To the Editor:
The recent controversy over Able Danger once again raises questions about the thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission. Among the events they failed to investigate were the multiple war games taking place on 9/11 which interfered with NORAD's and NEAD's ability to respond to the hijackings; the resulting 'chaff' on the radar screens which stymied efforts to recognize hijacked planes; the planes that were sent off at far less than maximum speed, from a relatively inconvenient air base and in the wrong direction; the failure of the Pentagon, the most highly defended building in the world, to defend itself on 9/11. The Commission also failed to follow Rule Number 1 of any investigation: Follow the money. "Ultimately the question is of little practical significance," they said (p. 172.) Their Report, in short, was an all-round failure.
Nafeez Ahmed, author of The War on Truth: 9/11, DIsinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism, Behind the War on Terror and The War on Freedom, is interviewed by 'Newsweek International' editor Fareed Zakaria on his show PBS Foreign Exchange, to be aired within the next few days.
The show has three guests and Nafeez comes in as the third interviewee.
Description on the Foreign Exchange website: "In a new book, 'The War on Truth,' British author Nafeez Ahmed makes the claim that the U.S. and Britain actually increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks because of their foreign policy that protects governments with close ties to terrorist organizations."
A few months ago I had asked for suggestions for this site. A couple that stuck out at the time were adding prominent links to articles which might be good for newcomers to those that question 9/11, and another being ways for people to take action who believe in the cause.
I've been giving some thought as to the best ways that this site can promote activism beyond just listing a calendar of events, occasionally running blogads for important events, and suggesting users email authors of the articles posted here. I think a lot of people who believe in the fight for 9/11 truth spend a lot of time reading articles, watching videos, etc., and while being aware of 9/11 related news is important, what is most important is taking action to bring 9/11 truth to light.
Representative Cynthia McKinney organized a day-long briefing on July 22 to address the 9/11 Commission's Final Report one year later. The event included leading victims' family members, former government and intelligence workers, academics and authors speaking on the flaws and weaknesses of the 9/11 Commission's investigation, assumptions, omissions, conclusions and recommendations. It was filmed in entirety by C-SPAN.
A lot of articles related to the Army Intelligence group 'Able Danger' tracking Atta and others prior to 9/11 were posted while I was out of town. There were so many articles posted that I really can't do much to summarize them, so please check them out and feel free to comment on anything you find in them worth mentioning.
Army Intel Unit Exposes Massive FBI 9.11 Cover-Up - MadCowProd
Must-reads for budding fraudsters - Financial Times
One interesting question remains unanswered: what role did terrorist financing play in the build-up to the attacks of September 11 2001? There are two pieces of evidence on this point. First, during the days immediately prior to 9/11 the volume of put options, investments that pay off only when a stock declines in price, surged in the parent companies of American Airlines and United Airlines. According to a footnote in the 9/11 commission report, this unusual trading had no connection to terrorism.
I mentioned the other day the 9/11 event being organized by Rumsfeld to garner support for the war in Iraq here. There have been a few comments by other bloggers about this event, you can find them below.
Checking the news this morning, I happened to read an article which raised the hairs on the back of my neck. Incensed and incredulous, I scanned each line with steadily rising disgust. Rubbing the sleep out of my eyes and poking myself with a fork I had handy, I thought, "surely this is a joke."
On Sunday September 11, 2005 we will march from the offices of the New York Times (near Times Square), passing other major media headquarters on the way to a rally and concert at the United Nations. We will demand that the International Criminal Court (ICC) open an immediate investigation into the unsolved crimes of 9/11.
The march may or may not result in an article in the New York Times, but that is hardly the point. The march will be witnessed by many thousands of people in Manhattan and by the hundreds of international journalists who will be in town for that week's General Assembly of the United Nations. And it will galvanize many future actions in defense of truth and justice.
The second reason that America was given before the invasion was that Saddam was the biggest sponsor of world terrorism and he supported Osama Bin Laden! Oh really??? The hijackers were predominantly Saudi Arabian as was Osama (who is still at large, by the way). The theory that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 was disproven by the 9/11 commission's report. A huge factor in Americans believing all this bull is that our media..the Fourth Estate didn't do any research and expose the lies for what they were: justifications for invading a country that posed no imminent or long-term threat to America.
Dem Bruce Lee Styles sent me a link to a video entitled 'You are being lied to' featuring a bunch of eye witness comments referring to explosions inside of the WTC. I personally hadn't seen quite a few of these clips, so it may be worth checking out.
If anyone has any video editing experience and can normalize the audio for all of the clips in this video it would be much appreciated!
Thierry Meyssan - French Conspiracy Theorist Claims No Plane Hit Pentagon
This was posted to a government site in June, so it is a bit old, but I thought it was worth mentioning for those interested. It comments on Pentagon and WTC 'conspiracy theories'.
In conclusion, Mr. Meyssan's book ignores obvious facts, makes sweeping, totally unfounded allegations, and employs spurious logic to try to explain away facts that he apparently finds inconvenient. As the French newspaper Liberation said, the book is "a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation."
The Pentagon would hold a massive march and country music concert to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an announcement tucked into an Iraq war briefing today.
"This year the Department of Defence will initiate an America Supports Your Freedom Walk," Rumsfeld said, adding that the march would remind people of "the sacrifices of this generation and of each previous generation".
A few days ago in a thread called 9/11 ON TRIAL Article in the Daily Mail I made brief reference to an article on 9/11 being in a publication called the 'Daily Mail'.
At the time I didn't realize that the Daily Mail is a very large publication in the UK. According to a user here this is one of the top newspapers in the UK, and after getting the scans of the article today I have to say it is quite refreshing to see such major coverage!
Check out the scans by clicking the thumbnails below:
For Immediate Release
August 10, 2005
Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Surveillance of Mohammed Atta
As a group of 9/11 widows who fought for the creation of the 9/11 Independent Commission, we are horrified to learn of further possible evidence (as detailed by the New York Times article, "4 in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00") that the 9/11 Commission failed to fully investigate all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
You can find this rebuttal at the link below. The rebuttal is quite lengthy in scope and will take some time to peruse, but I think it is great to see such an in-depth response to the NIST report.
Two weeks ago I mentioned the AJC's article on the recent 9/11 hearing hosted by Cynthia McKinney. I have seen sections of the hearing as well as listened to it live, and the term 'conspiracy theory' being mentioned in the AJC's article did strike a cord with me. At this point I am always somewhat happy to see any mention of 9/11 questions by the mainstream media, and seeing as how the AJC was the only mainstream news source to even mention the event I couldn't hate them too much (although myself and others did write them letters complaining about the tone of their article).
I will be out of town until late Friday night. I will have internet access, but I'm not sure what exactly my abilities will be while I am gone. I will do my best to stay on top of things, but I won't be answering emails.
Please post any articles here which I might miss!
In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the congressman, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and the former intelligence official said Monday.
The Center for Cooperative Research has issued an announcement saying that they MUST raise money to continue their efforts. The donations are tax-deductible, and I hope we all can agree how important their work is.
Please visit www.cooperativeresearch.org and make a donation so that they can continue their work!
Arg. I just read an article by a journalist named Gordon Sawyer that really hit me the wrong way, you can find it here:
Here are a couple quick samples of what he considers 'Remember[ing] 9/11':
I think it fair to say America is not unified in this war on terror we are fighting. When was the last time you saw a picture of the Twin Towers in New York crashing down with almost 3,000 American civilians inside?
Like that parallel? We're not unified because we don't remember 9/11.
It looks like the Bush administration is still playing fast and loose with the 9/11 Commission and the publicâ€™s right to know.
Recall just a few of the tactics weâ€™ve already seen:
First, the administration argued that an independent inquiry was simply a bad idea (â€œI think itâ€™s the wrong way to go,â€ said Cheney). Then, when the bipartisan Commission was formed, the White House dragged its feet in every way possible. It opposed handing over daily intelligence briefings (â€Those are very sensitive documents,â€ said Bush). It tried to bar Condoleeza Rice from testifying (â€Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies,â€ claimed Scott McClellan). It rejected the Commissionâ€™s request for an extension (â€We expect they will be able to meet that deadline,â€ said spokeswoman Erin Healy). It even set time limits on how long Bush could testify (â€œWe have discussed with the Commission what we believe is a reasonable period of time,â€ intoned McClellan).
The following is a user submission sent in by SomeBigGuy focused on the 'collapses' of the twin towers and WTC7:
A lot has been said about the fact that no steel framed building have ever collapsed from fire before or since 9/11. I've found that if you take this one simple fact just a little further, the truth of 9/11 becomes unmistakable.
In order to convince everyone of the truth, this is the only argument you'll need. Lets take it from the top:
Something that pundits of the official story as well as the media like to ignore is that there was a third collapse on 9/11. Building 7 (WTC 7) collapsed around 5:20 on 9/11 and WAS NOT hit by any airplane. Officially it caught fire from debris and collapsed due to these fires. Additionally, the existence of diesel fuel stored in the building is often blamed for creating the non-existent inferno and bringing the tower down. However, even FEMA's half baked analysis of the collapses conceded that there was only a small probability of that being the case.