February 2007 - 9/11 Truth and Rumors of War

February was an action packed month. Significantly, and ominously, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations heavy Zbigniew Brzezinski set the tone with his warning to the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations;

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq, or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." - Brzezinski's warning, Feb. 1, 2007

(Brzezinski was preceded in January by Congressman Ron Paul's warning of a "contrived Gulf of Tonkin type incident" as a pretext for war with Iran.)

The significance of Brzezinski's warning can't be overstated. Webster Griffin Tarpley was so moved by Zbig's oratorio that he issued this press release, calling for protests to bring awareness to the issue of a staged pretext. The protests continue, every Saturday at 1pm, at Lafayette Park in front of the White House.

Brzezinski's warning is as close as we likely to get to an actual admission from the supposedly non-existent oligarchy in this country that they do occasionally stage events to herd the sheeple in the direction that they deem best. LIHOP, MIHOP, IHOP... when Zbig is nervous enough to go before the Senate with that kind of message, parsing 9/11 into degrees of HOP is rather moot.


The very next day, The Maginot Line of the Left was broken with a significant penetration by Sander Hicks at AlterNet.org, "9/11: The Case Isn't Closed". A tsunami of support for the article is seen in the comments section below the main posting. That's what you get for marginalizing 9/11 skepticism for 5 years, AlterNet. Hicks used the momentum generated with his piece to urge the Brooklyn DA to investigate 9/11.


Et tu, Gwynne Dyer?

Gwynne Dyer is one of the best minds out there when it comes to military history, and the history of war. He is also remarkably prescient at times when it comes to short-term projection of tactical scenarios. However, it's pretty clear that he knows next to nothing about 9/11 skepticism, but he still felt a need to write this crappy hit piece about Loose Change. My comments in red. -r.)

That makes 10,000 sworn to 9/11 silence

Growing obsession with 9/11 doc’s theories only detracts from Bush’s real crimes (Because Gwynne Dyer says so! If indeed 9/11 was a complex psychological operation designed to trigger a knee-jerk fascist military response to initiate the “Global War on Terror” – then the “real crimes” that Dyer alludes to are a bunch of bat-squeeze by comparison. It’s not “obsession” it’s a mass awakening via the new medium of the internet. Deal with it.)


Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot by David Ray Griffin

Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot

03/07/07 "ICH "
Wednesday, 07 March 2007
By David Ray Griffin

In “Bayoneting a Scarecrow The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.” (Guardian, February 20), George Monbiot accuses members of the 9/11 truth movement of being “morons” and “idiots” who believe in “magic.” Having in his previous attack---“A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world,” Guardian, February 6---called me this movement’s “high priest,” he now describes my 9/11 writing as a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense.”

If my books are moronic nonsense, then people who have endorsed them must be morons. Would Monbiot really wish to apply this label to Michel Chossudovsky, Richard Falk, Ray McGovern, Michael Meacher, John McMurtry, Marcus Raskin, Rosemary Ruether, Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of America’s leading civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists?

Nimmo: Sy Hersh Blames Saudis for Neocon War Against the Shi’a of Iran, Lebanon

Here is a more critical review of the Hersh piece by Kurt Nimmo, thanks, Bull.

Sy Hersh Blames Saudis for Neocon War Against the Shi’a of Iran, Lebanon

Once again, the “al-Qaeda” myth will be put to the test, for Mr. Hersh tells us there are “at least three jihadist groups… connected at al-Qaeda” at work in Lebanon against the Shi’a, i.e., Hezbollah, and they are financed by the Saudi monarchy.

Rest assured, Saudi intelligence, Al Mukhabarat Al A’amah, does not act without explicit instructions from the United States. It is no mistake Turki bin Faisal al-Saud, former intelligence head, now comfortably ambassador to the United Kingdom and Ireland, was Osama bin Laden’s handler in Afghanistan, although the corporate media has turned mighty somersaults to make this relationship appear innocent, if not disappear altogether...

...In short, Seymour Hersh buys into the “al-Qaeda” fairy tale, as does the rest of the corporate media.


Wall Street Journal: Ramzi and Khalid's Spanish Vacation

(Yet another reason to file the 9/11 Commission Report in the "General Fiction" section. -r.)

The Spanish Connection
What the 9/11 Commission didn't consider.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

The 9/11 Commission relied on information derived from two captured al Qaeda perpetrators for much of its picture of the conspiracy leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The interrogations of these men--Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or "KSM," ... and Ramzi Binalshibh, who acted as KSM's liaison with ... Mohamed Atta--were performed by the CIA at secret locations.

KSM claimed that he left almost all the tactical details to Atta, and therefore could not say where Atta went, or whom he visited, in the final months of the plot. Binalshibh claimed he was Atta's only contact with al Qaeda during this period and that, other than himself, Atta never met with anyone on his trips abroad in 2001...

Kurt Nimmo: George Monbiot’s Sour 9/11 Grapes


Tuesday February 20th 2007, 8:07 pm

It stinks of desperation. George Monbiot, inveterate leftist of the foundation financed environmentalist persuasion, has once again taken a swing at the “conspiracy idiots” who believe government is capable of mass murder, including the reflexive murder of its own subjects.

Not unlike his brethren, most notably Noam Chomsky and Alex Cockburn, Monbiot buys the Ward Churchill version of events in regard to the attacks of September 11, 2001—that is to say Osama and a small number of cave-dwelling Wahhabi fanatics magically made NORAD stand down and defied the immutable laws of physics, thus delivering one to the conclusion a piece of paper cannot be slipped between Monbiot and the moonstruck followers of the neocons, as they all buy the same Brothers Grimm fairy tale...


(Thanks, Kevin for sending this in.)

9/11: If I knew nothing else about it, I'd know this.


February 9, 2007

by Jay Esbe

Theories abound. And really, why shouldn't they. What else could possibly be expected when this government, this President, blocked the creation of the commission to investigate the biggest mass murder in American history. And what else could possibly be expected when this President then hand-picked the commission members after losing his battle for "silence"? And then there was the "mission statement" of the commission itself, or rather, the NON-mission statement: "Our purpose is not to assign RESPONSIBILITY for the attacks". This, by the DIRECTIVE of the President AS A CONDITION FOR THE CREATION OF THE COMMISSION.

I want to leave aside all the thermite, the too small holes in the pentagon, even the incredible "failures" or NORAD and the "mysterious" change of command structure by the Vice President. I want to leave aside for now, everything we suspect. It's a mountain, and whether you think the mountain smells like bullshit or not, it's far too big to just go away. No, what I want to talk about is not what we suspect, but WHAT WE KNOW. What we already have learned is a fact, and facts, beyond any reasonable doubt or further arguments, lest those who doubt expose their own patent dishonesty immediately.

I want to talk about Bush, Cheney, and what they've done SINCE 9/11. Because if I knew nothing else about 9/11, I'd know this: Their "conduct" has demonstrated a number of things which are now beyond debate in this country by anyone serious...


Why We Need a New 9/11 Commission

Why We Need a New 9/11 Commission

February 7, 2007 at 05:40:43

by Andrew Mills

9/11 is unquestionably the most important event in American history since December 7, 1941, when Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbor. The magnitude of its impact on America and the world cannot be overstated. The terrible acts of 9/11 and the events leading up to them deserve a thorough and unimpeachable investigation to learn the facts. And if some rogue elements within the U.S. government were complicit in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, it is critical that these elements be exposed and removed from power. A new commission is clearly called for because the investigation and report by the 9/11 Commission were badly flawed, as will be discussed below.

The most important tools of any criminal investigators are the accounts of the eyewitnesses and first responders. The first thing the police do at an accident scene is to gather all witness accounts and within a week the insurance companies are also telephoning the witnesses to take their testimony. Many New York City firemen who were eyewitnesses are calling the Commission's report a cover-up, and victims' family organizations are saying the same thing.

If it had been a comprehensive and thorough scientific investigation it would have looked like the investigation that followed the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Although there may remain minor questions concerning some of the peripheral conclusions, the report on the Columbia accident on the whole stands without major dispute within the scientific community. Contrast this with the 9/11 Commission report, which sidestepped critical questions, and the FEMA 9/11 report and its major inconsistencies.


Some Comments to Monbiot & the Guardian

These are posted in the comments bin below Monbot's (sic) article at the Guardian;


February 6, 2007 02:33 AM

"...but it drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense..."

and lies...and half truths and hidden truths. Could be talking about the Bush and Blair years and legacy.

WMD had no basis in fact either and hundreds of thousands have died due to an illegal war,so what's a little conspiracy theory sweeping the world among friends?
Aren't we just reaping the whirlwind of our governments' deception and manipulation?

Blair and Bush should be put on trial for war crimes,
lest some other jumped up nutters try a re-run in the future...maybe invading Iran.


There are plenty more in the comments bin, check it out;


February 6, 2007 02:35 AM

Certainly a lot of Loose Change is, well, less than true. But for a couple of kids working on a laptop with zero budget, its fairly good. But there is more to 9/11 than simply the "Bush used it" theory.

The NIST and Commission reports are garbage. NIST 'proves' its collapse theory with a circular argument (50% of columns had to be cut for the building to fall. The building fell, therefore 50% of columns were cut) The 9/11 Commission Report spends 20 pages blaming the problems of the middle east on socialism. Pure propaganda.

The money train is discussed at length in the more grounded film 9/11 Press for Truth, made by the victim relatives. The money trail points clearly back to the Pakistani ISI. The head of the ISI had wired $100k to the hijackers in the weeks before 9/11. On the day itself, this man happened to be in Washington DC, meeting his counterparts in the CIA. When the FBI discovered this in 2002 they wanted to question the ISI. Bush killed the investigation on national security grounds.

Now, maybe there were no bombs in the twin towers and maybe a plane did hit the pentagon. But the money trail is plain as day and indisputable. And it smells of a cover up.

There is more to 9/11 than the fanciful "hijackers out of the blue" theory or the "Bush incompetence" theory. There needs to be a proper investigation.

Crossing the 9/11 Rubicon with Hustler Magazine


By peakdavid
01/27/2007 10:36:14 AM EST

N.B.: An earlier version of this diary was posted to DailyKos, troll-rated, deleted, and led to suspension of my account within two hours.

Hustler magazine's latest issue devotes its lead article ("Was 9/11 An Inside Job?") to "new scientific evidence" that the destruction of the WTC towers was an inside job. This evidence from university and industry scientists and engineers, while certainly not "new" in journalistic terms, suggests the towers were likely brought down by controlled demolition.

Hustler's effort comes almost exactly one year after Maxim's considerably longer and more in-depth feature of March 2006, which asks "What Really Brought Down the Towers?"

What's going on here? Why has the most important media exposure for the 9/11 Truth Movement come from vehicles for male masturbatory fantasies, locker and bathroom humor, and Charlie Sheen?

The question is particularly puzzling since we know full well that numerous times in American history an investigation has been required to find the truth behind an official government story: Watergate, for sure. The official story of a third-rate burglary covered up the White House’s involvement so successfully that Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected before the Congressional investigations began a year later and impeachment two years later.

And yet important 9/11 investigations are being carried out exclusively in America (not so in Canada, Europe and elsewhere) by private individuals, university professors, ad hoc nonprofit groups, and the editorial staffs of Hustler and Maxim. See for yourself: list of MSM coverage of 9/11 during 2006.

Most important, America's MSM, which have yet to devote any significant investigative resources to examining the official story, are quick to label those who pursue investigations, write books, produce documentaries, and stage 9/11 Truth Conferences as "conspiracy nuts"--a label that also serves as a career warning to other writers and producers.

Thus, Hustler. Thus, Maxim.


Thanks Colombo and parrotfish.

The Minnesota Daily - Adri Mehra's Op Ed

In two parts;

Part 1:


"This unprecedented depiction of instantly initiated and perfectly executed total uniform collapse of unbelievably massive steel skyscrapers from proportionally isolated impacts and similarly localized fires is precisely what the U.S. government and mainstream media have attached to the rapid obliteration of three of the world's strongest buildings on the same day of Sept. 11, 2001 - World Trade Center towers 1, 2 and 7, the last structure never even touched by a plane - despite a mountain of suspicious forensic structural evidence indicating controlled demolitions and thousands of questions being repeatedly raised by hundreds of academics and scientists the world over.

Knocking out a few Lincoln Logs in the side of the middle of the stack doesn't turn the whole damn cabin into exploding sawdust, does it?"

Part 2:


"In September 2000 - one year before the attacks - PNAC released a 90-page report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century."

In Chapter V of this document, titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," PNAC calls for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts."

But it states "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Fast forward one year.

According to The Washington Post, before President Bush went to bed on Sept. 11, 2001, he wrote in his diary:

"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today … We think it's Osama bin Laden."

Tarpley - Peace Movement Must Embrace 9/11 Truth


The Rock Creek Free Press
Week of January 27, 2007 - P.8


by Webster G. Tarpley

The escalation announced in Bush’s January 10 television speech was much bigger than many expected: the threats he made against Iran and Syria threaten a wider US aggression, quite possibly carried out with nuclear weapons. In addition to his 21,000 extra GIs, Bush is sending an additional carrier battle group and Patriot missiles to the Gulf. Admiral Fallon, the new Centcom commander, is a carrier admiral trained in air attacks, not land warfare. John “Death Squads” Negroponte, Rice’s new deputy at the State Department, is said to be assembling a team of private contractors to prepare the attack on Iran. Russian intelligence reports indicate that there are four US missile-firing submarines in the Gulf. The London Sunday Times says that the Israeli air force is actively drilling for a sneak attack on Iranian military facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Bushehr. The ING international banking group is telling its clients that the Israelis may attack Iran in February or March. February 17 or March 18, the preferred sneak attack times of the new moon, may thus mark the beginning of a regional Middle East war, a war tending to slide into World War III.


...Peace activists often ask why the 9/11 truth movement insists on making the truth about terrorism a central component of anti-war agitation. One answer is that we bring up 9/11 frequently because Bush and Cheney do – they incessantly parrot slogans about the “global war on terror” and “the lessons of 9/11.” Bush claims that he is fighting terrorists in Iraq so that the US will not have to fight them over here. He raves that, if US forces pull out of Iraq, the terrorists will follow them back home and launch attacks on US territory. There can be no doubt that 9/11 is the foundation of Bush’s castle of warmonger lying – the fountainhead, motivation, and legitimation of the entire policy of unilateral aggression. To ignore the centrality of 9/11 to Bush’s every move is like trying to fight Hitler without mentioning anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are simply impotent, and will not be effective.

The 9/11 Comic Book leads to some heated rhetoric

The graphic novel version of the 9/11 Commission Report has generated a heated post by user "danhess" over at Mike Malloy's orginal message board. Follow the link to get the full effect.

Tonight I read the comic book on 9/11. Pathos and pathetic pride poured from every page. Children mourned the loss of Parents and Heroes. Lessons were learned. Contrary to the artists' intent, however, the book awoke my sleeping anger. I want vengeance on the traitors--not on Al Qaeda--but on the poisoners in corporate boardrooms, White House bunkers and Pentagon propaganda rooms.

America is poisoned by its own arrogance and greed. The villains of 9/11 are AMERICAN. These goons deserve gruesome "endings" drawn from the Tower of London and the Dungeons of the Inquisition. The punishments get more gruesome depending on the difficulty of prosecuting the parties involved...

...No plot by al Qaeda has undermined "the rule of law" like Congress, the President and Courts have undermined our Constitution by adopting militarism in place of the law. If our nation's defense is not militaristic, but legal--if we are willing to spare no effort in the person-by-person prosecution of those who break our laws from without or WITHIN--then we are engaged in justice. If there is no active pursuit of justice, our country is a sham. This is Bush's legacy: the dismantling of America. The dismantling of the World Trade Center Complex was the dumbshow preceding the play...

...There is no militaristic smokescreen that can hide the offenses of the actual traitors in our midst, the men and women responsible for 9/11 and those who have steered our state away from justice ever since. Thinking persons know that this crime requires diligent prosecution and the mass distraction of Iraq, Iran and Israel--the hysteric rhetoric of Christian Armageddonists--cannot suppress our knowledge. The negligence of do-gooder Democrats or the calming techniques of Quislings like Joe Lieberman cannot diminish the importance of our task.

Give us THE FACTS about THE CRIME! This investigation is not synonymous with impeachment of Bush and Cheney unless impeachment proceedings subpoena and provide evidence of negligence or complicity. 9/11 Inquiry is not "for show" as my vivid fantasies of public impaling imply. 9/11 is not a vehicle for personal gain, but for public awareness. Our leaders lit a fuse on 9/11 that leads straight to the Constitution. The fuse is still burning. Though several buildings fell so far, the real target has not yet been destroyed. When will IT go up in flames?

Full text;

Mark H. Gaffney - "Dead on Arrival"

From: http://rense.com/general74/nist.htm

Dead On Arrival
The NIST 911 Report On The World Trade Center Collapse

By Mark H. Gaffney

Note to the reader: The following is a critique of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse. The 43 volume NIST report was the result of a 3 year investigation, and was released in September 2005. It remains the official US government explanation for why the WTC collapsed on 9/11. As you are about to discover, the report itself collapses under scrutiny. There is no doubt that the NIST investigation was politically controlled by limiting its scope. This is one way to kill an investigation.

Fires raged at ground zero for many weeks after 9/11. In fact, it was not until December 19, 2001 that the NYC fire marshall declared the fires extinguished.

The fires burned long into the cleanup. The removal of steel beams and debris from the top of the pile allowed oxygen to reach the fires smoldering below. As a result, the flames often flared up, hampering worker on site. Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer, made note of this in his 2006 retrospective book, AFTERMATH. Armed with his trusty camera Meyerowitz roamed ground zero for months following the attack. Police repeatedly ejected him, but he kept returning in order to document what had happened. Eventually Meyerowitz amassed an impressive photographic record. In his fine book he remarks that the ground in places was so hot it melted the workmen's rubber boots.

But Meyerowitz was hardly the first to comment on the pile's incredible residual heat. The first accounts of molten steel came just hours after the attack: from the search and rescue teams who were among the first on the scene. Sarah Atlas, a member of New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue, was one of these emergency responders. Sarah reported seeing molten steel in the pile even as she searched in vain for survivors.[1]

Many have denied the existence of molten steel at ground zero. But there are too many eyewitness accounts to dismiss, including the testimony of engineers, city officials and other competent professionals who toured the ruin. One of these, Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: "molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event," as well as "four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster."[2]


Credulousity and Its Discontents

(From 911truth.org)

Credulousity and Its Discontents

If we ever find the time, perhaps we should conduct a group analysis of the hit pieces emanating from the intellectual/academic left against the '9/11 Truth Movement'. Among other similarities, they each exhibit a noteworthy "dual consciousness." In a 1997 interview, the great 20th century sociologist Pierre Bourdieu used the phrase to refer to the mindset of media professionals who publicly deny the insidious workings of the invisible structures of corporate broadcasting - masking it even from themselves to an extent - all the while they take advantage of the media tool at their disposal and denounce their critics, claiming they have uncovered nothing which hasn't been known for ages about the media.

Thus we can hear in one breath from Alexander Cockburn that US intelligence infiltrates terror cells and foments terrorism for the purpose of catching the terrorists in the act, and in the next also that even the suggestion that 9/11 could have had false-flag origination is "nutty." Cockburn admits that "Sometime (sic) an undercover agent will actually propose an action, either to deflect efforts away from some graver threat, or to put the plotters in a position where they can be caught red-handed." But according to Cockburn it’s completely nutty to even consider the possibility that these same murderous double and triple-dealers would be utilized to plan a terror event that will ultimately be blamed on official enemies for the purposes of gaining a stronger hold on power. Has he heard of Operation Gladio? Of course he has, so his puzzling insistence on limiting the range of possibility needs explanation.