And either they are mistaken or they are involved in media disinformation.

YOU HEAR THAT CHOMSKY!!! WE ARE ON TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember this classic Chomsky quote?

"The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever."

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/STR505A.html

Hey, I re-wrote the "Officials from Across the Political Spectrum Question 9/11" table: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/officials-from-across-polit...

Chris,

At this link, scroll down to the title "Alex Jones Discusses Charlie Sheen's Extortion" and you can listen to the clip.

This is odd though because the clip appears to be before the L.A. conference in early June where Sheen appeared.

http://911source.org/research/audio

Check this out!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204078,00.html

"U.S. Fears Hezbollah Attacks on Americans During Evacuations"

Anybody wanna take bets on Isreal shooting a missle at the Queen Orient cruise ship tomorrow...as it picks up US citizens...and then blaming it on Hezbollah...inviting us into the conflict? Anybody? 5 to 1? Anybody?

World War III, IV, V???

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200607140017

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

PNAC-letter to president Bush, 20.01.2001

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

***

No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria (a secular government that has its own reasons for needing Iranian help and for supporting Hezbollah and Hamas), little state sponsorship of Hamas and Hezbollah. And no Shiite Iranian revolution, far less of an impetus for the Saudis to finance the export of the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam as a competitor to Khomeini's claim for leadership of militant Islam--and thus no Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and perhaps no Hamas either.

...

For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/433fwb...

***

Wildly disproportionate attack on Lebanon seems like pretext to confront Iran, says Linda McQuaig

J

As Israeli firepower rained down on Lebanon last week, pundits here in the West wasted no time pinning the blame on — Iran.

"Iran and its radical allies are pushing toward war," wrote Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

Washington defence commentator Edward Luttwak weighed in: "Iran's leaders have apparently decided to reject the Western offer to peacefully settle the dispute over its weapons-grade uranium-enrichment program."

In fact, Iran's leaders haven't rejected the "Western offer;" they've said publicly they will respond to it by Aug. 22. This isn't fast enough however to satisfy Washington, which considers the "offer" more of an ultimatum.

Is it really Iran that is pushing for war? Think about it. Why would Iran want to provoke a war with Israel and the U.S. — both heavily armed nuclear powers — when it has no nuclear weapons itself?

The U.S. and Israel, on the other hand, are very keen to attack Iran. In a recent series of articles in New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has detailed Washington's plans to attack Iran. Israel has called Iran a "major threat" that "must be stopped" from developing nuclear weapons.

But the U.S. and Israel don't want to look like aggressors. They insist their intentions are purely defensive. Recall that Washington also claimed its invasion of Iraq was purely defensive — to protect itself from Iraq's arsenal of deadly weapons, which, it turned out, didn't exist.

So when Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon seized two Israeli soldiers last week, a perfect opportunity arose. Since Hezbollah has links to Iran, presto, here was a prima facie case that Iran was gunning for confrontation.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout...

***

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001542.php

***

The Israeli-Hezbollah conflict threatens to drag Syria, Iran and the US into a regional war.

As'ad AbuKhalil, author of Bin Laden, Islam, and America's New 'War on Terrorism' as well as The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power, believes the recent violence is a symptom of an international conspiracy under way to enforce UN resolution 1559, which calls for the disarmament of militia groups in Lebanon - a reference to Hezbollah.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D259C343-ED88-4C43-B839-BCEFBED61...

"Anybody wanna take bets on Isreal shooting a missle at the Queen Orient cruise ship tomorrow...as it picks up US citizens...and then blaming it on Hezbollah...inviting us into the conflict? Anybody? 5 to 1? Anybody?"

Webster Tarpley predicted as much this weekend.

It's probably a good Shin Bet.

jesus christ, that was fast.

good link Kev,thanks for the heads up.

"The fact remains that two informed and credible witnesses, Sibell Edmonds and Indira Singh, have spoken independently of the importance of international drug trafficking in the background of 9/11.

The Bush Administration has paid Sibell Edmonds the tribute of silencing her on the grounds of national interest. She has nonetheless made it clear that what she would talk about concerns that part of the world where the meta-group has influence:

SE [Sibell Edmonds]: It's interesting, in one of my interviews, they say "Turkish countries," but I believe they meant Turkic countries – that is, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and all the 'Stans, including Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and [non-Turkic countries like] Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these countries play a big part in the sort of things I have been talking about.

CD [Chris Deliso]: What, you mean drug-smuggling?

SE: Among other things. Yes, that is a major part of it. It's amazing that in this whole "war on terror" thing, no one ever talks about these issues.

Indira Singh, who lost her high-tech job at J.P. Morgan after telling the FBI about Ptech and 9/11, was even more dramatic in her public testimony at a Canadian event: "I did a number of things in my research and when I ran into the drugs I was told that if I mentioned the money to the drugs around 9/11 that would be the end of me."

I said earlier that by suppressing awareness of the role of drug-trafficking in our society, we give drug traffickers a de facto franchise to exert political influence without criticism or opposition. An example of this is the discussion of 9/11 in America, which usually fails to consider the meta-group among the list of possible suspects.

I have tried to suggest in this paper that in fact the meta-group had both motive – to restore the Afghan opium harvest and increase instability and chaos along the trade routes through Central Asia – and opportunity – to utilize its contacts with both al-Zawahiri in al Qaeda and the CIA in Washington. It is furthermore the best candidate to explain one of the more difficult anomalies (or indeed paradoxes) of the clues surrounding 9/11: that many of the clues lead in the direction of Saudi Arabia, but some lead also in a very different direction, towards Israel.

-- snip --

In America few are likely to conceive of the possibility that a force in contact with the U.S. government could be not just an asset, but a force exerting influence on that government.

My personal suggestion to 9/11 researchers is that they focus on the connections of the meta-group's firm Far West, Ltd. – in particular those which lead to Khashoggi, Berezovskii, Halliburton and Dick Cheney, and Diligence, Joe Allbaugh, and Neil Bush."

Peter Scott Dale
[I]The Global Drug Meta-Group:
Drugs, Managed Violence, and the Russian 9/11[/I]
From http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/global-drug.htm
( a very long, foot-noted article)

Peter Dale Scott's web page, with bio, blibliography etc., is here:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/index.html

See also "A Ballad of Drugs and 9/11"
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/liberation.htm

--
with a tip of the cap to Jeff Wells at Rigorous Intuition

LOL These "Conspiracy Theories" are a real tragic joke, Israel’s all like "It's Syria and Iran running all this shit" or it's "The Iranians ordered the capture of the Israeli solders to divert attention from their nuclear program". But hey these "Conspiracy Theories" can't be the "Conspiracy Theories" in the stereotyped kooked out sense, that conveniently came into being as a mind stopping term around the time JFK RFK and MLK got assassinated back in the 60s. No these are "Official Conspiracy Theories" coming from Israeli Intelligence of all people, must be pretty valid then considering their trustworthy motto, "by way of deception, thou shalt do war." The establishment running Israel are hypocrites to the absolute, in every single way. They’ve been terrorists in the classical style blowing up Palestinians and British peacekeepers who gave them the land (The Kind David Hotel bombing of 1946 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing). And now their still terrorists, but blowing people up from Apache gunships instead. Every argument I’ve seen in Israel’s defence by Israelis is “Israel can’t put up with these rockets being fired from Lebanon and Gaza, Hezbollah / Hamas etc started all this”. The fact that Israel pours all the fuel on the fires of hatred that causes all it’s problems, just completely demonstrates how totally invalid and incorrect their brainwashed rational for all this shit is. And eye for an eye till everyone ones blind is it Olmert? Where’s that in Moses’ 10 commandments? "Thou shalt not murder" "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor" "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house..."

^Oh Israel broke everyone? Not very Jewish then! The people who run Israel are fake scumbags who make real Jews look terrible by association, period. And the worst part is they know this and are doing it on purpose. From the horsesÂ’ mouth;
http://www.voicesofpalestine.org/ArielSharon.asp
^ Scroll down a bit on that page and read "The interview of Ariel Sharon by Amos Oz", f*cking sickening.

That above link got f*cked, this should work;

King David Hotel bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

wrt: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/115324867233067890/#173027

Excellent article from first impression.

All this Lyndon LaRouche-Tarpley Mossad as bogeymen is a pure farce. The Saudis have a lot more influence in Washington than Israel will ever have-which should make sense-petro-dollars overrule religious sentimentality every time.

Its too bad that so many well meaning 911 truth seekers have fallen for the Anti-semetic variations of Schoeman-WBAI-tarpley.

Study of Hopsicker's documentation of the 911 patsies, and Tarpley's words themselves will prove a curative to the wbai ford foundation supported 911 COINTELPRO.

Other research is exactly consistent with Scott's paper mentioned above.

see:
http://www.geo-economics.org/schoemann.htm
also:

video intro- agood addition to alex jones-LC:

http://www.geo-economics.org/The_Unification_Brief_1.wmv

Found this recent Global Research article from DU. What do you think?

"Second 9/11":
Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...

"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

(continued)

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

at a deeper level, if the US DOD did not see an attack on the world trade center as an act of war, then
that wouldreally be surprising.

Hey I interviewed Chossudovsky back in April of 2005, mostly about mock terror drills like topoff 3 if you wanna listen, its pretty interesting, I gotta have him back on!
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/4656.php

check out my show this wednesday, july 19, I think I'm having on G. Edward Griffin!

yup, i did interview Griffin:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/10640.php