The Agency, a major CBS drama series about the CIA that began being broadcast in late September 2001, featured storylines with remarkable similarities to the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks that occurred in the U.S. shortly after them. One of the show's executive producers said the parallels were so apparent that "people are asking me, 'Are we showing the bad guys our script?'" because "it seems like they're kind of following, in some ways, things that we're doing."  Significantly, these storylines were written before September 11, and the show was made with extensive assistance from the CIA. Some of the show's storylines, including those resembling 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, were actually suggested to one of the writers by the CIA. 
FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds was described as "the most gagged person in the history of the United States" by the American Civil Liberties Union. Was the Sunday Times pressured to drop its investigation into her revelations?
By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013
A whistleblower has revealed extraordinary information on the U.S. government’s support for international terrorist networks and organised crime. The government has denied the allegations yet gone to extraordinary lengths to silence her. Her critics have derided her as a fabulist and fabricator. But now comes word that some of her most serious allegations were confirmed by a major European newspaper only to be squashed at the request of the U.S. government.
Link to official page where we encourage comments (please refrain from posting on the actual timeline)
MEDIA ROOTS – In this episode of Media Roots Radio, Abby and Robbie Martin go over a comprehensive timeline of political events in the decade following the 9/11 attacks by covering the establishment's use of agitation propaganda and psychological warfare to condition the public into accepting a new era of endless war and civil liberties erosions.
Hi, I started a new White House petition asking to reinvestigate the collapse of WTC Building 7 on 9/11.
Please sign the petition, and spread the word.
We bring to the consideration of our readers this incisive and carefully formulated analysis by Canada’s renowned philosopher Professor John McMurtry.
I was sceptical of the 9-11 event from the first time I saw it on television. It was on every major network within minutes. All the guilty partieswere declared before any evidence was shown.The first questions of any criminal investigation were erased. Who had the most compelling motives for the event? Who had the means to turn two central iconic buildings in New York into a pile of steel and a cloud of dust in seconds?[i]
Other questions soon arose in the aftermath. Why was all the evidence at the crime scenes removed or confiscated?
Who was behind the continuous false information and non-stop repetition of “foreign/Arab terrorists”when no proof of guilt existed? Who was blocking all independent inquiry?
Even 11 years on these questions are still not answered.
But those immediately named guilty without any forensic proof certainly fitted the need for a plausible Enemy now that the “threat of the Soviet Union” and “communist world rule” were dead. How else could the billion-dollar-a-day military be justified with no peace dividend amidst a corporately hollowed-out U.S. economy entering its long-term slide? While all the media and most of the people asserted the official 9-11 conspiracy theory as given fact, not all did.
"The leaseholder of the World Trade Center properties is asking a U.S. federal judge to reject arguments that American Airlines is not liable for damages stemming from the September 11, 2001 hijackings because the attacks were an act of war.
Larry Silverstein filed court papers Wednesday asking U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan to dismiss that line of defense by the airline and its parent, AMR Corp, in the developer's long-running negligence lawsuit against them.
Silverstein has sought to hold American and United Airlines, now United Continental Holdings Inc, responsible for damages from the 2001 attacks for allegedly failing to provide adequate airport and airline security".
"I had the feeling that there was one final thing left for me to do regarding my research of informed trading activities in connection to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 in order to close that chapter of my journalistic work once and for all. And so I went back to the 9/11 stories involving Deutsche Bank Alex Brown. I considered it a journalistic obligation to exercise diligence.
With regard to the research that I’ve done on the topic of “9/11 Insider Trading” there was one thing that I hadn’t gone after sufficiently enough: so far I had not asked the German Bank for a statement on two particular issues. I also noticed that no one else had asked the Deutsche Bank for it – at least I could not find anything that suggested otherwise.
What those two issues were should become evident if I just cite some various e-mails. Moreover, they will give you all relevant links/sources to follow up on the whole story if you want to. I am aware that the format is a bit unusual and a bit hard to follow, but I am confident that you will understand it in the end".
This radio interview of Dr. Graeme MacQueen originally aired on "Guns and Butter" with Bonnie Faulkner in July of 2011. The specific portion regarding Mohamed Atta's absurd encounter with a U.S. loans officer, Johnelle Bryant, was important enough to deserve its own video as it shows how narratives are scripted.
MacQueen calls this story "Mohamed Atta seeks a loan". Months before 9/11, the alleged 9/11 hijackers were trying to attract public attention. According to mainstream news reports, Atta tried to obtain a large loan from a U.S. loans officer and threatened to harm the officer and then gives away the targets of the 9/11 plot. MacQueen argues that this is not characteristic of a top secretive operative planning the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This is characteristic of a person tasked with planting the narrative ahead of time. MacQueen also shares important information about 9/11 being connected with the anthrax attacks and that the same people were behind both attacks. Stories like these make it easy to see through 9/11. Please distribute widely.
(Video) "He Was The Agency": Ex-CIA Analyst Questions Brennan Claim He Couldn’t Stop Waterboarding, Torture
"CIA nominee John Brennan was repeatedly questioned about torture at his CIA confirmation hearing, including the use of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques. He refused to say waterboarding was a form of torture, but said he has come to oppose the technique. Under George W. Bush, Brennan served as deputy executive director of the CIA and director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. "Remember, he was the cheerleader for some of these onerous policies, particularly renditions and extraordinary renditions. So, for John Brennan today to say he read the Senate committee intelligence report on torture and he learned things he never knew before and that he was shocked with what he learned, this is a case of incredible willful ignorance," says Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst. [includes rush transcript]"
"GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- Someone else besides the judge and security officer sitting inside the maximum-security court here can impose censorship on what the public can see and hear at the Sept. 11 trial, it was disclosed Monday
The role of an outside censor became clear when the audio turned to white noise during a discussion of a motion about the CIA’s black sites.
Confusion ensued. A military escort advised reporters that the episode was a glitch, a technical error. A few minutes later, the public was once again allowed to listen into the proceedings and Army Col. James Pohl, the judge, made clear that neither he nor his security officer was responsible for the censorship episode.
“If some external body is turning the commission off based on their own views of what things ought to be, with no reasonable explanation,” the judge announced, “then we are going to have a little meeting about who turns that light on or off.”"