Speakers to Discuss Evidence and Consequences of Government Involvement in 9/11 Attacks


October 16, 2006—Experts from the 9/11 truth movement will address evidence that elements within the U.S. Government were behind the attacks of 9/11/2001 and have used the threat of terrorism to advance a right-wing political and corporate agenda. Strategies for thwarting future government-backed “false-flag” terrorism and bringing the perpetrators to justice will be discussed.

Event Date: Saturday, November 11, 2006, from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm

Place: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, Original Building, Room 329, 3401 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22201. METRO: Virginia Square (Orange Line). Suggested donation: $10 at the door, $5 for students.

The day-long event, “FROM 9/11 TRUTH TO 9/11 JUSTICE: A Symposium on Taking Back Our Nation,” will be held at George Mason University’s Arlington Campus on November 11, 2006 and will include the following speakers:

  • Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., lecturer, Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, attacked by state legislators and University officials for teaching 9/11 as false-flag terrorism, and co-editor of 9/11 & American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out. Co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish- Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (mujca.com).
  • Wayne Madsen, investigative journalist (waynemadsenreport.com), syndicated columnist, former U.S. Naval Intelligence and NSA officer, and author of Jaded Tasks: Brass Plates, Black Ops & Big Oil–The Blood Politics of George Bush & Co.
  • Webster Griffin Tarpley, historian, investigative journalist, and author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, now in its third edition, and top-selling book in the 9/11 Truth genre. Previous books include George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography and Who Killed Aldo Moro?, commissioned by a member of the Italian Government.
  • J.Michael Springmann, former chief of visa section at the U. S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, has testified he rejected many suspicious visas, but was overruled by the CIA. After 9/11, Springman observed that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers had their visas approved by the very same CIA-controlled consulate in Jeddah.
  • Daniel Abrahamson, journalist and creator of the website falseflagnews.com, which reports on military practice drills in an effort to prevent them from being used as a cover for false-flag terrorism. 
  • Please help distribute November 11 synposium press release flyer (pdf).


    Is it clear that, if the House swings to control by Democrats, John Conyers will re-investigate 9/11?

    Mr. Conyers serves as the lead Ranking Democratic Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. One of the most important committees in Congress, the Judiciary is tasked with the responsiblitiy of oversight of the Department of Justice (including the FBI) and the Federal Courts.


    Has never shown an interest in 9/11... the only thing I remember was something he wrote in his report about the Iraq War...


    September 11 and its Aftermath: Beating the Drums for War
    It was the September 11 tragedy that gave the President and members of his Administration the political opportunity to invade Iraq without provocation. It was also in the immediate aftermath of September 11 that it became clear that the President had made up his mind to invade. We know this now for several reasons we have first-hand evidence concerning President Bush's intentions; we have direct evidence concerning the intent of other senior members of his Administration; we have information provided through high-level Administration sources; and we have documentary and other evidence concerning specific actions taken by the United States military that brought our nation on the verge of war with Iraq before Congressional authorization was sought.

    Donald Rumsfeld began pushing for retaliatory attacks against Iraq almost immediately after the September 11 attacks. CBS News reported that at 2:40 p.m. on September 11, Secretary Rumsfeld stated: A[I want the] best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].86

    Rumsfeld went on to say, [g]o massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.87

    Spencer Ackerman and John Judis of The New Republic reported that, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz floated the idea that Iraq, with more than 20 years of inclusion on the State Department's terror-sponsor list, be held immediately accountable.88

    The very first evidence regarding President Bush's inclination to invade Iraq after the September 11 attacks occurred the very next day when he instructed National Security official Richard A. Clarke to go out of his way to find a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks. Richard Clarke recounts the following in his book, Against All Enemies:

    [On September 12th] I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. Look,he told us, I know you have a lot to do and all . . . but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way. I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. ‘But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.’ I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred’. . . .‘Look into Iraq, Saddam, the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.89

    This inclination was evidenced to other senior Republicans as well. For example, Trent Lott observed in an interview on Meet the Press that shortly after September 11, the President made clear his intention to go after Iraq: Well, beginning in August that year and into the fall--in fact, beginning not too long after 9/11--as we had leadership meetings at breakfast with the president, he would go around the world and talk about what was going on, where the threats were, where the dangers were, and even in private discussions, it was clear to me that he thought Iraq was a destabilizing force, was a danger and a growing danger, and that we were going to have to deal with that problem.90

    We have also received confirmation of the Bush Administration's intention to invade Iraq after the September 11 attacks from various high-level Administration sources. For example, General Wesley Clark revealed on Meet the Press that shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House was asking people to link Saddam Hussein with the September 11 attacks. Clark stated:

    [T]here was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. . . . Well, it came from the White House . . . it came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein I said, But I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence? And I never got any evidence.91

    On September 17, 2001, President Bush signed a 22-page document marked TOP SECRET that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism. As one senior Administration official commented, the direction to the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq appeared Aalmost as a footnote.92

    “On September 19 and 20, an advisory group known as the Defense Policy Board met at the Pentagon B with Secretary Rumsfeld in attendance B and discussed the importance of ousting Hussein.”93

    According to Administration sources:

    They met in Rumsfeld's conference room. After a C.I.A. briefing on the 9/11 attacks, Perle introduced two guest speakers. The first was Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, a longtime associate of Cheney's and Wolfowitz's. Lewis told the meeting that America must respond to 9/11 with a show of strength: to do otherwise would be taken in the Islamic world as a sign of weakness-one it would be bound to exploit. At the same time, he said, America should support democratic reformers in the Middle East. "Such as," he said, turning to the second of Perle's guest speakers, "my friend here, Dr. Chalabi” . . . . At the meeting Chalabi said that, although there was as yet no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11, failed states such as Saddam's were a breeding ground for terrorists, and Iraq, he told those at the meeting, possessed W.M.D. During the later part of the second day, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld listened carefully to the debate. “Rumsfeld was getting confirmation of his own instincts . . .” Perle says. “He seemed neither surprised nor discomfited by the idea of taking action against Iraq.”94

    The 9-11 Commission Report further notes that as early as September 20, 2001, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, suggested attacking Iraq in response to the September 11 attacks. In a draft memo, Feith expressed disappointment at the limited options immediately available in Afghanistan and the lack of ground options. [He] suggested instead hitting terrorists outside the Middle East in the initial offensive, perhaps deliberately selecting a non-al Qaeda target like Iraq.95

    Also, on September 20, it is reported that President Bush told Prime Minister Blair of the need to respond militarily with Iraq. Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror. As noted above, Bush replied, AI agree with you Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.96

    By late November 2001, the President essentially instructed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to develop an Iraq war plan, which Rumsfeld began to implement. In a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, A Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward describes their meeting:

    President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, AWhat have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.97

    The evidence of the President's determination to go to war continues on through 2002. On January 29, 2002, President Bush gave his State of the Union address in which he stated that Iraq was part of an Aaxis of evil along with South Korea and Iran.98 Although Administration officials sought to temper the meaning of that reference, the President's own speech writers have subsequently made it clear that the President was intending to target Iraq. As James Mann recounts: David Frum, then one of Bush's speech writers, later claimed that the original aim of the axis-of-evil speech was specifically to target Iraq. Mark Gerson, Bush's chief speech writer had asked Frum first to find a justification for war against Iraq, he wrote; later Iran was added, and finally North Korea as a seemingly casual afterthought. Frum's perspective reflected both his inexperience as a speech writer and also the thinking of neoconservatives within the administration, who were eager for a regime change in Iraq.99

    We have also learned from three sources that beginning as early as February 2002, the Bush Administration took specific concrete steps to deploy military troops and assets into Iraq. First, in February 2002, Senator Bob Graham told the Council on Foreign Relations that a military commander had said to him: Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.100

    Second, it is clear from Bob Woodward's book, A Plan of Attack that the redeployment began in the summer of 2002, well before authorized by Congress:

    On July 17, Franks updated Rumsfeld on the preparatory tasks in the region. He carefully listed the cost of each and the risk to the mission if they didn't proceed along the timeline which set completion by December 1. Total cost: about $700 million . . . . Later the president praised Rumsfeld and Franks for this strategy of moving troops in and expanding the infrastructure. It was, in my judgment, Bush said, a very smart recommendation by Don and Tommy to put certain elements in place that could easily be removed and it could be done so in a way that was quiet so that we didn't create a lot of noise and anxiety.” . . . He carefully added, AThe pre-positioning of forces should not be viewed as a commitment on my part to use military. He acknowledged with a terse Right. Yup. that the Afghanistan war and war on terrorism provided the excuse, that it was done covertly, and that it was expensive . . . By the end of July, Bush had approved some 30 projects that would eventually cost $700 million. He discussed it with Nicholas E. Calio, the head of White House congressional relations. Congress, which is supposed to control the purse strings, had no realknowledge or involvement, had not even been notified that the Pentagon wanted to reprogram money.101

    In his interview on 60 Minutes, Mr. Woodward himself points out this was a basic violation of the Constitution:

    Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress.102

    The funds were diverted from appropriation laws specifically allocated for the war in Afghanistan.103

    Third, Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker received similar confirmation from his Administration sources of the reallocation of intelligence assets from Afghanistan to Iraq in preparation for an invasion: The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed.104

    Further, beginning in February 2002, senior White House officials were also confirming to the press that military ouster of Saddam Hussein was inevitable. On February 13, 2002, Knight Ridder reported that, according to their sources, President Bush has decided to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power and ordered the CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies to devise a combination of military, diplomatic and covert steps to achieve that goal, senior U.S. officials said Tuesday.105

    White House officials were also telling Seymour Hersh that the decision to go to war had been made and that a process to support that determination had been created:

    By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war . . . . The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. . . . Chalabi's defector reports were now flowing from the Pentagon directly to the Vice-President's office, and then on to the President, with little prior evaluation by intelligence professionals.106

    Also, in March 2002, President Bush reportedly poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and said F*** Saddam. We're taking him out.107

    At the time, Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators and discussing options for dealing with Iraq through the United Nations or other peaceful means. However, a source reported Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively. . . and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile.108

    By late March 2002, Vice President Cheney was telling his fellow Republicans that a decision to invade Iraq had been made:

    Dick Cheney dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East - the one meant to drum up support for a U.S. military strike against Iraq. . . . Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said, and Senators and staff members promptly put down their pens and pencils. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when.109

    In his book, Bob Woodward describes Cheney as a Apowerful, steamrolling force obsessed with Saddam and taking him out.110

    By July of 2002, Condoleezza Rice was offering further confirmation that President Bush's mind was made up regarding a decision to invade Iraq. At this time, State Department Director of Policy Planning Richard N. Haass held a meeting with Rice and asked if they should discuss Iraq. Rice said, Don't bother. The president has made a decision.111

    We know that, in early August 2002, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair spoke by telephone and cemented the decision to go to war. A White House official who read the transcript of their conversation disclosed that war was inevitable by the end of the call. On August 29, 2002, after three months of war exercises conducted by the Pentagon, President Bush reportedly approved a document entitled Iraq goals, objectives and strategy.112

    The document cites far-reaching goals and the study refers to "some unstated objectives" including installing a pro-American government in Iraq and using it to influence events in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iran.113

    Not only is it clear that a decision had been made to go to war in early 2002, it has also become apparent that the U.S. was actually engaging in acts of war by May 2002. On April 28, 2002, The New York Times wrote: The Bush administration, in developing a potential approach for toppling President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, is concentrating its attention on a major air campaign and ground invasion, with initial estimates contemplating the use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops. . . . Senior officials now acknowledge that any offensive would probably be delayed until early next year, allowing time to create the right military, economic and diplomatic conditions.114

    Bombing activity designed to increase military pressure on Iraq appears to have commenced by May 2002, and intensified in August 2002, following a meeting of the National Security Council.115 The Sunday London Times reported that, by the end of August [2002] the raids had become a full air offensive.116

    As former veteran CIA intelligence officer Ray McGovern testified:

    The step-up in bombing was incredible. In March-April of 2002, there were hardly any bombs dropped at all. By the time September came along, several hundred tons of bombs had been dropped. The war had really started.117

    On May 27, 2002, a former US Air Force combat veteran Tim Goodrich told the World Tribunal on Iraq jury in Istanbul, Turkey: We were dropping bombs then, and I saw bombing intensify. All the documents coming out now, the Downing Street Memo and others, confirm what I had witnessed in Iraq. The war had already begun while our leaders were telling us that they were going to try all diplomatic options first.118

    “Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted that this operation was designed to ‘degrade’ Iraqi air defenses in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.”119

    The United States and Britain initially attempted to justify these raids by claiming that “the rise in air attacks was in response to Iraqi attempts to shoot down allied aircraft.”120 However, in July 2005, in response to British MP Sir Menzies Campbell's request for data, the British Ministry of Defence released figures that would indicate that the true reason for the raids was to put pressure on the Iraqis.121

    The data shows that in Athe first seven months of 2001 the allies recorded a total of 370 provocations by the Iraqis against allied aircraft. But in the seven months between October 2001 and May 2002 there were just 32.122

    The records show that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did in the whole of 2001.123

    The secret air war was also confirmed by Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley, who said that Ain 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 carefully selected targets before the war officially started.124

    Between March and November 2002, coalition forces attacked Iraqi installations with 253,000 pounds of bombs. In June 2002 specifically, forces bombed Iraq with 20,800 pounds of munitions; in September 2002, the tonnage amounted to 109,200 pounds of bombs.125

    "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."

    Notice the difference between...

    What Conyer's is saying, and what we're saying? He is playing it safe by talking about their desire for war after 9/11... we like to point out their desire for war before 9/11.

    "Donald Rumsfeld began pushing for retaliatory attacks against Iraq almost immediately after the September 11 attacks."


    "In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."

    "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."

    clarke on 9/11 = Iraq ?

    Directly from the CBC:

    From the beginning of the Bush Administration, Richard Clarke says that he did everything in his power to coax them into action against al-Qaeda without success. In the twenty-four hours following 9/11, the Bush team was ready to go to war.

    But Mr. Clarke says they picked the wrong target, "Well, in meetings on September 11th and on September 12th, the defence department officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, began talking about the need to attack Iraq. I first thought that they were kidding and it became clear that they weren't. Rumsfeld said, well yeah, we could attack Afghanistan but there aren't very many targets to bomb in Afghanistan and they're not worth very much. So we should bomb Iraq where there are much better targets. I thought there's no connection between what just happened and Iraq. That didn't seem to bother them. I said well attacking Iraq actually will make it more difficult for us to get the kinds of support we need in the world particularly in the Muslim world. That didn't seem to bother them. Secretary Powell tried to have a restraining influence on this discussion. Secretary Powell said look the world is not going to understand if we don't go after Afghanistan. That's where the attack of September 11th was launched from. So reluctantly, during the course of the week, the defence department came around to a consensus and the consensus was called Afghanistan first that's what the President approved, an Afghanistan first policy. It was very clear what was second, and what was second was Iraq."

    *btw Clarke = Richard Clarke, the counter terrorism guy


    Want to Know What the French Intelligence has on Weldon?

    Can you explain the meaning

    of the following quotation in plain terms?

    “Weldon used Ghorbanifar as an intermediary to contact French neo conservative and Israeli Mossad politician Nicolas Sarkozy for the purpose of compromising French intelligence in acquiring their July, 2001 cable intercepts indicating the September 11 plot was operational on U.S. soil,” said national security authority Thomas Heneghan.

    Especially, what does 'compromising' mean used in this context?

    Thanks for the link. It'll be interesting to see whether the MSM picks up on this at all. Tough ideas for the MSM to cover such as: “Arms dealers Ghorbanifar and Khashoggi were both involved with the Bushes and Clintons regarding an illegal worldwide weapons for narcotics syndicate."

    This will be the FOURTH..

    This will be four BIG TRUTH events within the span of a month.

    Unlikely Conyers To Seriously Investigate 9/11

    His prioritites would probably be Voting Machine Fraud and related voter issues and also general crime by BushCo.

    My letter to Conyers after he asked for help.

    Dear John Conyers:

    I'm of the reasoned and substantiated opinion, that not only is the tradition of democracy deeply broken in America, but that the republic is nearly lost completely, through the accelerated shenanigans of the Outlaw Gang running rough-shod over our nations capital.

    Do not for one minute try to soft-peddle the EXTREME likelihood of domestic involvement with the events of 9/11. Although George W. Bush has a multitude of OTHER crimes against humanity AND America worthy of impeachment (and the hangman's noose)... the need for America herself to face uncomfortable facts, actually trumps the crimes of even Bush and his gang of thugs.

    There are three films I suggest you find, view, and debate. As films, they represent a means to offer the greatest number of people a palatable and timely way to reconsider the "narrative" under-which a person views their place in the world. Although no body of information can be defended as complete nor 100% accurate... I non-the-less will argue the general accuracy and hard truth presented by this collection as an overarching thesis.

    How does this relate to 9/11 Studies?

    In my thesis, it is BECAUSE of the material contained in these films, such as Federal Reserve Banking and the inequitable application of tax CODE, combined with long running Corporate/Government shenanigans like the very ones approached in the film "Kill the Messenger", magnified by the control freak sociopath's wishes of domination.... trying to beat-the-clock of inevitable sunlight upon their despotic manipulations, as the internet and shear desperation enable common people to find each other and join together.... to break FREE from chains of servitude and economic tyranny.

    That's why I think 9/11 occurred. It was at the last minute, before such trickery could ever again be floated before an unsuspecting, and inattentive world.

    Together; "Press for Truth", "Kill the Messenger", and "America: Freedom to Fascism"... paint and very different, and important picture which I as an American feel my countrymen have a duty to soberly consider. If you want my help, I give it generously so long as you likewise make the time to consider the "reality" under which a growing and very large group of Americans and Humanity herself are in desperate need of coming to terms with.

    Don't bother contacting me again.... if you find my attitude unworthy.

    Take care dear Sir,

    Erin Myers

    "The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

    editors note ;-)

    .October 16, 2006—Experts from the 9/11 truth movement will address evidence that elements within the U.S. Government
    ..were behind the attacks of 9/11/2001 and have used the threat of terrorism to advance a right-wing political and corporate agenda.

    wouldn't this be more to the point?

    ...were behind the attacks of 9/11/2001 and have used a right-wing political and corporate agenda to advance the threat of terrorism.

    And, of course, to advance actual terrorism too, not just threats.