CK's blog

Muckraker: CIA letter supports assertion that OBL “confession video” was a sting operation

Just saw this and thought I post it. I'm leaning more toward the author's arguments, although this is obviously a rather controversial subject, open to speculation and interpretation.

CIA letter supports assertion that OBL “confession video” was a sting operation

The controversy over the "Fatty Bin Laden" in the tape is not going away. I always thought the "confession tape" had a fake Bin Laden too, until reading Muckraker's report here:

Taking the fat out of the fat bin Laden confession video

That report explains the aspect ratio problem with the video, as well as other things, like the gold ring, etc. It's truly an eye-opener. That doesn't mean this report supports the Official Conspiracy Theory by any means though. The author, Ed Haas, asserts that this BushCo is guilty of treason. Read and discuss please!

FBI Director Mueller imagines new domestic nuke threats

Sure sounds like they're setting up the public's mind for a domestic nuclear event. The comments over at RawStory are pretty well informed. This kind of set-up is exactly what we should be fearing most -- even more than the actual event, as horrific as it is likely to be -- because unless we can pre-empt the corporate media, they sheeple will just fall in line again. On the other hand, it's quite possible that we already have a majority on our side -- the media just isn't doing any polling that would reveal that, so we tend to think we're still just a fringe movement (see second link below).

FBI Director Mueller imagines new domestic nuke threats

On Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller spoke to CBS News about his fears of a nuclear terror attack, saying, "Terrorists, al Qaeda, bin Laden have sought nuclear materials for a number of years now." He stressed that a nuclear device could cause devastation "far, far beyond what we saw on September 11."

Historic Interview with Aaron Russo

I'm only 35 minutes into this 69 minute interview, conducted by Alex Jones, but Russo's really speaking much more forthrightly than I've seen before, with not just questioning 9/11 but stating unequivocally that it was part of creating a one world government, and that the war on terror is a huge hoax, and inside information he received from Nick Rockefeller (some of which I've heard before, but more in-depth here), the NWO's plans for an RFID chip on every person on the planet, etc. All quite disturbing, but nonetheless fascinating and highly recommended.

David Ray Griffin's new essay

Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
By David Ray Griffin

My purpose in publishing this essay is to introduce a perspective, relevant to the debates about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, that thus far has not been part of the public discussion.

02/27/07 "ICH" -- - -One way to understand the effect of 9/11, in most general terms, is to see that it allowed the agenda developed in the 1990s by neoconservatives—-often called simply “neocons”---to be implemented. There is agreement on this point across the political spectrum. From the right, for example, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke say that 9/11 allowed the “preexisting ideological agenda” of the neoconservatives to be “taken off the shelf . . . and relabeled as the response to terror.”1 Stephen Sniegoski, writing from the left, says that “it was only the traumatic effects of the 9/11 terrorism that enabled the agenda of the neocons to become the policy of the United States of America.”2

The Irony of

I find it amazingly ironic that has a feature video on Project Censored's recent Media Accountability Conference, where the keynote speaker was Stephen E. Jones, co-founder of 911 Scholars for Truth.

Here's truthout SELECTIVELY airing a segment by Jason Leopold, which while important, is dwarfed by the biggest story of the century: 9/11 which truthout continues to ignore and effectively CENSOR from its coverage.

This has been an ongoing beef of mine about the alternative and progressive media organizations, blogs, and publications like truthout, BuzzFlash, Common Dreams, DailyKos, AmericaBlog, The Nation, Salon, Alternet, and on and on. I know Barrie Zwicker has written extensively about this phenomena in his latest book "Towers of Deception."

When will these presumably intelligent progressives wake up and smell the thermate?

disgusted with

I was just over at (the site where readers leave comments and "buzz" various articles from around the world) to see if there might be any 9/11 truth articles. I found one from Scholars for 9/11 Truth -- I believe it's the article by Stephen Jones (my Acrobat just crashed, so can't check right now) but the point is that whoever controls put a "Warning! This story may be inaccurate. Be careful before you buzz" right above it. WTF? Two of us have left comments taking issue with that -- we need more 9/11 Bloggers to come in and buzz the story and leave comments.

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors -- new favorite 9/11 documentary

I don't know if this video has been talked about here on 9/11 blogger -- it's pretty new. I just watched it last night and it's now one of my favorites (and I've seen just about all of them).

Free for viewing on Google:

Yes, it's a Peak Oil film but even if you don't believe in the premise of Peak Oil, the segments on 9/11 are excellent and quite lengthy. Interviews with Michael Meacher, Richard Heinberg, David Shayler, Andreas von Bulow, Webster Tarpley, Christopher Bollyn, and others. Only 50 minutes, but quite compelling. Main website for documentary:

letter to a confused/misguided friend

Recently, I forwarded a link for 9/11: Press for Truth to a number of people on my mailing list. One of these people forwarded the link to HIS mailing list, which I'm on. So I thought this was great because he's someone I haven't ever communicated with regarding 9/11 truth. Then, last night, he sent out to his same mailing list the link to the Michael Shermer hit-piece in Scientific American along with that video link where Shermer is interviewed on C-SPAN. Not knowing whether my friend jumped over to the other side, or whether he just wanted to be "fair and balanced," I decided to respond with a letter. Here it is:

Dear ______,

That article by Michael Shermer really wasn't a response to 9/11: Press for Truth (as your message subject indicates) -- it was a hit piece about 9/11 conspiracies -- and, there's no mention of the film in that article.

Press for Truth is NOT a film about "conspiracy theories," but instead delves into the unanswered questions of the family members of the victims, the facts about the 9/11 Commission that many people don't know, and the established but marginalized media reports about the involvement of the Pakistani ISI (intelligence service). The film features interviews with Paul Thompson, the author of the comprehensive timeline of 9/11 -- a man who few people (except the uninformed) would call a "conspiracy theorist." The point of Press for Truth is to establish a clear case as to why we need a new investigation into what happened on 9/11.

Scientific American hit piece

this one is short 'n nasty, and completely ridiculous of course, but will soothe the soul of those still needing/wanting the BLUE PILL

plus... wait for it.... Michael Shermer on C-SPAN if you can stomach it.... I couldn't

Fahrenheit 2777
9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories
By Michael Shermer, Skeptic Magazine

Noted French left-wing activist Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 conspiracy book, L'Effroyable Imposture, became a best-seller in 2002. But I never imagined such an "appalling deception" would ever find a voice in America. At a recent public lecture I was buttonholed by a Michael Moore–wannabe filmmaker who breathlessly explained that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Central Intelligence Agency as part of their plan for global domination and a New World Order. That goal was to be financed by G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, Drugs) and launched by a Pearl Harbor–like attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby providing the justification for war. The evidence was there in the details, he explained, handing me a faux dollar bill (with "9-11" replacing the "1," a picture of Bush supplanting that of Washington) chockablock with Web sites.

Anonymity on the internet

In this day and age of big brother surveillance by the government, and the unwillingness of our congresspersons to put an end to it, I am increasingly concerned about how to keep myself anonymous on the internet. Sure, they aren't rounding up dissidents and terrorist sympathizers (9/11 truthers) and putting us in those Halliburton detention centers yet, but given the fact that the Bush administration continues to reign its terror on the world, with no end in sight, how can we protect ourselves and still communicate with one another (while we still have a free internet)?

Has anyone done research on the best ways to go about this? I recently looked into this and came upon a site called where the company makes a lot of claims about how it keeps your IP address from being seen. Looks like a good system, but how can we know for sure? If anybody has suggestions and especially direct experience with this, I'd appreciate some advice.

Bush says terrorists "are coming again"

He ought to know! Pretty scary if you ask me. Bush is visibly angry? Like a cornered animal ready to lash out? You know, maybe Alex Jones is right about his prediction of another 9/11 coming before the elections.

In a highly combative exchange with reporters, United States President George W. Bush has told reporters today that terrorists will strike the United States again, RAW STORY has learned.

In arguing for legislation that would define US interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in a way that many would argue would allow certain forms of torture, Bush said, "I wish I could tell the American people, 'don't worry about it.' They're not coming again. But they are coming again."

"Time is running out," the President concluded.

Bush also struck out at comments by former Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding the moral standing of the United States' war on terror.

Paul Craig Roberts: "Where is the evidence?" 

Just saw this and thought I post my thoughts. He makes some excellent points that I think many here will resonate with. In particular, I liked the following (emphasis mine):

My opinion of “Loose Change” and Popular Mechanics is independent of who won the debate [on Democracy Now!]. The “Loose Change” producers are more to be admired than the Popular Mechanics editors for the simple reason that the former are committed to opening a debate and the latter are committed to closing debate down. Indeed, Popular Mechanics was early on the scene trying to close off debate by defending the government line. Why?

If I had been in the debate, I would have asked Meigs and Dunbar what’s conspiratorial about a thorough hearing and examination of an event that has been used to justify illegal invasions that are war crimes and have destroyed two countries and killed tens of thousands of people.

And this:

What happened to the Pentagon videos?

So many people here on 911Blogger were worried that we were being set up for a smoking gun video that would PROVE once and for all that it was Flight 77 that actually hit the Pentagon. OK, it has been 4 months since Judicial Watch posted its ridiculous video obtained by a FOIA request. September 11 anniversary has passed. Nobody is talking about it any more. Too many other "fires" to put out I suppose.

So, what's the consensus of opinion now that all this time has passed? Have any of you changed your minds? I never bought into the idea that this was a set up, simply because the government has had so many years to produce a believable tape and all they could come up with is that lame "video" that so many talking heads said would put an end to the conspiracy theories. Seemed ridiculous then, and seems even more ridiculous now.

I still think that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and I still think the government is looking really bad on this one. I'd be very surprised if any other tapes are ever made public -- tapes that really show what happened. Of course, with a new investigation and subpoena power, perhaps we could actually see whatever it was that hit the Pentagon.