911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
By JENNIFER QUINN
LONDON Oct 1, 2006 (AP)— More than 18 months before they carried out the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, a new videotape shows two of the Sept. 11 hijackers laughing and smiling for a camera.
Mohamed Atta and Ziad Jarrah look much different in the tape than they do in photographs made famous after the attacks in New York and Washington....
In case anyone thought maybe someday Stone will realize his mistake with "World Trade Center":
"I think that conspiracy-mongering on 9/11 is a waste of time," he said. "The far greater conspiracy occurred after 9/11 when basically a neo-cabal inside our government hijacked policy and went to war. That was as broad a conspiracy as we can get and it was about 20, 30 people. That's all, they took over and all these books are coming out and they are pointing it out," said Stone.
Lucky for the neocons, who don't seem interested in Afghanistan anymore (now that the pipeline is in the works), Al Qaeda, that elusive would-be terrorist network, is moving to where the neocons want them: the Middle East. Do you think Al Qaeda will be merged with Iran in the coming weeks? Obviously, the article suggests Iraq is the new center of operations, a convenient twist for an administration that made bogus claims about Hussein and Bin Laden being in bed together. Now, Bush will claim, the US can't leave Iraq because it has become the center of the "global war on terra"....
"Al Qaeda has scaled down its leadership structure in Afghanistan and is poised to shift its main decision making to somewhere in the Middle East, possibly Iraq, senior Arab officials have revealed to CBS News, as speculation continues over the fate of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden."
This story appeared on Reuters today. The premise that the French intelligence report of Bin Laden's death is actually an attempt to "smoke him out" sounds rather odd in the mainstream press. I know it's a long shot, but I thought perhaps this story was building a premise for an October Surprise?
24 Sep 2006 13:44:02 GMT
By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent
LONDON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - A leaked intelligence report of Osama bin Laden's death has met scepticism from Western and Muslim governments but may increase a clamour from his followers to show himself on video for the first time in nearly two years.
One theory surrounding the mysterious French leak is that it was designed precisely to flush the al Qaeda leader into the open, prompting him to release a new tape that might give a clue to his whereabouts and state of health.
"Western intelligence, the Americans, the Saudis want bin Laden to appear," said Diaa Rashwan, an expert on Islamist groups at the al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.
"Perhaps they're try
POSTED: 8:26 a.m. EDT, September 11, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.
Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks.
That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.
Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."
"There are periods in the life of human society when revolution becomes an imperative necessity, when it proclaims itself as inevitable. New ideas germinate everywhere, seeking to force their way into the light, to find an application in life; everywhere they are opposed by the inertia of those whose interest it is to maintain the old order; they suffocate in the stifling atmosphere of prejudice and traditions. The accepted ideas of the constitution of the State, of the laws of social equilibrium, of the political and economic interrelations of citizens, can hold out no longer against the implacable criticism which is daily undermining them whenever occasion arises,--in drawing room as in cabaret, in the writings of philosophers as in daily conversation. Political, economic, and social institutions are crumbling; the social structure, having become uninhabitable, is hindering, even preventing the development of the seeds which are being propagated within its damaged walls and being brought forth around them."
- Peter Kropotkin, "The Spirit of Revolt"
Yesterday, DUer shewhomustbeobeyed discovered that David Cunningham, director of "The Path to 9/11," is the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the worldwide evangelical group Youth With a Mission.
Youth With a Mission has an "auxiliary branch" called The Film Institute.
read more at the link....
Radar reports: Anderson Cooper's CIA Secret
"Anderson Cooper has long traded on his biography, carving a niche for himself as the most human of news anchors. But there's one aspect of his past that the silver-haired CNN star has never made public: the months he spent training for a career with the Central Intelligence Agency."
In so many ways, he never left.
By Scott Collins, Times Staff Writer
ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.
The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.....
I missed the beginning of it, but it has metal workers talking about how hot the fires were at Ground Zero, and how there was nothing but dust remaining from the towers. This could be a valuable resource. I don't have the equipment to record and upload this program, but here is the schedule of when it will air:
John Mueller, Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University and the author of "The Remnants of War", in an article at Foreign Affairs, explores the overstated nature of the terror threat. His article,
Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?, asks:
"But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited?
One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered."
He also has a book coming out in November, called Overblown:+How+Politicians+and+the+Terrorism+Industry+Inflate+National+Security+Threats,+and+Why+We+Believe+Them.
"The study of data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), an affiliate of Syracuse University in New York, also showed that as many as nine out of 10 terrorism investigations do not result in prosecutions, that most charges are not related to terrorism and that only about a third of those prosecuted end up in prison."
More proof, as if it were needed, that the "terror" threat has been vastly overstated, even when provoked, and even when most of the terrorist activity is sponsored by intelligence informants.
Note the language of the latest Washington Post story about 9/11 skeptics:
U.S. Rebuts 9/11 Homegrown Conspiracy Theories.
Forget the dubious claim that the US government has "rebut" anything. The use of "homegrown" is an intentional echo of "homegrown terrorism," the White House attempt to subconsciously reinforce Bush's line that "if we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them here at home."
"Homegrown" terrorism also plants the seed of suspicion everywhere, and it justifies calls for a more "unified" intelligence response to terrorism. In other words, the terminology encourages consolidation of power. Here is what FBI director Mueller said back in June:
'There is no one person, no one agency, no one police department, indeed no one country that has all of the answers,' Mueller said.
'Our greatest weapon against terrorism is unity,' Mueller stated. 'And that unity is built on information-sharing and coordination among our partners in the law enforcement and the intelligence communities.'
Fans of synthetic terror should have a look at this article in the Washington Post today: FBI+Role+in+Terror+Probe+Questioned.
"What Batiste did not know was that the bin Laden representative was really an FBI informant. The warehouse in which they were meeting had been rented and wired for sound and video by bureau agents, who were monitoring his every word."
"But court records released since then suggest that what Gonzales described as a "deadly plot" was virtually the pipe dream of a few men with almost no ability to pull it off on their own. The suspects have raised questions in court about the FBI informants' role in keeping the plan alive."
Once again, a trumped up charge of "terror plotting" is reduced to an FBI informant prompting some dupes into a bogus scheme.
Salon is now featuring a review of Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, an obvious piece of shillwork. It appears some 9/11 Truth folks have already left comments. Have at it, people...
The University of New Hampshire is refusing to fire a tenured professor whose views on 9/11 have led many politicians in the state to demand his dismissal.
William Woodward, a professor of psychology, is among those academics who believe that U.S. leaders have lied about what they know about 9/11, and were involved in a conspiracy that led to the massive deaths on that day, setting the stage for the war with Iraq. The Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper, reported on Woodward’s views on Sunday, and quoted him (accurately, he says) saying that he includes his views in some class sessions.
The newspaper then interviewed a who’s who of New Hampshire Republican politicians calling for the university to fire Woodward. U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg is quoted as saying that “there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and that “it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans.”
State legislators chimed in, demanding Woodward’s dismissal and threatening to consider the issue when they next review the university’s budget. In some respects, the political reactions mirror those in Wisconsin, where lawmakers lined up to urge the University of Wisconsin at Madison to fire Kevin Barrett, who shared Woodward’s views and is an adjunct teaching in the fall semester. The university is letting Barrett’s course go ahead, although as a non-tenured adjunct, he has no assurance of work after this semester.
Martin Levin, writing in the Books+section+of+the+Globe+and+Mail+yesterday+(page+D13), trashes Towers of Deception and says some of the "more important" books on 9/11 will be "reviewed at length" in coming weeks.
Levin misrepresents Zwicker's argument, claiming, for example, that Zwicker says Noam Chomsky "is part of the plot," without explaining what he means by that. Levin writes:
"Now I have little trouble believing it possible that plutocrats of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of ego are orchestrating things for their own benefit and that of their Fortune 500 cronies. Or that the war in Iraq is based on an unsavoury stew of misconceptions, stupidity, wishful thinking and deceit. But what I do have difficulty believing is that the 'perpetrators' are intelligent enough and, I suppose, quite evil enough, not only to concoct such a grand strategy, but to carry it off so deviously that only Zwicker and his allies can discern its true nature. I have just as hard a time believing that this sometimes entertainingly obsessive screed has proved anything at all."
"Only Zwicker and his allies"? You mean the 100 million Americans, 20 million Canadians, and countless millions of foreigners who believe the US government did it?
In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin says, regarding WTC7, "there is no evidence of any raging fire" (p.21). This claim, often repeated, must be modified. Debunking sites use images from Steve Spak's film Day of Disaster to counter the argument for controlled demolition. This evidence cannot be ignored. Here I would like to suggest a refined argument for WTC7, and I recommend downgrading its importance in the 911 Truth movement.
Hopefully, the screen captures I uploaded appear below. These images are from Spak's film and show the west side and the south side. Typically, Truthers show video of the north side collapsing. The west face shows at least one floor where the windows are broken and a "raging" fire is belching from the building. The south side shows a wall of smoke and some structural damage (we know the SW corner had a gash about 15-20 floors high).
Two points should be made about these pictures:
1. There is definitely an intense fire in WTC7, but we do not know how widespread it is.
2. The wall of smoke suggests but does not confirm a widespread fire. There is definitely structural damage to the south side of WTC7, and all of the smoke is being vented out that side. The north side, for example, shows little evidence of smoke or fire.
The purpose of this blog is to suggest rhetorical strategies for refining the 9/11 Truth talking points. As more so-called debunking sites appear, we cannot ignore them and proceed in an echo chamber of self-congratulation. We must adjust our message to reflect a wider selection of evidence.
In this first entry, I would like to suggest dropping references to Larry Silverstein's famous "pull it" comment in the 2002 PBS documentary. Most Truthers believe Silverstein means "demolish building 7". Critics charge he really means "pull the personnel from building 7".
I recommend avoiding Silverstein's remark not because I think WTC7 fell via a gravitational collapse, but for the following reasons:
- both interpretations are plausible, so an audience is forced to accept one on the basis of predisposition alone
- it does not change the physical evidence one way or another
- for some, this charge reinforces the unfair accusation that 9/11 Truth is about "blaming the Jews"; notice, for example, how this reasonable argument devolves quickly into a discussion of "Zionist circles"; later, Killtown makes excellent points about Silverstein coincidentally having a doctor's appointment the morning of 9/11, but this information will be overshadowed in a debate by ad hominem attacks