Lorie Van Auken Explains About The Importance Of The (JICI) In Regards To Possible Foreign Involvement In The 9/11 Attacks

Recently, I took it upon myself to send 9/11 Family Member, Lorie Van Auken, an email:

Dear Mrs. Van Auken...

Quite honestly, I can't think of anyone better to ask this question to than you. What can you tell me about Pakistan's involvement in 9/11? Since I'm talking to you, a family member, someone that was a member of the Steering Committee, I don't think I mean that question as it sounds. Can you tell me about any experiences you had with Commissioner's about it? Or anyone for that matter. Robert Mueller for instance. I know all of the written word, but I never had the opportunities someone like you did if that makes any sense.

Also, with your permission, I would like to post your response.

Thank you very much.

Sincerest Regards,

Jon Gold

Most of us in the 9/11 Truth Movement know the "facts", but people like Mrs. Van Auken "experienced" them. She was one of the "Jersey Girls", a member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. She attended every 9/11 Commission Hearing, and was instrumental in supplying them the questions they were SUPPOSED to answer.

According to 9/11 Commission Chairman, Thomas Kean, "They monitor us, they follow our progress, they've supplied us with some of the best questions we've asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them."

One of the reasons I couldn't think of anyone "better to ask this question to" than Mrs. Van Auken was because of this paragraph from a Washington Times article (sorry, the source link is dead):

"On May 15, 2003, a group of 9/11 victims' relatives met with the commission co-chairman Thomas Kean and other senior staff and submitted a list of questions, which included a mention of Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed. A June 17, 2004, the New York Times reported that Lorie Van Auken, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, was "irate" that the June 16 commission narrative of the 9/11 attacks did not even mention the allegation about Ahmed's role in the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta. Clearly, the ISI link is no mere conspiracy theory."

I am extremely grateful to Mrs. Van Auken, for being able to post the following reply from her:

Hi Jon,

Your question regarding Pakistan is quite complicated, and so my answer will be somewhat long and complex. I really couldn't answer this quickly and without thinking about what needed to be included to make it a thorough response.

Before I begin to answer, I want to make sure that it is understood that the JICI (the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001) was the first investigation that was conducted by Congress into the "intelligence failures" of 9/11. The 9/11 Commission was mandated to pick up where the JICI investigation left off.

1. The question of Pakistan's possible involvement in the attacks of 9/11 has come up many times over the course of the past five and a half years. The petition that Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle and I have posted online includes the line that "we again call for the declassification and release of the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI)... "

One key reason that we have asked for those 28 pages to be declassified is that on page 395 of the JICI report is the finding: [through its investigation, the Joint Inquiry developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. The Joint Inquiry's review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which has yet to be independently verified, concerning these potential sources of support... ]

What do they mean by "support"? Are they referring to "financial support"? And what countries participated that alleged "supporting"?


December 11, 2003, on PBS's NewsHour Senator Graham (who chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee) said "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States."

Is Pakistan mentioned in those pages? Is Saudi Arabia mentioned? Are there any other foreign governments mentioned? If so, what was their involvement?

Did Pakistan financially support any of what occurred on 9/11, and is that information included within the 28 redacted pages?

Since those pages are blank in the JICI report we still do not know what information has been hidden from us for all of this time.

We do know that soon after the 9/11 report was published, Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal flew to Washington and challenged President Bush to release the redacted portion.


"After the report was released last Thursday, Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan issued a statement saying that "28 blanked-out pages are being used by some to malign our country and our people."

"Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages," he said.

Citing those comments, Senator Graham said Bandar "has joined in asking that the pages be declassified."

2. On the FSC's questioning of the 9/11 Commissioners and Pakistan's possible role:


The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission (of which I was a member), includes the following questions which pertain to Pakistan, in our section of questions for the 9/11 Commissioners to answer regarding Al Qaeda and State Sponsored Terrorism dated July 2003, we wrote the following:

22) On the issue of state sponsored terrorism:

  • Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan's secret service, the (ISI) order Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta?

  • What was Mahmood Ahmed's relationship with Al Qaeda?

  • Where did the money come from?

  • Did officials in Pakistan know in advance about the terrorist attack?

  • On September 11th , Mahmood Ahmed had a breakfast meeting in Washington,
    D.C., with House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen, Rep. Porter
    Goss and Senator Bob Graham. What were they discussing?

(Much of this information is included in the "Press for Truth" video)

It is commonly known that if you "follow the money" oftentimes a case can be solved. The 9/11 Commission did not follow this money trail which led from Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed to Saeed Sheikh and finally to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Why not?

Also, in our section of questions for the CIA, the FSC asked the following questions:

15. Please explain the role of the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency, in aiding bin Laden and/or the al Qaeda from 1998 through the present.

“Between 1980 and the end of the Afghan/Soviet war in 1989, the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence] recruited some 35,000 Muslim radicals join Afghanistan's fight. The US and Saudi Arabia gave up to $40 billion total to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians. Most of the money is managed by the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency. At the same time, Osama bin Laden begins providing financial, organizational, and engineering aid for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, with the advice and support of the Saudi royal family. The CIA, the ISI and Osama continued to work together against the Soviets until the end of the war."


16. Has the CIA uncovered any evidence that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a Pakistani, is linked to the Pakistani ISI?


17. Please describe the historical and current relationship between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's ISI, including the significance of Musharraf’s visit to Saudi Arabia 20 days after the coup and the Saudi pledge of “massive ” financial aid.


18. Please comment on Saudi Arabia's involvement in the 1999 coup in Pakistan which installed Musharraf as leader, and coincidentally occurred on the eve of a planned US effort to capture bin Laden. Musharraf scuttled U.S. plans to capture bin Laden.


Below you will find a Statement that the FSC wrote on 9/13/04.

Statement of The Family Steering Committee

September 13, 2004

In December of 2002, The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 [JICI] issued a report on the 9/11 intelligence failures. Twenty-eight pages allegedly dealing with Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments were redacted.

Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time, has just released a book entitled Intelligence Matters . He notes that to this day, the 28 pages in the report are still redacted.

What might these pages contain that would justify such secrecy? Protecting sources and methods is crucial but that information can only be a small percentage of what has been redacted. The rest of the information should be revealed, so that there can be an assessment by ordinary citizens as to whether Senator Graham is correct when he states that Omar al-Bayoumi, who had a relationship with two of the 9/11 hijackers, is a Saudi government spy.

Graham's assessment of al-Bayoumi differs from the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission report. The Commission's director, Philip Zelikow has characterized Senator Graham's view of the details as "frozen in amber."

The subcommittee of the House Government Reform, Chaired by Representative Chris Shays, recently concluded that government secrecy is impeding anti-terrorism efforts. The subcommittee also noted that the number of restricted information categories has grown considerably since the 9/11 attacks, only making the problem worse .

The 9/11 Commission cited over classification of information by intelligence agencies as a significant factor in the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The FSC recognizes that there is a need for classification when protecting sources and methods and when protecting legitimate national security. However, there is wide agreement that currently this system is being misused.

Addressing the same issue, Senators Lott and Wyden, members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, have indicated plans to introduce bi-partisan legislation intended to curb over classification abuses.

All 9/11 victims' families, indeed, all Americans, should be calling for the "amber to be unfrozen", allowing access to those 28 redacted pages so we can assess for ourselves whether there are terrorist links with the Saudis and/or other nations.

Americans should also be pressing for reforms suggested by the House and Senate regarding classification overall so that we, the people, can exercise our own oversight of our government – which is our obligation, and our right in a free society.


So you can see that we have been trying to get these redacted pages unclassified for a very long time.

I hope this answers your question.

Lorie Van Auken

That response was followed by this one:

One more point - I want to be clear here that Senator Graham spoke in the plural - "foreign governments" (from PBS NewsHour).


SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

Thank you Mrs. Van Auken for this informative, and time consuming response.

Thanks for posting this,

Thanks for posting this, Jon, and thanks Mrs. Van Auken for your continued dedication to this cause.

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info


Really is amazing. I love her testimony before the 9/11 Congressional Briefing.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Thank you very much!

For all your hard work and your careful bridge building with the family members and first responders.

Please thank Mrs. Van Auken for responding and for her long fight for the truth, she's one of my heroines.

Whenever anyone tries to play the lame "you're insulting the families" card, I tell them that I'm just working to support their quest for new investigations and the true account of how their loved ones were murdered.

Thanks again, Mr. Gold.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

I sent...

Her the blog so hopefully she'll see the comments. And thanks.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Good Quote...

It is commonly known that if you "follow the money" oftentimes a case can be solved. The 9/11 Commission did not follow this money trail which led from Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed to Saeed Sheikh and finally to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Why not?

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

9/11: Press For Truth

This is what I'm talking

This is what I'm talking about.

Asking questions.

No wild speculation
No aggressive assertion.

Just asking questions that haven't been answered.

Then, taking the answers (when we get them), and seeing if they make sense.

Rinse, and repeat.

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Thanks, Jon

There are pieces of evidence that implicate Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. How it all fits together is unclear. But they all deserve further investigation.

And thank you, Laurie Van Auken. Your commitment is inspiring.

Regarding the activities of foreign intelligence organizations.

For those of you who are familiar with the basic structures of international intelligence operations, you will recognize that the whole Arab-oriented Usama bin-Laden/al-Qayda/Saudi hijackers/Pakistani Intelligence Services financial support connection is what is known as a “back-story operation.” These types of operations are commonly set up over a period of several years and employed as smokescreens to completely divert the energies of investigators and researchers away from the actual intelligence organization(s) behind the operational details of ‘projects’ such as 9/11.

Now that the empirical and scientific details of the controlled demolitions on 9/11/01 have been conclusively proven in a variety of ways by physicists and engineers, the vital questions of who authorized and supervised the demolition wiring of those three buildings in NYC must now be honestly and bravely dealt with by the 9/11 Truth Movement, and this is when things start to get rough. Who would have the means and opportunity to wire up those buildings without being detected? This is the fairly dangerous and controversial area of research that my group has been concentrating upon, and the results are not very pretty. We will be making a careful and judicious presentation of our research at this site fairly soon (unless the brakes on our cars are ‘cut’ with plastique), but in the meantime I urge all 9/11 truthers to seriously educate themselves and their friends on the crucial demarcations and differences between secular, atheist Zionists and people of the Jewish faith who actually follow the Torah, for when the final truths about these 9/11 operations come out, I truly fear for the safety of my Jewish friends and relatives if such a program of enlightened, political education has not been launched. So, if any of you out there still wonder why people like Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky won’t seriously discuss 9/11, it is because they in fact do know the horrible truths of 9/11 and are terribly afraid of the potentially horrific and violent backlash against innocent people of the Jewish faith by people of ignorant consciousness. The Zionists, in fact, would absolutely love such a backlash, but I beg you to not play into their vicious, duplicitous game. We will eventually win, but things are going to get pretty intense, more so than the usual intensity of this situation.

Warm regards to my comrades in truth,

Dr. Lazlo Toth

Divide and Conquer

Dr. Toth,

You speak of the “...crucial demarcations and differences between secular, atheist Zionists and people of the Jewish faith who actually follow the Torah...”

Thank you for dividing one from the other so clearly, in your comments.

I have spoken of this before here. Zionists in Israel are a weird bunch. People view them as kooks. Generally they are poor and yet very adventurous zealots -- the folks who stake out illegal trailer encampment claims in Palestinian areas, demanding Israeli army protection for their rude and violent folly. Are these the Zionists you are referring to?

These folks are pitiable, at best. They will never rule the world, I can assure you. Lucky if they can successfully interact in normal society. In fact, for that achievement, most such people will need extensive therapy.

Are you afraid of ZIonists like that? Are these the folks your research will expose?

On another topic, have you noticed that disinformation works best when it can find an (imaginary) enemy for your opponent to hate? It is especially clever when it divides the very same opponent into camps.

Each camp can then suspect the other of being in the ranks of the imaginary enemy. Using your example, the question might become, "Is this a Torah following Jew, or a... God forbid... Zionist?"

If we get the imagination going, anything can happen. Why? Because the imagination is, basically, infinite. Also, it need not depend on fact, but only upon one's ability to project or imagine fears.

Divide and Conquer techniques usually make extensive use of this feature of human psychology.

The British made masterful use of this, as a means to take over the India -- dividing Hindus from Muslims in particular. Look what that later led to. They also did the same in the Palestinian lands.

How do you feel about that technique?

Zionists in the US are scarier.

You are referring to a small subset of of Israeli Zionists as if Israel is not a Zionist state and as if there is not a substantial Zionist presence in this country, including individuals with dual Israeli-US citizenship who are or have been in high-level policy making positions OR have been influential in other ways, such as prominence in business and owners/ leaseholders of property directly involved in 9/11. Do you feel as though disingenuous arguments of this sort are effective persuasion?


I wonder if the people you refer to consider themselves Zionist. Often this is just a label.

Elitist and power mad people will use any cause to their advantage, including Zionism.

Disinformationists will use any label to their advantage, if it divides people into camps. Often the Zionist label comes in quite handy for that task. You might be able to think of historical examples of that. I think the 9-11 truth movement has had some experience of it too. Don't you?

It's not the label...

In this case, I'm not particularly interested in what people label themselves, but in their actions. In this case, the action in question is support for a racist, imperialist apartheid state which has employed ethnic cleansing and terrorism. I'm against these things, and I oppose people who think they're acceptable. I refer to these people as Zionists.

To step outside the pussy-footing rhetorical conceit we've got going here, Student, I want to acknowledge that it can be hard to really look at American and Israeli Zionists as potential 9/11 perps because we want to protect the Jews we are or we love, either personally or simply as our fellow human beings. This is entirely understandable -- in fact, it has been my personal experience. Those two identities have been very effectively conflated as a means of shielding Zionists at the expense of Jews as such. This is the flipside of the disinformation technique to which you refer: conflate and mislead.

Casseia, you say, "In this

Casseia, you say, "In this case, the action in question is support for a racist, imperialist apartheid state which has employed ethnic cleansing and terrorism. I'm against these things, and I oppose people who think they're acceptable. I refer to these people as Zionists."

I feel the same way about it. If that is the right definition for Zionism, I too am very much against it.

I have noticed though that the label can be used for racist purposes. Also, it can be used, most ingeniously, to tarnish honest questioning into what happened on 9-11-01. You have seen that just as I have. I believe we are working against a foe who does make use of that technique.

I also noticed this...

From an earlier thread, a comment by Dr. Lazlo Toth:

"As Rabbi Yisrael Weiss has clearly pointed out – Zionism is completely antithetical to Judaism, hence right-wing Zionists are only masquerading as people of the Jewish faith. As a political and racial ideology, Zionism is essentially identical to Nazism and Fascism, only the arm-bands change, the genocidal features remain the same."

I will be interested to learn more of his views.

I do wonder why we need these labels. Are we not simply speaking of various powerful psychopaths who happen, in these several cases, to control aspects of various governments?

Why use any of these labels? Is George Bush a Zionist, or Dick Cheney? Rumsfeld? I think we may simply be dealing with very powerful maniacs.

I used to say...

That Zionism is to Judaism what Neoconservative is to Christianity. The problem with that statement is that several Neocons are Jewish. The way it has been explained to me is that a Zionist is a someone that believes in the protection of Israel no matter the cost. There are Christian Zionists as well as Jewish ones. There are Zionists living in the south (that make up a large portion of the Bush Base) that believe Israel needs to be "fruitful and multiply" in order for Jesus to return. BushCo has capitalized on that mindset to gain support for what they're doing in the Middle East.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Got it

But I still wonder about this Toth fellow's use of the term. I will be interested in how he brings out his views, in the blog he promised up there. Or here, if he wants to explain more in this thread.

If, when people are speaking of Zionists, they actually intend to include Christian Zionists, that may work OK.

But so very often the word gets used much as words like 'nigger,' 'jap,' 'wop,' 'dago,' and other such derogatory names are used. Like those, it offers a clear focus for unalloyed hatred. Surely you know what I mean. And then the 911 truth movement gets tarnished with that.


"Nazi" gets used pejoratively, too -- so does "fascist," "communist," "socialist," and even "feminist." Zionism refers to a political ideology; it does not refer to race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any of the other attributes which comprise the identity of an individual.


Personally I am not too fond of any label for disliking someone. Sometimes it helps but often not.

Don't you agree that this term brings up hardened prejudices and so on? Don't you also agree that it is used for spreading dissention, even in the 911 truth movement?

I am not trying to legislate word usage. But I do wonder, and we all have seen a lot of this sort of thing.

That's just it: this is not about "dislike"

Did you "dislike" the apartheid regime in South Africa prior to 1990? Did you "dislike" the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia? This is POLITICAL and it is about IDEAS and not identities. Real political forces are at work behind the erroneous conflation of Jewish identity (as either ethnicity or religion) and a political movement. This conflation makes it much harder to oppose some very objectionable ideas -- and cui bono from that, do you suppose? OF COURSE many of the neo-cons are Jewish and many Zionists are Christians -- that's apples and oranges in all its citrus/non-citrus glory!

Reply to Casseia, here for better placement on the display

These are good points, in your post below this one.

Even so, I can't believe even a Wolfowitz is actually Zionist. He is, evidently, quite willing to trample anyone's life and interests if it suits him. He probably cares little for any Arab and would be glad to have Arab lands denuded of Arabs. That is ethnic cleansing, as someone used to call it in Eastern Europe.

Actually, I do not know that fellow. It does appear he acts cruelly. As do the others in that crowd. All of them, it seems, including of course Silverstein. Quite a collection, I agree. None of them is the least religious, of that I am sure. Nor do they really care about any given country, except as it benefits their pocket book. Or so it seems to me.

But they are just very ignorant people, who have somehow amassed great power -- by our own lack of attention really.

Amazingly, if a person is poor and a psychopath, he gets committed either to prison or a mental institution. If they are rich, we promote them to CEO positions and to top government roles.


I don't have any display trouble with stuff that gets pushed to the right margin but I know some people do -- please let me know if you can't read my response under the post you moved.

Labels are useful insofar as they facilitate the

discussion of historical movements. The neo-cons represent a movement stemming from Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago, for instance -- it's a helpful label that identifies a group of people within a political/philosophical context that can be more fully fleshed out when appropriate (ie, it helps not to have to go into the career details of Strauss every single time you want to discuss the work of his various proteges.) The same is true of Zionism. There is no question we are dealing with powerful maniacs -- or sociopaths -- but these labels CAN be descriptive and not just pejorative. BTW, there is certainly overlap between neocons and Zionists.


See above for reply.

You don't think he supports Israel

occupying Palestine, giving/denying citizenship based on ethnicity, and so forth? This just doesn't have anything to do with religion -- I'm starting to repeat myself here-- except that some people are promoting the ERRONEOUS idea that Zionism=Judaism. I have no idea if Wolfowitz and Silverstein are practicing Jews (and it's not any of my business, either) -- it is entirely irrelevent. I wouldn't presume to say Bush is not a Christian (although I reserve the right to think it loudly.) As political beasts, they behave according to political ideologies, not religions, and there is nothing hateful about identifying those political ideologies. That is what the "neo-con" label does, and that is what the "Zionist" label does.

Paul Wolfowitz

You can judge for yourself whether Zionist is an appropriate label for him -- here's some background on Paul. I would say that he is, but he's more moderate than some (read: he has "compassion" for the Palestinians, but don't confuse that with wanting to give them their land back.) That website is an excellent resource.

Continuing -- on labels, and also pograms

Casseia, I am back at my desk and have just read your comments. I am again replying to an earlier post of yours so that it displays OK -- on my screen; others seem not to have this problem?

The link on Wolfowitz provided information I was unaware of. No person is one-sided including these folks. For instance, to me his girlfriend's name, Shaha Riza, looks very Iranian. The last Shah of Iran's name was Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi..., or rather, he changed it to that on assuming power. Surely she is Iranian, and (obviously, if that is true) an expat Iranian.

I guess our whole discussion of the Zionism term and issue comes down to how it gets used. You say, vis-a-vis Jews and Zionists, "Those two identities have been very effectively conflated as a means of shielding Zionists at the expense of Jews as such."

The conflation that I notice is similar. Someone shines light on the evident involvement of, say, Mossad in perpetrating or at least foreknowing the 9-11 atrocities. They speak of Zionism in that context. And then somehow or other the article quotes or links to some neo-nazi website which also says this about Mossad/Zionism and 911. Then and only then is when someone in the MSM notices this -- soley to link the whole 911 truth movement into that domain of dismal mental confusion. What a conflation.

In no way are the perpetrators unaware of this dynamic. In no way will the perpetrators not use this ugly conflation as a disinformation technique.

This is why I at least plan to make very little use of the Zionist label in promoting or discussing 911 truth.

I also will be most wary when I see some evidently erudite comments, such as those by Dr. Toth, which warn of how bad the backlash will be against Jews, once this Zionist-911 connection gets exposed. Please look carefully at his post for that, and see if you agree.

This warning of his reminds me all too much of how things got phrased back in the Middle ages, prior to a pogram. That is what I thought I saw in it -- not that he wants to start a pogram, but that he may, perhaps unconsciously, help conflate the 911 truth movement with something very ugly that it has nothing to do with.


I agree that Toth's post was very disturbing and I would like him to clarify, because it sounds like fear-mongering. On the other hand, I'm not ready to give up on the use of the word "Zionist" -- there are simply some cases where clear description seems to require it. For instance, I think Silverstein can be described as a Zionist. I'm not sure that he can be described as a neo-con, like many other prominent American Zionists who may have had a hand in 9/11.


We are on the same page.

Really it is the apparent fear-mongering that got to me. That, and the hint of a very familiar form of cultural racism. I made use of the Zionism terminology issue to bring those points out into the open.

Thanks for the useful discussion.

Terms, Definitions and History

I would like to address ‘Student’ here, as well as the other good folks at this site, and just say that when I use the term ‘Zionist’ in my posts here or in other writings I am using it in its historical, academic sense, not as some KKK white supremacist might use it, which brings up the important issues of terms and terminology. If I say ‘Indian’ and you think that I am referring to a member of the Cherokee Nation, then the communication lines between us in our conversation about ‘Indians’ and classical ragas is going to be very confused and unproductive. There is an extreme difference between a Zionist in the proper historical usage of the term and a Jew, being defined as one who bases his conduct and life around the moral codes of the Torah and the large body of classical Rabbinical writings. Zionism, whose two principal founding fathers, Theodore Herzl and Chaim Weissman, were both confirmed atheists, began as a socio-political ideology in the 1890s as a response to the Russian Czarist pogroms of the 1870s and the Dreyfuss trials. The Rabbis of the time saw Zionism as a black heresy and you may see the Torah-based arguments for this put forward again by their theological descendents like the Naturei Karta Rabbis who burn Israeli flags in front of the U.N. in New York and in other cities like Montreal and London. In fact, I will give you here three websites, run by orthodox Jews, not Nazi KKK people, and you can let the Jewish Rabbis, themselves, explain to you in their articles the radical differences between Zionism and Judaism.




Also regarding the problems with terms and shadings of terminology, the conflation of Zionism with Judaism is a very useful propaganda device on several levels. On one level, anytime anyone brings up the long history of war crimes committed by the government of Israel, they will immediately trot out the old “you’re anti-Semitic” dog and pony show in order to shut down any conversation about historical reality. Another highly misused term is ‘Semitic’, which refers to many ancient Near Eastern peoples and their languages. The Amorites, Akkadians, Aramaeans, Arabs and Hebrews are all Semitic peoples and all their languages are classified as Semitic languages, so if you hate Arabs, you are an anti-Semite. This is why I previously said that there are no greater anti-Semites than those who adhere to the socio-political philosophy of Zionism. I mentioned in a previous post that Zionism has a very nasty racist ingredient in it that is akin to Nazism. So as not to confuse anybody, I am not equating Jews with Nazis. Are we clear on this? I am not insane. I am only informing you of this so that these very real historical elements in the political ideology of Zionism can be seen without the usual sugar coating of false history and deception. Over the period of a century now, various pieces of Zionist literature have openly written of Arabs as an inferior race of dogs. Some of these horrifically ugly quotes, unfortunately, have shown up in the autobiographies of several Israeli prime ministers. I will not post these horrible and embarrassing quotes here, and I will simply refer you to the sampling found in the ‘Jews for Justice in the Middle East’ publication out of Berkeley, CA -- “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict.” The racial philosophy of Zionism discussed in their writings developed into this weird mixture of Hitlerian, bogus 1930s German biology ‘master race’ stuff and the “God’s chosen people” concept taken to insane extremes. The people who accept this socio-political/racial ideology of Zionism are Not Jews, as has been explained, in great detail, not by myself, but by orthodox Rabbis going back to Maimonides. Just because your last name is Weinberg does not make you Jewish. To be Jewish means to accept a moral covenant with God. To see this difference between being Jewish and being a Zionist is also clearly illustrated below in the history of how LEHI, the Zionist military wing of Irgun, in 1941 offered its military services to The NAZIS! I am serious, I did not make this up.

My comments here and in my previous posts, with regards to Zionism and the question of Israel, are based upon a history that most people are wholly unaware of (and for good reason), a history nonetheless that is real and one that real historians, including Jewish ones such as Dr. Norman Finkelstein, are quite aware of. I do not make my comments lightly or frivolously, and I do not make them inspired by some kind of neo-Nazi nutcase hate agenda either. Also, at the outset, I would like to repeat that all of my many Jewish friends have always been Jewish, and none of them are Zionists. I would never hang out with someone like Paul Wolfowitz or heroin/weapons dealers like Richard Pearle, and neither would any of my friends.

Just as when you began researching and finding out about the hidden, yet real history surrounding 9/11, and you thought to yourself that you now know way too much, and that where the evidence is leading is somewhere you really might not want to go, so it is also quite like that with the study of what has gone on in the land of Palestine for about 100 years now. I did not want to find these things out, but when you study history, you often come across many horrible things that you wish you had not uncovered. For a frank, honest, and academically well-researched look at the history of Palestine for the last century, I highly recommend the following books:

1) “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict”
by Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein

2) “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History”
by Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein

3) “Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents”
by Dr. Charles D. Smith -- This text is used at the university level in California and Arizona for courses in the history of the modern Middle East, including graduate level history courses at Stanford.

4) “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict”
published by ‘Jews for Justice in the Middle East’ (Berkeley, CA) – This text is also used at the university level in California and Arizona for courses in the history of the modern Middle East.

5) “51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis”
by Lenni Brenner -- This volume is sold by Naturei Karta and gives the actual documentary history concerning the strange working relationships that various Zionist groups in Europe had with the Nazis. http://www.nkusa.org (Naturei Karta, USA)

Before we let Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Einstein, and Martin Buber weigh in on the situation, I want to be very clear, Zionism is a socio-political-militarist, racist philosophy, officially founded in 1897 in Basle, Switzerland by secular atheists. This ideology merely uses the religious cover of Judaism to both advance its secular real estate and resource control agendas, and at the same time to cover up the military and human rights crimes committed in the advancement of that agenda. It is the same religious con-game that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. play, the “we’re all tight with Jesus” game. Thus, in reality, there were no Christians, Jews, or Muslims involved with the 9/11 operations, there were, however, many who dressed up in the garb of those faiths, and this is why we must be precise in the usage of terms and definitions. We must learn to separate the sheep from the wolf in the sheep’s clothing. Calling the wolf a wolf does not mean I am anti-sheep, no matter what the wolf told you my motive was.

One of the main criticisms that orthodox Rabbis have with the Zionist state is that the Jewish return from exile to the Holy Land was to be brought about through peace by the Messiah or Meshiah, but the secular Zionists decided to bring it about forcefully, using violence, terror, and deceit. Because of this, ‘Israel’ is cursed, and thus the Rabbis have said that there will never be peace there until there is real human justice. Along these lines, I found this quote by Mahatma Gandhi on the Palestinian situation:

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb.” – Mahatma Gandhi (quoted in “A Land of Two Peoples” edited by Mendes-Flohr)

Jewish Criticism of Zionism (these are only two of many, many quotes like this):

Albert Einstein – “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.”

Martin Buber (renowned, modern Jewish philosopher and writer) – “Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed, we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the “People of the Book” and the “light of the nations.””

Both of these statements are quoted in Sami Hadawi’s “Bitter Harvest” and “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict” published by ‘Jews for Justice in the Middle East’, (Berkeley, CA)

When I mentioned in my post that the ideology of Zionism also has a genocidal element in it, I wasn’t trying to spread hate speech or something. This is something you will clearly and unfortunately see if you study the history of this, and I was in fact actually referring to a comment made by Dr. Norman Finkelstein where he compared the century- long persecution of the Palestinian people to a long, slow genocide. I will not, in good taste, narrate for you here the absolute horrors of General Ariel Sharon’s Shaba and Shatila Refugee Camp Massacres in Lebanon in 1982, but to illustrate for you that I am not making all of this up, I will give you a single sample of another part of this history from the pen of an Israeli author describing what has become known as the ‘Deir Yassin Massacre of 1948’, and don’t turn your eyes away. I want you to read this.

“For the entire day of April 9, 1948 Irgun and LEHI soldiers (two Israeli guerilla groups) carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them...The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country.” -- Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth of Israel”

If the Zionists were actually Jews, why would they offer their military help to the Nazis to fight against the British? Read on -- When it appeared that Britain, the power behind the Zionist movement since the early 1900s, appeared to be losing to Germany at the beginning of WWII, Future Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir actually proposed an alliance with the Nazis! As Allan Brownfield wrote in “The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs” (July/August 1998), “As late as 1941, the Zionist guerilla group LEHI, one of whose leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, was later to become a prime minister of Israel, approached the Nazis, using the name of its parent organization, the Irgun (NMO). Their proposal stated – ‘The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interests of strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East...The NMO in Palestine offers to take an active part in the war on Germany’s side.’ ...The Nazis rejected this proposal for an alliance because, it is reported, they considered LEHI’s military power negligible.”

Again, if you want to see the documents on this, refer to, among several other sources, “51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis” by Lenni Brenner -- This volume is sold by the orthodox Naturei Karta group as well as Amazon.com and gives the actual documentary history concerning the strange working relationships and alliances that various Zionist groups in Europe had with the Nazis.

Along with Yitzhak Shamir, this same Zionist, terrorist organization – LEHI -- also counted as one of its members another future prime minister of Israel, Menachem Begin. Aside from all the village-to-village massacres of Palestinians like at Deir Yassin, this guerilla group was also responsible for the demolition of the section of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where the entire commanding staff of the British military was headquartered. The LEHI operatives who planted the explosives actually dressed up as Arabs for that extra ‘false-flag’ effect so that the British would go after the Palestinians for the bombing, but the British didn’t take the bait, and that is how Yitzhak Shamir, Menachem Begin, and their friends became wanted terrorists by the British High Command in Palestine. This is all in the history books, people.

In conclusion, and in light of the above historical background and clarification of terminology, I want to simply explain the basic motive behind my previous post. I wasn’t trying to scare or disturb anyone here, although the information we deal with at this site is heavily disturbing enough. In the pursuit of honest research into the hidden elements of historical events such as 9/11, we are encountering and have encountered in the research process many people who are involved with sensitive operational details related to the events of 9/11. Many of these people have Jewish last names and have connections to the right-wing Likud Party in Israel and to the Israeli military and intelligence services. Other intelligence services are also certainly involved. This should not be new to any of you here. Anyone who says that 9/11 was “done by the Jews” is just completely ignorant about what is going on here, but nonetheless, because of this heavy Zionist/Neo-Con involvement, I was merely trying to point out that because there are many people out in America who think Zionist = Jew, I thought that before any more ‘inside’ 9/11 info comes out, we might want to educate ourselves and other people about the differences between Zionist and Jew so that innocent people do not unnecessarily suffer. As an analogy, because the whole war on terror is basically framed as a war against ‘crazy’ Muslims, there have been hundreds of thousands of Muslims now who have been recently and unnecessarily slaughtered because of a lie perpetrated based upon a misunderstanding of terms and terminology. My fear expressed in my post was thus not for the purpose of being a fear-monger, but is related to the very same reason why ‘Student’ brought up the subject of terms and terminology in the first place. Because the terms “Zionism,” “Semitism,” and “Judaism” are not properly understood and have been completely and commonly misused, often by people with sinister agendas (like FOX and CNN), we are unable in the Western world to have a civil, realistic political or historical discussion related to any of these things. Because of this improper usage and misunderstanding of terms, the secular, Zionist criminals who in fact did participate in 9/11 and its cover-up afterwards can use our discoveries of their crimes to label the 9/11 Truth Movement as ‘anti-Semitic’ (i.e. anti-Jewish), but if proper understanding of all three of these terms, through education, is conveyed, then people will no longer fall for these cheap tricks anymore. Are you going to call the Naturei Karta Rabbis anti-Semitic when you see them burning Israeli flags in front of the UN? They are not anti-Semitic, or anti-Jewish. Hey folks, they are Torah-reading Rabbis. You cannot get more Jewish than that. Maybe there is something going on here that you don’t understand. You have been lied to about everything else, right? Go look at their website with their protest march photos. They are protesting the crimes of the Israeli government, a government which is run by true anti-Semites, moral-free atheists, and true anti-Jews. Go look at their photos of troops from the Israeli Defense Forces beating the shit out of orthodox Rabbis in the Occupied Territories. The Zionists are the racist fanatics here. We are just historians calling a spade a spade, messengers with an uncomfortable, yet necessary message. If you still don’t believe me, check out the websites and books above. Peace to all of you. Sometimes the truth can hurt a lot.


Dr. Toth,

I appreciate this long post from you. I have so far read about half of it, and will return to read all of it over time. I am at work, after all... and hope no one sees me reading this stuff, good as it apparently is...

You mentioned "the long history of war crimes committed by the government of Israel..." I can only agree with those words. I also suspect that most if not all here at 911blogger will have similar feelings about it. People can chime in if they disagree.

For instance, in my opinion, former President Carter's reference in the title of his book to 'apartheid' in the Palestinian territories is dead on. Again, others here may disagree and if anyone does, feel free to chime in.

But of course, lots of nations commit war crimes. You mention Indians. If you read how "the west was won" here in the US, it chills the bones. Or look at how all of southern Africa got taken over by white settlers way back then, with such great consideration and kindness. In fact, it becomes a bit hard NOT to find genocide, once you get an eye for it. It is all so brutal.

I do agree that current genocide is maybe lots worse than past genocide, since we could theoretically prevent it from happening now.

But for that, try looking at what the US is doing now in Iraq, far worse than the Israelis have ever done anywhere in terms of shear death toll. Maybe they inspired what we are doing there? So what, since we are the ones doing it.

My issue here has to do with tarnishing the 911 movement with sentiments that have nothing to do with it. Someone -- and I am not referring to you, as far as I know -- announces themselves as a 911 truth leader, or as someone with inside knowledge, or research, or expertise. We here accept their expertise and appreciate their insights.

But then, matters unfold. We find that their website displays swastikas and other such paraphernalia. Or, as in the last case, the person publishes a Holocaust-denying book.

It gets old, let me tell you. This 'the Jews did it' angle is just plain out of it. We do not buy it. It is stale, old timey, out of touch, dumb; it is stale and in fact, I would say, putrid. This is some earlier generation's issue, not ours.

Then, after our kind expert shows his (or less often, her) real colors -- and this seems, perhaps, the whole point of it? -- mainstream media outlets notice it. They write about it, connecting the 911 truth movement with that same website or book. And we here just moan.

That is what I was referring to as intentional disinformation. We have seen it many times.

Finally, finding out that Mossad was involved will not surprise anyone here. At this point we'll be surprised to learn that they were not. Check other comments in this very thread for that sort of understanding. As you say, Mossad is not really Jewish, any more than GWB is in fact Christian. Mossad, CIA, this US administration, the KGB, these are all just different and related crime syndicates, it seems. It is not fun to learn of that.

The fact that the Mafia is composed of Catholics has not ever led to a backlash against Catholics. The same goes for the Mossad being a crime syndicate.

Please do not take my somewhat aggressive questioning, earlier, as assuming anything. My remarks above are also not directed at you, as far as I know. You write very well, and I appreciate that.

But if you are interested in Holocaust revision, please keep it to yourself. This is about 911.

Thanks for the clarification.

My concern about your post was that by enigmatically referring to disclosures that may ensue from your group's research AND THEN suggesting that a Zionist/Jewish conflation would be dangerous to Jews (which it could well be) you were playing into the Jewish fear of anti-Jewish violence. This fear, in addition to be based in historical reality, has also been manipulated as an instrument of control over some Jews by other Jews.

In addition, there is a third party that I don't see you identify clearly -- and you must. There are plenty of secular, atheist Jews who are NOT Zionists, NOR do they follow the Torah. For them, Jewishness is an ethnic identity or has some other personal meaning. I consider those of them who oppose the Palestinian genocide and the apartheid state of Israel my friends and allies (not to mention ex-boyfriends) and wish for them the freedom to identify as Jewish for their own reasons, without being targeted for violence if some kind of anti-Zionist backlash does come to pass. We need to be scrupulously clear on matters such as this.

Hello Student and Casseia

I absolutely agree with both of you on all your points, and was not aware of Neo-Nazis and such hooking up with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Wow! Yes, that is a serious, serious PR problem. I couldn’t join the KKK scene anyways. They don’t take people of African descent. This whole discussion about the history of Zionism and Israel is so difficult to properly have because of the incredible historical disinformation or lack of historical understanding of the situation, as well as the complete misuse and misunderstanding of terms and terminology. When I was writing yesterday, I did think about the indigenous peoples of this continent and how the Europeans took this country by lying to, and slaughtering, the original Americans. We humans always seem to do things the wrong way, the violent way. Things could have gone much different in Palestine in the beginning as well. I also thought about the black slavers on the coast of West Africa who prospered by selling their fellow Africans to the white plantation owners. If you read the histories of the various Crusades beginning in the 12th century, you will see the Crusaders move across Europe, slaughtering whole villages of Jewish folks before they continued on into the Middle East to begin the slaughtering of the Muslims. Just after that time, the Muslims in Jerusalem would give protection to the Jews from the persecutions of the Christians! Yes, all of our histories are covered with blood and ignorance, but we must still not be afraid to speak out about the truths of history, and these are usually truths never pleasant and fun to talk about. Human history is embarrassing for nearly everyone, well, maybe not the Buddhists, though I may be wrong about that. The history behind 9/11 is not fun. Thinking about these things is not fun, and that is why people sometimes get very angry with us. My intention was not to scare. My intention was to try to protect my Jewish friends, to protect innocent people by saying don’t look at people like Paul Wolfowitz and the rest and then persecute Jewish people because of a small minority of ambitious psychopaths who subscribe to the non-religious ideology of Zionism, but use Judaism as a moral cover. For example, in Texas, right after 9/11 an Indian man of the Sikh religion was gunned down because someone thought he was an Arab, even though Arabs don’t wear turbans. The climate was – “The Arabs did 9/11.” So, through education about the proper definitions of ‘Zionism’, ‘Judaism’, and ‘Semitism’, I thought we should try to AVOID a climate of – “The Jews did 9/11.” I also wanted to point out that I have no problem with people who are atheists or ‘secular’, after all, Buddha was an atheist -- a spiritual atheist. If you believe in the Divine, but do not conceive that the Divine is a ‘personality’, then you are technically “a-theos,” or an atheist. All of my Jewish friends are very secular, yet also wise, spiritual, and highly moral. I know for an absolute fact that none of them were involved in 9/11. They would never blow up a building to defraud an insurance company and start a war. I was only pointing out the secular nature of the historical European Zionist movement to illustrate that it is not a religious movement, yet it still manages to skillfully use the religion of Judaism to promote its agenda and also cover over or prevent any criticism of its actions. For 5,000 years religion has been used for non-religious purposes by the power elite. It is the oldest control tool in the box. If you thought that some of my comments bordered on the extreme, you should read what some of those Jewish Rabbis have to say about Zionism. By the way, last month in New York, the folks from the Zionist club burned the Naturei Karta synagogue and rabbinical school to the ground. The Zionist club people are very hard-core. Later...

Dr. Toth again

Friend, thanks for this reply.

Not realizing you had replied to Casseia's post, I took the liberty of adding to my own earlier one above since you can edit them until someone replies. I put in some new and rather juicy things -- I thought -- about the 'the Jews did it' angle. I hope you will appreciate it, if you have time to look at that comment again.

This discussion has been very helpful. Thanks. I am glad that you see what we are up against, regarding this Jewish issue. It is but one of many superb disinformation techniques that we continually face, in the 911 truth 'movement' if you can call it that. I guess it is a movement, and that we are a 'we.'

I will continue to challenge anyone who uses the Zionism term in this connection since, I will guarantee, it will be used in nefarious ways -- essentially comparable to the more old-fashioned word Kike. Yes it is a philosophy and a social movement, not a religion, not a race. I will protest anyway.

I think our best way of staying clear of this 'Jewish issue' dead-end is to stop referring to it. Surely anyone can see that this is an international mess, and in no way mostly Jewish or mostly Mossad or mostly Isreali.

So let's just drop that feature unless it stands out in some way. Agreed?

BTW, Real Truther here painted a plausible scenario by which Mossad did the actual wiring. He didn't claim to know that, but just spinned it out as a thought experiment.

If that turns out to be what happened, I for one hope it gets found out and demonstrated. If it turns out to be someone else, fine let's demonstrate that and hold them accountable, whoever it is.

Even if they did that, of course, it can in no way exonerate the CIA especially, and no doubt several other US agencies or parts of them.

We will be agreeing to disagree, then.

"Kike" and "Zionist" are not comparable or equivalent to anyone who is intellectually honest, and there are real forces at work that want to make you think they are, in order to obscure the effects of Zionism and the work of Zionists. For the last time (and cordially) it is NOT a Jewish issue.



You say, ""Kike" and "Zionist" are not comparable or equivalent to anyone who is intellectually honest."

And that is my point too. We are saying exactly the same thing. Or so it appears to me.

Again, this has been a really good discussion, IMO. I hope a few others have kept up with it. These are general issues.


(Repeat posting deleted)

How many people...

AC may just make me rethink my position

on the death penalty.

Not really, but few people disgust me as much as this soulless media whore.

I make a habit of putting deception dollars in her books at Borders, that is, when I can stomach touching them.

To attack someone who just wants to know how and why their loved one was murdered is just completely beyond the pale.

Whenever I get a little down or need a motivational boost to get out and work for new investigations I watch Press For Truth and reconnect with the wonderful, courageous Jersey Girls and Bob McIlvaine.

Jon, I have an idea for this coming September 11th in NYC that involves getting nearly 3,000 people to wear a white shirt each having the name of one victim on it and their birth date. I'd like them to wear white pants or skirt, as well. The 9/11 angels. This would be part of a procession to the site where everyone would sing We Shall Overcome and observe silence at the appropriate times. No bull horning and no obnoxious signs. My hope is that everyone else will wear a variety of colorful 9/11 Truth tee shirts, ideally most of these would each have all the victims names on them. Of course any family members that want to wear the shirt of their lost loved one would have first claim and those that don't want their lost loved one represented would have their wishes respected. I'm wondering what the families think of this idea. Let me know what you think and if you could pass this along to the appropriate people I would be very grateful. I will write a blog about my vision for September 11th, 2007 very soon.

I'm planning on going to NYC this September 11th and it is my fervent hope that we can get as many peaceful people as possible to also go. We need to overwhelm Manhattan with love and demonstrate our unswerving pursuit of truth and justice.

Thanks again for your relentless pursuit of truth and justice, AND for the manner in which you do it.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

i think she is a he

i think she is a he

I think

your right art V

She got owned...

by that news anchor, he was awesome, not the guy who interviewed her, but the guy at the desk.

Does anyone...

Know where this image came from? I don't remember Mrs. Van Auken ever being interviewed.

It looks like an Olbermann interview.

Edit: Yes it was...


Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN, Karl Rove on Maple Street, day three. The White House and the Republican Party continue to defend Rove‘s assertion that “conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and prepared for war, while liberals saw the savagery of 9/11 and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”

Not all of the defenses came across as especially hearty. Tom DeLay at the College Republicans Convention today in Arlington, Virginia.


DELAY: Wednesday night, Karl Rove said, and I quote, “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11, in the effects -- (INAUDIBLE) in the (INAUDIBLE) attacks and prepared for war, liberals saw the savagery of 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapeutic understanding for our attackers.” That‘s not slander. That‘s the truth.


OLBERMANN: Always helps to read those speeches over one time backstage.

The White House itself says Mr. Rove was referring only to one specific liberal group.


DAN BARTLETT, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: It‘s somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats, Harry Reid, Senator Clinton, Chuck Schumer, other these Democrats who responded forcefully after 9/11, who voted to support President Bush‘s pursuit in the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of MoveOn.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11.

That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE), but let me go back to...

BARTLETT: That is who he was talking to. There‘s no reason to apologize...


BARTLETT: ...for a statement that was made.


OLBERMANN: In fact, there were two references to MoveOn.org in Mr. Rove‘s speech. Both came after the “liberals saw the savagery” remark. And the second one coupled the organization with Michael Moore and Howard Dean, as if they were all one group.

So, to give Mr. Bartlett the benefit of the doubt, the troops seemed very plastic in his hands just there.

And the reaction among those who lost loved ones in the attacks. Let‘s ask one of the four widows, whose tireless efforts kick-started the 9/11 commission, Lorie Van Auken, whose husband, Kennett (ph), died in the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Ms. Van Auken, thank you for your time. Good evening to you.

LORIE VAN AUKEN, 9/11 WIDOW: Good evening to you. Thank you.

OLBERMANN: I was living in the United States of America on 9/11 and the months of bipartisanship that followed it. Where in the heck do you suppose Karl Rove was at that time?

VAN AUKEN: That‘s a really good question, because after 9/11 -- first of all, on 9/11, people were killed that were Republicans, Democrats, liberal, conservative. Nobody picked or chose how that went.

And after 9/11, we supported going after the person who perpetrated the attacks, as we were told, Osama bin Laden. And we supported going after the terror training camps and stopping the drug trade which funded the terrorists.

So I don‘t know where Karl Rove was for that.

OLBERMANN: Somebody who did a lot of traveling immediately after the attacks said to me, about six weeks later, that if you didn‘t live in New York or you didn‘t work at the Pentagon or you didn‘t have people on the planes or in the buildings, that 9/11 was, for a lot of people, if not everybody else in the country, to say it cruelly, a photo-op, a chance to act as if you had been violated or lost something, when you hadn‘t been violated or lost anything at all.

And I have to say, I thought I sensed that in Mr. Rove‘s smugness, in that tone Wednesday night. What did you think of what you heard from him?

VAN AUKEN: I thought his comments were rather cold. You know, they‘re supposed to be compassionate conservatives. Those comments were not compassionate. And they were not true.

OLBERMANN: Big-picture question here. As my allusion to that old “Twilight Zone” episode at the start of the segment suggests, at some point, how and who starts this kind of talk doesn‘t matter any more. It devolves. I mean, it‘s devolved into our past into each side shooting, figuratively or literally. How do we steer out of this skid at a time like this in our history?

VAN AUKEN: Well, first of all, you know, understanding 9/11 means you go after the person who perpetrated it, Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. It means that we secure our ports. We secure our borders. It means that we show that we really did understand what happened.

And perhaps we stop doing business with nations that might export terrorism, which would lead me to say that it‘s time for to us really pursue alternative energy resources. I personally would love to see the World Trade Center site, at least part of it, turned into a memorial, and also turned into a research center for alternative energy resources, not nuclear energy, because that could be a target for terrorists to use against us.

But I think that we—actually, it‘s time for America to just, you know, get—to actually have somebody lead us into the future with, you know, ways of powering our country that are safe or better for the environment, and stop mudslinging at each other, and really do something that‘s going to take us into the future.

OLBERMANN: Lorie Van Auken, thank you for sharing your perspective on the remarks of Mr. Rove tonight.

VAN AUKEN: Thank you for having me.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

A 6.4 rating...

On an informative blog, almost entirely written by a 9/11 family member that was willing to share part of their experiences with us.


Don't You Dare Turn Your Backs On The 9/11 Family Members

If this was my site, whoever gave this blog a 1 would be banned just on principle because it is clear they are not real members of this movement.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


Jon, my 10 vote pushed it up to 6.9. Over time it will go higher, I suspect.

A different...

9/11 Family member I just got off the phone with said that it's because I'm pushing the really incriminating information that I get voted down so much.

Or to put it bluntly, I'm doing the right thing. That's what I'm going with.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

hey Jon, its just a hunch

hey Jon, its just a hunch but im guessing its not always because of the information you push that you get voted down. maybe saying things like "obviously you are not a real truther" etc. gets to people? im not trying to start a flame war but you started complaining when the blog was at about 7. really not all that bad of a score for a blog. certaintly not worth throwing around accusations and telling people they should be banned on principle though.

That would be true...

If this were a popularity contest, but I'm assuming it has more to do with the fact that Israel wasn't mentioned, that Controlled Demolition wasn't mentioned, that Missiles hitting the Pentagon weren't mentioned, that fake telephone calls weren't mentioned, that the phrase, "9/11 was an inside job" wasn't mentioned, etc... etc...

You know, the stuff "they" WANT us to be promoting. The stuff that's easy to deal with as opposed to this.

That's my feeling. I could be wrong.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

and i would be willing to

and i would be willing to bet it has as much to do(if not more) with you making statements like the ones i just attributed to you. oh well, agree to disagree. "they" dont want a real discussion of CD by the way because it scares "them". saying pancake over and over does not constitute real coverage of CD. same with Israel. Jon, do you practice what you preach? or do you denigrate people who push CD and/or Israel first or hardest? and just because you provide a bunch of links of you supporting Steve Jones etc. deosnt mean you dont denigrate people who choose to focus on those areas. just practice what you preach. it bothers me when people bash your main line of research(Pakistan etc.) just as much as it bothers me when people like you do the same with Israel,Pentagon, CD etc. a REAL discussion of these issues would not be easy to deal with. stop pretending like that has happened in the MSM. it hasnt yet.


Is not my "main line of research", however, I do think it's one of the more incriminating pieces of evidence. I don't actually have a "main line of research" to my knowledge. I have problems with individuals that make up information to suit their needs. I have problems with people who act as though it's "my way or the highway." I have problems with people that bash the very family members and first responders we're trying to work together with so we can end this nightmare. Voting down a blog about them (which they have done to most of my other family/responder related threads) is "bashing" them in my eyes. These are the issues that cause me to "denigrate people." It is not their information. It's how they present it.

The MSM has COMPLETELY ignored things like the family members calling for a new investigation, the family members starting a petition for the declassification of pertinent information, the family members filing a petition against NIST, and a documentary released that is endorsed by the family members, and calls into question the entire 9/11 Report. The same can not be said about the things you mentioned. There is a reason for that, and the reason is that they CAN'T deal with it.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


Too funny. It's hard to tell if it's the Holocaust Deniers, debunkers, or No-Brainers/Space Beamers voting me down.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

HAHA! because it could ONLY

HAHA! because it could ONLY be one of the 3 right? come on Jon, dont prove my point for me.......


Going to tell me that a real member of the 9/11 Truth Movement would vote this blog down knowing full well how important it is for someone like a newcomer to see, irregardless of what they think of me? In other words, if I were to post absolute proof positive of who the real culprits were of 9/11, would you frown upon those voting it down, just because they don't like me?

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Jon, you seem to frame

Jon, you seem to frame everything like that. thats part of the problem here. people vote things down for different reasons and its best not to speculate on everyones motives for doing so. it just leads to stuff like this. and besides, different people have different definitions of a REAL member of the 9/11 truth movement. and no offense, i personally appreciate the focus you put on the family members and the torch you carry for them, but using them as a shield is getting a little bit old.

I would think so to...

If that's what I was doing. Lucky for me, I'm not.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

i see your friends have

i see your friends have arrived:-) shall i ask whos voting me down now and blame it on racists etc. like you did?

I voted you down.

Because I am not hiding behind the family members.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

fair enough.

fair enough.

yes i would actually. i was

yes i would actually. i was referring to your comments and not the blog when i was speaking of people voting you down.


There are individuals on this site that vote me down irregardless of what I say or do, and it pisses me off because the MAJORITY of the information I post is specifically for the newcomer, and if a newcomer sees a blog with a 1 (which this one did when it was first posted), they would ignore it, as would anyone.

Incidentally, this blog received a 1 within 10 seconds of it being posted (not enough time to read it). Ask DHS, he saw it.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

same here. i see it in

same here. i see it in action all the time(people voting me down because of who i am and not because of what i posted). we are both victims of the point system. as are many other people im sure. the difference is i usually dont blame it on "holocaust deniers" like you. thats just weak.

What would you call...

Someone that votes you down no matter what you say or do? Friends? Enemies? Would you refer to certain types of individuals on this site that you know don't like you? That's what I did.

I'm sorry if I offended the resident Holocaust Deniers/No-Brainers/Space Beamers/Debunkers.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

no, please offend them all

no, please offend them all you want, just dont accuse people of being that just because they vote you or your blog down. like i said, different people have different motivations for doing so. we all have to deal with bastards voting us down for various reasons. comes with the territory.

You're right...

Gentlemen -

How about some fresh air?

It's a beautiful day here, I hope it is wherever you are, as well.

Take a walk. EVERYONE will feel better.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.



Off-topic Q

LW's comment got so pushed to the right that, at least on my display, none of the words are visible. Is there some other way I could configure the display, so as to see those comments?

When will all this lead to the Jersey Girls stating that 9/11

was an inside job? Until then, it seems like obfuscation to me.

Who cares...

If they say "9/11 Was An Inside Job?" I used to think that was important, but now I'm realizing any effort on their part to get at the truth is important and should be supported.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

But the truth is that 9/11 was an inside job, and they don't

seem to be getting at that any time soon. (It's been 5.5 years so far. How much longer can we wait?)

The Jersey Girls are working within the system

and using the system against itself.

We all might not agree with this approach, but we should respect their choice to do it their way. I happen to think that they had no other intelligent alternative strategy to force the government to form the 9/11 Commission. Clearly, they are not happy with its performance.

If they had started making wild, speculative claims, they would've been marginalized immediately. If they were to now start stating that "9/11 was an inside job" they would lose all access to the msm that they worked so hard to get. I think it is very important to remember that these women have lives outside of 9/11 Truth that they put on hold for 14 months JUST to get the first investigation. The family members carry a lot of credibility with mainstream America, hence the ongoing effort by the msm to frame the "9/11 Truth insults the victims' families" debate as consistently as they do. When was the last time the msm actually asked a family member on camera how they felt about the call for new investigations?

Many of us believe that the system is so corrupt that it won't respond to its own internal processes and correct itself. I happen to be one of these people, but I fully support everyone's right to approach this issue in the manner of their own choosing.

Some family members, like Mr. McIlvaine, have realized how corrupt the system is and have concluded that elements of the US government played a part in 9/11 ("inside job") and openly state it as such.

The bottom line is that we have to respect their choice to do it their way as it is their life.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Ok, that sounds nice, but I hope you are correct. Remember

we are dealing with sick, evil bastards who purposely blew-up buildings of office clerks, firefighters, & cops trapped inside, to die horrifying deaths & leave thousands of loved ones behind!!!

Whoever committed these atrocities are capable of ANYTHING, & time is of the essence that they be exposed & put in prison so they can't murder one more person!!!

All on the same page

We all agree with your points here, obviously. And the sense of urgency too.

The difference, if there is one, has to do with strategy, and timing.

Patience often helps, especially if one is the underdog. And I think we still are. Maybe that will change.

We are dealing with

a class of people who have been organizing societies in a way that maintains their power and benefits them, AND they've been doing it for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Mass murder at a distance is nothing to these people, witness the ongoing genocides in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This will not be undone overnight by some widows going on television and saying that "9/11 was an inside job".

This will not be undone overnight by some celebrities going on television and saying that "9/11 was an inside job".

This will not be undone overnight by one movie showing on 1000 screens that asserts that "9/11 was an inside job".

This WILL BE undone when many tens of millions of people in the US and abroad realize that we have the real power and start acting in our own best interests, collectively.

This takes time.

We are at the vanguard. We have to do the heavy lifting, every day. One person at a time, one day at a time.

There is no other way to achieve the real, revolutionary change that is needed.

Love is a verb, let's get busy!

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

It might be smart

I just feel for them. They have gone through quite a bit more than most of us here have, because of 911.

Also, without them we would have lots less to go with. We would not even have a phony 911 Commission Report to expose. Nothing. They made our job not just easier, but possible at all.

Think about it.

Maybe not saying outright that it was an inside job is more effective, at this stage.

Plus, who knows? Maybe some of them don't think it was an inside job. To us that sounds absurd, but I find the oddest people, people more than others affected by it all, still unable to think that thought.

I mean, you and I and the others here should say what we know and what we surmise. And get the word out as much as possible too. But at this stage, they probably will retain more credibility with the stance they have on it. So it probably helps us more, at present.

You and I don't have such great credibility yet, at this stage. Despite how brilliant we obviously are...

For me, it's frustrating

For me, it's frustrating when you talk to debunkers about 9/11 and they are insulting you. They say I'm an "idiot who needs to face the facts," "there is no conspiracy" they tell me, "grow up stop insulting the victims." You guys know what i'm talkking about.

TGhis is just about the time that I introduce the ISI Mahmoud Ahmed/Saeed Shaikh connection. these "sheeple" think they know everything about debunking, yet they have never even heard of the ISI. I have turned some solid debunkers into believers just based on this.

A recent email conversation with a debunker on youtube included this after I mentioned the ISI and Ahmed in an ongoing debate....

"On 9/11 i guess Ahmad was at breakfast with part of the soon to be 9/11 commission, talking about OBL. If there is any conspiracy, this is by far where it begins. Talk about lack of info and unanswered questions."

This guy started out by calling me a moron and this is where I took him.

Good point

To me at least, your post shows why it can be smart to adopt the approach that Paul Thompson and the Jersey Widows have adopted.

I have encountered the same response that you describe here. And I also find that this Pakistan ISI thing amazes people, and helps greatly in that way. It gets them wondering.


Can you pass along an idea to Lorie? I have no idea how to contact any of the family members, and so I don't believe my idea was seen by any of them last December.

IF they return to Congress for more lobbying, they can hold a big protest in front of the congress. There many thousands can make a large pile of "9-11 Commission Reports" and set it on fire to tell the congress this isn't good enough. We don't accept their cover up, and we demand they reopen investigations. Nothing says "rejected" more than setting it on fire.

This could take place on September 11 2007. Or on a slower news day, where the coverage may not have so much competition.

If some family members endorse this protest, it will be a success, and the photographs and video will be seen everywhere. The smoke will shadow the capitol with a dark cloud, a symbolic statement that rivals any other protest moments from history.

At least let the families consider this idea for themselves. I tried to reach them through Kyle Hence, but was screened.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Hey John,

Instead of stamping your feet and demanding people get banned, why don't consider the possibility that this Pakistani-ISI stuff is just more disinformation, or more of a frame-up job designed to lead us away from the trail of the true culprits?

I just watched Press for Truth on Saturday night, and my first impression was to feel pity for the Jersey girls. First they lost their husbands, now they are being exploited to push the tale of a Pakistani general being behind 9/11.

Some questions: How did Pakistan, and especially a general in its military, benefit in any way from the 9/11 attacks?

Why would a Paki general, working for a puppet regime that is completely dependent on US financial and military aid, want to assist in the attacks?

Why does it seem like all the patsies involved in 9/11-- from the Saudi al-Shehri brothers to the hapless General Ahmed-- all seem to come from "friendly" (i.e. weak regimes dependent on the US) nations and not from truly independent countries like Iran and Syria? Is it because these individuals will not be protected by their weakling governments, and can thus be persuaded to be "blamed" for various crimes, and told in no uncertain terms that they'd better not protest their innocence too loudly or they will sleep with the fishes?

How difficult would it have been for a party that truly did benefit from 9/11, like the Israelis, to have wired this money to Atta (or his double) and set it up to look like the money was sent by Gen. Ahmed?

It all seems too convenient. A Paki general wires money to the terrorists. The Bush administration is guilty of covering up the evidence. The same pattern we've seen over and over again. Someone is apparently guilty of high crimes, but there is no consequences. Sort of like how the FAA was supposedly guilty of massive incompetence in not contacting the military in time about the hijacked flights-- but yet absolutely no one was fired or even reprimanded!

Of course the truth is that the FAA did nothing wrong on that day. They were "blamed" for failure with the understanding that if they went along with the official story, there would be no negative consequences for them.

And thus it is for General Ahmed and the Pakistanis: they knows that if they play along with this silliness about Ahmed financing the terrorists, they will be fine. But if they loudly proclaims their innocence, they will be in big trouble. Such is the existence of a puppet government and those who work for it.


I am a 41 year old American citizen. My research into 9/11 and other events such as the assassination of JFK, the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, and the "Holocaust" phenomenon, has led me to conclude that 9/11 was perpetrated by Israel and its Zionist supporters in the US.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


"Some questions: How did Pakistan, and especially a general in its military, benefit in any way from the 9/11 attacks?
Why would a Paki general, working for a puppet regime that is completely dependent on US financial and military aid, want to assist in the attacks?"

I think you've provided the answer to your own question already. Musharraf's regime are entirely dependent on the US - or more specifically, on CIA and the Bush family. They will do what they are told to do. They didn't come up with this - they just do the dirty work. Let me turn the quuestion around: why would the ISI *refuse* to cooperate with the CIA? It would be the end of them and of the Musharraf's people.

It looks to me like the Saudis are the source of financing, while the ISI is getting down and dirt and does the actual work. I don't think the ISI connection is a red herring at all.


Good points.

Implicating the Pakistani ISI does not exonerate Israel in this, or Mossad in particular. Do people actually think that there is a choice?

My own feeling is that the biggest bucks wins allegience of whichever one of these organizations it needs. Probably both were involved -- indeed, it looks that way.

I also agree that the ISI thing has elements that look like intentional frameup -- which they agreed to, probably under pressure.

The Mossad connection also looks staged, to me. Especially the dancing displays. How strange! How unprofessional.

Still, for it to be staged also implies complicity.

My interest in the ISI connection is that it is newsworthy. It gets people thinking. It looks very suspicious. Thus, it helps lead to a need for MUCH more thorough investigation, and an investigation that is entirely independent of current administration lackeys.

moodforaday -

Please keep in mind that the Clinton crime family also made use of the same "shadowy networks" during the 1990's. They facilitated the installation of the Taliban and used "al Qaeda" assets in the Balkans, among other places. Senator Clinton is running to keep their role from being exposed and to keep all that wonderful drug money flowing.

This goes way past the Bush/Walker crime family.

9/11 Truth is a non-partisan issue and if we are ever going to reach across the phony left-right divide we need to drop all partisan framing.

The perps game is divide and conquer. Let's not divide ourselves for them.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

andrewkornkven -

With all due respect I think you need to do more research.

The billions from the Afghan heroin trade are enough of a reason for certain criminal elements within Pakistan to work with those who can turn the fountain of cash on and off at will. Please refer to The Politics of Heroin by Alfred W. McCoy for more on this.

It is the Pakistanis, and particularly the ISI, that has been acting as go between for the CIA and Saudi Intelligence with the "Arab Afghans" (aka al Qaeda) since 1979, not the Israelis. For more on this refer to The War On Truth by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed and America’s “War On Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky.

The SOP of a false flag operation is to create a convincing cover story and what better way than to use disposal assets you have developed over two decades. Anyone having done the requisite research knows that the "hijackers" and "al Qaeda" (and the Taliban) are just props for the 9/11 operation and the "war on terror" that it was used to start. You need some real people with a "history" to create a myth. These props have to be managed by someone and the cover story has to hold up to at least a cursory investigation by the media (plausible deniability). The ISI clearly performed this management role and serves as one level of "limited hangout" cut outs, but they are only lower middle management, as is Saudi Intelligence, imo. Upper middle management is probably made up of a certain number of neocons and their cohorts, the CIA, MI5 and MI6 and certain elements of the Israeli elite, including elements of the Mossad.

So, yes, a Pakistani general orders his double agent inside "al Qaeda" to wire money to the terrorists, very convenient and much more intelligent than having a member of the CIA or the Mossad do it and leave their fingerprints all over it for anyone to find. Members of the Saudi royal family also supported some of the "hijackers" while they lived and studied in the US in the period right up to 9/11/01. These are all just "cut outs" in the event that the story begins to unravel and a "limited hangout" is needed to protect the perps at the top.

Now, in order to get to the real perps at the top we have to carefully and painstakingly deconstruct everything and trace it all back to its roots. There are no easy shortcuts.

Of course certain corrupt people within Israel think that the phony "war on terror" is of long-term benefit to them. That is why, in the late 1970's, they helped design this strategy of tension to replace the cold war. But, is it so hard to see how the corrupt elites in the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (and many more countries, I'm sure) also benefit enormously from this same phony "war on terror" ?

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

The question is why a Pakistani general

would leave his fingerprints on this. That tells me this is what "they" want us to think. "Limited hangout," and all that. It ultimately justifies invading Afghanistan to stop those brown people that attacked us. The only difference I see is that the argument seems to be that we should have bombed Karachi and Riyadh rather than Kabul.

Reading your comment better, it appears you agree with me this is a "limited hangout."

Other problems:

1. U.S. pre-9/11 support for the Taliban is no secret. See Robert Scheer's columns on this before 9/11.

2. Lots of this stuff can "legitimately" be hidden for reasons of national security and foreign policy, and people will buy that.

I have the utmost respect and sympathy for the Jersey Girls, but I do not agree with their emphasis on this matter. Sure, it's part of the puzzle, but it ultimately proves little.

[I will amend this to say I agree with what Arabesque says just below - it could be an important part of the puzzle. However, it could also serve to reinforce the "need" to invade Afghanistan - an easy lie would be to say we could not invade Pakistan because they have nukes, so we went into Afghanistan, which was cooperating with Pakistan, to control the problem from next door. ]

Ahmad's fingerprints

The idea was to have Omar Saeed Sheikh wire the funds to Atta's account, as someone who could plausibly be linked to Al Qaeda and bin Laden, and thereby bolster the official story--hoping that the link between Sheikh and Mahmoud Ahmad would go unnoticed. But the Indian press said no dice, and revealed the linkage.

Some interesting thoughts on this topic are in the article at the following link:


And if it was the Israelis looking to frame somebody, why would they frame Pakistan rather than, say, Saddam Hussein? Or Syria?

Understanding the Patsies leads to understanding the Perps

I think 9/11 is more complicated than most are willing to acknowledge, and I believe that the ISI connection is worth investigating. There are MANY areas that are worth investigating. What people have to realize is that this doesn’t necessarily mean that “Pakistan did 9/11”. It’s much more complicated than that. Doesn't Paul Thompson acknowledge this point in 9/11PFT? The ISI is funded by the CIA. Any wire transfers of money to the patsies therefore, could have been done with the approval of the CIA. The money trail could end up pointing directly at the CIA

If we are investigating JFK, does it mean we ignore all of the evidence pertaining to Oswald? Not if information relating to the patsy can lead us directly to the perpetrators. The patsies are set up to be patsies. Understanding HOW they are set up, can help lead us to understanding the bigger picture.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


He did...

I'm not suggesting from this that Pakistan is the quote unquote "solution" to 9/11 because it's not. Pakistan is one part in a very complicated story. The question to me is who else was involved with Al-Qaeda? Was Al-Qaeda used as a tool just as in the 1980's the Mujahadeen were basically used by the U.S. Government? - 9/11: Press For Truth

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

I thought so

I usually have a good memory for these things.

Increased reflection on this subject has led me to think that perhaps some people are using the LIHOP label to unjustly ignore important evidence. What do I mean?

For example, the whole question of Patsies is a CENTRAL issue to 9/11. Proving that they ARE patsies is proving the official story is false. I am personally convinced that the ISI connection is real because the CIA has a long standing financial connection to the ISI and even used them to help fund Bin Laden in the 1980's. Now the point is, as Webster Tarpley would argue, that this is "US BASED" state sponsored terrorism.

For example, it is known that Atta and other "hijackers" were at army airbases in the US. WHY? Because they were double agents. They worked for the US government as double agents. So if they were double agents for the US government, and the CIA funds the ISI, and the ISI sends money to Atta (with the approval of the CIA), and Atta says "the MATCH" (i.e. war game scenario, not terrorist attack) is to begin, and "Able Danger" were actually the double agent handlers for a WAR GAME scenario involving terrorist "drills"...

then we are really starting to understand how the Patsies were set up to be patsies.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Very well said, Arabesque!

And so much more succinct than how I would say it.


Keep up the great work, we are winning.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks and a question

Thanks to Lorie for answering in such detail and thanks, Jon, for taking the time to post this.

I've a question though, because I am in two minds about the missing 28 pages. First, since the report as a whole is a whitewash, presents no convincing case and has been practically demolished by Griffin et al, why should we even care about the missing section? What evidence exists that those 28 pages are somehow different - more revealing of the truth - than the officially published part?

Secondly, how credible is Bob Graham with regard to the missing content and the whole report? He was the one talking to Gen. Ahmad on 9-11, so he's either complicit in the events of 9-11, or he was "framed" in a way, a patsy really, to provide a fake alibi for Ahmad's visit, so that we don't look into who else was meeting with him. Graham is pointing to the Saudis, but it seems more and more apparent that it was the Pakistani government, through ISI, that was a/the major "state sponsor" of 9-11. So Graham is covering up for the ISI. I just don't see how we can treat him as a reliable source at all.


The 28 redacted pages is part of the cover-up. By bringing attention to any aspect of the cover-up is good for us. I, myself, doubt whether or not there is any really incriminating evidence in those pages, but if there is any possibility, which there is (Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Maybe other countries), then it should be pursued. However, according to Bill Doyle, there might be information in those pages that speaks of the U.S. funneling money into the ISI.

I honestly can't explain Bob Graham. I think it's possible he was just "along for the ride" in regards to the meeting with Mahmoud Ahmed, but that's speculative, and I don't really know. I do know, according to Bob McIlvaine, that Graham's wife is more on our side than theirs. Maybe the same could be said for Graham. I don't know. I've never been able to figure out his role in this.

However, Bob Graham could be referring to Pakistan since Randy Glass contacted his office with his information.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed

was in Washington D.C. from September 4th though September 13th of 2001.

During that time Lt. Gen. Ahmed met with members of the CIA, including George Tenet; members of the NSC, personnel at the Pentagon and the State Department (Colin Powell, Richard Armitage and Mark Grossman, among others) and unspecified White House staff.

On the morning of 9/11/01, Lt. Gen. Ahmed was having breakfast with Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, respectively. Due to the longstanding ties between the CIA and the ISI it would've been unusual if this meeting had not taken place. Sen, Jon Kyl also attended this meeting. The timing of this meeting is interesting, but I think it is safe to say that Sen. Graham had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 event. I doubt the same can be said for Rep. Goss, however, as he is former (and future) CIA and VP Cheney's

My impression is that Sen Graham knows a lot more than he's letting on to, but is not interested in following Sen. Wellstone into the grave.

Lt. Gen. Ahmed met with Senator Joe Biden on September 13, 2001.

It is interesting to note that Condoleezza Rice, then head of the NSC, later vehemently denied meeting with Lt. Gen. Ahmed during this time and the White House transcripts were altered to obfuscate her denial.

All these various reports and connections provide valuable clues, even if they are whitewashes, as they will show who was involved in what part of the cover-up and to what level. Plus, until we can get new investigations we have to work with what's already out there, even if it is a diversion or promotes a limited hangout. Sometimes the process of elimination is all you have.

To use the old cliche, the 9/11 operation is like a big onion and we have to keep peeling all the layers off until everything is completely transparent.

Fortunately, I happen to like peeling onions.

BTW, is your name from the "YES" song?

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Mark Grossman...

Who Sibel Edmonds included in her list of names...

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Some good answers.

I think it's pretty premature to exonerate Pakistan before a valid investigation even shows us the money trail. This is blatant cover-up. People don't cover up attacks on their own countrymen without a strong reason.

"Some questions: How did Pakistan, and especially a general in its military, benefit in any way from the 9/11 attacks?"

Some answers were given. He wasn't just a general. He was head of military intelligence, the group which controls Pakistan to a large degree. Pakistan is a nuclear power, in a hostile region. It has an illegitemate dictatorship and a fundamentalist Islamic populace which despises the rulers.

Pakistan has a history of joint US/Saudi/Afghan operations in the largest CIA project in history: the Mujahadeen war against the Soviets. This may be ancient history to you, but not to them. Afghanistan is a profit center, the world's leading supplier of opium. It is also the route of a piepline project into Pakistan from Central Asian republics.

Pakistan was implicated in the 9/11 attacks, but we don't know why they were so obvious and blatant in sending money to the future hijackers. Were they duped? Did Omar Saeed Sheikh betray the Pakistanis on behalf of his British or American handlers? These are murky covert ops. Be grateful for the information that has come out. It reveals cover up. Cover up is the key. If they exert so much effort to hide something it's a sign that it is damning.

"Why would a Paki general, working for a puppet regime that is completely dependent on US financial and military aid, want to assist in the attacks?"

Because that's the job. They did send Pakistan $3 billion AFTER 9/11, and they continue to protect the regime. General Mahmoud Ahmed resigned in disgrace, but was never, ever sought by the FBI for funding 9/11.

"Why does it seem like all the patsies involved in 9/11-- from the Saudi al-Shehri brothers to the hapless General Ahmed-- all seem to come from "friendly" (i.e. weak regimes dependent on the US) nations and not from truly independent countries like Iran and Syria? Is it because these individuals will not be protected by their weakling governments, and can thus be persuaded to be "blamed" for various crimes, and told in no uncertain terms that they'd better not protest their innocence too loudly or they will sleep with the fishes?"

Or, you use the patsies you have. One A-rab is as good as the next. This is a racist war at its heart.

"How difficult would it have been for a party that truly did benefit from 9/11, like the Israelis, to have wired this money to Atta (or his double) and set it up to look like the money was sent by Gen. Ahmed?"

I don't know. Do you?

"It all seems too convenient. A Paki general wires money to the terrorists."

No. This is a misunderstanding.

General Ahmad did not wire the money. Omar Saeed Sheikh is accused of wiring the money by the Indian intelligence service. India was tapping the ISI chief's cell phone, and they kept track of his contacts and communications. He is accused of ordering the money transfer, which was carried out by Sheikh in Dubai.

The FBI has named someone other than Omar Saeed Sheikh in an apparent attempt to confuse the issue. They then never bothered to follow up on the money man #2. Names have been confused and similar spellings were put out in many news articles. The problem that there is no direct spelling translation into English aids those that want to confuse the public. Arabic and other Asian languages are phonetic and can be spelled multiple ways.

" The Bush administration is guilty of covering up the evidence. The same pattern we've seen over and over again."

True. This exposes the sham of the American Republic. Unaccountable power is not a democratic Republic. It is a dictatorship. That realization is what keeps many from accepting reality.

"And thus it is for General Ahmed and the Pakistanis: they knows that if they play along with this silliness about Ahmed financing the terrorists, they will be fine. But if they loudly proclaims their innocence, they will be in big trouble. "

I don't find anything silly about this at all. I don't believe you have thought about this very hard.

General Ahmad was exposed by his enemies, the Indian intelligence service. This was not part of any plan. The original plan was to link the money to a known Al Qaeda person, Omar Saeed Sheikh, or one of his aliases, thus establishing the guilt of Al Qaeda for 9/11.

When India intervened and exposed the involvement of Pakistan, all hell broke loose. This was the smoking gun that knocked the 9/11 plot on its ass. Ahmad wasn't just anyone, he was the head of ISI, meeting with high level Bushies before and after 9/11. He was the man coordinating the war with the Northern Alliance drug lord armies on behalf of CheneyCo.

This is glaring.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.


Well said.

"The original plan was to link the money to a known Al Qaeda person, Omar Saeed Sheikh, or one of his aliases, thus establishing the guilt of Al Qaeda for 9/11."

Very intriguing thought. When you think about it in that context, that Indian Intelligence ruined what they tried to do... as opposed to completely falsifying information just because Pakistan is their enemy.

Establishing the patsy "Al-Qaeda" using one of Omar Saeed Sheikh's aliases, through the ISI, as opposed to making Pakistan the patsy.

And Indian Intelligence exposed a part of it.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


Highly recommend everyone listen to this...

Bill Doyle: Well, If you really look into the 28 pages of the 2002 Joint Inquiry, which was bi-partisan, ok, I believe that those pages address who financed 9/11, which they don't want to let you know, if you really look, and I'm hearing this, ya know, from certain sources that some of those pages were that the United States Government sent tons of money over to Pakistan, Pakistan themselves, turned around, gave the money to their ISI, who were running terrorist camps in Afghanistan, to come back over to the United States, to murder our loved ones.

AJ. General Mahmoud Ahmed.

Bill Doyle: Exactly.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders