Christopher Bollyn returns fire

Christopher Bollyn released a statement on Wednesday, August 16th, claiming Police abuse, that he believes happened as a result his 9/11 research. On August 17th, Bollyn, his wife, and an un-named friend met with Village Manager Norris, and Chief of Police Herdegen, (of Hoffman Estates, Illinois), and served them with them with an "AFFIDAVIT AND STATEMENT OF FACT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT INCLUDING AND NOT LIMITED TO FALSE ARREST POLICE BRUTALITY AND INTENTIONAL POLICE HARRASSMENT OF AN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED MEMBER OF THE PRESS"

You can read all about it at Liberty Forum. (CAUTION: Liberty Forum is an unadulterated libertarian free speech zone. "Politically Correct" speech is generally not practiced there.)



There is NOTHING correct in

There is NOTHING correct in modern politics...... I have no concerns about my speech.

I'm off to visit "liberty forum".

OT Re-post: Wow, I'm going

OT Re-post:

Wow, I'm going to need to read that Ruppert leaving-the-country article a couple more times to fully appreciate it--very deep indeed!

It looks like our capitalistic/imperialistic system is failing much like the faux communist system in the Soviet Union failed not long ago.

What do you expect from our system whose main goal is to swindle the weaker side in every transaction? How many people have to remain super poor to make/keep a piece of crap like a Dick Cheney super rich?

We need major, major, change in this country BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!

(P.S. I just saw Bush just

(P.S. I just saw Bush just give a speach & he seemed very withdrawn and/or medicated to me. Something may be up.)

(P.S. I just saw Bush just give a speach & he seemed very withdrawn and/or medicated to me. Something may be up. This diabolical chimp needs to be impeached a.s.a.p.!)

Hit-piece, acknowledging the

Hit-piece, acknowledging the 30% nationwide poll result, but calling those 30% of Americans "stupid":

Note: "Libertarian" in this

Note: "Libertarian" in this instance should be spelled with a lowercase "l" - as not to be confused with the Libertarian Party.

David R. Griffin's new book

David R. Griffin's new book seems to be getting attention by some MSM papers:

also one more attack on Kevin Barrett from the Christian Right

what's really funny is more

what's really funny is more people believe 9/11 was an inside job, than support Ma-bush...

I certainly hope that 36%

I certainly hope that 36% number is accurate, but it seems overly optimistic to me. I think there are still loads of people brainwashed by the msm & NeoCons who need to learn truth.

> there are still loads of

> there are still loads of people >brainwashed

At least 60%, and that's a lot. But i think the biggest problem is that all those groups with political influence, the Democrats and Republicans are collectively rejecting it, with only few exceptions. If they would truly "represent" the people, then 30% of them would not buy the official story.

I intend to seek asylum in

I intend to seek asylum in Norway or Switzerland. I can read the writing on the wall.

Investigative journalists are not safe in Iraq – or the United States.

Interesting to read this from Bollyn, especially since Ruppert has already split. Do they know something we don't?

On August 2, 2006, Pastor

On August 2, 2006, Pastor Loehr presented Alex Jones' Martial Law 9/11 to crowd of about 200 people, some of which were members of his church and many who were simply members of the community. He prefaced the film by speaking about the activism of Alex Jones and giving background information on the government involvement with 9/11. That discussion can be viewed below.

this guy is amazing. THIS is what religious people should be about.......

I know Chris, it's seems

I know Chris, it's seems like religious leaders (with a few exceptions like this pastor, Barrett, Father Frank, & DRG) are always out of the loop & years behind in the issues that really matter.

Chris, Loehr's article is

Chris, Loehr's article is one of the best I have read about the govt. agenda and 9/11. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Nice post Chris!!!!! The

Nice post Chris!!!!! The major problem is that most of those Right wing "Pastors" are no more than wolves dressed in sheep!!

I noticed that "Real Time

I noticed that "Real Time with Bill Maher" returns August 25th. Maher is a smart guy. You would have to think that he believes 9/11 is a coverup. I wish the guy would grow some balls speak out. I know he is a bit gunshy thanks to getting fired from "Impolitically Correct" after 9/11. But Hell, he has enough money to quit working and spend the rest of his life in the Caribbean, smoking weed and getting laid. Hell, I think he hates Bush more than most of us do.

But Hell, he has enough

But Hell, he has enough money to quit working and spend the rest of his life in the Caribbean, smoking weed and getting laid. Hell, I think he hates Bush more than most of us do.

Right. Smart & financially secure dudes/gals like Maher need to start taking risks for the fans who helped put them there.

christopher has a third of

christopher has a third of the population behind him allready. they cant treat anyone like this and think that he wont have a massive support network. the harder they push, the more we will grow, reaching out and supporting those pursecuted for speaking out.

Maher is one of the worst.

Maher is one of the worst. On one of Maher's shows, a guy was trying to tell him some 9/11 truth, & Maher got arrogant with the guy & told him that "Bush just isn't smart enough to pull something off like that." Then, as if his stupid one-liner had refuted all 9/11 truth, Maher quickly changed to another topic.

Wake-up Bill!

Behind the 9/11 Report Was

Behind the 9/11 Report
Was the commission's work as effective as its publicity?

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

In July 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, popularly known as the 9/11 Commission, published its final report. Coming in the midst of the presidential campaign, it won the quick endorsement of both candidates and wide acceptance in the media. In "Without Precedent," the commission's co-chairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, offer an inside account of their investigation of the 9/11 tragedy.

The book's title is somewhat of a misnomer. There were of course dozens of precedents for high-level bipartisan inquiries, such as the Warren Commission's investigation of the JFK assassination. More to the point, there was a precedent for the investigation of the 9/11 attack: the Joint Inquiry by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission was required to use the Joint Inquiry's report as its starting point and to limit itself to fill in what that report had not already covered.

The most notable difference between these two investigations was their public relations--or, in Messrs. Kean and Hamilton's apt phrase, their "public face." The co-chairmen assumed that it was vital to be perceived "as having full access to the most secretive material in the government."

To build this impression, they recount in the book how they prevailed in their battle for information with a secretive Bush administration, an evasive military bureaucracy and recalcitrant New York City officials. They also had to cultivate the media. So both chairmen appeared on the TV talk shows, gave joint press interviews and did everything possible to build an aura of openness around the investigation--hoping to avoid, as they explained, "the kinds of conspiracy theorizing that have followed in the wake of other inquiries."

For the commission to succeed, Messrs. Kean and Hamilton had to nurture the impression that the commissioners had seen all the evidence regarding 9/11 and had independently assessed it. In reality, however, the 9/11 Commission was neither exhaustive nor independent. If the investigation had truly been as exhaustive as advertised, it would have made a genuine effort to weigh evidence that ran counter to its thesis. But it did not. Consider how the 9/11 Commission dealt with Capt. Scott Phillpott, a high-ranking naval intelligence officer who asserted that through data mining his military intelligence unit, code-named Able Danger, had identified Mohamed Atta as a potential terrorist in 2000 and even had his photograph on a chart.

Since the staff could not find any such chart in the documents that it had obtained from the Pentagon, and because Capt. Phillpott's account "failed to match up" with the staff's conclusion that Atta was unknown to U.S. intelligence prior to 9/11, this putative identification of Atta was omitted from the commission's report (and a number of commissioners were not informed about it).

Later, the Pentagon said that at least four other intelligence officers in the unit had confirmed that they had seen the photograph of Atta or recalled hearing Atta's name prior to 9/11. The Pentagon also explained one possible reason the chart with Atta's photo was missing: The military had destroyed many Able Danger records in 2001. To be sure, there were reasons to be skeptical about eye-witness accounts, but an exhaustive investigation would have at least heard them.

Nor was the 9/11 Commission able to independently evaluate or verify crucial information it received from intelligence agencies. Although the CIA had imprisoned seven al Qaeda conspirators who had planned, directed and coordinated the 9/11 attack, the agency refused to give the commission access to the prisoners. In the case of the Warren Commission, Chief Justice Earl Warren went to Jack Ruby's prison cell to personally question Oswald's killer. In the case of the 9/11 Commission, the commissioners were not allowed to speak to, see or know the whereabouts of conspirators. The commission could not even question the prisoners' CIA interrogators about the way information had been obtained from them.

The co-chairmen admit in "Without Precedent" that they "had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information." But apparently that did not discourage them from accepting, essentially at face value, information from the prisoners, delivered via a CIA "project manager," if it would fill in gaps in the commission's investigation.

For example, the CIA reported that one key prisoner, Ramzi Binalshibh, had said co-conspirator Atta "did not meet with anyone" when he went to Prague in June 2000--even though Binalshibh himself was not in Prague and had no first-hand knowledge. He further alleged that on another two journeys, Atta went to Spain solely to talk with him and met no other conspirator--but Binalshibh was not in Spain during all of Atta's visits. And, again through the medium of the CIA project manager, Binalshibh informed commissioners that Osama bin Laden would not have allowed Atta to meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer because the al Qaeda leader was upset with Saddam Hussein's treatment of Muslims.

Even though such contributions were indeed unverifiable--particularly the one that required Binalshibh to read bin Laden's mind--the 9/11 Commission came to rely on this information, giving it the benefit of the doubt when conflicting information surfaced. For instance, the commission uncovered CIA documents that threatened to complicate matters by dragging Iran into the 9/11 conspiracy: The documents revealed that Iran had "apparently facilitated" the travel of most of the 9/11 "muscle hijackers" in flights from Afghanistan by not stamping their passports, and that Imad Mugniyar, the Hezbollah terrorist group's infamous chief of terrorist operations, had flown with the hijackers. But the commissioners merely referred the "troubling" matter to the CIA project manager.

At that point, the report was only one week away from publication. The project manager quickly ran the information past the agency's prisoners and sent a reply back "just in time for inclusion in the Report," Messrs. Kean and Hamilton write. Result: "We found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack." Such CIA feeds permitted the commission to hew to its theory that al Qaeda carried out 9/11 with no help from any outside party or government.

With this book, Messrs. Kean and Hamilton have shown how a government-appointed commission managed to create the appearance, if not the reality, of an exhaustive independent investigation and artfully transformed itself into a lobby for the reorganization of the intelligence establishment. Now that is without precedent.

Mr. Epstein is the author of "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth," and he is currently writing a book about the 9/11 Commission.

looks like The Wall Street

looks like The Wall Street Journal is trying to pin 9/11 on Iran. surprise surprise.

Totally of topic, but I just

Totally of topic, but I just wondered ...

If Norman Mineta's testemony about the Pentagon plane is true (you know, the "It's 30 miles out, 20 miles out"), wouldn't that debunk the whole missile-theory?

Martin, maybe, but one thing

Martin, maybe, but one thing that gets floated is a two plane/object theory where a plane flew away and either shot a missile or served as a distraction while a small jet hit the building.

I just saw Bush just give a

I just saw Bush just give a speach & he seemed very withdrawn and/or medicated to me. Something may be up

A lot of people have been saying that lately. Maybe he's under too much pressure from his handlers these days.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Oval Office.

>whole missile-theory? Since

>whole missile-theory?

Since there was a huge jet engine found on the photographs, the missile would have to be a Global Hawk or bigger. There's also a photograph of plane wings (was posted here recently, have no link). The most realistic explanation is the A3 Skywarrior: it's not to big, not too small, and has the engine-type that was found.

"I just saw Bush just give a

"I just saw Bush just give a speach & he seemed very withdrawn and/or medicated to me. Something may be up"

Reminds me of the quote from the movie Airplane... "I picked a bad week to stop drinking/snorting glue/vice of your choice."

"If Norman Mineta's

"If Norman Mineta's testemony about the Pentagon plane is true (you know, the 'It's 30 miles out, 20 miles out'), wouldn't that debunk the whole missile-theory?"

That would serve as a reason for a legal process, addressing (among other things) why the Pentagon was not evacuated. Why has there been no such legal process? Isn't this testimony hugely incriminating?

Greg, I'm by no means a

Greg, I'm by no means a plane expert, but from the only video released by the Pentagon to date (what a joke that is!), the aircraft there looks very much like the one in the middle of your link^ (Long pointy nose, cockpit high on top & far back from the nose, etc. Nothing like a Boeing-757).

Grag: Careful.... The wing


Careful.... The wing picture I saw, did not convincingly look like wings to me.

I make no call on what it was.... just saying... be careful.

Until the FBI shows the

Until the FBI shows the visual evidence of what really hit the Pentagon, I am not going to worry about it. I have my own suspicions that don't include an American Airlines jetliner. (Please, a mostly aluminum based projectile somehow penetrated three wings of this building? Plus, how was it even allowed for any projectile to hit the Pentagon in the first place?)

The focus should really be on the video evidence we already have on WTC 7 as well as the "confession" by Silverstein... This evidence alone should demand a new independent investigation of 9/11. Once that happens, then the Pentagon issue can get addressed.

I just saw Bush just give a

I just saw Bush just give a speach & he seemed very withdrawn and/or medicated to me. Something may be up

Maybe he is scared of Armageddon (sp?) on Tuesday? Afterall, Fox has been hinting to us that Iran will nuke us on the 22nd. Lol.

I just collected these

I just collected these e-mail addresses from BuzzFlash left gatekeepers links ....hey i'm just doing what Barry Zwicker said to do the other day on CSPAN....
peace,pw,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,,,,,,,

George [finally] scared of

George [finally] scared of Armageddon?


Said before.... the sheriff

Said before.... the sheriff really needs to let Boy George know he'll offer bodily protection during his trial.

The mans scrotum could be ripped away by some furious mob.

No mobs, people. They just get out of hand, and are awful messy to clean up afterwards.

Re: the Pentagon and related

Re: the Pentagon and related issues.

We are at a distinct disadvantage regarding evidence now being produced by the government (photos of plane parts and body parts in the Pentagon, for example). We have no idea if these items are legitimate. The govt has had 5 years to manufacture evidence. I'm not sure I care what is on the Pentagon videos, because it's not like they would knowingly release incriminating evidence.

Your average drug bust can have innumerable pieces of evidence manufactured. What makes anyone think 9/11 is immune to such malfeasance?

The best bet is to stay focused on the evidence that has had no filter (multiple films of the attacks and their aftermath, eyewitness accounts from that day or soon thereafter, and so on). If the mystery of the Pentagon can't be solved WITHOUT the 80+ videos they claim to have, then it's not worth solving.

simuvac: Agreed. The



The evidence withheld from the publics right to know, is now the crime in and of itself.

I don't want that shit, especially since the've had this much time to fuck with it.

Evidence withheld from the

Evidence withheld from the publics right to know, is now the crime in and of itself.

All future videos released from this day forward (August 18th, 2006) needs to be shot down for this reason alone.

So say I.

Yaw... I am surprised the

Yaw... I am surprised the Pentagon hasn't already acquired DreamWorks already. They are going to need a crack staff to gussy up those Pentagon videos.

"I am surprised the Pentagon

"I am surprised the Pentagon hasn't already acquired DreamWorks already."


They already are deeply involved with the Institute of Creative Technologies and its digital technology capabilities. ICT is loosely associated with the USC School of Film and is based in LA. LA itself, as a city, is being turned into a giant "simulated" city for purposes of emergency response and other types of planning. War games themselves, whether on game boxes for teenagers, or on a 24/7/365 "logon from anywhere on the globe" network ... for all branches of the military, from tactical and logistical levels to strategy to integrated theater to grand global strategy... is now available. There is a major industry dedicated to this, multiple conferences associated with it, and multiple high-level college curricula feeding it. Much of this is associated with the Univ.of Central Florida and centered in and around Orlando in conjunction with Universal and Disney.

pw | Homepage | 08.18.06 -

pw | Homepage | 08.18.06 - 3:08 pm |

pw, nice list!!

Magmak1, Yes, the

Yes, the Pentagon/Hollywood axis has expanded much in recent years. USC received $45 million in August 1999 from the army to establish the Institute you mentioned. The DoD budget for acquiring training systems exceeded $2.5 billion by 1998. Hollywood was brought in to enhance the "storytelling" quality in army training simulations.

We see this collaboration on a more informal level as well. Recall that the Jessica Lynch myth was aided by Hollywood producer Jerry Bruckheimer.,2763,956255,00.html

That's why I don't think it is at all too paranoid to suggest that government evidence produced after 9/11 is by definition questionable.

For example, if the FBI were to say, "OK, we have some steel from the WTC, and you can examine it if you like," I would not accept that offer. I consider the photographs presented at the Moussaoui trial in the same way. All of these random airplane parts featured in close-up with a tuft of grass behind them is supposed to be Flight 93? How would anyone confirm that?

One has to assume psychopaths like these will do anything to prevent the truth from emerging. Unfortunately, this means "independent" research must remain truly independent in every sense of the word.

"(CAUTION: Liberty Forum is

"(CAUTION: Liberty Forum is an unadulterated libertarian free speech zone. "Politically Correct" speech is generally not practiced there.)"

Now that's some superior sounding BS.
More like...

CAUTION: 911Blogger is an unadluterated juvenile comment zone. Positive appreciation is generally not practiced there.

Thinking of yesterdays comments spearheaded by Nico "everyone except me is a shill" Haupt. Sheat, even Bollyn was called a shill. And if you read LibertyForum you'll find the comments to be ... gasp! ... supportive!

Dude, even the new Loose

Dude, even the new Loose chanage 2nd edition REcut took out the global hawk/A3 skywarrior crap.

Flight 77 hit the pentagon...allowed to hit, most likely remote controlled.

It's possible explosives IN the pentagon went off, but the fact the plane hit the reinforced wall shows it musta atomized.

i seriously doubt Flight 77

i seriously doubt Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. but thats just me and half the movement........

It's possible explosives IN

It's possible explosives IN the pentagon went off, but the fact the plane hit the reinforced wall shows it musta atomized.
pockybot | 08.18.06 - 6:18 pm | #

If it "atomized" or was obliterated, then how did they ID 63 of 64 passengers? You can't have it both ways. hmmmm..... looks like a smoking gun to me.

i seriously doubt Flight 77

i seriously doubt Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. but thats just me and half the movement........
Chris | Homepage | 08.18.06 - 6:26 pm | #

HAHAH!!! which movement, the one on the net o r the one in the real world???

i would say that its more like 90% in the real world....

Chris Bollyn

Chris Bollyn pulls no punches,and he writes excellent articles. I have his archives from American Free Press and The Truth Seeker in My bookmark.

This article he wrote was the exchange He had while on the Alan Colmes show;

When Fox News asked to interview me on Sept. 25 about 9/11, I suspected an ulterior motive. Within minutes the ulterior motive was revealed when Alan Colmes switched the subject from 9/11 to the Holocaust – and asked me what I believed. What Fox News and the Establishment media are clearly trying to do is marginalize independent research on 9/11.

The Alan Colmes show is produced by Joel Kaufman for Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News radio network and reaches a large listening audience across the United States. Lisa Magalnick Jacknow, an assistant producer, contacted me and said they were interested in evidence that officials of the U.S. government were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Familiar with the attack-style “journalism” of Fox News and knowing that Rupert Murdoch is an ardent supporter of the “war on terrorism,” I found it hard to believe that Fox News was seriously looking for evidence of high-level complicity. After all, it is said to be the favorite channel at the Bush White House.

Colmes was more interested in labeling me and American Free Press as anti-semitic, than in hearing what I had to say about 9/11. An outraged listener called in to protest the “bait-and-switch” tactic and Colmes’ attempt to smear me as an anti-semite.

Colmes told the caller, “You have an agenda too.”

Colmes asked what evidence I had that senior officials had prior knowledge of the attacks. I said that the fact that President George W. Bush calmly read a book about a goat to school children in Florida for a half-hour after hearing that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center was suspicious behavior for the chief executive of a nation in the middle of the worst terror attack in history.

However, while Bush read the story about the goat, Vice President Dick Cheney was “in charge” in the president’s emergency control bunker, according to Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta.

Mineta’s testimony before a congressional investigative panel of what he witnessed in the president’s bunker on 9/11 is essential reading to understanding the allegations of official complicity.

On May 23, Mineta testified about Cheney’s actions in the bunker. Mineta said he arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operating Center (PEOC) at 9:20 a.m. where he observed the Vice President in charge:

Mineta: There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out…The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?”

Cheny whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. And…

Hamilton: The flight you’re referring to is the…

Mineta: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

Whether Cheney’s orders meant to shoot down the hijacked aircraft or not was raised. Mineta said there were no such orders to do so, which raises the question of what “the orders” were:

Hamilton: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.

Mineta: No, sir.

This is some 20 minutes after the second plane struck the World Trade Center and shortly before the Pentagon was hit. The aircraft being tracked is the one that hit the Pentagon.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was at the Pentagon was apparently “out of the loop,” unaware of the approaching aircraft, which Cheney was tracking.

Rumsfeld told ABC News’ Sam Donaldson shortly after 9-11 that he had been completely unaware of the approaching plane:

Donaldson: On Tuesday I am told the FAA notified someone in the Pentagon that there was a rogue plane apparently headed toward Washington. But you didn't know it, am I correct? - until it hit?

Rumsfeld: I was in the Pentagon and felt the shock of the attack, and…

Donaldson: What did you think it was?

Rumsfeld: A bomb? I had no idea.

When I presented this to Colmes, he said that Mineta’s testimony was “hearsay”.

Colmes asked about evidence of prior knowledge, but was not interested in the fact that 11 foreign intelligence agencies warned the responsible U.S. government agencies of an imminent attack prior to 9/11. He was clearly more interested in smearing me as an “anti-semite.”

When I said that Rupert Murdoch had financed and produced a television show called “The Lone Gunman,” in which the March 4, 2001 pilot episode depicted the exact scenario of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Colmes had nothing to say.

Here is the plot summary from "The Lone Gunman"

Plot Summary for
"The Lone Gunmen" (2001)

Spin-off of The X-Files featuring the trio of computer-hacking conspiracy geeks popularly known as The Lone Gunmen. Never ones to stray far from the center of corporate and government intrigue, the threesome of John Byers, Melvin Frohike, and Richard Langly play like a misguided Mission Impossible team, embarking on a series of comic adventures that simultaneously highlight their genius and ineptitude. While their newfound independence inspires them to investigate even the most shadowy of conspiracies, their social skills remain stagnant, which only makes their lives more difficult when they learn their chief competitor in the "information business" is the brilliant and beautiful Yves Adele Harlow. Perpetually short of funds to publish The Lone Gunmen newspaper, Byers, Frohike and Langly begrudgingly take on Jimmy Bond as an unlikely benefactor who bankrolls their missions and joins them in their investigations to uncover the truth.

Isn't this odd