Les Jamieson To Be On WBAI 99.5 FM This Thursday From 3-6PM

On this Thursday, 7/20, Les Jamieson will be on WBAI (99.5 FM) from 3 - 6 PM to do a special radio show on this topic (9/11).

Les will interview family members Ellen Mariani, Bob McIlvaine, Donna Marsh O'Connor, and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Please spread the word.

This Radio Station is in New York. If you're in the area please record it and send it our way. Thanks to Jon for sending this in.

You can also listen

You can also listen online.


Dont shoot the messenger but

Dont shoot the messenger but wbai is a CIA-Ford foundation agent -even if they dot know it

So someone explain why they are supporting Tarpley(larouche)-griffin (CFR linked), Schoeman(anti-zionist) in their "inside job" accusation.?

Could it be true that both the official story and the official counter story (inside job)
are both false?

An alternative view?



Pacifica Radio Gatekeepers Sponsored by Ford (CIA) Foundation


And if, by some chance, the Ford Foundation's publicity shield ever gets penetrated in a "parallel left" alternative media world which it has been heavily subisidizing in recent years, it still can move quickly to neutralize any negative publicity—by calling upon a "counter-cultural" public relations firm that used to represent the Pacifica Foundation, called Fenton Communictions. In addition to having the Ford Foundation as one of its clients during the 1990s, the Ford Foundation web site now indicates that Fenton Communications was apparently given a $300,000 grant "for communications activities designed to promote informed dialogue in response to the September 11 activity, with an emphasis on protecting civil liberties and preventing discrimination"--by a Ford Foundation on whose board sits the wife of the Bush White House presidential historian.


see also



One more word about the Ford Foundation, and grants distributed by them. Though promoting themselves as open-minded, there's a very interesting spin regarding the projects they finance. While other foundations may be clearly conservative in their choices, the Ford Foundation has a strategy of marginalizing the left everywhere, by promoting the liberal status quo whenever possible. Hence, the promotion of democracy through their grants, but not economic equality or social change-wbai

Good luck Les.

Good luck Les.

Yes, go Les. Not sure about

Yes, go Les. Not sure about that previous comment slamming BAI. They have advertised NY911truth events in the past where people showed up only because they heard about them there.

nice to hear this

nice to hear this

Not sure? The 911 truth

Not sure?

The 911 truth equivalent of a Fox news fan..

Thats the point that they post it there.
They want you there, duh.

Believe in the "truth" of cointelpro

damn, i wanna hear this.

damn, i wanna hear this.

ok geo, i'll humor you. show

ok geo, i'll humor you. show me some proof of Griffins CFR "links".

David Ray Griffin: THIS HAS

David Ray Griffin:

THIS HAS TO BE the decade for spreading this {Rockefeller ] world view and for seeing it become the emergently dominant one.

An ] Interview with David Ray Griffin, by Alan AtKisson

David: There are so many different ways to describe postmodern spirituality. You can say it's pacific, it's ecological, it's a spirituality of creativity, it's a reenchantment of the universe. But perhaps the best way to get at it, as a summary term, would be pan-en-theism: the idea that the world is in God - God is something like the soul of the universe - and God is present in all things. As some mystics have said, we swim in God.
David: I don't think the Worldwatch Institute is alarmist - because usually people who are funded by Rockefeller and similar kinds of money are not alarmist crackpots - and yet, they say that unless the decade of the 90s is the turnaround decade, we may not have a turnaround decade. So this has to be, and may be, the decade for spreading this world view and for seeing it become the emergently dominant one.


911 Truth Movement Musings (Watching the Watchers)

David Ray Griffin Responds & So Do I, (With Links on "Sustainable Development" Scam)

Home | About This Site | Topic List | Contact Info

October 3, 2004

After reading my article “The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement” (at http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id24.html ), author of the New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 book, David Ray Griffin, sent a response to me which he copied to several others. Below, I’ve copied his response in full. Also copied below is my reply to David Ray Griffin, along with a Postscript to the 911 Truth Community.



September 13, 2004

Dear Angie,

A couple of people recently sent me your piece, “The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement” ( http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id24.html )

Being short on time, I will respond only to your theory and your paragraph about me and my associates.

I gather that you do not put me in the category of those who do not “really want the 911 truth exposed.” I am thankful for that. You put me merely in the category of those who do want it exposed but NOT “for ‘good’ reasons.” That is, I evidently “want it exposed” but am still “a bad guy.”

I must confess that, in the eyes of God, I am probably indeed a pretty bad guy. But I was somewhat surprised by the reasons you gave for warning really pure 9/11 truth-seekers to be wary of me.

One of your reasons appears to be that both I and Richard Falk, the author of the Foreword to my book, are “one world government aficionados.” It is certainly true that I am in favor of global democracy and have been working on a rather big book on this topic for many years. But I was surprised that you would assume that there is something “creepy” to what I have in mind without looking at my arguments and the particular form of “world government” that I advocate. Since you and I had corresponded some time back, if I correctly recall, I am puzzled why you, given your obvious concern for truth, did not write to find out exactly what my views are before suggesting, in a public document, that they are somehow involved in a massive conspiracy.

I might add here that I too have wondered why US officials would have apparently made it so evident that they did it. I have my own thoughts about this, but am not certain enough about them to go public with them. With regard to your own view, it is certainly possible. But it seems to me very improbable. However, even if you yourself consider your own theory highly probable, I think you should be cautious about simply assuming that there is some close correlation between it and The Truth. And you should, I would suggest, be especially careful about then quickly concluding that anything that possibly might be part of this Big Picture of What Is Really Going On, which you have constructed, is indeed part of it. I would suggest that you should be more cautions still about next, without even checking the truth of various things you have read or heard, suggesting these connections to the world. This is exactly the kind of approach that has given “conspiracy theorists” a bad name.

In any case, to look at the issues you raise: In finding the idea of global government of any sort dangerous, you are certainly endorsing the conventional view. But if you are interested, I would be happy to send you some writings in which I try to show why this conventional view needs to be rethought. Of course, I donÂ’t know exactly why you find the very idea of global government creepy. (I have a list of 10 reasons that have commonly been given for opposing it.) But what I have in mind is a system in which the main decisions about the future of the planet would not be made by a tiny elite group in a nation with around 4 percent of the worldÂ’s population. On my own creep-o-meter, this present system of global governance gets extremely high marks. I believe that if we are in favor of democracy as the best way to govern a country, we should be in favor of democracy for human civilization as a whole.

Indeed, if I were so inclined, I could weave a conspiracy theory in which, because you oppose my solution, you are covertly working for those who want to keep the US government in control of the planet. You can see how easy and seductive this logic can be:

(1) X (the present system of global governance) is the real problem.

(2) Angie is denying that X is the real problem.

(3) In fact, Angie is criticizing people who see that X is the real problem.

(4) Therefore, Angie must be an infiltrator in our movement, working on behalf of those who are promoting X.

I myself would like to see a decline of this kind of thinking in the 9/11 Truth Movement and an increase in work that focuses on exposing the perpetrators. For one thing, if we each insist that we will not work with others if we know or even suspect that their motives, their convictions about 9/11, and their worldviews are not the same as our own, we will not have a movement.

In any case, to turn to the more particular issues you raise in relation to me and my associates, by way of suggesting that we are playing roles in your own version of What Is Really Going On:

Richard’s work helped get me started thinking about global democracy, but he has, in spite of my prodding, not been advocating the idea of global democracy in what I call the strong sense (the sense in which Einstein advocated it). You say that you find “one world gov’t. advocates creepy.” I am surprised that you would move from the perception that certain people hold ideas you disagree with to the conclusion that the people themselves are creepy. But since Richard is not advocating one world government, you need to restrict your conclusion to me alone. More generally, in any case, Richard is about the last person to whom I would apply the adjective “creepy.”

With regard to your specific statements. As to the Council of Foreign Relations, Richard became a member in about 1969, he says, and has “remained a member despite a variety of misgivings.” Although he was between trips when I caught up with him to ask him about this, I can imagine he has remained a member with the thought of perhaps having some positive influence. His field is International Law, and he is well known for trying to introduce normative concerns into international politics. He has thereby opposed “political science” insofar as it seeks to leave out all normative (i.e. moral) considerations. He has also been an opponent of “political realism,” at least the sort that maintains that power is all that counts and should count in international relations. One example of his trying to have an influence on CFR was what he describes as “a huge fight with David Rockefeller over the appointment of William Bundy as editor of Foreign Affairs.” With regard to your statement that Richard “has worked on new world order projects for the CFR, like the World Order Models Project,” he reports: “I did have a marginal relationship to the 1980s Project, which was trying to project a set of future conditions in world affairs, and was headed by Princeton colleague, Richard Ullman. It was a rather benign undertaking, and had nothing to do with the world order models project.”

You ask: “What the hell is one to make of a CFR member wanting to expose 9-11?” You seem to have a very simple view of human motivations and belongings, as if you could draw some inference from Richard’s membership in CFR--which is one of literally dozens of organizations to which he belongs and probably one of the least important in his life--and his motivation for exposing the truth about 9/11. He wants to do the latter because he has always worked to expose the truth about important things, and because, through reading my manuscript, he came to believe that the official story about 9/11 was false. To come out publicly with his support for the alternative view took courage on his part, because he had previously argued that the US government’s response in Afghanistan was correct--that it could be considered a “just response” (or could have been if the principles of just-war theory had been followed). This is the issue that he and I most disagreed about. But my point now is that Richard had the courage to say, by writing the Foreword to my book, that he had been wrong.

It would be hard, furthermore, to find many people who have worked longer and harder on behalf of good causes around the world. Because of this, I found your slurs against him the most offensive part of your essay. To suggest that Richard does not really want the truth exposed, or that he is doing this for some ne

David Ray Griffin Responds &

David Ray Griffin Responds & So Do I, (With Links on "Sustainable Development" Scam)


The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement