Al Qaeda and the Bogus "War on Terror"

Al Qaeda and the Bogus "War on Terror"

By Arabesque

In an editorial entitled "War on Terrorism is Bogus" Michael Meacher, a former Member of UK parliament wrote:

[The] "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.

Who is Al Qaeda? As noted by Michel Chossudovsky:

Ironically, Al Qaeda --the 'outside enemy of America' as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA. From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the 'Islamic brigades'.

As former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski explained:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

Did this support ever end? As Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed explains in Ties With Terror: The Continuity of Western-Al-Qaeda Relations in the Post-Cold War Period:

At every major strategic point in the world, we find that US and Western power is symbiotically melded – through financial, military and intelligence connections – with al-Qaeda; and further that al-Qaeda has in certain places been explicitly used as a military-intelligence asset by Western powers, particularly the United States and United Kingdom. This documentation indicates that international terrorism in the form of al-Qaeda is not merely an enemy to be fought, but rather an unruly asset to be, when possible, controlled and manipulated in the pursuit of quite specific strategic and economic interests. Worse still, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that certain elements of the policy-making establishment are perfectly cognizant that as a direct result of such policies, national security is being fundamentally and continuously undermined with repeatedly fatal consequences. Yet the same brand of policies persists. Without dwelling unnecessarily on the possible theoretical ramifications of this phenomenon, it is sufficient for me to note that these facts fundamentally challenge the entire paradigm of the ‘War on Terror’ as articulated and legitimized by the official narrative.

This "unbroken chain of links between "Al Qaeda" and Western Intelligence agencies from the 1980's through the 1990's" has also been documented by Michel Chossudovsky. This "relationship" has continued to the present day:

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."

"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."

This group has ties to the Al-Qaeda organization.

Lorie Van Auken's Speech In Front Of The NYC Ballot Initiative

See also Lorie Van Auken's Speech In Front Of The NYC Ballot Initiative by Jon Gold on 911blogger and the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign.

How the 9/11 Commission Got it Wrong - an Introduction to 9/11 Skepticism on YouTube

How the 9/11 Commission Got it Wrong - an Introduction to 9/11 Skepticism on YouTube

From Reprehensor on 911blogger:

If Shenon's book was your introduction to the simple fact that the 9/11 Commission failed in its mandate on several levels, then you are probably unaware that serious criticism of the 9/11 Commission was entered into the Congressional Record of the 109th Congress. This criticism was the result of a Congressional Briefing conducted by former Congressional Representative, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. (McKinney is currently seeking the Presidential nomination for the Green Party of the United States.)

The briefing was held on July 22nd, 2005, subsequently broadcast by C-SPAN, and studiously ignored by the corporate press. A comprehensive collation of the briefing has not been made available online, but thanks to the magic of YouTube, I have chopped the most pertinent testimonies from that day into neat 10 minute segments that are easily digestible for the busy internet surfer. You may have seen some of the footage from the briefing in the documentary, "Press for Truth", where Lorie Van Auken talked about her husband's fate on 9/11. Beyond that, not much of this footage has been circulating on the net.

source: http://www.911blogger.com/node/14030

Michael Ruppert and Peter Dale Scott

Michael Ruppert and Peter Dale Scott
911 - Aftermath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11 (2 of 3) - Live Panel
GNN
48 min 19 sec - Aug 9, 2006

9/11 Cartoon: Steel Melting Double Straw-man

9/11 Cartoon: Steel Melting Double Straw-man

By Arabesque

A blog entitled Respectful Insolence posts a 9/11 Cartoon The "troof" hurts...

The cartoon asks the question "can fire melt steel" and gives a misleading answer.

Yes, fire can melt steel, but only in special conditions as Dr. Thomas Eagar explains:

“The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

Ironically, this cartoon found underneath the blogger's tagline, "The miscellaneous ramblings of a surgeon/scientist on medicine, quackery, science, pseudoscience" is actually a double straw-man. First of all the NIST report denies molten steel (likely because acknowledging molten steel would be very problematic for the official story--in contrast to what this cartoon would have us believe). Secondly, molten steel can only occur with the conditions described above by Eagar.

Did the steel melt at the WTC as denied by NIST? According to eyewitness testimony of "pools of molten metal", analysis, and other evidence; yes it did. With very unusual temperatures.

"The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust (table 1) are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings (table 2). The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C). We wish to call attention to this discrepancy: the official view implicating fires as the main cause for the ultimate collapses of the WTC Towers and WTC 7 (FEMA [13], NIST [15] ) is inadequate to explain this temperature gap and is therefore incomplete at best. The formation of numerous metal-rich spherules is also remarkable, for it implies formation of high-temperature droplets of the molten metals, dispersed in the air where they cool to form spherules." Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe.

Is this the only evidence of molten steel? Hardly. In fact, "a fire protection engineer and two science professors" published a brief report about steel taken from Building 7, revealing:

"a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

What does it all mean? The NIST report denies this evidence even though some of it made its way into the previous FEMA report. This is exemplified by John Gross, who denied the existence of molten steel:

There is compelling evidence that the steel melted, and no official explanation has been given. Instead, official reports have been forced to deny the existence of molten steel to support the official story that fires caused the Towers and Building 7 to collapse.

Contrary to the insinuations of this cartoon, the truth is more complicated than the question: "can fire melt steel?" Indeed it can, but not in the conditions we are told existed within the World Trade Center on 9/11. It is an indisputable fact that jet fuel fires cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt steel. Not only this, the buildings were designed to survive plane crashes and jet fuel fires of the kind seen on 9/11.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Architects for 9/11 Truth, and others are calling for an investigation to answer what really caused the molten steel and the unusual temperatures observed.

10 Questions About 9/11 Answered

10 Questions About 9/11 Answered

By Arabesque

1. When did the conspiracy theories start to come around?

The 9/11 official story is a "conspiracy" of 19 hijackers and Osama Bin Laden. In response to the attacks, 9/11 Family members demanded an investigation. Mindy Kleinberg, in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission:

“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”

The 9/11 family members demanded accountability for the 9/11 attacks. Who was held responsible for the attacks? Instead of reprimand, key officials were promoted:

Former Senator Gary Hart observes that, “in terms of accountability, I think this is one of the great mysteries of the last three or four years. Three thousand Americans died three years ago, and no one lost his or her job over it. A president who says that he is a strong president, and those around him say he is, did not fire anyone. Either he was misled, in which case, somebody should have been fired. Or he misled us, in which case he should be fired.”[4] Senator Charles Grassley similarly noted that “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11. It seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.” According to testimony given to Congress these statements are accurate; not one single individual within the CIA, FBI, and NSA has been reprimanded, punished, or fired for the events of 9/11.

2. Do you think we will ever find out the "truth"? Explain.

It depends. Key facts will remain unknown unless another investigation takes place. Will the truth ever be known? Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern explains that, "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.” In other words, while the entire truth may or may not be known, a great deal of the facts are available to us. Only another investigation could get answers to some key questions.

3. What do you think happened to the Pentagon on 9/11?

A commercial 757 airliner impact as explained in an excellent analysis by Jim Hoffman. There is significant controversy over this among skeptics of the official story. A significant reason for this is that physical evidence can be ambiguous in real life situations. However, the overwhelming eyewitness testimony reports of an impact, plane parts, light poles, and other evidence points to a plane impact. The key question here is why was there no interception of the incoming plane 80 minutes after the first off course plane? As Norman Mineta said in testimony to the 9/11 commission (but omitted from the final report):

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

4. What do you think happened to the World Trade Center on 9/11?

The official reports have been criticized as inadequate. The official NIST report admits that:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

And also, the 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

In other words, the 20 million dollar report does not explain or even offer a theory to explain how the towers collapsed completely to the ground. The pancake theory was discarded and abandoned by NIST and the report only attempts to show that fires initiated the collapse. For these and other reasons, many have offered alternative explanations for the collapse of the towers. I believe that a controlled demolition was responsible for the destruction of the towers, but we need an investigation to determine how this was accomplished and who exactly was responsible.

5. What do you think happened to Flight 93 on 9/11?

Based on eyewitness reports, and the wide range of the debris found, I believe that the plane was shot down. I believe that this may have been kept from the public to prevent questions about why the other planes were not shot down. It is standard and routine procedure to intercept planes if they even manage to go off course or lose radio contact:

“Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.”[13] —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
“If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.”[14] —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

In fact, Laura Brown of the FAA testified to the 9/11 commission that:

“Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service… The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD… The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest.”

9/11 Commission, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003.

6. Were you in any of the areas where the attacks occurred at the time? If so, did you think any mischievous activity was going on?

No, I was not directly impacted by the attacks. I saw them on the news later in the day. I was surprised that hijackers were identified so quickly, the collapse of building 7 which looked like a perfect controlled demolition, and the Pentagon scene, which I found it surprising that a plane was supposed to have crashed there. The collapse of the World Trade Center looked shocking, and I waited to hear the official explanation, which I now reject.

7. What do you think about the 9/11 commission report?

It is a deliberate cover-up through the omission and distortion of key facts. After pushing for the 9/11 commission, the 9/11 family members asked 400 questions and got 30% of them answered. The 9/11 Family member based steering committee judged the 9/11 commission "derelict" in its duties.

A senator claimed that NORAD "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people." Further to this, “suspicion of [Pentagon] wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member [9/11] 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.”

The 9/11 commission report omitted key pieces of evidence and testimony that was even reported to them directly, some of which was listed here (see Norman Mineta and Laura Brown testimony). Other key facts and questions were not addressed, such as the War Games and their impact on the attacks. Some officials gave contradictory and even false statements that were not seriously addressed or questioned by the commissioners.

8. Why did you start believing in these conspiracy theories?

Not all "conspiracy theories" are true. Not all theories account for all of the facts or offer the best explanation. There are many theories about 9/11 that are spread deliberately to discredit legitimate questions about the attack through guilt by association. The phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used by the Mainstream media to silence and intimidate discussion about serious questions about the attacks that many family members have had since the beginning. For example, only 30% of their 400 questions were ever addressed by the 9/11 commission. This is a "conspiracy fact", not a "theory".

As well, the media has reported extremely damaging facts about 9/11 only to never follow up on their own facts or put them together.

Furthermore, "Conspiracy theory" is a term often used in a misleading and biased way. The 9/11 official story is a conspiracy theory of outlandish incompetence. It alleges that terrorists successfully evaded a multi-billion-dollar defense establishment including NORAD, standard FAA intercept procedures, US airbases, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, international intelligence agencies and more, without any significant or effective resistance. To believe the official story, you have to dismiss countless contradictory facts left out of the 9/11 commission report and believe that it is acceptable that instead of reprimand, those most responsible for preventing the attacks were promoted. The head of NORAD--responsible for air defenses on 9/11 was promoted three days after the attack.

9. What are some good books, articles, websites, etc. on 9/11 conspiracy theories?

There has been great research into 9/11, but there has also been misleading information spread by even the most careful and credible researchers and authors (disinformation and misinformation). Some present accurate information mixed with inaccurate information. I recommend, 9/11 Truth: Essential Reading

10. Can you tell me any information that I have not thought of?

False Flag attacks are commonly and historically used as a basis to start wars. Many times, politicians want wars and need to convince the population to agree with them and support them. Many believe that 9/11 was a False Flag attack designed to gain support for gaining access to oil. In fact, this was a stated policy goal of PNAC, whose members are prominent figures in the Bush Administration.

Karl Rove, Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission and Mythmaking

Karl Rove, Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission and Mythmaking

By Arabesque

Some new details about the 9/11 Commission are seen in a review of the book The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation:

In a revelation bound to cast a pall over the 9/11 Commission, Philip Shenon will report in a forthcoming book that the panel’s executive director, Philip Zelikow, engaged in “surreptitious” communications with presidential adviser Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials during the commission’s 20-month investigation into the 9/11 attacks... Karen Heitkotter, the commission’s executive secretary, was taken aback on June 23, 2003 when she answered the telephone for Zelikow at 4:40 PM and heard a voice intone, “This is Karl Rove. I’m looking for Philip.” Heitkotter knew that Zelikow had promised the commissioners he would cut off all contact with senior officials in the Bush administration. Nonetheless, she gave Zelikow’s cell phone number to Rove. The next day there was another call from Rove at 11:35 AM. Subsequently, Zelikow would claim that these calls pertained to his “old job” at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

According to Wikipedia, Philip Zelikow

worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

The creation of public myths? Interestingly, Mr. Rove is alleged to share this specialty and was believed to have said this in 2002, just before the opening of the 9/11 commission:

“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. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’”

Steve Alten's Perceptive Criticism of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Steve Alten's Perceptive Criticism of the 9/11 Truth Movement

By Arabesque

In an interview with Michael Wolsey, Shell Game author Steve Alten supplied a relevant and important criticism of the 9/11 truth movement. Wolsey's asked, "Do you personally believe that the attacks were allowed to succeed... or do you believe that there was participation... 'inside job'... and if the latter is the case, did you intentionally tone that down to invite other people in who might be hostile to that idea?" Alten criticized the 9/11 truth movement while supplying his answer:

Steve Alten: "...My take on this is that if a real investigation were to happen--a real one, that the trail of evidence would lead directly back to the white house... they would be found guilty of treason. For me to say "let it happen" versus "made it happen"... my objective is to stay above the fray of the 9/11 truth movement.... the 9/11 truth movement, for the terrific work it has done is fragmented. That doesn't help anybody... We need to spread this information out to the masses... let's put it this way. A crime happened. The biggest crime in the history of the world. The perpetrators got away with it so far. The trap has been placed within the movement... I've had people email me and... I've been attacked on blogs... 'Alten doesn't believe in this and Alten doesn't believe in that, so how could we possibly support his book?'... That's a trap.

Michael Wolsey: If you don't agree with everything I say, you must be bad... I've been attacked ruthlessly for that, so I can relate.

Steve Alten: ...it doesn't solve anything to force your opinion on one group or another where you have to accept everyone's opinion... A crime happened. There was a reason for that crime....

The 9/11 truth "it must be bad because you don't agree 100% with what I believe, therefore you are a shill" syndrome is very apparent in some quarters. Ultimately, if the book can get people asking questions and doing research (along with presenting credible facts of its own), I think that would make it successful for what it is. Ultimately, we need many types of media getting people to look at the facts for themselves and get educated.

As I wrote in an essay on the false MIHOP/LIHOP dichotomy:

Clearly, the 9/11 attacks were both ‘made’ and ‘allowed’ to happen in a carefully planned, complex, psychological operation—they would have been impossible without the use of both of these components. The misleading and false LIHOP/ MIHOP paradigm avoids the obvious and meaningful subtleties of reality. As Blogger Jeff Wells comments, “Binary thinking is a mind cancer that retards insight, and unfortunately flourishes in conspiracy culture. ‘The beginning of wisdom,’ said Terrence McKenna, ‘is our ability to accept an inherent messiness in our explanation of what's going on.’”

This false dichotomy in my opinion could be deliberately exploited to control and disrupt the 9/11 truth movement by creating fabricated divisiveness through the inaccurate and misleading use of language, as I detail in my articles Disinformation and the False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy and 9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries.

I came across Michael Ruppert's praise of Atlen's Shell Game on Amazon.com:

Steve's absolute genius is in his ability to make the unpalatable irresistible. It lies also in his ability to separate research "ice cream" from research "bs". "Children", hucksters and some with more sinister motives have hijacked the so-called 9-11 "truth movement." That clear thinking is what makes "The Shell Game" slice through consciousness and reach the soul like a hot scalpel through butter.

Mr. Ruppert's opinion is respected by many and I know that he does not give praise easily. According to Alten, Mr. Ruppert met with him after reading his book to advise him on the dark aspects of the 9/11 truth movement and the dangers of speaking out for 9/11 truth. Not too long after the announcement of his book, Alten was attacked by dubious "members" of the 9/11 truth movement. Ruppert's praise was enough to encourage me to get a copy and I will write a review of Alten's Shell Game after I get a chance to read it.

The NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign

The NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign:

Our Mission

The NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign is committed to a thorough, transparent, and non-partisan examination of the facts surrounding the crimes of September 11, 2001, to be accomplished through the creation of an independent, investigative body, a Citizen’s Commission, staffed by competent, professional individuals of the highest caliber. The Commissioners will be mandated to search for the truth, wherever that search leads, without prejudice or preconception, and to recommend the best course, as they see it, to achieve justice for all those involved in, and affected by, the 9/11 terror attacks.

We neither endorse nor espouse any theories or conclusions other than those that will grow out of a responsible, thoughtful, judicious, and comprehensive examination of the facts. We welcome and encourage the support of all Americans, as well as concerned citizens around the world.

We are sponsoring a November 2008 General Election ballot initiative which will allow the voters of New York City to mandate, through public referendum, directly and democratically, the formation of a new Citizen’s Commission to Re-Investigate 9/11. Armed with subpoena power, the Citizen’s Commission will re-examine the facts and the hundreds of unanswered questions surrounding the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and their aftermath.

We do so because we firmly believe that the victims of the 9/11 attacks have yet to receive proper justice. We firmly believe as Americans we have a moral obligation to take the necessary steps to obtain that justice.

We assert as fact that no authorized, sanctioned body at any level of government has properly investigated the crimes of 9/11, nor the environmental aftermath of the World Trade Center collapses. The extent to which these environmental consequences have negatively affected the health of first responders and others exposed is well known. The fact that almost none of the more than $1.5 billion allocated for the healthcare of our nation’s heroes has been utilized for its intended purpose is a national disgrace. Our heroes deserve better than this. They need medication, not litigation; respect, not neglect.

We believe that Congress and our politicians have forsaken us. Now is the time for all patriotic Americans to unite-in-action in order to secure justice for our fallen, justice for our heroes, and justice for our country and the world.

And we can.

New York State Home Rule Law #37 allows for the citizens, through ballot referendum, to vote directly on whether or not a new investigation will take place. In doing so, it allows for the creation of a Citizen’s Commission to Re-Investigate 9/11.

We, of the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative, have initiated a petition drive in order to secure the required number of signatures of registered voters necessary to get the referendum on the November 2008 New York City ballot. We have until May 1, 2008 to do so.

About the investigation:

How will a new investigation proceed?

This investigation will be non-partisan and independent of government control. A panel of Commissioners will conduct hearings to evaluate evidence provided by teams of researchers including new evidence since the termination of the Kean/Hamilton Commission. These teams will compile evidence on every possible category of investigation. They will question witnesses, experts, and issue subpoenas when necessary. The scientists, legal counsel, researchers and investigators who make up the commission are all committed to finding the truth, following the trail of evidence, wherever it may lead. Finally, the Commission will publish a one or more reports.

Does this investigation support a 'conspiracy theory?'

No. The 9/11 Ballot Initiative is committed to an independent, thorough, transparent, and non-partisan examination of the facts surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. The Commissioners will be mandated to search for the truth, wherever that search leads, without prejudice or preconception, and to recommend the best course, as they see it, to achieve justice for all those involved in, and affected by, the terror attacks upon the United States.

The quest for truth and justice is our sole agenda. We neither endorse nor espouse any a priori theories or conclusions other than those that will grow out of a responsible, thoughtful, judicious, and comprehensive examination of the facts. We welcome and encourage the support of all Americans, as well as concerned citizens throughout the world.

Will a new investigation work to obtain justice and necessary benefits for 9/11 First Responders and others who were at the scene?

Yes. Up to 70% of First Responders and others afflicted have become ill or died, or will likely become ill in the future. There are also reports of birth defects in children of the afflicted workers. The illnesses that have been reported in workers include cancers of the lung, throat, tongue, testicles, breasts, bladder, kidney, colon, intestine, and rare blood cancers, as well as other cancers such as lymphoma, leukemia, Hodgkin's disease and myeloma. The government has yet to allocate the necessary funds to deal with this health crisis, consistently refusing to acknowledge that any of these people are sick because of 9/11. Congress allocated $1 billion to a fund for First Responders and other injured parties, under the name World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company, but so far, none of the over 8,000 sick and injured workers claims filed toward this fund have been granted. To make matters worse, many have suffering terrible financial losses from medical expenses and inability to work.

The Petition:

THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY DESIRED AND APPROVED AS AN INITIATIVE FOR ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER, TO BE PRESENTED TO VOTERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AT A GENERAL ELECTION OF VOTERS:

1. The title of this local law is “Act to Create a Temporary Independent Commission to Investigate 9/11”.
2. An independent, temporary NYC commission (the “Commission”) is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, fact-driven investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings.
3. The Commission shall consist of up to 15 Commissioners including Dr. William Pepper (international attorney), Ralph Schoenman (historian), Dr. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 astronaut), Lincoln Chafee (former Senator), Splitting-the-Sky (Mohawk tribal member), Lorie Van Auken (9/11 widow), Ed Asner (actor/activist), Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (Roman Catholic) and others to be appointed by majority vote of the Commission members to bring the Commission up to as many as 15 members and to fill any vacancies thereafter from nominees proposed by any member of the Commission. The Commission shall have a duty to maintain the number of Commissioners at no less than nine and to fill vacancies promptly.
4. The Commission shall act by majority vote, adopt its own Rules of Procedure and shall choose its Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary.
5.The Commission shall have the power to issue subpoenas for documents and testimony, take and record testimony, and to apply to the appropriate federal, state, out-of-state or foreign courts for the issuance of subpoenas, Letters Rogatory, or Applications for Mutual Assistance, for service upon persons, corporations, agencies or other entities beyond the subpoena power granted to the Commission.
6. The Commission shall have no authority to act beyond 3 years from the date of their creation by the voters of NYC, except by extension of term and financing through NYC legislation enacted by the City Council or Mayor, or by vote of the electorate at a general election, pursuant to appropriate statute such as Section 37 of the Municipal Home Rule Law or Section 40 of the New York City Charter or other law.
7. The Commission shall have a budget of $10,000,000 per year, for the conduct of its investigation and related activities. Financing shall be entirely drawn from private contributions. No public funds shall be requested or accepted. Pledges and/or promissory notes of specific contributions from wealthy private individuals are being obtained with payment subject to enactment of the Initiative by the voters of New York City. A substantial five figure seed money fund has been established as of January 2008, and a world wide internet fund raising campaign has been launched. In addition, four prominent citizens have pledged substantial matching fund contributions. Celebrity parties, concerts and other fund raising gatherings and activities are also being planned to take place throughout the months of the Petition drive. Cumulatively, these sources will provide for the funding of the investigation.
8. Commission disbursements shall require the signatures of at least two Commissioners serving under the Treasurer on the Commission’s Finance Committee which shall consist of a total of three Commissioners appointed by the Commission. The Commission’s finances and accounts shall be audited each year by an independent public accounting firm appointed by the Commission.
9. The Commission will also endeavor to consider the effects of the 9/11 attacks on the health and well being of police, firefighters, the enormous numbers of other first responders, local residents and others affected, and examine ways and means of alleviating the health care crisis which afflicts many of the above through the enforcement of their the right to health care services and compensation.
10. As a law-enforcement agency, the Commission shall have the right not to publicly disclose activities of a secret or confidential nature and shall have the duty of recording the taking of testimony by film or video, and the duty of providing an opportunity for CSpan and other television networks, stations and programs to broadcast Commission proceedings on a live or other basis.
11. Each Commissioner shall be paid a base annual salary of $112,500 (or such other base salary as is then being paid to members of the New York City Council) and the same benefits received by such members, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred on behalf of the Commission, economy air and train fares to and from a Commissioner’s residence outside of New York City.
12. Commissioners may come from any part of the world and shall not be required to maintain a residence in New York City or New York State.
13. The Commissioners are not required to devote 100% or substantially all of their time to the work of the Commission and it is expected that Commissioners will be able to continue with non-conflicting activities.
14. The Commission by a majority vote shall have the right, to seek indictments in any relevant Court located in the City of New York, or elsewhere and, at its discretion, to work with existing prosecutorial agencies or to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor under Section 701 of the New York County Law.
15. Accordingly, the Commission shall have the power to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor anywhere within New York State or in any other State, country or jurisdiction.
16. The Commission as a temporary investigative office of New York City shall, during its lifetime, enjoy the same immunities, privileges and prosecutorial discretion granted under law to elected prosecutors.
17.No New York City employee, past or present, shall have the right to avoid testifying before the Commission based on any prior agreements not to disclose or testify with any officials or agencies of New York City or other governmental agency; the Commission has the power to maintain secrecy and confidentiality of testimony or other disclosures where appropriate.
18. The Commission shall have the power to hire and fire clerical and other employees, attorneys, accountants, paralegals, experts, consultants and others in performance of their respective duties.
19. The Commission shall have the power to enter into contracts; and to create and enforce its rules.
20. This law shall be construed liberally to enable the Commission to conduct an independent investigation into 9/11, and issue one or more reports on the Commission’s investigation, and create one or more websites to provide public information about the work of the Commission.
21 If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.

source: http://www.nyc911initiative.org/PetitionFinal-01M.pdf

Dr. Pepper talks about this Ballot initiative near the end of this Hartford, November 3rd, 2007 presentation:

Jenny Sparks on 'no-planer' Arabesque

The so-called 9/11 "debunkers" are well known for their snarky comments in responses to commentary by 9/11 "truthers". In some cases their enthusiasm for debunking causes them to play loose with the facts. Ironically this is one of their main charges against 9/11 "truthers".

As Jenny Sparks notes, I was called a "no-planer" (someone who believes that planes were not used on 9/11):

Take a moment to enjoy the hilarity of a "debunker" calling a real 9/11 Sceptic a no-planer because he couldn't bother to do 2 mins worth of research by reading through the article. And Alex isn't the only one with this problem. Patrick Curley is a terminal case. These days he's reduced to being Nico Haupt's stenographer because he's incapable of researching his way out of a paper bag. So, in addition to being dishonest merchants of twaddle, the disinfo crew is just a bunch of lazy old sods.And here's me laughing me arse off at the lot. Now who's clueless, Our Alex?

Anyone who visits my blog can view my compiled list of eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon attack. Let's just say the amount of effort that I put into this and other articles makes the false "no-planer" accusation hilariously insulting.

A Response to "Arabesque's False Unity Crusade" by Real Truther (a.k.a Gretavo)

A Response to Arabesque's False Unity Crusade by Real Truther (a.k.a Gretavo)

By Arabesque

I will answer several points in a response to my article 9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries. Real Truther begins:

Arabesque is currently riding high as an authority on what is disinformation and COINTELPRO in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Arguments over this kind of claim to authority is one of the things that made Real Truther persona-non-grata at 911blogger, so its resurfacing with a veneer of sober objectivity begs for some good-ol' fashioned "disunifying" critique.

To my knowledge, I have never made such a claim that I am an "authority" or "expert". Obviously, Real Truther must think highly (enough) of me to put such effort into writing this factually challenged piece, and for that, well thanks—I’m flattered. I won’t dispute the fact that others have valued my work, but I can’t control what others think or write about me.

This pretense to sanctity on behalf of certain individuals, groups, or events is to me a fairly reliable red flag.

I do not disagree, but slander, false insinuations without evidence, and personal attacks are ad-homienm. However, if something can be proven it is fair game.

Truth is inherently immune from debunking, so why would anyone who knows that they are right feel threatened by questions, as opposed to relishing the opportunity to establish (as many times as necessary) the validity of one's position?

Indeed. But any good politician knows that you can smear your opponent with a false line of questioning and insinuations without a shred of evidence. This is a classic character assassination technique. It is helpful to look at the facts, rather than the man who is talking about them. After all, many times it is a diversion when it is the facts that are at issue, not the man.

Naturally I agree with Arabesque that COINTELPRO and disinfo are both real issues that must be acknowledged and dealt with.

I agree. This means that everyone has a right to discuss the relevant issues without falsely being labeled (even by those in disagreement with you) as “experts”. Unless it is meant as a compliment, of course.

But I would go a step further and point out the danger of simplifying the practice of determining who or what is and isn't. Arabesque's thesis centers around the premise that unity is good for the movement, that divisiveness is sown to derail it, and that the disinfo crowd does the sowing. I won't disagree, but I would say that we would be foolish to put unity above truth.

The key word here is “truth”. Who decides what is “truth”, and by whose “authority”? Here Real Truther reveals his hidden hypocrisy. He accuses me of a “false unity crusade” and of being an “authority” (when I have never claimed such a thing), and then he makes the statement we shouldn’t put “unity above truth” with the obvious, but hidden assumption that Real Truther knows the truth by virtue of his own "authority". This is very clear since his confidence in his own "authority" leads him to prolifically name “shills” based on their perceived heresy.

"Putting unity above truth"? This is a key point that is misunderstood by Real Truther. To explain, I would never advocate “unity by agreement”, since such a thing is impossible even in concept within the 9/11 truth movement. Instead, I am actually advocating “unity by common cause” with disagreements approached with civility. This is the main thesis of my article which Real Truther clearly misrepresents. Not surprisingly, if the “truth” is controversial there will always be disagreement. Free debate and acknowledgment of differing views without personal attacks and baseless character assassination can only help us get to the actual truth by focusing on the actual issues rather than the people advocating them. Mostly, this is a diversion--unless of course, some believe that the "purpose" of the 9/11 truth movement is to endlessly gossip about its members—not get criminals prosecuted and named for their obvious and blatant crimes.

Does 9/11 Truth really need the same kind of rhetoric? Are the democrats and republicans in any way overtly united?

Indeed, the 9/11 truth movement does not need rhetoric of any kind. We certainly don't need the personalized ad-hominem attack rhetoric campaigns of the kind commonly seen in many 9/11 forums. Aside from this point, the above statement is another false analogy unless it is assumed the 9/11 truth movement is not united in the desire for another investigation or agree with the basic premise that a crime was committed and that the true perpetrators were therefore not held accountable.

Indeed, my premise is that we don’t need the rhetoric that only certain members of the truth movement “have the truth” by some divine “authority” to name anyone who disagrees with this “obvious and unquestionable truth” a “shill”. Indeed, to complain about “authority” while calling people who disagree “shills” while naming oneself "real truther" is the ultimate form of "authoritarian" hypocrisy that I could possibly imagine. I offered the suggestion that we can treat each other as equals and discuss disagreement with civility. The result of this "suggestion" was to be called a "shill" by "Real Truther".

Moving on to the Pentagon, Real Truther writes:

Absent any conclusive evidence of a 757 having crashed into the Pentagon, evidence that should exist in spades given the video surveillance cameras all over the Pentagon, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that a 757 did crash there.

Of course, I don’t have a problem with this statement. Nor do I have a problem with anyone who is “agnostic” about what happened at the Pentagon. The US Government should end this intentional controversy and release the videos. Of course, how we get them is the real question--not who believes what happened.

The subtext is clear--let's leave the Pentagon out of our discussions...

I never implied that the Pentagon shouldn't be discussed. Another straw-man.

…or if we must discuss it, let's avoid making anyone look like a fool for supporting the OCT on that score. Let's pretend that it does not raise suspicion when people seem so willing to take on faith one aspect of the OCT but not others.

Not on “faith”, but “evidence”. Sometimes evidence is ambiguous and the truth is not obvious. I dare apologize for questioning Real Truther's divine “authority” over my “faith”, but many of the most credible 9/11 websites and researchers advocate pro-757 arguments. Of course, let's not get into arguments from authority, as that is an obvious fallacy already much discussed here. But it is interesting that even former hardcore "no-757" theorists like the Loose Change filmmakers and David Ray Griffin have changed their tune to “agnostic” from their previous and clear-cut “no-757” point of view. Why would they change their minds unless the evidence was far from conclusive?

When Arabesque talks about ‘divisive issues’, in other words, he seems to be referring to issues that should not be divisive.

That’s the point I was trying to make.

Why is he trying to make us think that those are divisive issues then? …Certainly he doesn't think that people will stop discussing them, does he?

What I actually meant is that ad-hominem attacks (i.e. “you friggin shill!!!!” --see below) and fighting that occur over disagreements are divisive, not the issues themselves. People, not ideas fight with each other. I already explained above that I don’t believe in “unity by agreement”. This is yet another straw-man in which Real Truther confuses “unity by agreement” with my thesis of “unity by common cause”.

Surely he can't believe that confronted with indisputable evidence that we were lied to about 9/11 in such a monumental way that the existence of disagreement on certain aspects is going to cripple the movement with disunity, or does he?

In fact, this is exactly how COINTELPRO has worked in the past to render movements ineffective. A major part of this strategy was to intentionally create hostility within activist groups to halt progress towards movement goals.

For the definition of an ad hominem argument, Arabesque just happens to find the
perfect source in a site defending the official holocaust narrative… as far as authorities on disinfo and dishonesty go, Arabesque has just joined John Albanese in the Pantheon of Self-Referential Experts.

I have to admit I was very puzzled by this comment. Perhaps, I should have known better to accidentally and carelessly quote a website which discusses Real Truther's “Self-Referential” area of “Authority”--the Holocaust.

And finally, a word to Arabesque--kiss my divisive ass, you friggin' shill! [Helpfully written in a size viewable for the elderly and reading impaired.

My apologizes to "Real Truther"--the name of a self-appointed "authority" if there ever was one, but I don’t kiss burning straw.