something that you can do about it. By starting a blog and citing your information the 9/11 cover-up will be exposed.
In this video, Fox News interrupts a Civilian who reports that Georgia instigated attacks against Russia.
A Russian American blogs about Georgia, saying: "America needs to wake up"
Gorbachev responds to Larry King on CNN about Russian response to Georgian attacks spinned as "aggression" by Russia:
Former Reagan official explains that Georgian attacks on Russia were approved by the Bush administration.
9/11 researcher Michael Ruppert comments on the situation saying:
The United States has been pushing Russia hard since well-before 9/11, trying to weaken and encircle it. I devoted a whole chapter to that subject in Rubicon. It is clear that the Bush Administration, in its Neocon cock-suredness, mistook Russia's comparatively tepid responses thus far as a sign of weakness. This is a rope-a-dope strategy that the U.S. looks certain to lose unless it can pull a rather large and intimidating hippopotamus out of the hat. The potential humiliation for U.S. prestige is so great that I would bet that the "football" has been dusted off in Beijing while Hu Jintao wonders what happened to his Olympic games. Either the Chinese had advance warning or they did not. If they did, which I suspect, then it's perfect to have Bush in Beijing where both Russia and China can carve him up like a Thanksgiving turkey. If they didn't, then I'm certain that Russia had a huge carrot to put on the Chinese table as the first tanks crossed the border.
...
Russia has just brought the energy discussion back to the only real problem there is, Peak Oil...
The BTC pipeline, so familiar to FTW and Rubicon readers, carries about a million barrels a day of Caspian oil around Russia to a Turkish port in the Mediterranean from whence it gets shipped to Europe AND the U.S. It happens to run right through Georgia. More importantly, since it started operations just a few years ago,it has represented Europe's last (belated) futile hope for energy independence from Russia. Take a million barrels a day offline, or threaten to in a global oil market with no elasticity or swing producers, and watch what oil and gold prices do. The ramifications of this are enormous as the Saudis get pushed nearer the inevitable point at which they have to admit decline as the world will inevitably run to them for another dog-and-pony show of increased production.
What must be remarked upon is the incredible hypocrisy of U.S. officials and their acquiescing corporate media. An article by Patrick J. Buchanan asks: Is Not Western Hypocrisy Astonishing?
"Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.
Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.
Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.
Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.
Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.
American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight – Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.
Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.
True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?
The spin game continues.
Craig Paul Roberts:
"This about sums up the pessimistic state in which I existed prior to the go-ahead given by the Bush Regime to its puppet in Georgia to ethnically cleanse South Ossetia of Russians in order to defuse the separatist movement. The American media, aka, the Ministry of Lies and Deceit, again accommodated the criminal Bush Regime and proclaimed “Russian invasion” to cover up the ethnic cleansing of Russians in South Ossetia by the Georgian military assault.
Only this time, the rest of the world didn’t buy it. The many years of lies–9/11, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections, yellowcake, anthrax attack, Iranian nukes, “the United States doesn’t torture,” the bombings of weddings, funerals, and children’s soccer games, Abu Ghraib, renditions, Guantanamo, various fabricated “terrorist plots,” the determined assault on civil liberties–have taken their toll on American credibility. No one outside America any longer believes the US media or the US government.
The rest of the world reported the facts--an assault on Russian civilians by American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian troops. The Bush Regime, overcome by hubris, expected Russia to accept this act of American hegemony. But the Russians did not, and the Georgian military was sent fleeing for its life."
If the U.S. corporate media didn't care about the outcome of the Georgia affair (i.e. that it didn't affect U..S. interests), would they be spinning Russian retaliation as "aggression"? These charges are too comical to be believed coming from a Government that invaded a country based on deliberate lies (i.e. aggression--not self defense) while using its corporate sponsored media to "sell" the war to the public. The United States has been training Georgian troops, funding them, and trying to get Georgia into NATO. The United States is an interested party in the affair. USA news reports:
"But behind the scenes, a pressing question within military and diplomatic circles is whether this week's fighting will mean an end to Georgia's hopes to joint the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, membership that President Bush has strongly backed."
Disinformation is the promotion of deliberately misleading information for the purpose of giving false impressions of reality. Pepper lists these examples of disinformation by CNN, stating that, "In the second half of the program, the disinformation ran rampant":
...[The] program notably failed to provide a motive as to why this escaped convict [James Earl Ray, King's alleged killer] would even consider [killing King]...
Pepper alleges CNN gave a false portrayal of James Earl Ray's background:
...[It] was hinted at by a reference of his refusal to go to a work farm attached to the Missouri prison because of the number of blacks in that facility. In fact, James was afraid of becoming tied into drug activity which was going on there and having his term extended. He would regularly roll dice with black co-workers when he worked in a shoe factory.
CNN misleadingly alleged that James Earl Ray was a bank robber, according to Pepper:
I don’t know the former detective they brought on camera, but closer to the time, 1978, I spoke with the president of the bank and the Chief of Police, and both told me that the Ray brothers had never been suspects, and in fact they believed that they knew who did the robbery, but did not have enough proof to charge them. Further, they confirmed that despite mainstream published reports they hadnever been interviewed by the Congressional investigators, the FBI or the reporting media’s investigative reporter.
CNN ignored the fact that ballistics proved the gun was not fired by James Earl Ray:
The failure to match the throw down rifle to the death slug became “inconclusive”. What does that mean? There was no ballistics match. The gun was not and could not be regarded as the murder weapon, and introduced into evidence as such. Yet it remains mounted in the Civil Rights Museum as precisely that; now with CNN’s blessing.
CNN ignored eyewitness testimony and other evidence:
We had four witnesses who saw figures in the bushes (one New York Times reporter, Earl Caldwell), two observed the shooter coming down over the wall, another (Reverend James Orange) saw smoke kicked up and rising from the bushes, and another who saw the owner of the Grill which backed on to the Lorraine Motel, rush, from the bushes, past her into his kitchen still carrying the smoking gun he took from the shooter. CNN converted all of this evidence into one “unreliable” witness. The next morning that crime scene was cut down and cleaned. The CNN report supported the official story that the shot came from the bathroom window. It was well known that we had a reliable witness who saw the bathroom door open, with the light on, minutes before the shooting, and no one inside. It was empty, of course, because the shot came from the bushes. A clip from a CBS interview with a roomer who saw someone running down the hall was cut off just before the reporter showed him a photo of James, and he said that was not the man he saw. The man carrying the throw down bundle of items James was told to leave in the room (which also contained the throw down gun) dropped them in a doorway and got into the second Mustang and drove away. We had a witness who identified that Mustang as having Arkansas plates. It was parked south of James’s Mustang.
CNN even ignored evidence that James Earl Ray was not at the crime scene:
We had two witnesses (one from the Corps of Engineers) and signed statements, evidencing that James drove away from the rooming house about 20 minutes before the shooting. All of this was known and put under oath, and ignored by CNN.
CNN even pretended that one of the witnesses was "dead" when Pepper mentioned him. He was not:
It gets worse. When, I suggested to the CNN reporter that they interview the Captain, he said he was dead. They obviously did not want me to speak with him.
The pattern of misleading statements and facts by CNN show a stunning example of disinformation; an attempt to deliberately misinform the public about the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
911blogger.com is a great source of articles and information on 9/11.
However, stories on 911blogger are more valuable when the information contained is unbiased, accurate, and well sourced.
Information is valuable when it is true, and misleading when it is nottrue. Misinformation is defined as misleading information. For example, if a story is released and it contains information which is false--the story is inaccurate and misleading. How do we determine what is accurate and what is misleading? By allowing commentary on articles, users can inform and add additional sources of information to confirm, enhance, and improve articles. This is extremely valuable since evaluating information is critical for journalistic accuracy.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) on the other hand, frequently takes a different approach. Stories and articles frequently release only the information that the MSM chooses to release while blocking other information. This is a form of censorship and is a common technique of disinformation. For example, the MSM frequently blocks information on the 9/11 truth movement. There is a collective and impressive silence on much of the documented, credible, and newsworthy information about 9/11 that is published in a venue like 911blogger.
Unlike the MSM, 911blogger works differently. While there are equally a wide variety of opinions, commenting on news articles addresses the problem of inaccurate or incomplete information by allowing users to add additional information, correct errors, as well as vote on the quality of the article. This is an extremely valuable function of 911blogger.
However, voting on entries on 911blogger is ineffective and inaccurate as it stands currently. Many vote "1" on articles that probably don't deserve it, while the "average score" takes an unfair beating. Most 911blogger users seem to only vote either '1' or '10' on articles. If users only vote between these two extremes, this pretty much defeats the purpose of "keeping score" and "average scores".
Maybe a better measure of voting would be how many people vote on an article positively. If many users voted positively and only 3 or 4 vote "1" without even commenting on the article or explaining why they voted "1", this brings down the score unfairly.
However, if articles are judged by how many vote positively without a specific score (i.e. +1 or -1), this might be a stronger indicator of how much an article is valued. Like the Digg system of voting and how comments in threads are rated on 911blogger.
If 911blogger users aren't impressed by an article they frequently don't vote. If an article is well liked, many vote '10'. If users don't like an article they often just vote "1". Articles are also voted "1" for mysterious and unknown reasons.
However, if articles were voted in a Digg system, we could have 'top 911blogger stories' as voted by the users. That would be an effective way to get good 911blogger stories noticed; if people feel strongly about stories, they could get better recognition through this system of voting. As it stands, most articles appear and then pretty much disappear into the back pages of the site never to be seen from again.
If there was a weekly or monthly top 10 or 20 stories--or even of "all time", this would bring more attention to the great and valuable work continuously posted on 911blogger. A section of the site could effectively link to highly voted stories. And there is a lot of work on 911blogger that deserves to be highlighted and promoted.
911blogger is a major and valuable source of 911 stories. Part of an effective media is that good information and stories are effectively highlighted and promoted. Part of highlighting good information could be accomplished by implementing a system of voting where articles that are valued by the users get more attention with an effective ranking system. As it stands, the "average score" voting system can be easily manipulated by "1" votes. A Digg system would allow articles to be highlighted by popularity and amount of positive votes. As it stands, voting on 911blogger stories and blogs are pretty much irrelevant to how content is promoted by the site.
By promoting highly valued stories for more than just a few days on the front page, valuable and important information could be more effectively and visibly promoted. Stories that may not be chosen by moderators to be put on the front page could be partially selected based on how high stories are voted. Just like the Digg system.
Instead of a voting system that leaves 911blogger users scratching their heads about why some users voted so poorly on their hard work, this could be a more fun, effective, and media savvy centered way of presenting content.
These explosive and revealing comments about 9/11 have been completely ignored by the Mainstream Media. While talking about the 9/11 commission, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza reveals that FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds had incriminating insider information about the 9/11 attacks:
And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.
The lack of Mainstream news coverage of these views is very apparent. Fox News in a secret memo implicitly admits that there is a problem with the 'official story' of 9/11:
In fact, a similar sentiment was expressed by the 9/11 commissioners in their book Without Precedent:
"We were supposed to be independent, not necessarily confrontational. We were investigating a national catastrophe, not a White House transgression; this was 9/11, not Watergate."
One way to avoid controversy is to avoid placing blame:
“This was not something that had to happen… There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed.They simply failed.” December 17-21, 2003: 9/11 Commission Chairman Says 9/11 Attacks Were Preventable
Another gem of a quotation was provided by NIST. They were tasked with explaining the collapse of the WTC towers and Building 7 on 9/11. In response to a request for correction by 9/11 family members and scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST replied:
While NIST is "unable to provide a full explanation", Physicist Steven Jones had already made this observation when he characterized the NIST report as a "pre-collapse" report:
The NIST team fairly admits that their report'does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.' (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the official 'pre-collapse theory.'
In other words, NIST had already admitted that they couldn't, or wouldn't provide a full explanation when they specified their report would only deal with "collapse initiation". How the 110 floor World Trade Center Towers crumbled completely to the ground when they were specifically designed to survive plane crashes of the type seen on 9/11, is left unanswered by NIST.
I agree completely with this statement by Mr. Barrett and I endorse it. I believe the importance of open and civil dialog is critical for the 9/11 truth movement. However, for dialog to be possible, one side must respond to critique. If one side refuses, then dialog is impossible.
Clearly, this is an example where dialog has been closed. Furthermore, while I agree completely with Mr. Barrett's views on dialog, I believe that he has not followed his own advice:
In my opinion, these comments are antithetical to the possibility of dialog. Is it necessary to make these statements against journalists and defenders of the official story? How can this approach open others to considering the possibility of 9/11 truth? Indeed, why should it be necessary to make statements such as these when the truth about 9/11 is a powerful enough message?
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 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
