October 7, 2008
The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi
The two writers lock horns over the accuracy of Griffin's recent book, 9/11 Contradictions.
Continue reading "The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi"
Posted by doctormatt at 11:43 PM
September 19, 2008
Senator, Target of Anthrax Letter, Challenges F.B.I. Finding
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a target of the anthrax letters of 2001, said Wednesday that he did not believe the F.B.I.'s contention that an Army scientist conducted the attacks alone.
Mr. Leahy pressed Mr. Mueller to say what laboratories in the United States were capable of producing dry powder anthrax like that used in the attacks, specifically asking about the Dugway Proving Ground, an Army center in Utah, and the Battelle Memorial Institute, a government contractor in Ohio, both of which have made such powder in small quantities in the past.
But Mr. Mueller said he could answer the question only in a closed session because the matter involved classified information. The secrecy appeared likely to fuel rumors, circulating on the Internet and denied by the F.B.I., that the attacks had some link to a secret government bioweapons program.
Posted by doctormatt at 6:11 AM | Comments (0)
September 16, 2008
Farce - Congressional committee asks FBI about Anthrax investigation
Glen Greenwald on the Congressional anthrax hearing
Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York used his five minutes to ask Mueller about several of the most glaring holes in the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. Nadler specifically focused on the fact that scientists (including in the FBI) had long claimed that the anthrax sent to Sen. Daschele was dried anthrax that had been coated with silica and was thus far too sophisticated for Ivins to have prepared, only for the FBI suddenly to reverse itself recently and claim that the anthrax was not coated with silica but had, instead, simply naturally absorbed silicon from the air.
Nadler had various good questions about that -- including wanting to know the level of concentration of silica found in the anthrax (since, if it were higher than 1/2 of 1%, it would mean it was impossible for it to have been naturally absorbed). Mueller's response: I don't know the answers to those questions. I'll have to get back to you at some point.
Nadler than asked one of the most central questions in the anthrax case: he pointed out that the facilities that (unlike Ft. Detrick) actually have the equipment and personnel to prepare dry, silica-coated anthrax are the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Ground and the Battelle Corporation, the private CIA contractor that conducts substantial research into highly complex strains of anthrax. Nadler asked how the FBI had eliminated those institutions as the culprits behind the attack. After invoking generalities to assure Nadler that the FBI had traced the anthrax back to Ivins' vial (which doesn't answer the question), Mueller's response was this: I don't know the answers to those questions as to how we eliminated Dugway and Battelle. I'll have to get back to you at some point.
After those two fruitless lines of inquiry, Nadler's time was almost up, and he then pleaded: please try to get back to us with these answers quickly. Mueller said: "Oh, absolutely Congressman."
Nadler then ended by asking whether Mueller would object to an independent commission or other body to review the FBI's evidence and its accusations against Ivins and whether the FBI would cooperate with such an independent inquiry. Mueller pretended to answer by telling Nadler that the FBI intended to ask some members of the National Academy of Science to review the FBI's scientific claims, but that didn't answer the question as to whether the FBI opposed a full-scale independent review of the FBI's case and whether the FBI would cooperate with it. Nadler then noted his time was up and a Republican member then began asking about The Grave Threats Posed by The Terrorists in order to justify the FBI's imminent, new domestic surveillance powers, with not a single new fact -- literally not one -- disclosed about the anthrax investigation, despite Nadler's perfectly relevant questions.
Posted by doctormatt at 6:38 PM | Comments (0)
September 15, 2008
Video - What happened on 9-11-01? Watch The Reflecting Pool.
Posted by doctormatt at 10:51 AM
Absurd FBI theory: Antrax powder was created by Postal sorting machines
The anthrax was deliberately "weaponized," and Bruce Ivins lacked the equipment to make it.
Continue reading "Absurd FBI theory: Antrax powder was created by Postal sorting machines"
Posted by doctormatt at 10:36 AM | Comments (0)
September 11, 2008
Looking Forward, Rather Than Backward, on Another 9-11
The dominant color of our new national security since 911 is neither red, white nor blue. Everyday is orange. Everyday reminders of fear of 9/11 become banal... Yet we no longer hear the airport announcements nor see the orange colored warnings because they have commonplace standards in our new national security state, as is the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and a host of invasions of privacy and diminution of civil liberties. The Constitution has been roundly attacked by the very people who took an oath to defend it.
Posted by doctormatt at 10:36 PM | Comments (0)
September 10, 2008
Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?
Continue reading "Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?"
Posted by doctormatt at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)
Twenty-Six Things We Now Know Seven Years After 9/11
Good review courtesy of CrisisPapers
Continue reading "Twenty-Six Things We Now Know Seven Years After 9/11"
Posted by doctormatt at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)
Lawmakers Cite Anthrax Doubts
Why Bruce Ivins could not have made weaponized anthrax by himself.
(See next page)
Continue reading "Lawmakers Cite Anthrax Doubts "
Posted by doctormatt at 10:32 PM | Comments (0)
August 24, 2008
Video - The third stage - Commentary on 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5224963246223576086
Posted by doctormatt at 1:29 PM | Comments (0)
August 21, 2008
Feds say WTC7 collapsed by "new phenomenon" !?
Oh, Really!
NIST claims that the collapse of building 7 is "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".
But then goes on to argue:
"The fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event"
In fact, the fires in WTC 7 were orders of magnitude less than other high-rise fires, which did not produce collapses.
See:
http://www.ae911truth.org
(Listen to rebuttal press conference)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082101527.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BREAKING_NIST_%3CI%3Efinally%3CI%3E_poses_theory_on_0821.html
Continue reading "Feds say WTC7 collapsed by "new phenomenon" !?"
Posted by doctormatt at 8:00 PM | Comments (0)
August 17, 2008
Was 9/11 an inside job?
The following is an excerpt from Mark H. Gaffney's forthcoming book, THE 911 MYSTERY PLANE AND THE VANISHING OF AMERICA, to be released in September 2008.
Regrettably, there is considerable evidence that elements of the Bush administration were complicit in the 9/11 attack, and may even have helped stage it. Let us now examine some of what I regard as the most compelling evidence.
Continue reading "Was 9/11 an inside job?"
Posted by doctormatt at 9:41 AM | Comments (0)
Conyers Calls Committee Back from Summer Recess to Investigate Suskind Allegations
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has taken the highly unusual step of calling his committee back from summer recess in order to investigate allegations by Ron Suskind that the Bush administration forged a letter to buttress the links made between Saddam and 9/11, and Saddam and WMD. The congressional Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq, the ""War Resolution" which, as far short as it fell of a congressional declaration of war, gave the invasion its constitutional legal cover, and gave Bush the authorization to invade only after he had certified to congress the existence of these two critical links. If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and if he did not possess WMD, the war was off.
Posted by doctormatt at 8:20 AM | Comments (0)
August 10, 2008
Tape: Top CIA official confesses order to forge Iraq-9/11 letter came on White House stationery
In damning transcript, ex-CIA official says Cheney likely ordered letter linking Hussein to 9/11 attacks -
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20470.htm
Posted by doctormatt at 10:55 PM | Comments (0)
August 4, 2008
ABC news and unresolved Anthrax questions
Doctor Matt says:
I have been following this story closely.
The gaping hole is whether Mr. Ivins had co-conspirators. The smoking gun is the second batch of anthrax spores (weapons grade) that were mailed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.
Apparently, those spores may have been coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. ("The Russian Recipe"). The FBI has not released evidence that Mr. Ivins had access to such equipment, nor the expertise to perform this process.
Other commentators follow:
......
Even before the latest twists in the anthrax case, ABC News was deeply tarnished by its terrible journalism in 2001 and its protection of liars who may well be criminals. Every day that passes takes ABC further into the kind of scandal territory that, at some point, it cannot overcome.
Questions for ABC:
1. Sources who are granted confidentiality give up their rights when they
lie or mislead the reporter. Were you lied to or misled by your sources
when you reported several times in 2001 that anthrax found in domestic
attacks came from Iraq or showed signs of Iraqi involvement?
2. It now appears that the attacks were of domestic origin and the anthrax
came from within U.S. government facilities. This leads us to ask you: who
were the "four well-placed and separate sources" who falsely told ABC News
that tests conducted at Fort Detrick had found the presence of bentonite in
the anthrax sent to Sen. Tom Daschle, causing ABC News to connect the
attacks to Iraq in multiple reports over a five day period in October, 2001?
3. A substantially false story that helps make the case for war by raising
fears about enemies abroad attacking the United States is released into
public debate because of faulty reporting done by ABC News. How that
happened and who was responsible is itself a major story of public
interest. What is ABC News doing to re-report these events, to figure out
what went wrong and to correct the record for the American people who were
misled?
..............................
* Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News, in which he shows that ABC News was probably duped by someone on a story of huge importance, putting Iraqi fingerprints on anthrax attacks that actually came from the U.S at a time when the case for war with Iraq was beginning to get traction. (Salon.com, Aug. 1)
* Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation in which he makes the case for revealing the sources who completely misled ABC News or lied to it, including precedents where journalists have done just that. (Salon.com, Aug. 3)
"Anthrax. Remember anthrax? It seems no one does anymore -- at least it's never mentioned. But right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were received at the New York Post and Tom Brokaw's office at NBC. . . . There was ample reason to be afraid. The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it. "
Continue reading "ABC news and unresolved Anthrax questions"
Posted by doctormatt at 9:47 PM | Comments (0)
Anthrax mystery - more information unfolding
If we've learned anything in the United States during the Bush era, it's that we have to resist rushing to judgment in the face of catastrophic events. The exercise of careful, independent judgment is the best tool available - we should use it. US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who often wrote on the benefits of both privacy and transparency, offered the reminder "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Continue reading "Anthrax mystery - more information unfolding"
Posted by doctormatt at 6:56 PM | Comments (1)
August 1, 2008
The United States has been in a declared state of emergency from September 2001, to the present
On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001:
"A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . ."
That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11 to the present. For example, the White House website states:
"Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, last extended on September 5, 2006, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2007. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat."
A separate announcement on the White House website states:
"Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2007. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism."
See also this.
The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:
"Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law."
Is the Times correct? Well, it is clear that pre-9/11 declarations of national emergency have authorized martial law. For example, as summarized by a former fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation, and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society:
In 1973, the Senate created a Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency (subsequently redesignated the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers) to investigate the matter and to propose reforms. Ascertaining the continued existence of four presidential declarations of national emergency, the Special Committee (U.S. Senate 1973, p. iii) reported:
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . taken together, [they] confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communications; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
(Most or all of the emergency powers referred to by the above-quoted 1973 Senate report were revoked in the late 1970's by 50 U.S.C. Section 1601. However, presidents have made numerous declarations of emergency since then, and the declarations made by President Bush in September 2001 are still in effect).
It is also clear that the White House has kept substantial information concerning its presidential proclamations and directives hidden from Congress. For example, according to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy:
"Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the [George W.] Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress."
Continuity of Government Plans were Implemented for the United States on 9/11.
Continuity of Government ("COG") measures were implemented on 9/11. For example, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, at page 38:
"At 9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House Military Office joined the conference and stated he had just talked to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One, and (3) a fighter combat air patrol over Washington, D.C."
Likewise, page 326 of the Report states:
"The secretary of defense directed the nation's armed forces to Defense Condition 3, an increased state of military readiness. For the first time in history, all nonemergency civilian aircraft in the United States were grounded, stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the country. Contingency plans for the continuity of government and the evacuation of leaders had been implemented."
The Washington Post states that Vice President Richard Cheney initiated the COG plan on 9/11 ("From the bunker, Cheney officially implemented the emergency continuity of government orders . . . .")
See also footnotes cited therein and this webpage.
Continuity of Government Measures Were Kept in Effect For Several Months, At The Least; Congress Was Kept In the Dark
CNN reports that -- 6 months later --
Because Bush has decided to leave the operation in place, agencies including the White House and top civilian Cabinet departments have rotated personnel involved, and are discussing ways to staff such a contingency operation under the assumption it will be in place indefinitely, this official said.
Similarly, the Washington Post stated in March 2002 that "the shadow government has evolved into an indefinite precaution." The same article goes on to state:
"... assessment of terrorist risks persuaded the White House to remake the program as a permanent feature of 'the new reality, based on what the threat looks like,' a senior decisionmaker said."
As a CBS article makes clear, virtually none of the Congressional leadership knew that the COG had been implemented or was still in existence as of March 2002:
Key congressional leaders say they didn't know President Bush had established a "shadow government," moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.
Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Similarly, the above-cited CNN article states :
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said Friday he can't say much about the plan.
"We have not been informed at all about the role of the shadow government or its whereabouts or what particular responsibilities they have and when they would kick in, but we look forward to work with the administration to get additional information on that."
Indeed, as documented below, the White House has specifically refused to share information about Continuity of Government plans with the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress, even though that Committee has proper security clearance to hear the full details of all COG plans.
What Are Continuity of Government Plans?
Continuity of government plans are contingency plans which create a new government in the case of an alleged threat to the ability of the American government to continue operations. America's COG plans were created to deal with nuclear war, but they have been discussed in many other contexts as well.
What would things look like if the COG plans were already being implemented?
* Top leaders of the "new government" called for in the COG would entirely or largely go into hiding, and would govern in hidden locations
* Those within the new government would know what was going on. But those in the "old government" - that is, the one created by the framers of the Constitution - would not necessarily know the details of what was happening
* Normal laws and legal processes might largely be suspended, or superseded by secretive judicial forums
* The media might be ordered by strict laws - punishable by treason - to only promote stories authorized by the new government
See this, this and this.
Therefore, COG plans are of vital importance to America, because their implementation suspends the normal Constitutional form of government, separation of powers, and traditional American rights.
Has the Government Maintained COG to the Present?
Could the White House have maintained COG operations to the present day? One hint may be contained in the above-cited CNN article:
Bush triggered the precautions in the hours after the September 11 strikes, and has left them in place because of continuing U.S. intelligence suggesting a possible threat.
Concerns that al Qaeda could have gained access to a crude nuclear device "were a major factor" in the president's decision, the official said. "The threat of some form of catastrophic event is the trigger," this official said.
This same official went on to say that the U.S. had no confirmation -- "and no solid evidence" -- that al Qaeda had such a nuclear device and also acknowledged that the "consensus" among top U.S. officials was that the prospect was "quite low."
Still, the officials said Bush and other top White House officials including Cheney were adamant that the government take precautions designed to make sure government functions ranging from civil defense to transportation and agricultural production could be managed in the event Washington was the target of a major strike.
As is apparent from a brief review of the news, the government has, since 9/11, continuously stated that there is a terrorist threat of a nuclear device or dirty bomb. That alone infers that COG plans may still be in effect.
In addition, one of the top investigative journalists in the country, Larisa Alexandrovna (the lead journalist at Raw Story), writing about the 2001 Department of Justice memorandum that found that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations, wrote:
"it seems to me that this administration has justified its crimes by NOT suspending the state of emergency that went up on September 11, 2001. They are using emergency powers if you look at the whole of the spying, military actions inside the US, etc. I would wager that if asked, this administration will admit that we have been in a state of emergency for their tenure in office."
Alexandrovna not only believes that we have been in a state of emergency since 2001 (which the White House itself has verified, see above), but that the government has been using its emergency powers -- i.e. powers justified by a state of emergency -- in spying, carrying out military actions inside the U.S. (see this), and taking other extra-Constitutional actions.
Is that why the government:
* Suspended habeas corpus?
* Has been spying on Americans?
* Won't enforce the laws?
* Is basically "deputizing" corporations to act as sheriffs in the event of martial law?
* Is training pastors to preach obedience to martial law?
Are all of these actions based upon a COG form of government?
As one writer notes:
A contemporary version of the Continuity of Government program was put into play in the hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when Vice President Cheney and senior members of Congress were dispersed to "undisclosed locations" to maintain government functions. It was during this emergency period, Hamilton and other former government officials believe, that President Bush may have authorized the NSA to begin actively using the Main Core database for domestic surveillance. One indicator they cite is a statement by Bush in December 2005, after the New York Times had revealed the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, in which he made a rare reference to the emergency program: The Justice Department's legal reviews of the NSA activity, Bush said, were based on "fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government."
Remember also that provisions of the Homegrown Terrorism are already being implemented, even though the Senate has not yet approved that law (and see this). How could that happen if COG plans were not in effect?
Additionally, Vice President Cheney's recent claim that his office is not part of the Executive branch of government may be one more piece of circumstantial evidence that COG plans are still be in effect, with Cheney a participant in the extra-constitutional government.
Specifically, last summer, Cheney's office stated that "the Vice President's office is not an 'entity within the executive branch". As summarized in Time Magazine:
"Vice President Dick Cheney has been resisting even his own Executive Branch's efforts to find out what kind of secret material his office has been stashing away over the last four years.
Cheney's office, according to a story first reported by the Chicago Tribune, has resisted attempts by a tiny federal agency to compile information -- in accordance with an executive order signed by George Bush himself -- on the classified documents being held by the Vice President's operation. Cheney's office argued that the Vice President's office, because it has both executive and legislative branch duties, is exempt from the order."
It is, of course, possible that Cheney's response to the request for documents is simply based upon a desire to avoid handing over documents. However, given that Cheney has been instrumental in creating and practicing Continuity of Government plans for 20 years, and the increasingly strong circumstantial evidence that Continuity of Government plans are currently in effect, Cheney's statement that he is not within the Executive branch, and that he is also part of the legislative, may be based on his being a key participant in a COG government. In other words, COG leaders, such as perhaps Cheney, would have key roles not only in the executive, but also the legislative branch, to the extent those "branches" (separation of powers is apparently not part of the COG plans) even exist. See this.
Presidential Directive NSPD-51
In 2007, President Bush issued Presidential Directive NSPD-51, which purported to change Continuity of Government plans. I have argued elsewhere that issuance of NSPD-51 does not prove that Continuity of Government plans are not in effect currently.
However, even if COG plans are not currently in effect, and were somehow secretly rescinded between September 2001 and the present despite the continuing declaration of state of emergency, it is important to note the following:
* NSPD51 was passed without Congressional input
* Indeed, implementation of COG has been continuously hidden from Congress
* Even the New York Times wrote in an editorial:
"Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the President may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or to any 'other condition.' Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new Presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate."
# Everyone from "conservative activist Jerome Corsi [to] Marjorie Cohn of the [liberal] National Lawyer's Guild have interpreted [the COG plans contained in Presidential Directive NSPD-51] as a break from Constitutional law ...."
# As a reporter for Slate concluded after analyzing NSPD-51:
"I see nothing in the [COG document entitled presidential directive NSPD51] to prevent even a "localized" forest fire or hurricane from giving the president the right to throw long-established constitutional government out the window"
# White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that "because of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the American public needs no explanation of [Continuity of Government] plans"
Indeed, in the summer 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland Security Committee (and so with proper security access to be briefed on COG issues), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House (video; or here is the transcript). The Homeland Security Committee has full clearance to view all information about COG plans. DeFazio concluded: "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right".
As University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott has warned:
"If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.
To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority."
Given the above, even under a best-case scenario -- that is, assuming that COG plans are not currently still in effect -- it is urgent that Congress and the public pay attention to this issue. Congress, the Courts, and the American people must demand that any and all COG plans be rescinded to the extent they:
(1) allow the plans to be unilaterally implemented without adequate justification by the White House (e.g. a local fire);
(2) do not have strict time limits, so that they are terminated the minute they are no longer absolutely necessary for the survival of our country;
(3) do not include Congress in the planning process; or
(4) unnecessarily destroy Constitutional protections, when our country could still be protected if such protections were respected.
What Should We Do Now?
Who will demand that the Constitution is respected? The hard reality is that the White House will not agree to follow the Constitution and the rule of law, or even to disclose whether or not the COG plans which were implemented on 9/11 are still in effect, unless the public demands it. It is up to us.
As Professor Scott puts stresses the importance of public pressure in this regard:
"Will Congress insist on its right of review COG? The answer to this question will depend on discussion in the blogosphere, the degree of pressure exerted by the electorate on their representatives, and the questions asked the men and women who would be president."
And Congressman Kucinich - who is leading the charge for impeachment - says that the American people must pressure Congress every day to issue subpoenas to the White House to determine whether COG plans are in effect, and to get a copy of the plans.
Posted by doctormatt at 11:22 PM | Comments (0)
Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News
The FBI's lead suspect in the September, 2001 anthrax attacks -- Bruce E. Ivins -- died Tuesday night, apparently by suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to charge him with responsibility for the attacks. For the last 18 years, Ivins was a top anthrax researcher at the U.S. Government's biological weapons research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, where he was one of the most elite government anthrax scientists on the research team at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID).
The 2001 anthrax attacks remain one of the great mysteries of the post-9/11 era. After 9/11 itself, the anthrax attacks were probably the most consequential event of the Bush presidency. One could make a persuasive case that they were actually more consequential. The 9/11 attacks were obviously traumatic for the country, but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event. It was really the anthrax letters -- with the first one sent on September 18, just one week after 9/11 -- that severely ratcheted up the fear levels and created the climate that would dominate in this country for the next several years after. It was anthrax -- sent directly into the heart of the country's elite political and media institutions, to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt), NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, and other leading media outlets -- that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.
If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:
The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:
We have anthrax.
You die now.
Are you afraid?
Death to America.
Death to Israel.
Allah is great.
By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.
Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."
ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue). It's critical to note that it isn't the case that preliminary tests really did detect bentonite and then subsequent tests found there was none. No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.
That means that ABC News' "four well-placed and separate sources" fed them information that was completely false -- false information that created a very significant link in the public mind between the anthrax attacks and Saddam Hussein. And look where -- according to Brian Ross' report on October 28, 2001 -- these tests were conducted:
And despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica.
Two days earlier, Ross went on ABC News' World News Tonight with Peter Jennings and, as the lead story, breathlessly reported:
The discovery of bentonite came in an urgent series of tests conducted at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and elsewhere.
Clearly, Ross' allegedly four separate sources had to have some specific knowledge of the tests conducted and, if they were really "well-placed," one would presume that meant they had some connection to the laboratory where the tests were conducted -- Ft. Detrick. That means that the same Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq.
It's extremely possible -- one could say highly likely -- that the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them. What we know for certain -- as a result of the letters accompanying the anthrax -- is that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted the public to believe they were sent by foreign Muslims. Feeding claims to ABC News designed to link Saddam to those attacks would, for obvious reasons, promote the goal of the anthrax attacker(s).
Seven years later, it's difficult for many people to recall, but, as I've amply documented, those ABC News reports linking Saddam and anthrax penetrated very deeply -- by design -- into our public discourse and into the public consciousness. Those reports were absolutely vital in creating the impression during that very volatile time that Islamic terrorists generally, and Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically, were grave, existential threats to this country. As but one example: after Ross' lead report on the October 26, 2001 edition of World News Tonight with Peter Jennings claiming that the Government had found bentonite, this is what Jennings said into the camera:
This news about bentonite as the additive being a trademark of the Iraqi biological weapons program is very significant. Partly because there's been a lot of pressure on the Bush administration inside and out to go after Saddam Hussein. And some are going to be quick to pick up on this as a smoking gun.
That's exactly what happened. The Weekly Standard published two lengthy articles attacking the FBI for focusing on a domestic culprit and -- relying almost exclusively on the ABC/Ross report -- insisted that Saddam was one of the most likely sources for those attacks. In November, 2001, they published an article (via Lexis) which began:
On the critical issue of who sent the anthrax, it's time to give credit to the ABC website, ABCNews.com, for reporting rings around most other news organizations. Here's a bit from a comprehensive story filed late last week by Gary Matsumoto, lending further credence to the commonsensical theory (resisted by the White House) that al Qaeda or Iraq -- and not some domestic Ted Kaczynski type -- is behind the germ warfare.
The Weekly Standard published a much lengthier and more dogmatic article in April, 2002 again pushing the ABC "bentonite" claims and arguing: "There is purely circumstantial though highly suggestive evidence that might seem to link Iraq with last fall's anthrax terrorism." The American Enterprise Institute's Laurie Mylroie (who had an AEI article linking Saddam to 9/11 ready for publication at the AEI on September 13) expressly claimed in November, 2001 that "there is also tremendous evidence that subsequent anthrax attacks are connected to Iraq" and based that accusation almost exclusively on the report from ABC and Ross ("Mylroie: Evidence Shows Saddam Is Behind Anthrax Attacks").
And then, when President Bush named Iraq as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech -- just two months after ABC's report, when the anthrax attacks were still very vividly on the minds of Americans -- he specifically touted this claim:
The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.
Bush's invocation of Iraq was the only reference in the State of the Union address to the unsolved anthrax attacks. And the Iraq-anthrax connection was explicitly made by the President at a time when, as we now know, he was already eagerly planning an attack on Iraq.
There can't be any question that this extremely flamboyant though totally false linkage between Iraq and the anthrax attacks -- accomplished primarily by the false bentonite reports from ABC News and Brian Ross -- played a very significant role in how Americans perceived of the Islamic threat generally and Iraq specifically. As but one very illustrative example, The Washington Post's columnist, Richard Cohen, supported the invasion of Iraq, came to regret that support, and then explained what led him to do so, in a 2004 Post column entitled "Our Forgotten Panic":
I'm not sure if panic is quite the right word, but it is close enough. Anthrax played a role in my decision to support the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein. I linked him to anthrax, which I linked to Sept. 11. I was not going to stand by and simply wait for another attack -- more attacks. I was going to go to the source, Hussein, and get him before he could get us. As time went on, I became more and more questioning, but I had a hard time backing down from my initial whoop and holler for war.
Cohen -- in a March 18, 2008 Slate article in which he explains why he wrongfully supported the attack on Iraq -- disclosed this:
Anthrax. Remember anthrax? It seems no one does anymore -- at least it's never mentioned. But right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were received at the New York Post and Tom Brokaw's office at NBC. . . . There was ample reason to be afraid.
The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.
For this and other reasons, the anthrax letters appeared linked to the awful events of Sept. 11. It all seemed one and the same. Already, my impulse had been to strike back, an overwhelming urge that had, in fact, taken me by surprise on Sept. 11 itself when the first of the Twin Towers had collapsed. . . .
In the following days, as the horror started to be airbrushed -- no more bodies plummeting to the sidewalk -- the anthrax letters started to come, some to people I knew. And I thought, No, I'm not going to sit here passively and wait for it to happen. I wanted to go to "them," whoever "they" were, grab them by the neck, and get them before they could get us. One of "them" was Saddam Hussein. He had messed around with anthrax . . . He was a nasty little fascist, and he needed to be dealt with.
That, more or less, is how I made my decision to support the war in Iraq.
Cohen's mental process that led him to link anthrax to Iraq and then to support an attack on Iraq, warped as it is, was extremely common. Having heard ABC News in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack flamboyantly and repeatedly link Saddam to the anthrax attacks, followed by George Bush's making the same linkage (albeit more subtly) in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech, much of the public had implanted into their minds that Saddam Hussein was not just evil, but a severe threat to the U.S., likely the primary culprit behind the anthrax attacks. All along, though, the anthrax came from a U.S. Government/Army research lab.
Critically, ABC News never retracted its story (they merely noted, as they had done from the start, that the White House denied the reports). And thus, the linkage between Saddam and the anthrax attacks -- every bit as false as the linkage between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks -- persisted.
We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory. More significantly, the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government -- from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.
Surely the question of who generated those false Iraq-anthrax reports is one of the most significant and explosive stories of the last decade. The motive to fabricate reports of bentonite and a link to Saddam is glaring. Those fabrications played some significant role -- I'd argue a very major role -- in propagandizing the American public to perceive of Saddam as a threat, and further, propagandized the public to believe that our country was sufficiently threatened by foreign elements that a whole series of radical policies that the neoconservatives both within and outside of the Bush administration wanted to pursue -- including an attack an Iraq and a whole array of assaults on our basic constitutional framework -- were justified and even necessary in order to survive.
ABC News already knows the answers to these questions. They know who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and -- as importantly -- to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks. And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They're allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.
They're not protecting "sources." The people who fed them the bentonite story aren't "sources." They're fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood. But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. That is why this is one of the most extreme journalistic scandals that exists, and it deserves a lot more debate and attention than it has received thus far.
UPDATE: One other fact to note here is how bizarrely inept the effort by the Bush DOJ to find the real attacker has been. Extremely suspicious behavior from Ivins -- including his having found and completely cleaned anthrax traces on a co-worker's desk at the Ft. Detrick lab without telling anyone that he did so and then offering extremely strange explanations for why -- was publicly reported as early as 2004 by The LA Times (Ivins "detected an apparent anthrax leak in December 2001, at the height of the anthrax mailings investigation, but did not report it. Ivins considered the problem solved when he cleaned the affected office with bleach").
In October 2004, USA Today reported that Ivins was involved in another similar incident, in April of 2002, when Ivins performed unauthorized tests to detect the origins of more anthrax residue found at Ft. Detrick. Yet rather than having that repeated, strange behavior lead the FBI to discover that he was involved in the attacks, there was a very public effort -- as Atrios notes here -- to blame the attacks on Iraq and then, ultimately, to blame Stephen Hatfill. Amazingly, as Atrios notes here, very few people other than "a few crazy bloggers are even interested" in finding out what happened here and why -- at least to demand that ABC News report the vital information that it already has that will shed very significant light on much of this.
UPDATE II: Ivins' local paper, Frederick News in Maryland, has printed several Letters to the Editor written by Ivins over the years. Though the underlying ideology is a bit difficult to discern, he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma. He wrote things like this:
Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.
Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.
And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:
Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."
By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."
It should be noted that the lawyer who had been representing Ivins in connection with the anthrax investigation categorically maintains Ivins' innocence and attributes his suicide to "the relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo."
On a note related to the main topic of the post, macgupta in comments notes the numerous prominent people in addition to those mentioned here -- including The Wall St. Jorunal Editors and former CIA Director James Woosely -- who insisted rather emphatically from the beginning of the anthrax attacks that Saddam was likely to blame. Indeed, the WSJ Editorial Page -- along with others on the Right such as Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report and Fox News -- continued even into 2007 to insist that the FBI was erring by focusing on domestic suspects rather than Middle Easterners.
The Nation's Michael Massing noted at the time (in November, 2001) that as a direct result of the anthrax attacks, and the numerous claims insinuating that Iraq was behind them, "the political and journalistic establishment suddenly seems united in wanting to attack Iraq." There has long been an intense desire on the neoconservative Right to falsely link anthrax to Saddam specifically and Muslims generally. ABC News was, and (as a result of its inexcusable silence) continues to be, their best friend.
UPDATE III: See this important point from Atrios about Richard Cohen's admission that he was told before the anthrax attacks happened by a "high government official" to take cipro. Atrios writes: "now that we know that the US gov't believes that anthrax came from the inside, shouldn't Cohen be a wee bit curious about what this warning was based on?"
That applies to much of the Beltway class, including many well-connected journalists, who were quietly popping cipro back then because, like Cohen, they heard from Government sources that they should. Leave aside the ethical questions about the fact that these journalists kept those warnings to themselves. Wouldn't the most basic journalistic instincts lead them now -- in light of the claims by our Government that the attacks came from a Government scientist -- to wonder why and how their Government sources were warning about an anthrax attack? Then again, the most basic journalistic instincts would have lead ABC News to reveal who concocted and fed them the false "Saddam/anthrax" reports in the first place, and yet we still are forced to guess at those questions because ABC News continues to cover up the identity of the perpetrators.
UPDATE IV: John McCain, on the David Letterman Show, October 18, 2001 (days before ABC News first broadcast their bentonite report):
LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?
MCCAIN: I think we're doing fine . . . I think we'll do fine. The second phase -- if I could just make one, very quickly -- the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq.
LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?
MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that's when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.
ThinkProgress has the video. Someone ought to ask McCain what "indication" he was referencing that the anthrax "may have come from Iraq."
After all, three days later, McCain and Joe Lieberman went on Meet the Press (on October 21, 2001) and both strongly suggested that we would have to attack Iraq. Lieberman said that the anthrax was so complex and potent that "there's either a significant amount of money behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was stolen from the former Soviet program."
As I said, it is not possible to overstate the importance of anthrax in putting the country into the state of fear that led to the attack on Iraq and so many of the other abuses of the Bush era. There are few news stories more significant, if there are any, than unveiling who the culprits were behind this deliberate propaganda. The fact that the current GOP presidential nominee claimed back then on national television to have some "indication" linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks makes it a bigger story still.
UPDATE V: I tried to be careful here to avoid accepting as True the matter of Ivins' guilt. Very early on in the article, I framed the analysis this way: "If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab," and I then noted in Update II that Ivins' lawyer vehemently maintains his innocence. My whole point here is that the U.S. Government now claims the anthrax attacks came from a Government scientist at a U.S. Army lab, and my conclusions follow from that premise, accepted as true only for purposes of this analysis.
It's worth underscoring that it is far from clear that Ivins had anything to do with the anthrax attacks, and someone in comments claiming (anonymously though credibly) that he knew Ivins personally asserts that Ivins was innocent and makes the case as to why the Government's accusations are suspect. As I see it, the more doubt there is about who was responsible for the anthrax attacks, the greater is the need for ABC News to reveal who fabricated their reports linking the attacks to Iraq.
UPDATE VI: I'll be on Rachel Maddow's radio show tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST to discuss this story. Local listings and live audio feed are here.
Numerous people have advised me in comments and via email that ABC News is deleting any mention of my piece today in the comment section to their article on the Ivins suicide (though many such comments now seem to be posted there). Last year, ABC was in full denial mode when responding to the stories I wrote about this issue. The key here, I think, will be to try to devise the right strategy to induce the right Congressional Committee to hold hearings on the false ABC News stories and the anthrax issue generally. I hope to have more details on that effort shortly.
Posted by doctormatt at 10:51 PM
July 27, 2008
WTC building 7 - BBC video "The third tower"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4576154575407650292
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_september11.htm
Posted by doctormatt at 10:39 PM
March 20, 2008
'The Reflecting Pool' A New 9/11 Investigative Drama That Challenges The Official Version Of 9/11 Events, Released on DVD
A new 9/11 investigative drama that challenges the official version of 9/11 events, 'The Reflecting Pool', is now available on DVD from reflectingpoolfilm.com. 'The Reflecting Pool' follows a journalist who teams up with the father of a 9/11 victim to investigate the official version of the events. Their findings pose a disturbing question that has no easy answer: To what extent was the U.S. Government at fault for the attacks?
Posted by at 12:09 PM
March 11, 2008
Video - Ex-CIA analyst says Bin Laden unlikely responsible for 9-11
Interview with Dan Rather on 9-12-01.
Posted by at 8:36 PM
March 5, 2008
Psychiatrists and Psychologists: Government's 9/11 Story is Crazy
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/05/psychiatrists-and-psychologists.html
Posted by doctormatt at 12:19 AM
March 1, 2008
9/11 and Hutchison Effect
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/
Posted by doctormatt at 9:30 PM
Most likely cities for the next 9/11 are Houston, Chicago and Portland
The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists."
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26135.shtml
Continue reading "Most likely cities for the next 9/11 are Houston, Chicago and Portland"
Posted by at 5:25 PM
February 28, 2008
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.
Continue reading "9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent"
Posted by at 5:13 AM
February 20, 2008
Chalenging 9/11 - Interview with Jarek Kupsc, Director of The Reflecting Pool
New feature film “The Reflecting Pool” may just be the “All the President’s Men” of our time. No, it doesn’t have Hoffman and Redford. But it is a chilling and important fact-based investigative drama.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_jim_ciri_080219_challenging_the_unch.htm
Continue reading "Chalenging 9/11 - Interview with Jarek Kupsc, Director of The Reflecting Pool"
Posted by at 8:20 PM
February 18, 2008
More 9/11 Inside Job Evidence
Latest addition to Cooperative Research Timeline:
New evidence suggests that some of the hijackers were assisted by employees of the Saudi government.
Evidence suggests hijackers were actually trained by a CIA asset.
It is unclear why they would have kept the receipts, some mentioning their names, for over a year and then left them at a mosque to be found. After 9/11, a former high-level intelligence official told journalist Seymour Hersh that “Whatever trail was left [by the hijackers] was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.”
When hijacker Satam Al Suqami’s passport was recovered on 9/11 on the street near the World Trade Center, it was “soaked in jet fuel.”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-423
Posted by at 5:22 PM
February 17, 2008
Film Review - The Reflecting Pool
The Reflecting Pool may just be the All the President's Men of our time. This gripping, chilling, fact-based thriller stars writer/director Jarek Kupsc (Slumberland) as Alex Prokop, a successful, hard-hitting Russian-American journalist. As a last gasp before corporate takeover, his editor (Lisa Black) hands Prokop a bombshell assignment -- investigate the official version of 9-11.
Continue reading "Film Review - The Reflecting Pool"
Posted by at 6:08 AM
February 14, 2008
Some of the outrageous lies about 9/11
It is hard to pick a place to start in terms of talking about the most outrageous lies that the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission have presented to the people in this country as a reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and to launch a “fake war on terror”.
Continue reading " Some of the outrageous lies about 9/11"
Posted by at 4:30 AM
February 6, 2008
The latest NIST report on WTC buildings - still a cover up.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18999.htm
Continue reading "The latest NIST report on WTC buildings - still a cover up."
Posted by at 12:21 AM
February 5, 2008
Willie Nelson claims 9/11 buildings seemed to be controlled demolition
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4244526
Posted by at 11:49 PM
January 21, 2008
9-11-01 Links to Who Did It
Links for more information:
http://www.whodidit.org/links.html
And a list of suspects:
http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html
Posted by doctormatt at 12:04 AM
January 12, 2008
The United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Prosecution
Evidence of forged evidence.
The United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Prosecution
Trial Exhibit # P200068 & Manufactured Evidence.
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2592
The United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Prosecution
Trial Exhibit # P200069 & Manufactured Evidence.
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2616
Posted by doctormatt at 12:28 AM
January 11, 2008
Video - September Clues - about 9/11/01
Posted by at 10:32 PM
January 3, 2008
9/11 TRUTH COALITION STATEMENT on The Shell Game
We, the undersigned, urge everyone seeking truth, peace and justice, to not only purchase this new novel, "The Shell Game," but also to email out this appeal to all you know who seek truth, peace and justice in the form of 9/11 truth coming out. In turn, please urge them to do the same with all their contacts and urge them to do the same. We can break 9/11 truth open if we work together and focus on this project for the next 30 days.
Continue reading "9/11 TRUTH COALITION STATEMENT on The Shell Game"
Posted by doctormatt at 1:42 PM
December 22, 2007
NYT disclosed 9/11 CIA cover up
Posted by doctormatt at 6:14 PM
9/11 Truth Manifesto
For evidence that America’s political system is a criminal conspiracy, open your mind to piles of new analyses that prove beyond doubt that the official 9/11 story is a lie. Years of a bipartisan cover-up of 9/11 lies make it much more than one horrendous past event. It endures in infamy as a symptom of a corrupt and dishonest government.
Continue reading "9/11 Truth Manifesto"
Posted by at 6:09 PM
November 26, 2007
Science Behind the Theory: An Inside Job
Posted by doctormatt at 12:58 PM | Comments (1)
November 25, 2007
Video - Shanksville PA on 9-11-01 Where's the Boeing?
Where's the plane? Shot down? Missile created crater?
Posted by doctormatt at 10:26 PM
Video - Sept 11 - The clue most missed
How the myth was implanted into the American mind...
An example of a technique commonly used in black bag operations.
The "official story" was being told mere minutes after the event.
Posted by doctormatt at 10:18 PM
November 22, 2007
Watch Loose Change - Final Cut
RE: September 11, 2001
http://lc911.com/lc911/catalog/Loose-Change-Final-Cut-Stream-p-41.html
Posted by doctormatt at 11:40 PM
Loose Change Final Cut press conference
Posted by doctormatt at 11:21 PM
November 17, 2007
When I knew 9/11 was a hoax
By Winter Patriot
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2004/12/911-was-hoax-how-and-when-i-knew-it.html
Posted by at 1:08 AM
November 15, 2007
NIST report on WTC collapse is a joke
Appeal letter to NIST. (PDF File)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf
Posted by doctormatt at 1:05 PM
Video - Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Presentation of Richard Gage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjJzlcdtlkU
Posted by at 9:24 AM
Video - Richard Gage part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4MXU_-_2Q
Posted by at 9:14 AM
November 9, 2007
9/11 Video - Loose Change Final Cut Released
http://loosechangethefinalcut.com/
Posted by at 10:58 PM
Cheney's role in 9-11-01
Why he needs to testify under oath (PDF file):
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ProfScottWhyCheneyMustTestify.pdf
Posted by at 8:39 PM
November 4, 2007
Video - How the Towers Fell
Presentation by architect Richard Gage at the University of Manitoba.
Technical analyais of collapse of World Trade Center towers 1, 2 and 7.
Video here:
http://blip.tv/file/306082/
WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
Posted by doctormatt at 6:50 PM
VIDEO - 9/11 Mainstream Media becomes thoughtful.
Posted by doctormatt at 12:08 PM
November 2, 2007
Video - Reflecting Pool Film
The truth about 9/11/01 in a form accessible to the public.
This film premiers 11/3/07 at the Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival.
http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com
Posted by doctormatt at 9:21 PM
October 30, 2007
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”
Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said.
Continue reading "Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report"
Posted by at 11:39 PM
October 29, 2007
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Slide Show
Educational presentation
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/index.php
Posted by doctormatt at 8:58 PM
October 27, 2007
VIDEO 911 and American Empire - Intellectuals speak out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3195658770053494633
Posted by at 11:31 PM
VIDEO - Relatively new compilation piece on 9/11/01
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-710213549148507636&pr=goog-sl
Posted by doctormatt at 10:28 PM
October 26, 2007
Pilot comments on 9/11 hijackers
Posted by doctormatt at 11:43 PM
Eye witness reports - Demolition of world trade center buildings 1, 2 and 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDKa1Q1GwTQ
Posted by doctormatt at 11:29 PM
OpEd News Links RE: September 11 2001
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/showtags.php?tid=3694
Posted by doctormatt at 7:24 PM
UNANSWERED 9/11 MIRACLES
Eventually, hopefully during our lifetime, Pandora's Box will be fully opened regarding the 9/11 cover-up and the world will reel in shock and awe ~ when the monstrous truth is known to one and all : Allen L Roland
Continue reading "UNANSWERED 9/11 MIRACLES"
Posted by doctormatt at 7:22 PM
The Reflecting Pool - Video
Extended trailer - The real questions about 9/11/01.
"All Great Truths Begin as Blasphemies." G.B. Shaw
http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/
"The REFLECTING POOL," the first narrative movie to question the official version of the 9/11 events, will have its World Premiere at the 22nd Annual Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival.
Saturday, November 3 - 9:00 PM
Cinema Paradiso Theatre
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posted by doctormatt at 8:29 AM | Comments (1)
September 30, 2007
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't
U.S. support for Israel - too hot to address?
Posted by doctormatt at 7:34 PM
September 16, 2007
9/11 Explains the Impotence of the Anti-war Movement
The anti-war movement has proven impotent to stop the war in Iraq despite the fact that the war was initiated on the basis of lies and deception. The anti-war movement stands helpless to prevent President Bush from attacking Iran or any other country that he might demonize for harboring a future 9/11 threat.
September 11 enabled Bush to take America to war and to keep America at war even though the government’s explanation of the events of September 11 is mired in controversy and disbelieved by a large percentage of the population.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18391.htm
Continue reading "9/11 Explains the Impotence of the Anti-war Movement"
Posted by at 2:26 PM
Video - 9/11: Dr. Robert Bowman on the impossibility of the the official government story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyRHhqRGA
Posted by at 2:20 PM
September 12, 2007
Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories?
MSNBC Poll - Was the U.S. government somehow involved?
2/3 of those responding to the poll said YES.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720
Posted by doctormatt at 10:07 PM
September 9, 2007
9/11 Coincidences - part 8
Posted by doctormatt at 9:23 PM
9/11 Coincidences - part 11
Posted by doctormatt at 9:17 PM
August 30, 2007
9/11 Conspiracy Theories vs. Skeptical Analysis
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeConspiracy&Myth7.pdf
Posted by doctormatt at 7:07 PM
August 28, 2007
9/11 - CIA IG REPORT: A Little More Light Through the Cracks
Crimes of the State?
Posted by doctormatt at 12:31 PM
August 27, 2007
Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11
Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience – just one – whom I call the "raver".
Apologies here to all the men and women who come to my talks with bright and pertinent questions – often quite humbling ones for me as a journalist – and which show that they understand the Middle East tragedy a lot better than the journalists who report it.
But the "raver" is real. He has turned up in corporeal form in Stockholm and in Oxford, in Sao Paulo and in Yerevan, in Cairo, in Los Angeles and, in female form, in Barcelona. No matter the country, there will always be a "raver".
His – or her – question goes like this. Why, if you believe you're a free journalist, don't you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don't you tell the truth – that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don't you reveal the secrets behind 9/11?
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece
Continue reading "Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11"
Posted by at 7:54 PM
Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11
American Airlines - "9/11 Didn't Happen"
by Six Degrees of Aaron
Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 06:38:35 AM PDT
WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11.
Original entry was:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
New entry is:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767). Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.
Posted by doctormatt at 5:42 PM
August 11, 2007
9/11 and the BBC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1882365905982811133&hl=en
Posted by doctormatt at 7:10 AM
July 3, 2007
NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7: New witness confirms Scholars previous findings
By Jim Fetzer
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) appears to be moving in the direction of a "conspiracy theory" about the destruction of WTC-7 on 9/11 just as a new witness has emerged reporting extensive destruction inside the building many hours before it would be demolished. According to James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, these turns of events provide further confirmation for the conclusion that WTC-7 was brought down by a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET. "Anyone who googles WTC-7 will see an event that looks exactly like a controlled demolition, just as Peter Jennings and Dan Rather reported at the time. That is why this event makes NIST so uncomfortable."
Posted by at 6:52 AM | Comments (1)
May 19, 2007
9/11 Cover Stories?
URL:
Posted by at 11:18 AM
May 15, 2007
Rosie talks about 9/11 on the View
Video: Rosie on the View May 14, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0vJVhRocFQ
Posted by doctormatt at 11:22 PM