Letter to and Response from Peter MacKay, Canadian Minister of National Defence

I write letters to Mr. MacKay on a regular basis, asking for investigations, reasons for policies, and to provide him with reasons why the public is skeptical of 9/11. This is the text of a letter response from Minister of National Defence, Peter G. Mackay, dated May 16, 2008. I have bolded text in the letter for easier reading.

My analysis is such: Peter MacKay endorses the Manley Report's findings. The Manley Report takes the official conspiracy theory as fact (see the timeline, Appendix 6). But MacKay cannot comment on the integrity of the 9/11 Commission. If MacKay cannot comment on or confirm the integrity of the 9/11 Commission, where does the Canadian Government (and the Manley Report) get its "well established" information about 9/11?

Dear Mr. Parrott:

Thank you for your letter in response to mine concerning spending in Afghanistan.

Some of the answers you seek can be found in the report entitled "The Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan" (the Manley Report). As you are aware, the Goverment endorsed the findings and recommendations of this report, most of which have subsequently been incorporated in the motion extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan, adopted by the House of Commons on March 13 of this year.

While this excellent report is not a government document or source, I would highly recommend that you read Part II, in particular the "Setting the Context" section, which deals in part with your concerns about the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, NATO, and the United Nations. Part III discussses Canada's engagement in Afghanistan in light of these same issues.

Terrorism is a clear and present threat to global peace and security, and it is well established that terrorists used Afghanistan as a base of operation during the years of Taliban rule. I understand that you disagree with the findings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, (also known as the 9-11 Commission) that the attacks of September 11 were planned and orchestrated in Afghanistan; however, I am not in a position to comment on reports produced by another government.

Thank you for your interest in the Afghanistan mission.

Sincerely,

Peter G. Mackay.

Predictable.

The only surprising thing about the letter is that he actually responded to your concerns. The contents of his letter are entirely predictable.
Never in a million years will you get someone in any of the 3 main parties to admit concern or skepticism about 9/11. Their convenient excuse is "I am not in a position to comment on reports produced by another government."
That kind of ambiguity even allows them to change their tune should the real criminals ever be brought to justice.
As to the Canada in Afghanistan issue, since they have the support of all political parties, the government doesn't feel the need to take responsibility.
Nice work all the same Adam. You're serving notice that "we the people" aren't all gullible imbeciles.

Good and necessary ground work

John A MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

this is good and necessary ground work. Please, could you put the letter you sent to the Defense Minister with you entry? I have been thinking for some time that I should write to the French Defense Minister to know on what proof they have that Bin Laden was the person behind the 911 attacks justifying our invasion of Afghanistan. We never had the white paper that Colin Powell had promised us.
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=colin+powell+%22white+paper%22+bin+l...

As your letter did get a reply, perhaps yours will give us ideas on the contents of a such letter to our own Defense Ministers.

Yours

John

Text of Letter to Peter MacKay

To Mr. Peter MacKay
Minster of National Defence
Ottawa, Canada
K1A 0K2

Dear Honourable Peter MacKay,

Thank you for your response regarding my letter, however, I am still not satisfied with the answers I received since they are at odds with the facts I discover in the mainstream and alternative news articles on the subject. Please allow me to bring these to your attention.

You mention that “the use of force is sometimes necessary” because peace cannot always be achieved through peaceful means. Here you must be referring to the Taliban and the necessity of military action in Afghanistan. Here you are brazenly mistaken. On September 21, 2001, the Taliban held a press conference broadcast by CNN, wherein they asked that the United States provide evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and that they would be pleased to hand him over given that evidence. The quote in full:

"Our position in this regard, is that if America has evidence and proofs they should produce it, and we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in the light of evidence."

Mr. MacKay, the Taliban was willing to negotiate the extradition of bin Laden for evidence of his crimes. Why was force necessary in this situation? Furthermore, the damage caused by the invasion of Afghanistan had disastrous consequences. Approximately 3,300 civilian Afghan deaths resulted from the NATO aerial bombing campaign from October 2001 through March 2002. I may remind you that this amount of innocent life was destroyed with the demolition of the world trade centre in New York on 9/11.

The governments of NATO claim that innocents killed by them in conflict are collateral damage of a necessary war, while simultaneously decrying the attacks of their enemies as “terrorist acts” that intentionally kill civilians. This posture is hypocrisy and can no longer be maintained. A military as sophisticated as Canada’s surely is able to estimate casualties emanating from such a campaign, and is knowledgeable about the innocent life it will cause harm to during its “defensive” attacks.

You mention that Canada’s mission is “sanctioned by the United Nations”. In case you have never read it, the original UN mandate drafted in response to the 9/11 attacks does not permit the invasion of Afghanistan.

The mandate “Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable.”

Note how the resolution specifically does not authorize invading, bombing, torturing, overthrowing governments, or anything of the sort. Instead the mandate is one of accountability. That being said, does Canada know who the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of the attacks are?

Overwhelmingly, no. Unfortunately, the official account of 9/11 events is spectacularly weak, and surprisingly secretive. The 9/11 Commission started 411 days late and was seriously underfunded. Bush and Cheney resisted the formation of the Commission, and then reluctantly testified behind closed doors without recording devices. The report itself is internally inconsistent, contradicted by numerous eyewitnesses, based on testimony extracted under torture, relies on instances of spurious looking evidence, and omits heaps relevant evidence. For instance, the 9/11 Commission report does not even mention WTC Building 7, a 47 storey skyscraper, also destroyed on 9/11. The FEMA report on Building 7 concludes a fire-driven collapse while at the same time admitting their hypothesis has “a low probability of occurrence”.

Other stark physical evidence does not corroborate the official story. For instance, the twin towers collapsed to dust in approximately 10 seconds. When calculated, the upper floors accelerated to the ground at essentially the rate of free-fall. For this to be possible, all the thick steel columns, floor pans, concrete, furniture and people would have to give virtually the same resistance as air. Would steel, concrete, wood, and flesh have the same resistance as air?

Furthermore, pools of molten steel were documented by eyewitnesses and by PBS. It was found in the basements of the towers and Building 7, at temperatures way above the hottest temperature achievable by a hydrocarbon fire. The head of the NIST investigation claimed there was no evidence for the molten steel.
What evidence do you have connecting Osama bin Laden with 9/11 attacks?

Doesn’t it bother you that absolutely no debate in Canada has examined the question of the parties responsible for 9/11?

Thanks for reading. I look forward to your answers.

Sincerely,

Adam Parrott

Merci for the text

John A MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

merci for the text. I see that there are some ideas which I can use.

Thanks John

Great to see a response, but his answer re 911 is unacceptable

Thank You Mr Parrott , We've got to keep up with this letter writing to our representative in Ottawa until someone in Ottawa shows more backbone and less apathy and face the obvious of 9/11...more E-mail address to our Canadian Government can be located at: http://www.edmonton911truth.com/addressMPs.html