Playing the “Get into Saudi Arabia free card”


Sunday, August 28, 2011

This guest blog is from Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Kevin's personal blog can be found at Dig Within.

Recent developments among supporters of the US government’s version of events indicate that they plan to begin blaming Saudi Arabia for the attacks of September 11, 2001. There is, in fact, much evidence suggesting complicity by some elements within the Saudi government. But that fact only further implicates western powers due to the close relationship between the Saudi royal family, which runs the Saudi government, and deep state controlling interests that have partnered with and manipulated the Saudi royal family for many decades. Blaming Saudi Arabia would, however, make a lot of sense if seizing resources, including the world’s greatest oil reserves, was what the war on terror has always been about.

Two weeks ago I spoke to NPR producer, Alex Kingsbury, who asked if I felt the release of the 28-pages of redacted material from the Joint Congressional Inquiry might help to solve the mysteries still surrounding 9/11. Those redacted pages, and much of the 9/11 Commission report that followed, have always seemed to be a kind of "Get into Saudi Arabia free" card for the powers that be. Kingsbury was interested in knowing whether the redacted pages, which are thought to contain significant references to Saudi Arabia, were of interest to me personally. Of course they would be, I said, but we should remember that the government of Saudi Arabia is far from representative of its people.

Similarly, a recent interview with “Counterterrorism Czar,” Richard Clarke, has been the subject of considerable discussion. Ostensibly, Clark’e objective with this interview was to make the controversial suggestion that two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were targets for recruitment by the CIA. What many have failed to emphasize, however, is that Clarke was simultaneously suggesting that the two alleged hijackers were actually working for the government of Saudi Arabia at the time of the attacks.

About a month ago, military intelligence officer and 9/11 staffer, Miles Kara, wrote to me asking if I was aware of the publication of a book called The Eleventh Day by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Kara declared that this new book was – “the definitive work, to date, on 9/11.” Having since had a chance to borrow a copy of this book from the library, I can say that it is a malevolent piece of propaganda that attempts to persuade the ill-informed of three things.

The first thing that the Summers and Swann book attempts to do is malign the 9/11 truth movement. For example, the authors suggest that the movement is well represented by people like video-fakery and Star Wars beam advocate, James Fetzer, and it has been well answered by government employees and simple-minded contrarians like Ryan Mackey. Summers and Swann also state that well-sourced samples of World Trade Center dust, collected using completely appropriate chain of custody forms, are not good sources of information yet long-time propagandist, Gerald Posner, and Weekly Standard contributor, Thomas Joscelyn (who recently tried to link Iran to 9/11), are excellent sources.

The second goal of the book is to propose that the partial release of documents by the 9/11 Commission in the last few years has answered all the unanswered questions about the attacks. It’s not clear if the authors had a chance to look at many of those documents though. For example, one of them says that the training school for Hani Hanjour, whom the 9/11 Commission called “the operations most experienced pilot,” questioned Hanjour’s pilot certificate because he had “no fundamental skills / poor English” and they “wondered if the cert was false.”[1] This is but one of many examples in which these newly released documents directly contradict the 9/11 Commission report, instead of supporting it as Summers and Swann claim.

Most importantly, this new book attempts to blaze a new trail for Saudi complicity in the attacks of 9/11. Unfortunately, although the book details a number of reasons why the Saudi government should be investigated for supporting the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, it paradoxically avoids many of the important Saudi links to 9/11. The authors appear to do this in an effort to accuse the Saudis while simultaneously covering-up evidence that western corporations and western government leaders were really behind many of the Saudi links.

Here are a few of the surprising connections between Saudi Arabia and westerners who were in one way or another related to the 9/11 attacks.

· Bernard Kerik, the New York City police commissioner and “9/11 hero,” spent three years working in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s for a company that occupied one of the WTC towers at the time of the attacks. He then spent another three years in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s as “the chief investigator for the royal family.” It was Kerik who first told the public that explosives were not used at the WTC, and it was his police department that was said to have discovered the magic passport which fell from one of the towers to conveniently provide evidence identifying one of the alleged hijackers.

· One of two primary companies to manage the clean-up of Ground Zero, Bovis Lend Lease, had previously built the Riyadh Olympic stadium in Saudi Arabia.

· The other primary clean-up company at Ground Zero, AMEC, had just completed a $258 million refurbishment of Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, which is exactly where Flight 77 impacted that building. AMEC is a major international player in the oil and gas industry, as well as in other natural resource industries. AMEC had a significant presence in Saudi Arabia dating back to the late 1970s, providing support to the national oil company Saudi Aramco.

· The company that designed the security systems for the WTC complex, Kroll Associates, had strong connections to Saudi Arabia. For example, Kroll board member Raymond Mabus was the US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the mid 1990s.

· All four of the primary contractors that were involved in rebuilding the security systems for the WTC had done significant business with the Saudis. Electronic Systems Associates' parent, S&H, designed King Saud University, and E.J. Electric worked for Saudi Arabian Airlines. Ensec was owned by a former arms dealer to the Saudis. Stratesec, which had contracts not only for the WTC but also for Dulles airport, where Flight 77 took off, and United Airlines which owned two of the three other planes, worked under "a joint venture agreement with Ahmad N. AlBinali & Sons Co., a large Saudi Arabian engineering and construction company, to develop and conduct business in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

· The Bush and Bin Laden-financed Carlyle Group owned, through BDM International, the Vinnell Corporation, a mercenary operation that had extensive contracts in the Middle East since 1975 and trained the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Several of Stratesec’s key employees, including COO Barry McDaniel, came from BDM. In 1995, BDM’s Vinnell was one of the first targets of al Qaeda, in Saudi Arabia.

· In the 1990s, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), run by Dick Cheney protégé, Duane Andrews, trained the Saudi Navy and brought Saudi military personnel to company headquarters in San Diego for further study. SAIC played a large part in the NIST WTC investigation after 9/11, but was also involved in the investigation of the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that -- "After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible." SAIC was paid huge sums to rebuild the NSA and FBI systems that supposedly failed before 9/11.

· While SAIC was training the Saudi Navy, the Carlyle/BDM subsidiary Vinnell Corp was training the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Simultaneously, Booz Allen Hamilton was managing the Saudi Marine Corps and running the Saudi Armed Forces Staff College.

· Former FBI director Louis Freeh, whose agency investigated al Qaeda-attributed terrorism from 1993 to 2001, is now the personal attorney for Saudi ambassador "Bandar Bush."

· Salomon Smith Barney, the company that occupied all but 10 floors of WTC building 7, was taken over by Citigroup in 1998. Citigroup had recently been saved from bankruptcy by Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia, in a deal brokered by The Carlyle Group. It is believed that the money, and more, came from the terrorist financing network, BCCI, as it was dissolving. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney joined the advisory board at Solomon Smith Barney at that time and were on the board until they resigned to join the Bush Administration in January, 2001.

· The Saudi government was sued by thousands of 9/11 victim's family members due to the suspicion that Saudi Arabia helped to finance al Qaeda. The Saudis hired the law firm of Bush Administration insider, James Baker, to defend them in that lawsuit.

Summers and Swann seem to have missed these interesting connections between US government officials and corporations, and Saudi Arabia. That seems odd for a book that pretends to be the definitive work to date. Despite this inconsistency, it is doubtful that Richard Clarke, 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara, NPR’s Alex Kingsbury, or any other supporter of the government’s reports, will say anything about it.

[1] See FOIA response “5 AWA 356” received by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington page 71 of 447

Here are some related references...

... from "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited:"

"The list mentioned by Clark and advocated by Rumsfeld did not, unlike the list in the Newsweek story, include Saudi Arabia. But this country was on the hit list of at least some of the neocons. In 2002, a speaker invited to address the Defense Policy Board by its chairman, arch-neocon Richard Perle, said that unless Saudi Arabia does as we wish, we should seize its oil fields and confiscate its other financial assets.[1] The following year, another neocon, Michael Ledeen, wrote that “we must bring down the terror regimes,” after which he named Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and “even Saudi Arabia.”[2] Although this talk about attacking Saudi Arabia was largely covered up, it is relevant to a question sometimes asked about the idea of 9/11 as a false-flag operation: If one of the goals was to have a pretext to attack Iraq, why were the alleged hijackers mainly Saudis, rather than Iraqis? Part of the answer is that their nationalities did not really matter as long as they were Muslims from the Middle East. But perhaps part of the answer is that those who planned this part of the operation were looking down the road to the biggest prize of all in terms of oil reserves, Saudi Arabia. [3]"


[1] Thomas E. Hicks, “Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies,” Washington Post, August 6, 2002 (; Jack Shafer, “The Larouchie Defector who’s Advising the Defense Establishment on Saudi Arabia,”, August 7, 2002 (

[2] Michael A. Ledeen, The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2003), 159.

[3] See "If 9/11 Was An Inside Job, the Hijackers Would Have been IRAQI," George Washington’s Blog, May 30, 2008 (

Thanks for pointing out

Saudi-Arabia means always US interests...

You forgot Buro Happold this time, which contributed to the new fire resisting coat.

Originally working mainly on projects in the Middle East,
The King's Office, Council of Ministers and Majlis Al Shura (KOCOMMAS), Central Government Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was the firm's first major design project in 1976.

This article was needed. Thanks Kevin.

A lot of dots connect on different levels.

911, Saudi's on 911

I do think the Saudi Leaders were involved and that all the Saudi hijackers were patsies, setup like Oswald and others in similar false flag operations. Let us not forget the Israeli players; 'the Five Dancing Israeli's' arrested and then released by Chertoff head of the 'homeland security' along with 100's of other Israeli agents, some linked to the 'Urban Moving Company' in Secaucus. They then appeared on Israeli TV and said they were only "recording the event". Then review the dual Israeli/American citisens involved in the purchase of the WTC, and of course, the infamous Silverstein whom admitted. "we had to pull it". This is definitely a 'Mossad' operation. Similar to the U.S.S. Liberty attack, so we would attack Egypt, but, in this case so the U.S. would attack Iraq. We must remember that not only did Iraq have oil but also Saddam had bombed Israel with scuds. Someday, the truth will be told and those responsible for the planning (PNAC) as well as the coverup, will be held accountable.

second thoughts

These connections are interesting, and a real investigation would look into these, as these offer clues as to how certain relations may have developed, understandings arrived at, arrangements made, etc. However, none of these are direct evidence, and in some cases their may be nothing there - Saudi Arabia has oil, the US has been buying tanker-loads for decades; of course US companies are going to be in bed w/ the Saudi govt. Other than "Bandar Bush" which appeared in reference to Freeh, I didn't see a mention of the decades-long relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royals; this is a connection that really needs to be examined.

Kevin: "Recent developments among supporters of the US government’s version of events indicate that they plan to begin blaming Saudi Arabia for the attacks of September 11, 2001. There is, in fact, much evidence suggesting complicity by some elements within the Saudi government. But that fact only further implicates western powers due to the close relationship between the Saudi royal family, which runs the Saudi government, and deep state controlling interests that have partnered with and manipulated the Saudi royal family for many decades. Blaming Saudi Arabia would, however, make a lot of sense if seizing resources, including the world’s greatest oil reserves, was what the war on terror has always been about."

The US govt's version of events is that "Saudi Arabia", i.e. the royals and the GID, had nothing to do w/ 9/11, that it was an Al Qaeda-only op and no one knew anything about beforehand. So, calling for evidence of the Saudi links to be addressed does not support the OCT; in fact, it would expose that the US govt has been hiding this stuff for nearly 10 years, which would naturally raise questions like what else have they been hiding and lying about?

Also, this is nothing new; people have been calling attention to these links since 9/11, and most of the Establishment has been bending over backward to pretend they aren't there - former Intel Cmte Chair Sen. Bob Graham talked about foreign govt support on PBS, then published his 2004 book Intelligence Matters which got into some of the evidence and raised more questions - and lately he's been pimping his novel about a Saudi attack on US scenario online and on his book tour. imho, he's a much bigger deal than Summers/Swan or the far right neocon crazies like Ledeen and Perle.

Clarke's statements imply the CIA outsourced surveillance to Saudi GID, not that Saudi Arabia unilaterally attacked the US - Clarke's main point was Tenet, Black and Blee knew about Al Qaeda operatives in the US prior to 9/11, knew an attack was in the works, and did nothing cuz they thought they'd get in trouble for their illegal infiltration op. Clarke is blaming 9/11 on Tenet, Black and Blee, not Saudi Arabia.

Why invest more trillions on a military intervention and occupation of Saudi Arabia in order to install a US puppet regime, ala Iraq and Afghanistan, when the US under Dems and Reps already has friendly business and political ties w/ the corrupt tyrants that have ruled Saudi Arabia for centuries? Saudi Arabia is where Mecca is; occupation of this country would be way worse for the US than Iraq or Afghanistan. Hussein and the Taliban were hostile to corrupt US business interests.

Bush classified the Saudi links in the JI report, Obama won't declass it, and Obama's DOJ asked the SCOTUS to deny cert to a 9/11 families lawsuit against the Saudis; the US govt has again affirmed its support for the Saudi regime; it doesn't seem like the people that run the Establishment want this can of worms opened. Elites might close ranks on some things - they're all pretending there's no unanswered 9/11 questions - but they have their own internal and sometimes public battles over policy; for instance, Brzezinski's testimony to Congress essentially warning them that the Bush administration might create a false pretext for attacking Iran - and the Bush administration didn't do it.

I could be wrong, but I don't see the evidence that there's some plot afoot to blame Saudi Arabia for 9/11 and rally public support for attacking them. Perhaps Saudi Arabia is worried about this, though; apparently the Bushes and royal family aren't as tight as they were, and a few years ago Bandar Bush said they were tracking the hijackers "with precision" and had told the US everything they knew; a US spokesman dismissed this as "fanciful." If there were some move by the US to do a ltd hangout and blame Saudi Arabia, it seems likely Saudi Arabia would let everything they know hang out, which would be bad for the Establishment.

I agree loose nuke,

I agree loose nuke, thanks.


I don't think America would accept war with S.A. anyway; not until they get used to another 2 years of Libya and at least 1.5 years of occupying Iran. Lets keep fighting for a real investigation.

Saudi Arabia is slated for turmoil. ...the last domino.

As I understand the agenda by the "Powers That Be"...Strife and 'revolution' will continue to spread throughout the middle east. Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, Syria, Oman, and Saudia Arabia will be last. With all the turmoil, oil supplies will be cut. Domestic oil companies will then become 'our savior'.


"Similarly, a recent interview with “Counterterrorism Czar,” Richard Clarke, has been the subject of considerable discussion. Ostensibly, Clark’e objective with this interview was to make the controversial suggestion that two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were targets for recruitment by the CIA. What many have failed to emphasize, however, is that Clarke was simultaneously suggesting that the two alleged hijackers were actually working for the government of Saudi Arabia at the time of the attacks. "

This is a misleading statement. Clarke is suggesting the CIA attempted to recruit Al-Hazmi and Al-Midhar using GIP as proxy. He is accusing Tenet, Black and Blee of lying about 9/11 and deliberately endangering Americans. But what Clarke says is only one explanation, and merely an acknowledgment of the fact that there is no charitable explanation for the facts dug up by Fenton, Larson, Schopmeyer et al.

Kevin, you attempt to connect an imaginative plot (deliberate efforts to blame 9/11 all on Saudi Arabia) to research you don't like and associate this research which pursues certain taboo avenues to those who covered up 9/11 and continue to do so. I don't think that's wise and I still reject the criticisms you make of Duffy & Nowosielski using Richard Clarke as a straw man. These continuing insinuations that research which wasn't cooked up in your own kitchen must be deliberately crafted poison pills by the 9/11 perps are, frankly, low blows.

ETA: Recently, an article featuring Jon Gold, submitted by Cosmos/YT wasn't published on 911blogger. An e-mail to Justin was not returned. Jon Gold is co-founder of 911blogger, Cosmos/YT lost a family friend on 9/11. But this article by Kevin, gets different treatment altogether, it seems.

On SnowCrash's comment and Kevin Ryan's response

SC criticized certain statements made by Kevin in this article and his other recent article concerning Clarke. In responding to SC's criticism, Kevin did not refute anything SC said, nor did he defend the statements SC criticized. Instead, he used insulting terms which seem to imply he believes SC is being deliberately deceptive; "Snowjob," and deliberately disruptive; "your chat room mafia's hit list."

In addition to portraying criticism of statements of opinion and fact w/ coordinated efforts at intentional disruption and disinformation, Kevin equated SC's position on the book "The Eleventh Day" w/ the views of jimd3100, apparently because SC and Jim have similar perspectives on other issues. In response, SC noted that he does not share Jim's view of this book, and neither does Jon Gold, another person frequently at odds w/ Kevin. Kevin was wrong to assume this about SC's views, and, given what SC said, his assumption was in error.

Note: I'm about 1/5 of the way thru this book, and from what I've seen so far, it has not accurately represented the history of 9/11, based on the information available in the public record. Its portrayal of the 9/11 truth movement omits a great deal of information and is highly negatively skewed, in part by focusing on figures who have promoted bogus claims, which have long been debunked by 9/11 researchers and truth activists. At best the authors' research is poor, but it appears bias is a factor. I will be posting a review at some point.

cont.: Kevin then stated a person he did not name is of the opinion that "The Eleventh Day" is malevolent; this statement obviously can't be verified and is mysterious. Kevin then concluded w/ an insulting broad assumption, which continues the insinuation that those making critiques he doesn't like are being deliberately disruptive: "Looks like your hit list list will contain everyone (except Richard Clarke) eventually."

In summary, SC's critique was on topic - except for the "ETA" part. Imho, Kevin's response to SC's comment does not contribute "useful information and commentary" regarding SC's critique, or to discussion of the OP. Furthermore, it repeatedly violated the rules: I did not see anything in SC's comment that violated the rules, though in the comments of SC and some others below there are infractions of the most basic rule: "Be civil."

I've recused myself from moderating on this issue, as I assume Kevin considers me part of the "chat room mafia" (due to my criticism of DRG's fake calls theory, and Jones' public claims about overunity on 911blogger and at Conspiracy Con, prior to his discovery being independently verified), and because SC has made positive references to my work.


Your continued attempts to defend Richard Clarke are remarkable. Do you know what a "double agent" is?

Anyway, I'm OK with being the next person on your chat room mafia's hit list. I'll be in excellent company with Steve Jones, David Griffin, (911Blogger) and others.

Although I'm probably the only one who still listens to you guys, and at that only infrequently, I found this chat room quote from one of your colleagues just now: "[The Eleventh Day] is one of the best books written on the subject and I've read allot." This reminds me that it was one of the few people your group hasn't started attacking, and one that all of you claim to admire greatly, who first used the word "malevolent" about this book, in a phone conversation I had with him earlier this week. Looks like your hit list list will contain everyone (except Richard Clarke) eventually.

That's quite harsh

I don't call you names either, now do I? (For those who miss the reference: snowjob means cover-up) See it as you wish. The very essence of being a truther is speaking the truth regardless of personalities. You have made sacrifices and deserve plenty of credit for that. I've never seen you this nasty though. You probably would also have noticed Jon Gold vehemently disagreeing with that assessment of the "The Eleventh Day". We tell each other what we think, and we don't always agree. I have no opinion on the book, since I haven't read it, but I don't like books which misrepresent the Truth Movement, or focus mostly on the fringe like "The Eleventh Day". You should discuss this with Jim if you want, not me. I stand for my own opinions.

So do you consider YT/Cosmos and Jon Gold and me, and the rest of us "Mafia" who aid in the 9/11 cover-up?

ETA: From Wikipedia:

A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In passive cover-up information is just not provided, in active cover-up deception is used.


"Snowjob" is an American colloquialism for a deception or a cover-up; for example, Helen Gahagan Douglas described the Nixon Administration as "the greatest snow job in history."[1]



* The Dreyfus Affair[2]
* The Iran–Contra affair[3]
* The My Lai Massacre[4]
* The Roman Catholic sex abuse cases of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[5]
* The Watergate scandal [6]

ETA2: Removed tit-for-tat by me... provocation is no excuse.

Looks like Snowcrash started...


"These continuing insinuations that research which wasn't cooked up in your own kitchen must be deliberately crafted poison pills by the 9/11 perps are, frankly, low blows."

is already too offensive. It does not belong in a dispassionate rational discourse. It is not reasonable to expect Kevin Ryan to continue to be polite after such a statement.

Kevin Ryan has brought much of value to the table ...

.. Surely he should be allowed to express his opinion here without the 'cooked in your kitchen' kind of attack?

I, for one, value Ryan's input and would like to think that he - and others - would feel comfortable writing here in a spirit of constructive criticism and respectful discourse.


It's irrelevant who started it (Sandlot logic), since snitchjacketing is against the rules. This time I don't mind Kevin accusing me Jon Gold, jimd3100, Zombie Bill Hicks, YT/Cosmos and everybody else of being "agents", because I'm fine with Kevin saying what he really thinks. Let his comment stand as an indictment of double standards. Even if it's removed, there are snapshots.

Perhaps you should have a look at this. Did you know? Also, you haven't seen the behind-the-scenes exchanges. My comment was offensive? How dare you. I will step back from this discussion, because enough is enough. I support Duffy & Nowosielski, Fenton, Schopmeyer, Larson, Gold, YT/Cosmos and all those other brave researchers and 9/11 family members pursuing credible research who are shunned by their own movement.

This is why I dare:

I think it is not a good idea to start this kind of infighting just a week before a important event like the Toronto hearings. Just lay it to rest for a while and return to it when Kevin Ryan will have time for your concerns... which pales in comparison.

Your hypocritical concerns

Were absent when Duffy & Nowosielski were being snitchjacketed and attacked. Kevin Ryan wrote this article, I didn't. The people who he has snitchjacketed have a right to respond. I am doing so here.

What / who made this term "snitchjacketing" ?

Apart from a few select posters on 911blogger (and other forums), I very rarely have seen this term "snitchjacketing" used except in relation to a court/police informant who exposes other culprits.

You and a few others toss this word around often accusing others (but almost never yourselves) of committing the offense of "snitchjacketing".
What is your definition of this term "snitchjacketing"?

Because you often demonize this action of "snitchjacketing" and seemed perturbed by it, maybe it is something which I should learn how to do well.

You asked?

"There were also files about an “extremely sensitive counterintelligence technique’’ called snitch-jacketing, which apparently involved the FBI spreading false information that members of a targeted group were government informants in order to sow conflict within their membership."

The Boston Globe — FBI gives a glimpse of its most secret layer

"[ snitchjacketing ] is something which I should learn how to do well."TomT

Amazing. Are you this consumed with hatred, Tom?

Lighten up. Where is your humor?

I thought that it was kind of a funny statement. It does have humor. It is a chuckle.
Snowcrash...Because you often demonize this action of "snitchjacketing" and seemed perturbed by it, maybe it is something which I should learn how to do well.

I like humor.
Let's lighten up.
We can have fun at disseminating 9/11 information to the world.
Let's not try "to enforce" or "to impose" or "to pound down somebody's throat" an idea... ...or "always try to be right" down to a literally, word-for-word attack-contest of accusations of what others "do or say wrong" with a line item detail-by-detail.

Relationships work pretty well when there is "tolerance of what others do or think".
EeeGawd! an example... The US can not tolerate the sovereignty of other nations' actions, and so it tries "to enforce" or "to impose" or "to ram down an idea". ...and a lot of people have died as a result of this intolerance.


I was joking too. We're all joking. Nobody's serious. It's an up & coming trend in humor: first you insinuate somebody's an agent or abuse them in similar ways, then you just say it's a joke. See? It's easy, and it guarantees hilarity. Kevin Ryan was joking too. Yeah, let's all lighten up. I'm done here.

Tom,With all due respect,


With all due respect: "Lightening up" and displaying more "humor" might be fine with you, but please respect that I and many others aren't here for a joke or a laugh.

I know you don't think this is a joke, you have put some energy into the efforts of 9/11 justice.

We are talking about a major crime with major implications; we are about 10 years into it now. It's probably well past time to get SERIOUS! Put yourself in Laurie Van Aukins shoes and there isn little to joke about.

Scientific standards for research are being tossed for theories like "get into Saudia Arabia free cards" along with the recent attacks on the importance of Clarke saying the head of the CIA "lied to the Commission" and "got away with it."

Really, who thinks that can't help our cause?

Kevin Ryan was working at UL labs and was fired for speaking truth about steel tests for the WTC. If he sticks with that, and stays side by side with Clarke, Edmonds, Shaffer, Rodriguez, Jennings, Rowley, Aukin, and others in their histories and testimonies; we would have quite a group.

Let's not lighten up; lets finish this. SERIOUSLY

Humor, cheerfulness, happiness and living can still be done

Nor Cal, I hear your points.

Here is my view:
My friends and buddies in the 9/11 Movement joke and love humor when we get together. We also have fun at our dissemination actions. We enjoy it. And we enjoy each other's company. We are a pretty cheerful, vivacious group of individuals who have a lot of varied intense interests. And we all have our individual lives to lead. We are alive and we enjoy being alive.

9/11 Truth is held as an extremely important activity. We earnestly work hard at disseminating 9/11 Truth.

But this does not mean that we need be "grim", "somber", "humorless", "grave" (heavy seriousness).

Depending upon the occasion, there are times for appropriate emotions such as grief or sadness or somber moods.

However, in the general overall course of forwarding 9/11 Truth, I choose to still be very much alive and cheerful.
In fact, I think a lot of the effective people in this world are cheerful and warm and caring.

...and yes ... I do think that Lucky Larry looks like a big rat.


..for me, snitchjacketing is simply baselessly labeling somebody a CIA-agent, "working for the other side", "snowjob", "fake truther" a "Sunstein infiltrator" or whatever else fits that mold. Usually such accusations are made to shut somebody up by socially ostracizing them from an activist group, by accusing them of working for the government. I think it's mostly done out of frustration with somebody who might be winning an argument. Under this umbrella I include accusing well-meaning researchers of facilitating a "limited hangout". I've only accused somebody of being a professional disruptor once, and it was the maintainer of the site "", whose father worked as a Foreign Service Officer for the State Department in Colombia.

FTR; again; this is not about Clarke

The Richard Clarke argument is a straw man argument. It's not about Clarke, it's about the facts that were presented to him by 9/11 researchers. This has been stated ad nauseam, and it's no less true than it was when myself and others first started saying it. At the moment, we treat Dick Cheney better than we do Richard Clarke, who was blamed for 9/11 by Dick Cheney. Why?

Kevin, I would think it be


I would think it be more important at 10 years to highlight your history; being somewhat of a whistleblower and defender of scientific standards and honesty.

Many new people to the movement might benefit more from seeing that, than reading a theory on future provocotations in the world.

I can't believe that Richard Clarke telling everyone that the CIA "lied to the Commission" and "got away with it" is being so ridiculed. I'm starting to think that many of you listen to too much Alex Jones and are outright paranoid.


Keep up the good work.

Show "SnowCrash Seems Unhinged..." by BMAC

Not quite.


It seems clear that SnowCrash continually sows doubt over CD, the strongest of all 9/11 evidence.

That is a bold a statement to make without a link.

In my experience SC supports fully the notion of CD, and his only doubts are as to Jones' credibility due to other areas of research interest to Stephen Jones. That is another topic completely.

I find your statement to be quite ignorant and provacative.

Take care.


Those are some strange things that are clear to you.

There are relatively few persons who are totally devoted to make SURE that everything that is being dug up, researched and written up by the TM as a whole is accurate, factual, verifiable and true. I believe, considering what I've seen thusfar, that SC is one of them

I can't believe these statements you just made here. U should retract them and be a bit more careful before u state things like this.

Maybe some of us that have been working overtime on this subject are beginning to get a little hotheaded, perhaps frustrated over how things have been going for the TM and what might have been if it wasn't for all the (after a closer look) mumbojumbo that has been produced by some people (no malice intended) that are or claim to be part of the TM, giving "the other side" plenty of ammo to gun the TM down.

Not nice to see this happening, especially at this crucial time.

No idea what this thread is

No idea what this thread is even about . . . it's only another soap opera. Great job guys, lets talk about each other and point fingers and attack -- its the anniversary, makes sense.

This is what happens

when we focus on the "who dunnit," rather than how the fuck we're gonna create a truly independent 9/11 investigation and circumvent the US Congress, Justice Department and whatever administration happens to be in power. Regardless of the good work of any of the people in or mentioned in this thread, a misguided focus is blatantly apparent here.

This thread stinks!!!

This thread stinks!!!

esprit de corps / success

Godspeed to Kevin Ryan, who is human and who has made mistakes.

Godspeed to Steve Jones, who is human and who has made mistakes.

Godspeed to Richard Gage, who is human and who has made mistakes.

Godspeed to SnowCrash, who is human and who has made mistakes.

Godspeed to Loose Nuke, who is human and who has made mistakes.

There is something to be said for maintaining a positive esprit de corps. We're on the same side. And, how we treat each other IS important, because it affects our degree of success.

(Sorry if that sounds preachy, but I believe it's true.)