A note on this project

"Top Secret America" is a project nearly two years in the making that describes the huge national security buildup in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

When it comes to national security, all too often no expense is spared and few questions are asked - with the result an enterprise so massive that nobody in government has a full understanding of it. It is, as Dana Priest and William M. Arkin have found, ubiquitous, often inefficient and mostly invisible to the people it is meant to protect and who fund it.

The articles in this series and an online database at depict the scope and complexity of the government's national security program through interactive maps and other graphics. Every data point on the Web site is substantiated by at least two public records.

Because of the nature of this project, we allowed government officials to see the Web site several months ago and asked them to tell us of any specific concerns. They offered none at that time. As the project evolved, we shared the Web site's revised capabilities. Again, we asked for specific concerns. One government body objected to certain data points on the site and explained why; we removed those items. Another agency objected that the entire Web site could pose a national security risk but declined to offer specific comments.

We made other public safety judgments about how much information to show on the Web site. For instance, we used the addresses of company headquarters buildings, information which, in most cases, is available on companies' own Web sites, but we limited the degree to which readers can use the zoom function on maps to pinpoint those or other locations.

Our maps show the headquarters buildings of the largest government agencies involved in top-secret work. A user can also see the cities and towns where the government conducts top-secret work in the United States, but not the specific locations, companies or agencies involved.

Within a responsible framework, our objective is to provide as much information as possible, so readers gain a real, granular understanding of the scale and breadth of the top-secret world we are describing.

We look forward to your feedback and can be reached at

- The Editors


I'm sure this is important stuff and I'll look at it as soon as I'm able, but don't be surprised if you are rebuffed when trying to talk to Arkin about the events of 9/11. Last time I looked he was absolutely contemptuous of the 9/11 truth movement and our claims.

This doesn't mean his research isn't worthwhile. He's broken several important stories in the past. Just a caution.

take w/ "a huge grain of salt"

That was Tim Shorrock's advice on evaluating the material produced by these private co.s working w/ the intel/CT community; his point was they want their contracts renewed, so they have a conflict of interest; if their work doesn't show the boogeymen are a threat, there's less justification for giving them taxpayer $.
Tim Shorrock Asks Why It Took the Washington Post So Long to Investigate the US Intelligence System
The Corporate Intelligence Community: A Photo Exclusive

And while what's being reported by the WaPo is probably factual- and there's valuable info in the article and the associated databases/maps which let the public find out who these nearly 2000 pvt co.s are that are getting our $ and influencing policy- this project/series should also be taken w/ a grain of salt, given the WaPo's long history of cheerleading, spinning and covering up for the Establishment and the MIC. This project could be said to be another example of this; while the article notes that this outsourcing is huge, top secret, unaccountable, costly, wasteful, unwieldy and raises questions about whether so much $ and power should be in the hands of for-profit corps, in effect it's also a kind of "we're bad- we're nationwide"- and there's nothing you can do about it- kind of msg.

Another indication that might be the case is the statement by Art House, the comm. dir. for the DNI; ""This series has been a long time in preparation and looks designed to cast the [intelligence community] and the [Department of Defense] in an unfavorable light. We need to anticipate and prepare so that the good work of our respective organizations is effectively reflected in communications with employees, secondary coverage in the media and in response to questions."
Suuuure, they're worried; as Arkin himself notes, "They were well aware of what we were doing, and we formally briefed them about this earlier this year. So for them to come out at the eleventh hour and somehow say that they are alarmed by what we’re going to put out, to me, seems to be classic cover-your-ass. I can’t take it in any other way, because we ourselves have gone through a massive internal review process, both fact checking and also looking at anything that could be detrimental to the national security interest and to the national interest, and I’m completely confident that we’ve done a rigorous job. ... we asked them repeatedly to give us specifics, to tell us what it is that they didn’t want us to show. And only one government agency was actually able to come back to us and specifically explain to us why they didn’t want us to reveal something, and they made a reasonable argument to the editors, and the editors decided that we wouldn’t."

As Shorrock asked on DN- why'd it take the WaPo 7 years to begin an investigation- when it was an open secret the outsourcing was massive and there was little oversight? The main thing that's new in this WaPo piece is documentation of the extent of the outsourcing, and the number, names and kinds of co.'s involved. Shorrock, without the kind of resources available to the WaPo, had already documented in 2007 that 70% of the intel budget is going to pvt co.s.


I don't know why this story is getting all the attention lately or why the Washington Post is covering it, but it is all over the internet. Here's a take from Raw Story for what its worth...

DC spooks in 'panic mode' over Washington Post's expose

As long as this topic stays in the forefront its a net positive as far as I can tell.

Reminds me of the documentary...

Why We Fight ~ A Film By Eugene Jarecki (2005)

Eugene Jarecki's film about the anatomy of the American war machine, combining personal stories with commentary by military and political insiders.

Why We Fight is great.

It does not take much thinking to take you from where "Why We Fight" leaves off to where 9/11 INSIDE JOB takes over.

Unfortunately, people need those gaps filled

'It does not take much thinking to take you from where "Why We Fight" leaves off to where 9/11 INSIDE JOB takes over.'

Maybe not, but there are plenty of people who will find ways to avoid doing even that much thinking. Otherwise, the truth movement would have made much greater inroads by now. The notion that: 'I'll help people get to this point, and then they should be able to fill in the rest' might well be the kind of rationalization that informs a lot of alternative media folks; but what if documentary filmmakers took that approach to every topic, about which they are typically only too happy to guide the thoughts and perceptions of their audiences as best as their medium allows?

Yes, there's excellent antiwar material in 'Why We Fight,' and nothing but good intentions behind this film. But in the 'post-9/11' world, in which the events off 9/11 serve as the all-purpose rationale for perpetual war, to leave those events untouched leaves too big a gap. This film faults the Bush administration for claiming Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and using it as justification for invading Iraq--but goes no further where 9/11 is concerned. And 'going further' is unfortunately necessary in order to move from criticizing the invasion of one country to critiquing the underpinnings of the whole 'war on terror.' Far from reasoning beyond what is covered in the film to figuring out that the 9/11 official story is false, I think many who have accepted that account and see this film would instead think along the lines of: 'I agree the Bush administration was wrong in how it used 9/11 to invade Iraq; but if a film as antiwar and as critical of the Bush administration as this doesn't seem to have any dispute with the basic narrative of who did what on 9/11, then that narrative must basically be sound; for surely, if there were anything seriously wrong about that story, a filmmaker as antiwar and anti-Bush as this would be eager to point it out.'

The truth is, of course, that if Jarecki had introduced even a little bit of questioning of the 9/11 official story, he may very well not have been able to find a distributor for his film, or (related) theaters willing to screen it.

Let no one, please, construe this as an 'attack' on Jarecki or his film. I simply think we need to see that while the distance between the arguments of this film and the understanding of 9/11 as an inside job may seem slight for those of us who have long been exposed to the information of the 9/11 truth movement, that distance may still prove to be greater than we appreciate for those who have not yet been so exposed--and who continue to be subjected to media and government fear-mongering propaganda on a daily basis.

You are correct.

It confounds me that people want to believe the Bush Cabal were merely OPPORTUNISTS.

Top Secret America

Just watch, the show/article won't expose diddly about 9/11, not the truth, at least. I can see already how references to 9/11 will be based on the official story and its investigation will begin after the buildings have come down and Bin Laden is announced to be the perpetrator.

We Have Caught Them...and

...they need to explain what went cover their lush tushes...again!

With Cass Sunstein's initiative to deal with extremist groups [including the 9/11 TM] approved and eminating from the WH, with the SPLC's absolutely RIDICULOUS stand regarding us [understandible when one looks at its executives and advisors], and the total shut-down of corporate and indie media regarding 9/11, its clear to me that...

...the HI PERPS are reacting AND preparing to deal with something very unstoppable...WTC7, Richard Gage and ae911truth, David Ray Griffin, Bob Bowman, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Peter Dale Scott [and an amazing list of other credible and wonderful people]...and for me anyways, the most important element of all...

...the WORLD 9/11 Truth for Peace Movements...

This is nothing more than those responsible for 9/11 posturing for their blame/responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. The posture is a very typical one known well to governemental organizations who are supposed to be responsible. And visually, its as follows:

...visualize a person standing with the right arm and hand pointing over the left shoulder...and the left hand and arm pointing over the right shoulder...and the mouth stating..."its their fault".

..been there in the US government, but have never done that...I always took responsibility for my actions...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA