Updates from September, 2009 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Scavpor 2:36 pm on September 16, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   

    News Report On Placement of Long Range Acoustic Device at Town Hall Meeting 

    September 16, 2009

    In the video here, San Diego cops promise they will not use LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) against demonstrators. If that is the case, why was the device placed at a town hall meeting in San Diego?

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/news-report-on-placement-of-long-range-acoustic-device-at-town-hall-meeting/

  • Scavpor 2:32 pm on September 16, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , domestic terror, , local cops, , , , ,   

    Local Cops Get Access to Pentagon “Domestic Terror” Database 

    Kurt Nimmo
    September 16, 2009

    On Monday, the Pentagon posted a news release on its website announcing the DoD and the Department of Homeland Security will “grant select state and major urban area fusion center personnel access to classified terrorism-related information residing in DoD’s classified network.” Federalized cops around the country will now be able to “access specific terrorism-related information” on Pentagon and DHS computer systems “in order to detect, deter, prevent and respond to homeland security threats.”

    These “homeland security threats” have nothing to do with al-Qaeda or Muslims radicalized by the CIA in the 1980s.

    In June Infowars posted an article revealing how the Pentagon indoctrinates its employees and soldiers. A multiple choice question included on a Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course required for all DoD personnel asked the following question: “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?” The correct answer was “protests.” Of course, this nothing new — the Pentagon, the FBI, and the police have considered political activists terrorists for decades, a fact revealed Senator Frank Church’s Select Committee on Intelligence in the 1970s.

    A FOIA request in 2006 by the ACLU revealed widespread surveillance of the antiwar movement during Bush’s reign. “The documents come in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU earlier this year after evidence surfaced that the Pentagon was secretly conducting surveillance of protest activities, anti-war organizations and groups opposed to military recruitment policies. The Pentagon shared the information with other government agencies through the Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database,” noted an ACLU press release. “The TALON database was intended to track groups or individuals with links to terrorism, but the documents released today show that the Pentagon gathered information on anti-war protesters using sources from the Department of Homeland Security, local police departments and FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces.”

    TALON, short for Threat and Local Observation Notice, was authorized in 2002 by then Deputy Defense Secretary and high-level neocon Paul D. Wolfowitz. The database was maintained by the United States Air Force. On August 21, 2007, the US Defense Department announced that it would shut down the database, along with the secretive and classified CIFA that was given responsibility for analyzing the TALON reports. Many civil libertarians applauded the decision. However, data from TALON was not sent to the dumpster — it was migrated over to the FBI and included in its Guardian database. The Guardian Threat Tracking System, created in 2004, was created by the FBI “to manage the resolution of threats and suspicious incidents.”

    Local cops with federal security clearances will now be able to access TALON and related data. “Increasing the breadth of law enforcement that have access to terrorism-related data will further improve the ability of fusion centers to prevent, detect, deter, and respond to terrorist attacks, and advance the combined missions of DHS and DoD to protect the nation’s security,” largely from “domestic terrorists” and “extremists” of the sort spelled out by the DHS in their now infamous “rightwing extremism” report.

    In other words, the next time the cops pull you over because you have a “Don’t Tread On Me” bumper sticker on your car — designated as terrorist symbolism by the MIAC report — they will be calling in to see if you’re a “homeland security threat.”

    “As fusion centers gain more and more access to Americans’ private information, the information about them being made available to the American public remains woefully inadequate,” according to Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “There is a stunning lack of oversight at these fusion centers and, as we’ve seen, these centers are rapidly becoming a breeding ground for overzealous intelligence activities. Opening the door for domestic law enforcement to gain access to classified military intelligence coupled with no guidelines restricting the military’s role in fusion centers is a recipe for disaster.”

    It is not a “recipe for disaster” — it is a recipe for a police state that rivals anything accomplished by East Germany’s Stazi, the KGB, SIDE, DINA, or other alphabet soup secret and political police organizations.

    Obama will facilitate the process when he extends the USA Patriot Act later this year. The Patriot Act gives “the government the authority to access business records, operate roving wiretaps and conduct surveillance on ‘lone wolf’ suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups,” the New York Times reports today.

    As the DHS under the influence of the ADL tells us, the typical “lone wolf” is not a fellow traveler of the CIA’s al-Qaeda, but is influenced by “rightwing extremism,” defined as Second Amendment and pro-life activists, people opposed to illegal immigration, returning veterans, and the “racists” – as Jimmy Carter would have it – opposed to the globalist agenda of Obama.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/local-cops-get-access-to-pentagon-domestic-terror-database/

  • Scavpor 2:30 pm on September 16, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Federal Prison, , , Memphis, , , ,   

    Federal Prison Under Swine Flu Quarantine in Memphis 

    Shane Myers
    September 16, 2009

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    MEMPHIS, TN – A federal prison in Memphis has been quarantined because of an outbreak of Swine Flu, according to a court document.

    United States Attorney Lawrence J. Laurenzi says in the document, prisoners are not allowed to leave FCI Memphis for court appearances because of the H1N1 quarantine.

    Laurenzi said, “The United States Marshall’s Service has advised that the facility will reassess the situation on September 21, 2009.”

    Prison officials have not released any information about the situation at this time.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/federal-prison-under-swine-flu-quarantine-in-memphis/

  • Scavpor 2:25 pm on September 16, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    White House collects Web users’ data without notice 

    Audrey Hudson
    The Washington Times
    September 16, 2009

    The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.

    Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

    “The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example,” he said.

    Read entire article

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/white-house-collects-web-users-data-without-notice/

  • Scavpor 2:22 pm on September 16, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , promises, , , , , warrantless spying, warrantless wiretapping   

    Obama Pushes For Renewal Of Warrantless Spying On Americans 

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Wednesday, September 16, 2009

    President Barack Obama has once again betrayed his promise to restore liberties eviscerated by the Bush regime by pushing Congress to renew Patriot Act provisions that allow for warrantless spying on American citizens, even in cases where there is no link to terrorism whatsoever.

    According to a Wired News report, the “Obama administration has told Congress it supports renewing three provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at year’s end, measures making it easier for the government to spy within the United States.”

    Obama’s support for the provisions should come as little surprise because he first voted for warrantless wiretapping of Americans in 2008 when he was an Illinois Senator, while also lending support for immunizing the nation’s telecommunications companies from lawsuits charging them with being complicit in the Bush administration’s wiretapping program.

    One of the provisions Obama is pushing to renew is the so-called “lone wolf” provision, enacted in 2004, which allows for the electronic monitoring of an individual without the government having to prove that the case has any relation whatsoever to terrorism or a foreign power. This is in effect a carte blanche for the government to use every method at their disposal to spy on any American citizen they choose.

    The “lone wolf” provision is opposed by the ACLU, whose legislative counsel Michelle Richardson told Wired, “The justification for FISA and these lower standards and letting it operate in secret was all about terrorist groups and foreign governments, that they posed a unique threat other than the normal criminal element. This lone wolf provision undercuts that justification.”

    Another Patriot Act provision Obama wants Congress to renew gives the government access to business, library and medical records, with the authorities generally having to prove that the investigation is terrorism related. However, since according to Homeland Security guidelines the new breed of terrorist is classified as someone who supports a third party, puts a political bumper sticker on their car, is part of the alternative media, or merely someone who disagrees with the authorities’ official version of events on any given issue, the scope for the government to use this power against their political adversaries is wide open.

    The third provision Obama is pushing to renew allows a FISA court to grant “roving wiretaps” without the government having to even identify their target. This is another carte blanche power that gives the state the power to monitor telephone calls, e mails and any other form of electronic communication.

    Barack Obama swept into office on a mandate of “change” and a commitment to restore liberties that were eviscerated under the Bush regime. Despite promising to do so, he has failed completely to overturn Bush signing statements and executive orders that, according to Obama, “trampled on liberties.” Indeed, despite promising to end the use of signing statements, he has continued to use them.

    Obama has failed to close Guantanamo Bay or any other CIA torture “black site” as he promised to do.

    Obama has failed in his promise to “reject the Military Commissions Act” and instead has supported the use of military commissions.

    Obama has continued to allow the rendition and torture of detainees, while protecting Bush administration officials who ordered torture from prosecution and blocking the release of evidence related to torture.

    Obama has gone even further than the Bush administration in introducing “preventative detention” of detainees, ensuring people will never get a trial.

    In restating his support for warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, Obama has once again proven that his promise of “change” was nothing more than a hollow and deceptive political platitude to ensure his election. Since he took office, Obama has betrayed almost every promise he made and effectively become nothing more than the third term of the Bush administration.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-pushes-for-renewal-of-warrantless-spying-on-americans/

  • Scavpor 2:19 pm on September 16, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   

    Why Propaganda Trumps Truth 

    Paul Craig Roberts
    September 16, 2009

    An article in the journal, Sociological Inquiry, [“There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification, Vol. 79, No. 2. (2009), pp. 142-162. [ PDF] casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda.  Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail.  Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.

    The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs.  Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality.  They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: “In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.  It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence.  Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

    What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves.  It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.

    The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability.  It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts.  Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed.  Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant “USA, USA, USA” than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.

    The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break.  The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue.  The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government.  Unlike their critics parroting the government’s line, they know what they are talking about.

    Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience:   The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours.  Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.

    Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists’ findings and Hitler’s observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do?  What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented?  Scoff some more?  Become enraged?

    Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects.  The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don’t believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.

    For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber.  One piece of “evidence” that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner.  None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily.  Semtex produces very high temperatures.  There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex.  It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.

    I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn’t one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.

    What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?

    People don’t even notice the contradictions.  Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers’ destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust.  The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified.  In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite.  This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.

    The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.  His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted.  It is simply ignored.

    Dr. Jones’ experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was one of the 20th century’s great scientists.  At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student.  Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.

    As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical adsorption. Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it.  Even when Polanyi was one of the UK’s ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory.  One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley.  The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was “Polanyi’s old error.” It turned out not to be an error.  Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth.  How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong.  Polanyi’s answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.

    That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy of Muslims and 9/11.

    As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marx’s theories, and about the supply-side impact of fiscal policy.  Today I experience readers who become enraged just because I report on someone else’s work that is outside their belief system.  Some readers think I should suppress work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author of the work into the ground.  These readers never have any comprehension of the subject.  They are simply emotionally offended.

    What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11.  For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11.  How can this be, I ask them.  Did the government slip up once and tell the truth?  My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government’s 9/11 story.  Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.

    The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people.  With 9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government so that they don’t feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic, and they are very fearful of being called “terrorist sympathizers.” Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered “blowbacks.” Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government’s propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.

    Naive people think that if the US government’s explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up.  Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding.  A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career.  If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.

    An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract.  In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.

    In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events.  Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.

    Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists?  The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names.  Most of the people I know who are content with the government’s official explanation have never examined the evidence.  Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.

    There are, of course, some kooks.  I have often wondered if these kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.

    Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American.  It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized.  Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as “terrorist sympathizers” and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.

    Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event.  In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously.  They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.

    As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching Americans to trust the government as their protector.  This took with the left and the right.  Neither end of the political spectrum is capable of fundamental questioning of the government.  This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives the people.

    Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case.  In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe.   The notion that “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion.  I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government.  Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent.

    The US government’s response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever.  Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were.  America’s financial capability and living standards are forever lower.  Our country’s prestige and world leadership are forever damaged.  The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.

    The most disturbing fact of all remains:  The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/why-propaganda-trumps-truth/

  • Scavpor 2:16 pm on September 16, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    “You Have to Learn Lessons from History” 

    Cindy Sheehan
    Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox
    September 16, 2009

    I was just watching a report on CNN and after the commentator said that support for Afghanistan is rapidly dwindling (58 percent now think it’s not worth fighting), an interview with Obama was shown.

    The interviewer asked the president if he was afraid that because war-weary America is growing impatient with the wars, that failing to withdraw and, in fact, sending more troops would look like what Johnson did in Vietnam, and therefore make Obama a “One term president.”

    Well, I have been saying that whoever won in 2008 would not do the right thing and would send the USA even farther down the path to ruin (because every president has to follow orders from his masters, the corporations) and be a one term president.

    But, Obama incredibly answered the interviewer with: “You have to learn lessons from history.” Somehow, Obama believes, he’s going to stain his hands darker with blood, but he’s not going to pay any political consequences.

    That Obama is talking about “history” in relation to trying to subdue Afghanistan is fraught with irony. First of all, the Afghanistan that was invaded in 2001 has very little resemblance to the Afghanistan of today. Many analysts say that our rationale for being there: al Qaeda has long ago moved on. What about the history that Jimmy Carter’s administration was responsible for arming, training and otherwise supporting (and creating) al Qaeda in the first place and that Jimmy Carter signed an order supporting the Mujahadeen against the USSR in 1979 which spurred the Soviet Union’s invasion that resulted in a decade long bloody war that defeated the USSR’s military empire.

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    Let’s go back to Genghis Kahn and Alexander the Great and Great Britain…no empire has ever been “successful” in Afghanistan and it really makes me wonder what “history” Barack Obama is learning from. Not the “history” where Afghanistan has been the burial place for empire, that’s for sure.

    Obviously, obviously our “leaders” are out of control and there is no mass movement of Americans who will be able to get out in the streets to stop the homicidal maniacs.

    We need to stop allowing ourselves to be used as weapons of mass destruction against each other and that is by refusing to join the Army of the Empire or by refusing to be deployed to the messes in the Middle East

    All of this excess of the War Machine is getting fundamentally ridiculous. The cannon fodder of the US military should refuse to be used as these pawns for idiotic and ignorant Commanders in Chief. Why die or kill innocent Afghans for the arrogance of Emperors?

    Bloody hands are bloody hands. Our president, love him or hate him, is a reflection of us, so as long as we quietly sit by and allow him to murder in our names, our hands get bloodier, too!

    I will be one that stands up and is counted against Obama and his policies as adamantly as I was against Bush and his—because they are the same and they are wrong.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/you-have-to-learn-lessons-from-history/

  • Scavpor 2:14 pm on September 16, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    Join the Appeal for Truth about 9/11 

    Peter Dale Scott, Michael Berger and Janice Matthews
    Global Research
    September 16, 2009

    In the last few days Glenn Beck and the Washington Times have forced Van Jones to resign as environmentalist “green jobs” adviser to the White House. His principal offense: having signed a 2004 Statement from 911truth.org calling for a new investigation of the events of 9/11.

    This is a moment of truth for all who want America to be an open society. As the Los Angeles Times reported on September 8, “Other conservatives, smelling blood in the water, are sharpening their knives.” Why should they not? The White House has just capitulated to a dishonest attack claiming that Jones, because he signed the 911truth Statement, “thinks the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Centers and covered it up.” You can check Beck’s capacity for accuracy by comparing this claim to the relevant call in the Statement itself: “for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

    Supporting Beck are authors like Charles Krauthammer, arguing that “truthers” – those of us who signed the 911truth statement — are creating “a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice.”

    In the wake of these attacks, three of the original hundred signers — Van Jones, the environmentalist Paul Hawken and Jodie Evans of Code Pink — have asked that their signatures on the 911truth Statement be removed. I am hoping that numbers of other responsible community leaders will stem this flight from rational inquiry by coming forward to sign the statement at this time.

    In fact, nine such individuals have done so already at Salon.com. In “Would you still sign the 9/11 Truth petition?”, reporter Vincent Rossmeier contacted 30 of the original signatories and asked, simply, “If you had to do it all over again, would you still sign the statement?” Of the responses published, all but two “expressed their full-fledged support for the petition.” Several of these people not only reaffirmed their endorsement of the statement, but went on to put forward clear arguments supported by overwhelming facts as to why they now do so.

    I am one of the university professors who signed the Statement. One of the many reasons I did so was because of my awareness that Vice-President Cheney had given two conflicting accounts as to whether he was in the White House bunker in precisely the crucial minutes when the most important orders of that day (including the institution of so-called “Continuity of Government” measures which continue to this day) were issued from that place. I discuss this in my book The Road to 9/11 (University of California Press, 2007), pp. 200-03, 228-30, of which the following draft excerpt is available on the Internet:

    Cheney himself told Tim Russert of “Meet the Press” on September 16, 2001, in an interview still available five years later on the White House website, that he arrived in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit, i.e. before 9:37 AM.15 But the 9/11 Report follows a later and very different account in Newsweek, based on an interview with Cheney, which now had him leave his office at 9:35 and arrive in the PEOC “shortly before 10 a.m.” We shall see that new evidence, which only surfaced in 2006, corroborates Cheney’s first story, and makes his revised time-table extremely unlikely. Clearly one of Cheney’s two accounts of his arrival (before 9:37, and around 9:58) must be wrong. Moreover what is at stake is not trivial. Important orders were issued in this hour from the PEOC: one alleged order (whose content is uncertain) which Mineta claims to have heard about 9:30, a second order to ground all planes at about 9:45, and a third tripartite order (which according to Clarke included a shoot-down order) at about 9:50. By Mineta’s account, corroborated by Clarke, Cheney had arrived in the PEOC in time to give all three of these orders; by Cheney’s second account, he arrived after all three were given.

    The case for a new investigation of 9/11 is now far stronger than it was in 2004, because even those responsible for the 9/11 Commission inquiry have since complained that it was flawed. The two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, noted in their book, Without Precedent, that they were given insufficient time and “a dramatically insufficient [initial] budget of $3 million.” Later they wrote in the New York Times (January 2, 2008) that the CIA “failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. [and] obstructed our investigation.”

    The Washington Post (August 2, 2006) has reported that “Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission.”

    Lee Hamilton has also said that “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.”

    Louis Freeh, FBI Director at the time, has written that

    “Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of [lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed] Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it ‘was not historically significant.’ This astounding conclusion–in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings–raises serious challenges to the commission’s credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a ‘new’ commission” (Wall Street Journal 11/17/05)

    And Rutgers Law School-Newark Dean John Farmer, Senior Counsel and Team Leader to the 9/11 Commission states in his newly released book, The Ground Truth,

    “At some level of government,at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11. We owe the truth to the families of the victims of 9/11. We owe it to the American public as well, because only by understanding what has gone wrong in the past can we assure our nation’s safety in the future.”

    In addition to these community leaders’ signatures, 40 family members of 9/11 victims signed the 2004 Truth Statement. The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission submitted hundreds of questions to the 9/11 Commission as it began its investigation. Although Commissioner Jamie Gorelick told the family members their questions would be used as a “road map” for the investigation, the Family Steering Committee’s report, “FSC Questions to the 9/11 Commission with Ratings of its Performance in Providing Answers” found the overwhelming majority of questions were not only left unanswered but were not even addressed in the final 9/11 Commission Report.

    I appeal to readers to help ensure that the doubters of the official 9/11 story will not be bullied into silence.

    The real issue is to defeat the campaign of media hitmen to punish people who want to know the truth about their country. If you agree, please go to http://www.911truth.org to read the 2009 Truth Statement and add your name to the voices of those who have signed the 2004 Statement.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/join-the-appeal-for-truth-about-911/

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.