I have been removed from the membership list at stj911.org, without a word of explanation, although I have been a member since the founding. I suspect it is because of my essay "9/11 Aletheia," which was published on OpEdNews.com (but rejected by 911blogger.com, also without explanation).

Is this any way for "Scholars" to behave? I can't say I'm surprised, but I was secretly hoping that I was wrong about the people who are obviously controlling things there. I was not. Read the essay at http://www.opednews.com/articles/9-11-Aletheia-by-Michael-Morrissey-0905... .

I hope I don't get banned from 911blogger as well. We all need to think about what is going on here.

The only thing I have read about this strange event that asked the right question was on wsws.org, one of my favorite sites. Alex Lantier wrote on April 29:

How could one of two specially-designed presidential jets be requisitioned for a flight over New York City, where nearly 3,000 were killed in the 9/11 attacks, without the knowledge of the president, the mayor or high-ranking US military officials such as the defense secretary and the joint chiefs of staff? If the official story is indeed true, it raises the question of who is in control of the US military.

The White House internal review published a week later, I think, answers the question: the US military is in control of the US military.

...Read more at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/flyover

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/over-a29.shtml
From wsws.org, by Alex Lantier
29 April 2009

On the morning of April 27, one of two Boeing 747 jetliners used by the US president flew at low altitude over downtown New York, escorted by fighter jets. The official explanations and media commentaries concerning this extraordinary event raise more questions than they answer.

For half an hour the planes banked over the city, passing the Statue of Liberty, Lower Manhattan and the former site of the World Trade Center, where two jetliners crashed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. CNN and YouTube videos show the planes passing only a few hundred feet above the New York skyline.

President Barack Obama was not on board the 747.

Residents and passers-by ran for cover, fearing that another terrorist attack might be in progress.

According to unnamed military and administration sources cited in the Wall Street Journal, the flight was a “secret” photo-op, of which only select officials at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the White House, the New York Police Department and New York City Hall had advance knowledge.

The Economic and Social Crisis

The financial meltdown has unleashed a latent and emergent social crisis across the United States.

What is at stake is the fraudulent confiscation of lifelong savings and pension funds, the appropriation of tax revenues to finance the trillion dollar "bank bailouts", which ultimately serve to line the pockets of the richest people in America.

This economic crisis is in large part the result of financial manipulation and outright fraud to the detriment of entire populations, to a renewed wave of corporate bankruptcies, mass unemployment and poverty.

The criminalization of the global financial system, characterized by a "Shadow Banking" network has resulted in the centralization of bank power and an unprecedented concentration of private wealth.

A set of nine secret memos released by the US Justice Department Monday reveal that in the weeks and months after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks the US government began erecting the legal scaffolding for a full-blown military dictatorship.

Attorney General Eric Holder declared that the release of the documents, which were posted on the Justice Department's web site, signaled a new era of "transparency and openness." The actions of the Obama administration in recent weeks, however, including the invocation of national security and state secrets to quell lawsuits challenging the worst abuses of the Bush era, make it clear that the threat revealed in these memos is far from over.

(Read more at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/pers-m04.shtml )

I have revamped my 9/11 Truth Coalition forum on Yahoo, which up to now I have been treating with neglect, i.e. more or less as a public bulletin board. From now on I will moderate strictly, and allow only substantive, focussed, rational and civil contributions. Everyone is welcome to join the group, and no subjects are taboo, but, as I say, I will moderate the posts. The topic I am trying to focus on at the moment is "Molten metal at GZ: Is the evidence for it conclusive?"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911truthcoalition

(This was in the NYT on Friday. Although Krugman doesn't mention 9/11, of course the same arguments apply, particularly inasmuch as the war in Iraq was a direct result. Orig. is at http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=19427087 .)

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration.

"I don't believe that anybody is above the law," he responded, but "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

I'm sorry, but if we don't have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years - and nearly everyone has taken Obama's remarks to mean that we won't - this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don't face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Somebody ought to at least ask this Gul what he thinks of the fact that one of his predecessors, Mahmud Ahmed, was with Congressman and later CIA director Porter Goss and Senator and Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Bob Graham in Washington discussing Osama bin Laden when 9/11 occurred, and of the possibility that Ahmed was the one who ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohammed Atta.

The interregnum should be used to put pressure on Obama to do what we want him to: investigate 9/11 properly. If we fail to do this it will be the final proof that the leading figures in our "truth movement" are not on our side at all, but only shills.

Therefore I propose something that no one can disagree with: a new 9/11 Truth Commission headed by David Ray Griffin.

Nothing more or else, because anything more or less would give too many people too many things to argue about and forestall the process. Calls for action must be as simple as possible. Ignore the outcries and specious arguments why this won't work. It will if we do it. If EVERY 9/11 truth group and site takes up this cause 100%, it will happen. Just do it, and watch them show their colors. There is nothing to organize. All you have to do is call for a new investigation headed by David Ray Griffin.

Watch what happens, starting right here...

I voted for Cynthia McKinney because she was the only candidate who sees him (I think it is a he). The others either don't, or won't admit it, and I see no significant difference between these two points of non-view.

According to polls about a third of the US population (not to mention the rest of the world) think, or at least suspect, that 9/11 was an inside job, and McKinney was the only candidate who has even mentioned the possibility. Of course I'm glad that Obama has spared us the catastrophe of McCain, but this time I decided to indulge my "conscience"--that is, vote for the person I would really like to see in office--because it was pretty clear to me that Dumbo had decided on Obama, and in the long run we will never break the yoke of the two-qua-one party system unless we vote outside the box.

Cynthia McKinneyʼs .1% of the vote came from some places that, for me at least, were
unexpected. I would not have expected proportionately more Louisianans to vote for her
than people in any other state, for example, and though California doesnʼt surprise me I
would not have thought Maine, Arkansas and West Virginia would come out ahead of New
York and Massachusetts.

This may be worth some cogitation. I voted for her mainly, but not only, because she was
the only 9/11 truth candidate, i.e. the only person on the ballot (mine anyway, in Florida)
who has had the guts to call for a real investigation of the major event that has been the
excuse for the last 8 years of horror perpetrated by the Bush-Cheney gang. Was this also
her attraction for the voters in Louisiana, Arkansas, and West Virginia? We can be pretty
sure it was not the “black vote,” in this case, since Obama took that. What else was it,
then, if not 9/11?

These states are generally considered “conservative,” are they not? Well, maybe weʼve
got them all wrong. Just think about it. Percentage-wise, more than twice as many people

This (article in my local paper) is the ONLY mention I have seen in the German press (what I
see and read of it, anyway) or on CNN or BBC (both of which I watch
occasionally) to any candidates other than Obama and McCain. Nuff
said, proved, signed, sealed and delivered with respect to the quality
of "journalism" in the US and Germany. In case you don't read German,
it says I voted for "McKenny" (sic) (the others voted for Obama, one
for McCain) and that most people (Germans anyway) don't know that
there are at least ten other candidates on the ballot. If you click on
the camera icon next to the byline you should see an exciting slide
show including my mug at the very end:

http://www.hna.de///kasselstart/00_20081103211420_Obama_hat_die_Nase_vor...

I trust I will wake up tomorrow to a better world with President-elect
Obama--better at least than the other guy.

Michael

I just got my absentee Florida ballot, and I thought you might be interested in the list. I don't know if the names have been announced publicly, in Florida or elsewhere, but I do know that I have only heard of 5 out of the 13 of them, and that is only because I go to the US every summer. Here in Germany, I would only have heard of two. I'll have to google most of them. This shows how seriously our media take their job of informing the public.

Here is the list, and their party acronyms (all which I have not deciphered yet, either):

John McCain/Sarah Palin, REP
Barack Obama/Joe Biden DEM
Gloria La Riva/Eugene Puryear PS
Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle CPF
Gene Amondson/Leroy Pletten PRO
Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root LBT
Thomas Robert Stevens/Alden Link OBJ
James Harris/Alyson Kennedy SWP
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente GRE
Alan Keyes/Brian Rohrbough AIP
Ralph Naden/Matt Gonzalez ECO
Brian Moore/Stewart Alexander SPF
Charles Jay/John Wayne Smith BTP

There is also a (very small) space for a Write-in candidate.

I believe Cynthia McKinney is the only "truth" candidate, but as I said, I have to google most of them.

Here is a good example of what can be done:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_on_el_st_lo/prosecuting_bush_2

The 9/11 truth movement should support this because it can be used as a stepping-stone to 9/11 prosecutions as well.

At the same time, 9/11 truthers should stick to Bugliosi's arguments because prematurely bringing 9/11 into the case/argumentation/politicization of the issue (the latter being the main goal) would hamstring it.

So I see an opportunity and a danger here. Do "truthers" have enough self-discipline to do one thing at a time? Once we are well into prosecution for war crimes we can much more easily extend into 9/11 crimes.

Beware of those who ignore the elementary wisdom of this approach--and there will be more than a few.

Eleven years ago yesterday the trial against Matthias Rust began in Moscow. A few months earlier, on May 28, 1987, the 19-year-old German had landed his single-engine Cessna about 100 meters from Red Square. There are still unanswered questions about how this amateur pilot was able to penetrate what Bill Keller of the New York Times called “the world’s most vaunted air defenses” (NYT, June 7, 1987).

There is no question, though, about the aftermath:

“With surprising speed and openness, Defense Minister Sergei L. Sokolov, 75, was retired. The commander of the air defense system, Marshal Aleksandr I. Koldunov, was sacked with a harsh rebuke from the ruling Politburo. Other senior military figures were expected to be removed more quietly.”

Tom LeCompte wrote in Air & Space Magazine, July 1, 2005:

Somewhere between George Bush and Noam Chomsky, who believe the 9/11 Commission Report, and David Ray Griffin, who believes "the Bush-Cheney administration orchestrated 9/11" (Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, 2006, p. vii-viii, ), there is Peter Dale Scott.

Scott doesn't say who did it, but as Ola Tunander puts it,

"Peter Dale Scott exposes a shadow world of oil, terrorism, drug trade and arms deals, of covert financing and parallel security structures – from the Cold War to today. He shows how such parallel forces of the United States have been able to dominate the agenda of the George W. Bush Administration, and that statements and actions made by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld before, during and after September 11, 2001, present evidence for an American "deep state" and for the so-called "Continuity of Government" in parallel to the regular "public state" ruled by law. Scott"s brilliant work not only reveals the overwhelming importance of these parallel forces but also presents elements of a strategy for restraining their influence to win back the "public state," the American democracy."

In preparing for my recent interview with Kevin Barrett on June 6, since I knew he wanted to talk about Noam Chomsky, I had the dubious pleasure of reviewing my own correspondence (1989-1995) with the man who seems to have become, in addition to the world's most famous linguist and leftist dissident, the most famous "left gatekeeper." I may have had more than a little to do with that, since I published three articles based on our correspondence (and his book Rethinking Camelot), and eventually the correspondence itself (my letters and summaries of his replies) on the internet, later included in my book Looking for the Enemy (2007).

[read more at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/falsedebate ]

The link for my radio interview with Kevin Barrett on his "Dynamic Duo" internet radio show this afternoon (Fri. June 6) from 4-6 pm Central Time is http://www.gcnlive.com/Listen_Live.html . Click on one of the boxes under Network 4 for the live stream.

Michael

"As things look, Israel may well attack Iran soon"

By Joschka Fischer (former German Minister of Defense)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20019.htm

I have one suggestion and one question.

The suggestion is: Follow Bugliosi's lead and prosecute Bush et al. for murder in 3,000 cases for 9/11. Start by writing the book. I would do it, but I am not a lawyer. You lawyers out there, get together and write the book. Surely you can do as well as The Bug. Stop asking for a "new investigation" and start prosecuting. If Bugliosi can do it for the Iraq war, we can do it for 9/11. Not impeachment, because that is dependent on our lily-livered congresswimps.

The question is: Can anyone list up the past and ongoing suits so far on 9/11? This is for background info.

(I am referring of course to Vincent Bugliosi's recent book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"; see my last blog for interview with him.)

Here is a good interview with Bugliosi. Whatever his agenda and past misdeeds (obfuscation of the JFK assassination), he is good on this one. I wish we had him with us on 9/11:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/1...

When CNN announced their documentary on the assassination of Martin Luther King, which aired here in Germany on April 6, I predicted that they would not mention the verdict of the 1999 Jowers trial. This was of course the civil suit that the King family brought against Loyd Jowers, the owner of the restaurant below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968, and from which he supposedly shot King on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel opposite. The King family won the suit, and though the legal consequences were trivial (Jowers was ordered to pay $100 in damages for "wrongful death"), it brought a certain amount of closure to the King family, and for them and millions of other (not only black) Americans, established the truth in the case as definitively as could be realistically expected.

Unfortunately, my prediction was correct. Read further at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/logical8 .

Excerpt from William Blum, "Since I Gave Up Hope, I Feel Better" (enigmatic title):

"Consider this: On June 9, 1969, Dr. Donald M. MacArthur, Deputy Director, Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, testified before Congress:

'Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory [resistant] to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.'[11]

"Whether the United States actually developed such a microorganism and what it did with it has not been reported. AIDS was first identified by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1981. It's certainly possible that the disease arose as a result of Defense Department experiments, and then spread as an unintended consequence."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19855.htm

More to give the lie to the claims of cell phone calls from the hijacked airliners on 9/11 (corroborating DRG's summary in "9/11 Contradictions"):

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/18/business/cell.php

E.g., "But last month, Emirates became the first airline to enable in-flight mobile voice services, on an Airbus A340 from Dubai to Casablanca."

Had anyone ever even HEARD of anyone making a successful cell phone call from an airplane flying at more than 10,000 feet before 9/11 2001?

I was wondering what happened to Michael Ruppert and found this on 911blogger: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/retrospective2008.shtml . From the FTW website I found Ruppert's recent letter, which answered my question fully: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/retrospective2008.shtml .

I just want to add that this also answers the questions I had when I was in a Georgetown bookstore in March 2005 (for a language conference) and was surprised to see "Crossing the Rubicon" prominently displayed. I had already read it. My question was, How can he get away with accusing Cheney et al. of orchestrating 9/11, and why would the book be prominently displayed in the heart of the monster when it wasn't even being reviewed by the mainstream? I'm still unclear about the second question, but the answer to the first is clear, and I hope Steve Alten fares better.

Part 7 of "The Logical Reconstruction of Reality": http://www.mdmorrissey.info/logical7 .

This should load if traffic is not heavy, but if you have trouble, send me an email: mdmorrissey@t-online.com .

This is Part 6 of "The Logical Reconstruction of Reality." Parts 1-5 (and the rest of this part) can be accessed at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/title.

I want to elaborate somewhat on the idea of transparent conspiracy (see part 3), lest the idea seem too big to chew. It is chewable, but it takes a little work. Even though I have been chewing on it for some time, I am only now arriving at the conclusion, as I pointed out in part 4, that the theory is correct.
First of all, let's give it a name that will itself be more transpaent: MITOP. We are familiar with LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). Now we have "Made It Transparent On Purpose."
What do so many people now think 9/11 was an inside job? Because there are so many reasons to think so? Yes--for all of those reasons, and for one more that not so many people may have thought of: we are supposed to think so. The perpetrators, the people on the inside (Orwell's "Inner Party") want us to think so.

I am almost ashamed to see that it has been a year and a half since I wrote part 4 ("The Onion Peeled"), which ends on the optimistic note that Bush and Cheney might be impeached if the Democrats won the 2006 elections.
That optimism was born of desperation, because I felt the danger of another, and worse, 9/11 false flag event was imminent at that time. The fact that it did not occur, and the fact that the Democrats won that election, subsequently gaining control of the Senate as well as the House, coupled with the immediate declaration by the party leaders that impeachment was "off the table," makes it clear why we were spared a second "new Pearl Harbor" and, so far at least, war with Iran.

I wrote this on June 20, 1991 (mucho pre-9/11--my how time doth pass, and then again does not...). Still seems relevant.

There once was a president malevolent
Who took the law of the country as affrontery.
So he said to his henchmen:
"Don't be back-benchmen,
Get into drugs and gun-runnery.

"It may seem a bit crummy
In this way to make money
To stir up the rabble
And flood 'em with babble
While they sit there and say, 'Ain't it funny.'

"But to hell with democracy.
It's just old-fashioned hypocrisy.
The world is OUR oyster
And there's not enough moisture
To feed all those blithering sops you see.

"We knock off the hard 'uns
The John F.'s and Bobbys and Martins
Send the young 'uns to jail
The dumb 'uns to Yale
And some to California with pardons.

"We've got wars and AIDS to get rid of the scum
Whores and parades to satisfy some
While the boys at Harvard
Talk starboard and larboard
Having fun keeping mum and the shit in the bum.

"The truth, in fact, is plain to see
That's the problem with democracy.
So thank God for Dan Rather
And all of that blather
On the news every night on TV."

Hail, Sol Invictus.

Pray tell what mortal hand or eye
could frame such irony,
read from the inside:
Jedem das Seine.

We will not tolerate
outrageous conspiracy theories.
Preemptive war
and torture
will set you free.

On this drizzle of a day
the old god struggles
across cluttered cyberskies
fortunately returning
but still the iron stands.

It does not melt like buildings
struck by airplanes
or vaporize or sink into the earth
like airplanes
on certain days.

Reason is but a mode the mind abides in.
The rest is dark, like blood.

mdmorrissey, Feb. 28, 2008 (www.mdmorrissey.info/sunrise)