Five Years Later: The Official Story Falls Apart

State Department, media launch assault on 9/11 dissent

This article appears in the print edition of the New York Megaphone, a new montly street-smart tabloid with a circulation of 66,700 throughout New York City and New York State. To subscribe go to


Sander Hicks

The government is getting desperate. Two major polls recently showed that a growing number of Americans doubt the official story around 9/11. On Aug. 28, the State Department responded with a direct assault against “misinformation,” by publishing a statement that attacked the fringes of the 9/11 Truth Movement. A major media brouhaha immediately followed. The New York Times published a sarcastic sniff at 9/11 activism, titled “U.S. Counters 9/11 Theories Of Conspiracy” on September 2. Time magazine ran a sympathetic but dismissive review of the popular 9/11 film “Loose Change.” ABC/Disney chimed in recently with a docu-drama based on the 9/11 Commission Report.

But not everyone is going along with the program. In New York City, the Sept. 1 edition of AM New York did a positive front-page overview of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s claims. In August, Seattle’s Post-Intelligencer did the same. Even the heads of the 9/11 Commission, widely criticized as too close to the government they were tasked to investigate, recently released a new book that admits they were pre-destined to fail. Popular Mechanics has turned their anti-conspiracy theory feature “9/11: Debunking the Myths” into a book. Five-time Emmy award winning journalist Peter Lance just wrote Triple Cross about the funky CIA connections of bin Laden’s right-hand man, Ali Mohamed. Triple was turned into a documentary at the National Geographic TV channel, but before it was broadcast Aug. 28, Lance removed his name from the film. “They hijacked my work,” he told reporters, “The feds have gotten to them, there is no doubt.”

Author Mike Ruppert has sold 30,000 copies of Crossing the Rubicon, a study of 9/11, but after his offices were repeatedly burglarized, he expatriated himself to Venezuela, swearing never to return to the U.S. On Aug. 16, the anti-Zionist, right-leaning journalist and 9/11 researcher Christopher Bollyn was arrested and bloodied by Chicago police, for asking them why three men in an unmarked car were monitoring his house. Bill O’Reilly bent to a new (and criminal) low this summer by making death threats against Kevin Barrett, professor and co-founder of 9/11 Scholars for Truth.

The censorship and the violence come from the same place: an intense desperation. America is out on a limb in Iraq. We are there, in part, in the name of an attack used to motivate us for war. But five years later, that attack gives people gnawing feelings of betrayal. America is writhing in the birth pangs of a new way to see itself. The State Department and media are holding their hands up in front of a tsunami. People are beginning to reject the deathly falsity of the war in Iraq and the “war on terror.” Who knows how this will translate in the mid-term elections, but pro-impeachment progressives and third party candidates stand to gain big.

A Zogby poll from this summer shows mainstream opinion 42 percent against the official story, claiming deliberate cover-up. Ten percent are undecided. According to a widely-cited August 14 poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe U.S. government officials “either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to go to war in the Middle East.” Something is not right with 9/11. It was never right: from the president’s non-response on Sept. 11, 2001, to the GOP abuse of New York City for their convention, to the president’s recently announced plans to visit Ground Zero this Sept. 11, five years later.

When he arrives, he will meet the 9/11 Truth Movement. They are a nationwide batch of volunteers willing to risk their own skins to hunt down better explanations. The World Trade Center towers were symbolic of the grandeur, glory, and showmanship of New York and America. Their destruction, no matter who did it, was the biggest psychological blow to our collective psyche. Losing the towers shattered the anchor of the New York skyline. In the same way that no New Yorker can look at the city without seeing a gap, no American has been allowed to feel safe, secure, respected, or just, good and right, since. We have become torturers. We have become war-mongerers.

The undecided among us perhaps have not yet begun to recognize and heal the psychological trauma of 9/11. Instead, the media images have been burned into our brains, a reminder of the original experience. Last year, I toured the country speaking about 9/11. More often than not I met people who said things like, “you’re right, all you say, but I’m just not ready to go there yet.”

The facts are not enough. This is not just an intellectual struggle, last year, it became apparent something really deep is going on.

So, a year later, what changed? Katrina and the quagmire in Iraq have damaged the Bush team’s credibility beyond recognition. When people saw Bush letting black people die in New Orleans, on television, a lot of people did a gut check. And now that Team Bush won’t revise its Iraq strategy in light of the Pentagon’s own assessments, and instead starts implying that Iran or Syria is next, people are going, hold on a minute. Meanwhile, you’ve got technology like Google Video virally distributing films like “Loose Change II” into the hands of millions worldwide. You’ve got 9/11 truth activists, working in every major city in America. You’ve got new veterans from the financial and intelligence underworlds coming forth and saying, yeah, 9/11 was an inside job. Even former Bush official Morgan Reynolds and former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts agree: 9/11 is a big lie.

The Argument
There are many ways to make The Argument. The recent media stories have focused on the “controlled demolition” theory, which posits that the buildings must have been brought down with explosives, since fire has never before collapsed a steel frame structure. The most popular exposition of this theory is “Loose Change II.” But controlled demolition is a bit of a straw dog. “Loose Change” is a well-edited, quickly paced 9/11 theory overview with good music. But it tends to incorporate the more esoteric of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories available.

Like the once-popular “no plane hit the Pentagon” theory, controlled demolition is a tall order. As “Loose Change II” morphs into the widely anticipated “Loose Change: Final Cut” (in which this reporter appears) the Megaphone and Loose Change teams find themselves working the same angle:

There’s a certain social network in place. You catch glimpses of it, when things like the Iran/Contra scandal, or the BCCI scandal, or Enron, break above-ground, and then disappear. This social network rules by deception, taking a page straight out of Machiavelli. They use religion like a mask. They detest the people, so they keep the masses shocked into submission, through spectacles. In the first Gulf War, it was a fabricated story about Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of Kuwaiti incubators. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated attack at the Gulf of Tonkin. The history of rule-by-deception, American style, goes all the way back to the 1840s and the Mexican-American War, when President Polk fabricated a Mexican attack, started a war, and annexed the entire Southwest from Mexico. A veteran of the CIA admitted to me recently, “The U.S. decides who it wants to go to war with, and then it finds a reason.” Wait, “find” a reason? History shows us that when the rulers decide to go to war, they “create” a reason.

U.S. Foreign Policy, Democrat and Republican, is in a crisis of the soul. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there’s no big national enemy to fear. There’s no longer any reason to spend $500 billion a year on defense. The recipients of that $500 billion gravy train know that some kind of justification has to be created. In year 2000, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld’s right-wing think tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), published a document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the U.S. should jack up defense spending, take total control of the Internet, and expand the USA’s dominance in Central Asia. Almost all the top neo-conservative figures (and some Democrats) signed on as supporters. Learning a lesson from the 1960’s, and Vietnam, PNAC recognizes the public’s ability to protest and stop aggressive foreign wars. So “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” looks to a “catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” to jumpstart the funding for new war technology.

In the late 80s, President Reagan’s biggest scandal, Iran/Contra, broke open and was soon covered up. Despite laws from Congress, the ascendant conservative right-wing funded anti-leftist Contra rebels in Nicaragua with drug and weapons profits from trade with Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq. 20 years ago, in Iran/Contra, the PNAC social network circumvented Congress and infused capital into a right-wing militia, using a complex international network that included massive narcotics trafficking, surface support for Islamic fundamentalism, domestic media manipulation, fake Christianity at home, and the power of the dollar. In other words, it was a lot like 9/11. The pattern is the same, and so are a lot of the names:

John Negroponte, National Intelligence Chief, presided over death squads in Honduras, while ambassador there during Iran/Contra.

Eliot Abrams was indicted for lying to Congress about Iran/Contra, yet he laid low and came back strong as one of the National Security Council’s Senior Directors in the Bush White House.

The most relevant example of the whole guilty lot of them is Richard Armitage. In 1989, he couldn’t get a job in President Bush the First’s Department of State, because of his odious Defense Department work with Iran/Contra criminal Oliver North. Skip ahead a scant 12 years later, to the summer of 2001:

Armitage sails into a position as Assistant Secretary of State, without a peep from the media or Senate Foreign Relations Committee. After a lifetime in CIA/DIA circles, Armitage happens to hold the highest civilian decoration from the Pakistani military, and has deep social ties there, from his work in the Afghan/Soviet civil war.

Remember that one? That was the 1979-1988 operation where bin Laden, the Mujahedeen, and the Pakistani intelligence group, ISI, were used as proxies for the U.S. military, a mix that later created the Taliban, which helped create Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report distored all this, because it’s at the core of understanding 9/11.

Also noticeably missing from the Report is Richard Armitage’s close relationship to the Pakistani funders of 9/11. The Report incredibly states that discovering the funding for 9/11 is “of little practical significance.” However, the FBI, the Wall Street Journal, and the Times of India have all acknowledged that Pakistani ISI Chief Mahmood Ahmad wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta on Sept. 10, 2001. Ahmad had met extensively that May with the State Department’s Richard Armitage, and CIA Director George Tenet, in Pakistan. On the morning of 9/11, Ahmad was in D.C., meeting with Representative (and later CIA director) Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. When news of Mahmood Ahmad’s wire transfer reached his home country, he was let go, a month after 9/11. The Pakistani ISI works very closely with the U.S. State Department, and handlers like Armitage. Ahmad was fired quietly, when he should have been arrested, extradited, and served up to the American public as a culprit for the attacks. Remember how high the passions flared in October, 2001? Instead, the whole incident was buried. Ahmad walked.

Asia Times called the Ahmad scandal 9/11’s “real smoking gun.” There’s been zero coverage in the U.S. media. The White House edited Ahmad’s name out of the official transcript, the one time Condi Rice was asked about the scandal at a press conference. Instead of prosecuting Ahmad, the U.S. gave Pakistan an aid package of $3 billion over five years, right after 9/11.

So, it’s ironic that this same State Department denounces 9/11 Truth as “conspiracy theories.” This same State Department is packed to the gills with the top criminal minds of Iran/Contra. This same State Department’s Francis X. Taylor, in July 2001, told an informant from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Randy Glass, “we know about the threat, the terrorist threat, from Al Qaeda and bin Laden flying air planes into the World Trade Center. Musharraf [the Pakistani president] has guaranteed us—because his ISI behind it—that he can stop it if we support him publicly.”

Randy Glass is one of many 9/11 whistle-blowers who were trying to stop the attacks. If the American people really want the truth about 9/11, we’ve got to stop diddling around with theories about maybe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or maybe controlled demolition took down the towers. Maybe so, but let’s go there only after we’ve met the real people in flesh and blood, who have suffered to get the truth out. They are the real heroes of this whole thing: Randy Glass, Robert Wright (the FBI agent who was stopped by higher-ups from tracking bin Laden’s finances), Sibel Edmonds (a translator who discovered pro-Al Qaeda elements inside FBI, but was gagged by John Ashcroft for speaking out), Colleen Rowley (the FBI lawyer who was mysteriously stopped from getting a routine warrant to search Zacharias Moussoui’s laptop), etc. Most recently, this past year, a lot of new ground has been broken with Anthony Shaffer, the Lieutenant Colonel who did intelligence work in the Pentagon. His operation, Able Danger, identified terrorist Mohamed Atta in year 2000. But unfortunately, someone higher up was protecting Atta. The real cutting edge of 9/11 Truth is an Internet search for Shaffer’s 48-page statement. Just don’t believe what you read about him in the Washington Post.

Sander Hicks is an author of The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers and the Cover-Up, available at

I have...

This issue thanks to Sander. ;)

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

useful documents and

useful documents and media...for historical purposes

brilliant article

nice post

Very excellent article,

Very excellent article, thanks Sander, and thanks Jon for posting.

Sander rocks.

Sander rocks.

I saw him...

In the subway station, and he gave me a copy.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Line of the week here:

"If the American people really want the truth about 9/11, we’ve got to stop diddling around with theories about maybe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or maybe controlled demolition took down the towers."


just think of all the trolls we'd eliminate in the process!

my 2/10 of a dime.

What? The controlled

What? The controlled demolition of the WTC Buildings is THE issue. A bit of a straw dog? What the hell is he smoking?

I beg to differ.

So please let me.

"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."

Credit: Jackson Browne

where a government lies to its people, and a country is drifting to war...there are lives in the balance...they can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are, but they are never the ones to fight and to die!

or Lennon you slip and you slide down that hill, on the blood of the people you the people...stop the killing...Bring on the Lucie!

I totally agree - 'maybe a

I totally agree - 'maybe a missle hit the pentagon' but the WTC 1, 2, 7 were all brought down
by bombs/explosives
I dont find this article THAT great. Maybe I would after a toke or two...nah.

I agree. Although one should

I agree. Although one should not exclusively deal with CD but also consider the means and motives, CD may be one of the few things that can be scientifically proven without the shadow of a doubt.

Based on all the evidence I've seen (including 9/11 Oral Histories) and my common sense, I don't think "maybe" the three towers were brought down by controlled demolition. As Griffin points out, it is certain that they were.

Tall order my arse

Yeah I find this whole idea that the physical evidence for controlled demolition is somehow inconclusive and less important to the Truthers case than the circumstantial evidence to be stunningly off the mark. Ok, you read the Griffin and the Jones articles in tandem, you do the imaginitive reconstruction required, and as you do you're DRAGGED kicking and screaming to the only possible conclusion: the notion that the twin towers were pulverised core and all by the potential energy available in a collapse scenario is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. END OF STORY. Even if there were NO circumstantial evidence to back up the call for an investigation, those two articles alone are enough to PROVE that 9-11 was an inside job. But conversely, in the absence of the physical evidence for demolition, I don't see how all of the presently amassed circumstantial evidence could prove beyond a reasonable doubt any clear scenario of direct involvement by insiders. Its possible for the propaganda machine to spin the official story so that it takes account of all of the outstanding anomalous facts. And sure, the resulting official story will be very unlikely, but still, for the general population, not as unlikely or as difficult to accept as the idea of official complicity. And so the official story will continue to be preferred.

Perhaps people like Ruppert and Hicks are scientific illiterates who are so used to deferring to experts on any technical question that they're simply unable to work through the quite straightforward proofs provided in the literature. (A bit like a student who's inveterately unable to focus on a maths problem because she's never developed the confidence to believe in her own capacity to successfully manipulate mathematical symbols.) Whatever the reason, though, to have prominent people in the movement claiming inaccurately that the physical evidence is less than definitive and so ought to be avoided is very damaging.

Without doubt!

The issue of controlled demolition of the Towers is the most salient issue of the 911 morass. Nobody should look away from this murderous spectacle.

agreed this article not so great

He also inexplicably calls Kevin Barrett a cofounder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He is founder of MUJCA, not ST911.

The towers WERE taken down

The towers WERE taken down by controlled demolition (1, 2 and 7), also no plane hit the pentagon. What people need to do is realize this and move on to the bigger issues. It's taking way too long for the public to open their eyes and see things that anyone with two brain cells working in unisen could've seen just weeks after it happened. The time is now to grow up and become adults and not criticize people who believe in "conspiracies", but rather take them seriously because these are the people you're going to think about later on and wonder why you made fun of them when you finally realize that they were right. It's been FIVE years. The bigger issue is why 9/11was allowed to happen and what powers it gave the BUSH administration. What theyre going to do with those powers and how it is going to affect the entire world. Since 9/11 Afghanistan has been invaded, Iraq has been invaded, Lebannon has been invaded and now Iran is being invaded. This would not have been able to happen without the destruction of the towers on 9/11

It feels like we're living in Germany in the 1930's and 40's. Bush is NO different than Hitler. Hitler burned the Reichstag, blamed it on the communists and gained dictatorship powers and was able to turn Germany into a police state. And the bonus was the Germans hated the terrori..I mean communists....seems very very familiar.

No plane?

No plane?
What about all these eye-witness accounts?

They are all liars? Fabrications, dupes, non-existent persons?

something like 90% of the

something like 90% of the witnesses who unequivocally saw a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon are either employed by the government, or USA Today(among other MSM outlets, but curiously enough, mainly USA Today. check their history with the CIA to see why i mention this.) just saying........

So what?

90% of people working in the Pentagon or near the Pentagon in Washington D.C. were government employees? I don't find that suspicious at all. After all, it is Washington D.C.

911research has some pretty exhaustive information, and even Jim Hoffman agrees that the "no plane" issue is a red herring. I get so tired of seeing people trot this out, especially people like Tarpley who are supposed to be authoritative. It seems pretty sloppy to me.

Here's another good piece

Here's another good piece explaining why we shouldn't waste our time and energy debating what exploded at the Penagon:

no, all of the people who

no, all of the people who unequivocally saw Flight 77 worked for the government or the MSM. those that were not sure what they saw, or those that claimed to have seen "a small passenger plane that seated about 12" or a "cruise missile with wings", curiously enough, didnt work for the MSM or the government. sorry Josh, but Tarpley knows better than you.

If a plane did in fact hit

If a plane did in fact hit the pentagon, the footage would have been shown way way WAY sooner than it had. By the way that footage was the shittiest footage I have ever seen in my life...shittier than the fabricated bin laden tapes or shall I say Tim Osmen, CIA. The evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon should be overwhelming because that place has high security with cameras scoping out every inch of the place. So theyre telling us that thats all they could find to show the world what happened?? BULLSHIT....all the tapes were collected by the FBI never to be shown.

Anyway who cares what hit the happened...and the bigger issues are what has been able to happen since. We can debate all we want about a plane hitting the pentagon..or a missle...or that the towers were taken down by a controlled demolition or not...but it wont change anything. The main thing that happened here is that the world was decieved by a problem reaction solution ....a cleverly planned out sacrafice by the elite so that America goes to war in the middle east to cause unrest and eventually stimulate the region into a 3rd world war...expect china to join after the states attacks Iran...or ...I mean...after the media tells us that they are attacking Iran. seems crazy? wont happen in our time? IT ALREADY IS war 1 and 2 didnt start overnight....we're literally watching world war 3 unfold before our eyes the only problem is most people are in denial, think it's too big a conspiracy to handle, or are walking around with their eyes shut.

"If you want a picture of the future, Imagine a boot stamping on the human face forever" George Orwell aka Eric Blair

As always, Sander Hicks

As always, Sander Hicks rocks. He's the ONLY person whose ever confronted Cheney and asked him about the inside job theory.

truth is the goal

For many people, 9/11 truth is only about getting at the truth of what really happened on that day. And for that there's two ways: either researching the publicly available information - a tiresome job, and mind-boggling with only low-resolution video footage -, or activism, forcing the media to stop their complicity and finally to investigate 9/11 and to challenge the government on the issues.
- historic precedent: Watergate.

OT: Ahmadinejad is going off at the UN

Can't wait til they spin this to make him look like a tyrant whose country should be bombed.

I hear there were thousands outside the UN today protesting Bush, is this true?

Is it on now?


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

yes, and suppossedly there

yes, and suppossedly there were some 9/11 truthers there.

I'm watching...

Bush's speech now, and AGAIN, he brought up "Conspiracy Theories."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

in what context?

in what context?


Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region. This argument rests on a false assumption that the Middle East was stable to begin with. The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage. For decades, millions of men and women in the region have been trapped in oppression and hopelessness, and these conditions left a generation disillusioned and made this region a breeding ground for extremism.

Imagine what it is like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings.

And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Am I crazy?

Am I crazy for sympathizing with Ahmadinejad, at least with the bulk of what he said tonight at the U.N.?

I flipped the tube onto Fox just to see if they were covering his speech. Indeed, they were - BUT, right after he initially talked about the Nuclear issue, Shepard Smith cut in and said something to the effect of, "okay, we were told to listen only as long as he spoke about the nuclear issue, so that's all. Now back to..blah blah...". Then, I flip it over to CNN, and luckily they televised the whole thing, and as I figured might happen, he kept talking about the nuclear issue.

I cannot stand watching the MSM. They make me so mad. Everything Ahmadinejad said in that speech was logical, rational, and peaceful. Can anyone point me to the speech in which he claimed he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map". Did he really say this or was it just some out of context misinterpretation?

I need to turn the tube off - I'm starting to feel un-American for sympathizing with "I'm Mad In The Head", as I've heard him called... sheesh.

“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” ~Edmund Burke

Good Question...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


Thank you, Jon... reading...

“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” ~Edmund Burke

DP, you aren't the only one

DP, you aren't the only one that feels this way. Look at this passage from Ahmadinejad's official state letter to Bush from earlier this year:

Mr President,

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put
on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.

In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate?

Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values?

Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

I agree...

He doesn't sound like a madman to me either. The US is the bully, as he was talking about.

Speaking to Iran

I think that part of Bush's speech was directed at the people of Iran

[snip].."you have been fed

[snip].."you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings."[/snip]

he couldnt have put it better, didnt he:)
he just sometimes doesnt get the order of the sentences right. this should have been at the very beginning of the speech.
and 'shortcomings' was a too weak a word;)

Nicely done.

They have underestimated us. They have no idea. They are not ready for us.


ABOUT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


JFK Doodle Predicted "9-11 Conspiracy"
Weird Associated Press report suggests unimaginable spooky coincidence

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | September 19 2006

A strange Associated Press article about presidential scribblings makes a bizarre reference to a John F. Kennedy doodle in which he seemingly predicted a "9-11 conspiracy" 40 years before it happened.

AP out of the Houston Chronicle reports,

"President Kennedy, known for separating his life into compartments, would enclose words and numbers inside circles and boxes. Events long after his death give one doodle an unintended chill: A small circle with the numbers "9-11" contained within. Just to the lower left on the page, the word "conspiracy" is underlined."

The doodle is part of a new book, Presidential Doodles, which analyses the jottings of eight commanders in chief.

What kind of astronomical coincidence could see JFK - himself the target of a conspiracy - accurately forecast a major world event decades beforehand?

Is this some kind of inside joke or is it a hat tip to the 9/11 truth movement?

One thing's for sure - it's weird.

yeah i put that in my blog

who knows. I wanna see the paper and the doodle.

"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."

Well, 9/11 has been a date

Well, 9/11 has been a date used in other events. This is further down the rabbit hole than what needs to be discussed with people when we get 9/11 truth out, but the numerology involved in the elite and their activities can't be denied. It could be that Kennedy was getting nervous about people conspiring against him, and trying to figure out when they would strike.

Re: JFK Doodle

There is alot more to the date 9/11 then meets the eye. For example...

"The most startling discovery was a book written in 1981, 20 years prior to the 2001 attacks, called "The Birth of Christ Recalculated". The author, Dr. Ernest L. Martin, claims to have calculated the exact date of Jesus Christ's birth based on the celestial charts for that era. The date of Christ's birth, based on the famous Star of Bethlehem, is calculated to be September 11, 3 B.C.. Dr. Martin's findings have been accepted by many scholars, theologians, historians, and astronomers. We also note that Jesus Christ has 11 letters. The crosses found standing in the ruins of the WTC, and the dominance of the number 11 in the 9-11 events, make this combination even more mysterious."

Source: Sept 11 in history

In my multi-beer stupor... I say

"Like the once-popular “no plane hit the Pentagon” theory, controlled demolition is a tall order."

is a limited hangout. There is no greater physical evidence for a coverup than WTC 7. This is a limited hangout.

Agree medicis. This is

Agree medicis. This is bullshit.

where is the footage from these Pentagon cameras?

i made this new little pic highlighting the Pentagon security cameras from 9/11/2001. Citgo, schmitco! Release these videos or until then i will not believe AA FL 77 hit the Pentagon.


... the money!

As New Yorkers Get Wise...

It's been truly wonderful to see our numbers rising, in some cases this growth has been an exponential-curve.

As we look to November, maybe the silent-middle realize there is no forthcoming election. And no need to count the vote.

Maybe it's because the alternative media and the real journalist's stories been so carefully 'banned' on Network News. Thankfully, the dam has broken, and we can expect to see it double again from here.

But the best story is the evolving saga on "Bush," and "Torture." I've been dying to see the two words in print, but arranged more like this: "Torture Bush." ...Aah, ye 9/11Truthers, won't it be great to see actual wooden 'gallows,' running the length of Pennsylvania Avenue?

And being a photographer, I'm a little tired of the jargonists constant, nibbling approach. Treason is punishable by death, and I see no cordon for the ancillary players. We've still got to contend with the likes of Tony Blair and the Rothchilds. And there'sall the other Mohammad-CIA Atta's that we have had to step over, or more delicately, tip-toe around, along the way.

And the bottom-line; it's all about money!

The 'neocon' article of last resort, (in case you haven't noticed,) is their threat to take it all away.

"It'll Make Jon Happy"

He's not saying that we shouldn't be worrying about whether the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition...

What he's saying is we're "wasting time" arguing with others about it. It's a circular argument. My science is better than yours etc... My theory is better than yours, etc...

He's saying there's enough incriminating evidence without theory.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Circular argument my arse

See my comment above.

I know what you mean

But it's still a good article. I think if the focus were more on WTC7 rather than the twin towers, controlled demolition would be a more effective argument. There are too many "experts" willing to take issue with Steven Jones on the towers.... WTC7 is a LOT harder to explain.

Don't you guys see what's happening?

The "elders" of the movement are trying to tell you something. Nafeez spoke of theorizing. Sander now spoke of theorizing. I have seen others recently speak of it.

Just pointing it out. Feel free to blast me.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


Take it easy on Sander. He's good people...

Here, watch his wife sing a song.

Thanks to Jan Hoyer.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

yes, we've reached a stage

yes, we've reached a stage where we have broken through to the mainstream, now its time to focus on things that there is no 'refutation' to. Keep plugging that evidence over and over, and the government has nothing to stand on.

They have NO ANSWERS for NORAD drills, Mineta's testimony, Pakistani ISI funding of Atta, etc.

Lets push hard at what they have NO ANSWERS FOR.

Hard to disagree with Jon Gold but

Without the theory of controlled demolition of the three towers this movement is doomed. Without a firm,vivid, counter argument to the NIST official explanation, 911 truth will become an esoteric grab bag of independent oddities lacking the forcefulness of a unifying principle. The explanatory power of controlled demolition in combination with the arresting images of the exploding towers is really the forte of the 911 truth endeaver. Without the strong theory of controlled demolition the questions surrounding 911 will become another Iran-Contra scandal with less cohesiveness. Worse, it will become another JFK type "conspiricy theory" that will never have closure. I strongly believe that without the controlled demolition theory,baring some unforseen catalysing event such as disclosure of the truth by an inside jobber, all you guys will be rattling on your keyboards from here to eternity. Jon is slightly vague on exactly what he means on this subject but it is important that 911 truth leaders push this theory because without it you explain nothing and nobody(large segments of the population) is going to be motivated to keep looking at the myriad 9/11 oddities. Please explain why I am wrong.


Pointing out what? I'm feeling a bit silly, but I don't understand. What are the elders trying to tell me?

I haven't emphasized the

I haven't emphasized the money transfer thing because I've been unsure about its veracity. If it can be shown to be true without any doubt, I agree it is one of the best smoking guns. So why is that not discussed by members of the movement in interviews etc?

Has anyone heard?

Has anyone heard someone who believes the official lie try to explain the Mineta testimony?

Personally, I have yet to hear any of them say ANYthing about it. Usually it's just flat-out ignored or name-calling happens when brought up.
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:


Lee Hamilton...

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I see you put in bold where

I see you put in bold where Hamilton tries to force words in Mineta's mouth.

Why wasn't Cheney put under oath in front of the 9/11 Commission to answer what the order was that "still stands"?

Why wasn't the aid subpoenaed who kept informing Cheney about the distance of Flight 77 from the Pentagon?

Also, according to the official timeline, Cheney supposedly wasn't even there at the time that Mineta says he was. Why wasn't this investigated?

You know, Cheney MAY have been a really good American that morning trying to scramble a craft to shoot down the incoming craft. But if the order still stood to SUPPOSEDLY shoot the craft down (as Hamilton kept bullying), why wasn't it? If there was a race to get an F-16 there in time, shouldn't the American people be privy to that information? Or is that another tidbit that the neo-cons claim is evidence that can't be released because of terror trials that of course will never happen?



I am more angry about this piece of evidence being swept under the rug than probably even the put options issue.

Speaking of which, what do those PM clowns say about the put options?..........Don't tell me - the SEC allowed only THEM to scrutinize documents regarding this issue.......and.......there's nothing to this move along, folks......nothing here to see.......we looked into it................and.....there's no merit to that CT either.

.........BUT IT'S OK FOR AMERICANS TO ASK QUESTIONS..................( I just love it when Meigs says that)
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:

Hold on a minute guys.

At first reading I was a bit distressed about the straw dog suggestion too, but I am sure that has more to do with Mr Hicks' lack of knowledge of physics than any desire to critcise. But he makes a good point that there are other equally or perhaps more important issues to discussed and understood.

That Bush, without the consent of congress, has appointed virtually the entire Iran/Contra team is of grave concern. They are the soldiers in the behind the scenes battles, and they are a very scary, amoral bunch.

I would however, suggest that this adds to the urgency for a lot more discussion and noise-making about the growing body of compelling and reliable evidence for the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. It needs to be disseminated as widely and quickly as possible, mostly because it can be explained and proved more easily to a shocked and awed public.

The scientific evidence for controlled demolition is already overwhelming, and people are starting to believe their eyes again. More people are listening to the oral histories, and asking scientists, engineers, teachers and other what they think about the controlled demolition theories.

The issues Mr Hicks mentions can be difficult to follow, and whilst tracking people the way he discusses might seem obvious to him, I find it a bit confusing. I know it is very important though.

Well done Mr Hicks.

Mr Gold as well for the post.

"I think we mean straw man"

"I think we mean straw man"

Well I think this is one of

Well I think this is one of the best new 9/11 truth articles.

Because it touches on the REAL smoking guns of 9/11: The ISI connection and Able Danger.

FBI's acknowledment of the money transfer?

Hicks writes that the FBI, too, has acknowledged the money transfer from Ahmad to Atta. Could someone post a link confirming this? (The Wall Street Journal link would be nice too.)

Of equal importance

In my view each path of enquiry for which there is good evidence, and the possibility of gaining more is of equal merit. There are those who will be more likely to understand one line of enquiry, and less likley another. The people, and it s not only the people of the US, are a mighty diverse bunch, and if the aim is to disseminate the truth and to engender a more widespread search for furher evidence and to swell the ranks of those demanding new truly independent investigations, then it is time to stop bickering about which lines of enquiry are more important, and to support others discussing the path of most interest to them, whilst concentrating on pushing along our own area of interest.

RE: Article on the Official Version of 9/11 Falling Apart

September 20, 2006

This is quite a bone-crushing article and all one can say is the powers that be, had to be extremely desperate to manufacture a story as preposterous as what we are told is the truth. Do they think we are all children?

The bright shining lie that is 9/11 needs to come to pieces completely so that the average citizen in this country can really see what these people have done to the country. By trying to sell us all on this lie, they have prepetrated an even bigger crime than carrying the whole thing off in the first place.

I am personally proud of the bloggers that have been able to expose the lie for what it is. My only hope is that the majority of people can see through it as clearly. Time will tell. Thanks to Messrs. Hicks and Gold!

Interesting poll

Interesting poll on
What led you to be most suspicious of the official story?

Wow, I never really gave it

Wow, I never really gave it much thought, and it's amazing how even the media has been absolutely silent about the ties between Iran/Contra and 9/11.

Have we all been mass-medicated or mass-hypnotized? I seem to remember a time where politicians would jump at the chance to build their career on skewering any and all appointees for even the most benign of allegations. One supreme court justice appointee was even rejected because he may or may not have said a chauvinistic thing to a female employee 20 years before, and that sort of stuff.

Here, we live in a world where a convicted felon, and not just any felon, but someone convicted of selling weapons to foreign armies, now in a prime propoganda position as a pundit/pseudo-journalist, reporting on war and cheerleading viewers into being war-mongering cretins. We have people like Eliot Abrams in a position that provides not only extreme secrecy, but a black budget, as well. A guy that would LIE to congress surely can't be trusted to act honestly when he's been told "do whatever you want, and nobody will ever know, and anyone that asks or tells will lose their job and possibly go to jail." I mean, come on, that just defies logic! That's just two guys in a sizable clique of people who have questionable, if not documentably criminal histories. I'm pretty sure the best job for a former bank robber, after he gets out of jail, is to be the guard of the local bank's vault. Or, as they say, the fox guarding the chicken coop. You know how that usually works out for the chickens.

Did we all forget that Hitler sat in jail and wrote mein kampf? When will we start to look at history to guide us, rather than to soothe us into believing that since it already happened it could never happen again. If it did happen again, would we know it, or would it only become clear after the fact? Did fascism quietly take over most nations political systems while everyone was busy and distracted fighting world war II?

I would suggest somebody investigate these ties, do the background research on all of them and document the connections, etc. However, there was once this guy named Danny Casolaro, and well, he was pretty close to finishing a 7 year investigation and was about to publish a book when he was found dead in a bathtub in a hotel in West Virginia, his wrists slashed to the bone 7 or 8 times, an apparent suicide. Half a can of beer, some pills scattered on the bed for extra effect. The transcript and all of his notes were missing. Nothing else was missing. Maybe it's best just to let this sort of thing go unless you really enjoy that sort of danger or whatever.

Maybe the people who accept the government story have simply already reached that conclusion. I'm starting to wonder when we're going to reach that "no more games" point where even writing what I just wrote, or this blog entry are no longer even tolerated. I mean, it seems like we're heading there pretty directly, without any stops along the way. Hopefully I'm wrong.