The Boiling Frogs Presents Lorie Van Auken


Podcast Show #51
Friday, 19. August 2011

Lorie Van Auken joins us and shares with us her reflections ten years on about the events of 9/11 and her loss. She discusses the still- classified 28 pages of the JICI dealing with terrorist financing, the 9/11 families’ stalled lawsuit to bankrupt the terrorists and the direct interventions by the White House to protect the Saudi regime against the justice-seeking families, and the many uninvestigated questions and facts covered up by the 9/11 commission. She questions our current many-fronted wars and the senselessness of the occupation of and our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden both dead, while our economy is crashing here at home. Ms. Van Auken talks about the three versions of the NORAD timeline, the passage of the Patriot Act as a vehicle to erode our civil liberties, NSA’s illegal wiretapping of our domestic communications under the guise of security, and more!

VanAukenLorie Van Auken, the mother of two children, lost her husband Kenneth Van Auken in the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. She is one of the “Jersey Girls” who, along with Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza, fought the Bush administration for a commission to investigate the attacks. Ms. Van Auken is also a member of the September 11 Advocates.

Show "Stop perpetuating the OCT by calling them 'Terrorists Attacks.'" by kenkneeb

If you could go back in time

If you could go back in time to mid-2001, would you feel comfortable inviting those "faux flag, trumped up boogie man/men" and their respective buddies and contacts and informants and fellow mujahideen / Mossad / ISI personnel over to your house to dinner for a chat and an evening sleep-over followed by a long night on the town? Double-agent/patsy or not, they were likely gathered and recruited from some pretty sinister sources, probably including the world of covert mercenaries and guns for hire. Rather than attacking people who use the word 'terrorist' as being simple-minded folk who unwittingly support the OCT, maybe some folk could take just a single step to expand the public's understanding of the word 'terrorist' to include figures who have likely been led or compromised or guided or 'assisted' to their goals by handlers from the world of intel. Lorie Van Auken deserves better than a blanket dismissal of her views. If it wasn't for her and the other Jersey Girls, we wouldn't have had such a clear example of the cover-up - the Commission Report - to attack and dissect thereafter.

Well said

Thank you.

As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but I'm quite certain that those who promote no hijacker theories, deny the existence of Islamic terrorism, etc. etc. are simply in pathological denial. I don't think there's much to discuss there, although I do know where these awkward and false beliefs come from.

I'm also convinced that people who hold such beliefs read too little. Many thanks to Lorie for her efforts and heroic defiance.

Oh, how I hate that saying

'One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.' As too many people idiotically say, I would add. Lord, how I hate that expression. Relativist in the worst sort of way. All it does is echo, even emulate, the hypocritical double-speak of the governments people are supposedly trying to critique--and the only discernible effect its repetition has that I can see is to let those same, hypocritical governments--decrying the terrorizing of civilians even as they have done that very thing, directly and by proxy, over and over again--off the hook! Join the U.S. establishment in treating terorism as a purely subjective matter, and one thing you guarantee is that you make it harder to get more people to understand what that same government, in objective terms (yes, I repeat--in objective terms), has done--terrorize civilians in the pursuit of political and economic goals.

Could you elaborate?

What evidence do you have that terrorism is treated as subjective by the US establishment? For all I know, who is and who isn't a terrorist is decided unilaterally by governments and coalitions of governments, in other words: who's a terrorist is decided by the enemies of said terrorists. And the government is part of the establishment.

'Who controls the present controls the past,' etc.

Well, in practice of course, the position of government and media elites is that a terrorist is whoever they say it is, and isn't whoever they say it isn't. The double standards that they employ--having no concern whatsoever for the actions of their own operatives (Louis Posada Carilles comes to mind, as just one memorable example), when such actions would surely be condemned if attributable to someone in a country they wished to attack or isolate--attests to their view that who a terrorist is is a matter of subjectivity--THEIR subjectivity, determined according to their view of their own self-interest. Of course, they try to get the public at large to mistake their subjective view of the world for objective reality. But if they have any difficulty doing this (as when the litany of crimes committed by someone whom they're trying to get us all to see as a 'freedom fighter' comes to light); if they can't get us all to mistake their subjective view for objective reality; then they can at least work to discourage the view that there are any objective standards by which the public or world opinion could ever hold them and their proxies to account.

Of course, in public, officials will carry on with the performance and keep acting as though they believe that reality is whatever they say it is and that's all it can ever be, any revelations to the contrary be damned. But for those who aren't so easily won over, those who are more skeptical and critically minded, they can instead be encouraged to believe that the a clear, consistent definition of terrorism is simply unattainable. I'm afraid I don't have any direct quotes at hand here; though I do recall this as something Chomsky discussed in 'Manufacturing Consent' (someone I'm not used to citing in a favorable light in this particular forum, but I did think he covered this topic well).

I do have a quote on a related matter, though, that does touch on questions of subjectivity and objectivity. As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approached in 2006, major media outlets couldn't ignore the increasing numbers of Americans who, according to opinion polls, did not believe they'd been told the truth about the attacks; among these, there were many who even believed the Bush administration had, at minimum, purposely done nothing to prevent the attacks. How were these media outlets to deal with this situation? By that point, the tactics of ignoring such 9/11 skeptics had given way to ridiculing and attacking them. Still, that wasn't sufficient. For that part of the public that still basically accepted the official story, well, for them, there couldn't be any retreat. For them, the position was (as it remains): The reality of 9/11 is just as government officials and the major news media have told you it was, these others you've been hearing about are just nuts.

But for the remainder, those whose doubts about the 9/11 OCT were growing, or in full bloom, there was this revealing bit in the fifth anniversary issue of Time Magazine: In an article entitled, 'Why the 9/11 conspiracies won't go away,' the concluding paragraph reads, 'But there is no event so plain and clear that a determined human being can't find ambiguity in it....[C]onspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events like Sept. 11....They'll be with long as the past, even the immediate past, is ultimately unknowable. That is to say, forever.'

There you have it. The past, even the immediate past, is unknowable. Nothing to see there folks, move along, move along. For that segment of the population that was skeptical about the 9/11 official story, the message was: OK, after all of our ignoring and ridiculing and attacking, you still have doubts about what you've been told re 9/11--fine. You can have your doubts. But just remember, if someone comes to you looking for support for a new, independent investigation of 9/11, you'd really be better off ignoring them, because, hey, the truth is all ultimately unknowable anyway.

(To which they then should have added: Except of course when there are wars, warrantless searches, etc. to be justified, in which case, it's perfectly knowable, and is just as you've been told it was.)

Reading that was well worth

being circumspectly labeled an idiot. ;-)

This is worth a blog post. If well written, on the front page, even. It's that interesting.


and I'm glad to see the wink there, because the truth is, I didn't presume you were endorsing the position expressed by that aforementioned expression, so much as pointing out that it is something many people will say (which they do).

More Proof Of Bigfoot Than Hijacker Control Of 9/11 Flights

At least Bigfoot existence allegations are supported by some tangible evidence. The allegations that hijackers took over and piloted 4 planes on 9/11 are just that - allegations.

The fact is, the 9/11 aircraft attacks were entirely possible under autopilot control and most evidence suggests that the accused were better at partying than piloting.

I see

Is there a cockpit voice recording of Bigfoot? DNA evidence of Bigfoot? Does Bigfoot have a martyr video Aidan? Maybe there's more evidence of Bigfoot than there is of honesty in Monaghanland. And perhaps I should remind you (again): falsification-speculation is not evidence. If you, either correctly or incorrectly falsify something, that does not mean your favorite fantasy is true instead.

Do You Know The Difference Between Allegations And Facts?

Apparently not.

Your work consists of 'allegations'

Because by your standard, every single FOIA request you ever gathered, Aidan, is now an 'allegation' and not 'evidence'. In other words, by your own standard, your work is nothing but 'allegations'.

Besides, you make a lot of sneaky allegations against people yourself too, Aidan, and they're always devoid of factual basis.

Does that clear up your question?

Sneaky allegations

Here you go again. Do you have snitchjacketing Tourettes? Do the rules apply for Aidan Monaghan at all?

hijackers, remote control, neither, or both.

When considering this ongoing argument between the identity of the parties that assumed control over the planes' flight paths, the false dilemma logical scenario applies:
We have four logical possibilities here:

A: Neither hijackers, nor remote control.
B: Hijackers only.
C: Remote control only.
D: Both hijackers on board *AND* remote control.

I think we all agree that the "neither" option is highly unlikely, and can be pretty much ignored… but still exists as a logical possibility.

The "both" option, however, allows the perpetrators not only the best chance of success of the mission, but also a very strong and convincing story *with lots of physical and circumstantial evidence* (security cam videos, passports, DNA, phone calls from passengers, etc) that there were physical hijackers on board, while keeping the "remote control" aspect totally hidden. (Technology to control planes by remote has existed for decades, by the way).

As we know, since none of the alleged hijackers were anywhere near capable pilots, and the intended mission required considerable piloting skills (especially the final part of the flight path of AA77 into the Pentagon… a tight, precision 360º descent losing thousands of feet in altitude in a couple of minutes), there would have been a considerable risk, re. the success of the operation, that someone at the controls might have screwed up. For some of many possibilities: one or more of the the planes could have easily missed its target, thus having to fly in a large circle around the NYC or Washington DC area in order to have another go (thus greatly increasing the chances of being intercepted). Or perhaps, one of the planes might have hit one of the Twin Towers a glancing blow with a wingtip and crashed spinning somewhere into a Manhattan street. This scenario would have left a huge set of clues and evidence .. a lightly damaged WTC Tower, and a plane wreck which could have been closely examined in the aftermath. Such would have been an outcome that the planners should have gone to great lengths to avoid, especially given the "scientifically-proven-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt" conclusion that the Twin Towers were demolished with pre-placed explosives. (Examining a still standing WTC tower would have revealed the telltale evidence!). As it happened, three planes hit their targets full on, and very little remained, no persons survived to tell tales, and both the Twin Towers implosions' completely destroyed any incriminating macroscopic sized evidence of how they were taken down… exactly the most likely desired outcome.

It is quite possible that hijackers could have been drilled and trained, as patsies, without knowing the identity of their paymasters, but final control of the planes remained in the hands of personnel unknown, from a secure undisclosed location…..


As an afterthought: The (bizarre) crash of Egypt Air Flight 990 some 22 months prior to 9/11, in which the co-pilot was desperately fighting to regain control of his erratically and inexplicably behaving plane, was a most effective priming of the US (and world's) public of the notion of the "Islamic suicide Jihad pilot" into the individual and collective psyche. There is no evidence that the pilot in this case either wanted to commit suicide, or had any militant Islamic tendencies, or had any connections to al Qaeda/terrorist groups. I speculate here (don't we all on occasions in the 9/11 theater)….. but perhaps this was an experiment to determine how the remote takeover of a commercial plane could be executed, not only leaving no trace of remote control (apart from wild maneuverings), to also "educating" the public to the specter of Muslims who wanted to crash commercial planes and kill people. This accident occurred just off the US East Coast… how very, very convenient!


I more or less agree with this. Voted you up, thanks. (But I still think a hijackers only option is possible too)


Aidan Monaghan said...."At least Bigfoot existence allegations are supported by some tangible evidence."

More important evidence suppressed? LOL, How embarrassing!

LoL! Not Bad! Funny Stuff!

Did you work for the 9/11 Commission?

A diect link to the perps?

Aidan Monaghan said..."Did you work for the 9/11 Commission?"

No, they worked for me, your agent allegations are old and boring, not to mention wrong. It's bigger than that. I am the all seeing eye, the king of the Illuminati. BTW how's your paranoia?

Bergstein Goldweinerstein

@jimd3100: My Comment Was Meant As A Joke


You might want to check your own

You might want to check your own unconscious word construction. If you are skeptical about the roles played by Muslims on 9/11--or even if you aren't, but think there are others who need to be considered suspects--then you should understand that the effect of declining to use the word 'terrorists' to describe those responsible for the 9/11 attacks implies an acceptance of the exclusive association of the word 'terrorist' with Muslim extremists. The only way to counter this biased use of the word 'terrorist' is to employ it consistently. Were the 9/11 attacks intended to terrorize civilians? Of course! Then whoever was knowingly involved in carrying them out, with some sort of view towards gaining something as a result, were terrorists! To refuse to describe them as 'terrorist attacks' not only evades that basic truth of the matter, but also implicitly accepts and lets stand unchallenged the one-sided use of the term 'terrorist'--exclusively identified with Muslims, and with non-state actors.

I admire the hell out of the Jersey Girls.

My thanks to Ms Van Auken for continuing to raise her voice.

For those who do not know, this article came out in July 2011...
9/11 widows shun spotlight as 10th anniversary of attacks approaches
The 'Jersey Girls', who fought for a credible inquiry into the attacks of 11 September, have moved on with their lives


"In Their Own Words"

"In Their Own Words"

Thanks, Joe for reminding me of this most excellent documentary,more recent i believe than "Press for Truth." Shall shine it back at where Lori Van Auken was interviewed. Thanks to RL McGee for sharing!

Interesting to Note

In this interview, Sibel says she has known, since 2008, three highly credible potential whistle-blowers who say the PA plane was shot down. Sounds like they have supporting documents and had already gone to the IG and 9/11 Commission, but were afraid to go further for fear of retribution and of their efforts being futile.

Its not the first time

Its not the first time Sibel's referenced bad information. Nobody's perfect.