The prima facie case remains unrefuted.

“If raising disturbing questions about the official account would be seen as both unpatriotic and sacrilegious, it is not surprising that, as both Rena Golden and Dan Rather admit, the mainline press in America has not raised these questions. It is also not surprising that right-wing and even middle-of-the-road commentators on political affairs have not raised serious questions about the official account. It is not even surprising that some of them – including Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor of social and political ethics –have declared that the accusation of official complicity is beyond the pale of reasonable debate, so that any arguments on its behalf can simply be ignored. Elshtain, calling the suggestion that American officials, including the President, were complicit in the attacks “preposterous”, adds: “This sort of inflammatory madness exists outside the boundary of political debate” and therefore does not even “deserve a hearing”. From this perspective, it is not necessary to examine the evidence put forward by critics of the official account, even though some of these critics are fellow intellectuals teaching in neighboring universities – such as two well-respected Canadian academics, economist Michel Chossudovsky and social philosopher John McMurtry [see below for relevant links]. Although Elshtain points out that “if we get our description of events wrong, our analyses and our ethics will be wrong too”, she evidently thinks it unnecessary to consider the possibility that the official description about the events of 9/11 might be wrong. Although this attitude is unfortunate, especially when it is expressed within the intellectual community, it is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is that America’s leftist critics of US policy, who are seldom worried about being called unpatriotic or sacrilegious, have for the most part not explored, at least in public discourse, the possibility of official complicity.”

“If a significant portion of the evidence summarized here holds up, the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 succeeded because of official complicity would become virtually inescapable.”

If you don't have the time to check out Scott's entire lecture, here are the last 10 minutes of the lecture. This cuts to the chase of the matter; Cheney, Rumsfeld, The Shadow Government, Continuity of Government, detention camps, and the slaughter of American Civil Liberties.

In this hour-long lecture recorded at the Arizona 9/11 Accountability Conference on February 25th, 2007, researcher Peter Dale Scott presents a host of contradicting accounts describing the actions of Vice President Cheney on the morning of 9/11, and how the 9/11 Commission cherry-picked its way through this minefield of contradictions, including contradictions by the Vice President himself!

Scott points out timeline gaps where simultaneously, Cheney & Rumsfeld can't be accounted for, and suggests that it is no coincidence that these old Cold Warriors were nowhere to be seen at a critical juncture on that morning. Rather, it's probable that they were discussing a variety of things, including highly classified procedures dealing with Continuity of Government and that this has been the springboard for the assault on the Constitution, and the roll-out of macabre plans like the establishment of KBR detention camps that go without comment or scrutiny by the Congress.

Scott calls for the questioning of Cheney under oath regarding his actions on the morning of 9/11, and suggests that this could lead to his impeachment.

This is a pretty good retrospective and very appropriate response to those who want to ignore the 9/11 evidence that often gets ripped as LIHOP/limited hangout.

http://rigint.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-real-thing.html

It's the Real Thing

He drank Coca-Cola, he was eating Wonder Bread,
Ate Burger Kings - he was well fed - Bob Dylan

I really want to leave this subject alone, and you probably wish I would, too, but unfortunately I have a few more things to winge about before moving on.

You may have seen this by now: the trailer for The Ultimate Con ("the 9/11 Documentary you can't debunk"). It's creator is "Lucus," about whom all I know is that he says "Dave Vonkleist, Jack Blood, and Alex Jones are going to help me promote it," which almost says enough for me right there. It's ten minutes of mostly "I heard explosions" footage shot during the attacks, though to its credit there are some clips I hadn't seen before, such as real-time reports of an alleged bomb-laden van in the WTC garage and rumours of suspected "devices."

Anybody?

In the meantime, check out this kick-ass talk by Scott from last November's COPA conference if you haven't seen it yet;

"JFK & 9/11: Insights Gained From Studying Both"

It turns out there are several parallels in these "meta-events".

Transcript at globalresearch.ca

(Scott's research into Ali Mohamed, et al, is more open-ended than Peter Lance's, check out the other links at globalresearch.ca and at Lobster magazine.)

Wayne Madsen has followed up on his earlier cryptic posting (WMR Dec. 26-27, 2006) about the deflection of investigation into Russian-Israeli mafia links to 9/11 by providing one of the links he's alluding to;

SPECIAL REPORT. Scaramella-Berezovsky link to World Trade Center security firm emerges in Italian law enforcement investigation.

...The connections now discovered by Italian and Russian investigators between the Russian-Israeli-Italian-British-US private intelligence network of former intelligence agents and billionaire mobsters suggest that the "serious crimes" committed may be more than the poisoning of Litvinenko and others with radioactive materials. The investigators are wise to pursue the links to U.S. security firms and former CIA personnel involved in pre-9/11 protection functions. The FBI cannot or will not investigate the actual perpetrators of 9/11. However, the Italian and Russian law enforcement professionals are beginning to get very close. It is a shame that American law enforcement is not interested in pursuing real leads in the biggest crime in American history." - (WMR January 2, 2007)

(This transcription originally published at Lobster: The Journal of Parapolitics. Also, a transcription has been made available of Scott's talk, JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained From Studying Both, video of that talk here.)

9/11's Trainer in Terrorism Was an FBI Informant

If I had an hour, I would talk to you about how the 9/11 Report failed to reconcile Dick Cheney's conflicting accounts, which cannot all be true, of what he did on the morning of 9/11 in the bunker beneath the White House. But that story takes two whole chapters of my forthcoming book, The Road to 9/11. So instead I will expand on what I spoke about a month ago in Berkeley, concerning Ali Mohamed, Washington's double agent inside al-Qaeda, and also a chief 9/11 plotter.(1) I want to add important new material tonight. Ali Mohamed, an Egyptian, was a close ally of Osama bin Laden. As he later confessed in court, he also aided the terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri, a co-founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and by then an aide to bin Laden, when he visited America to raise money.(2) It is now generally admitted that Ali Mohamed worked for the FBI, the CIA, and U.S. Special Forces.

Patrick Fitzgerald, who testified to the 9/11 Commission about Ali Mohamed, knew him well. In 1994 he had named him as an unindicted co-conspirator in the New York landmarks case, yet allowed him to remain free. This was because, as Fitzgerald knew, Ali Mohamed was an FBI informant, from at least 1993 and maybe 1989.(3) Thus, from 1994 "until his arrest in 1998 [by which time the 9/11 plot was well under way], Mohamed shuttled between California, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia and at least a dozen other countries."(4)

(This isn’t the C-Span version)

September 24, 2006 marked the first public event sponsored by Berkeley radio station KPFA regarding the alternative vision of the events of 9/11. The panel discussion celebrated the publication of the book edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott titled “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out.”

The book, published by Olive Branch Press (Interlink), contains eleven essays by American and international intellectuals. Ray McGovern, the host of the event commented that these writings “in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists.’”

The video of this landmark event publicizing 9/11Truth, includes the complete presentations of each of four major contributors to the book: David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Peter Phillips and Kevin Ryan plus question and answer moderated by host Ray McGovern. The audience’s standing ovation response to this standing-room-only event was tremendous.

The September 24 KPFA event from Berkeley, CA, will air on C-Span's Book TV this weekend.

Featured speakers:

David Ray Griffin
Kevin Ryan
Peter Dale Scott
Peter Phillips
Ray McGovern

EST PST
Friday Nov 24th: 4:00pm 1:00pm
Saturday Nov 25th: 3:30am 12:30am
10:00pm 7:00pm

http://www.booktv.org/schedule/

Spread the word!

Peter Dale Scott gave an excellent talk yesterday at the COPA (Coalition on Political Assassinations) Regional Meeting in Dallas, Texas. Scott points out similarities that he has encountered as a researcher studying JFK and 9/11, and covers a wide assortment of anomalies and evidence in this one hour presentation.

Scott talks about Continuity of Government, the a priori existence of "lone nut" profiles to offer cover for covert operations, and how drug trafficking lurks in the background all the while - how "Al Qaeda" is linked to this drug traffic, how it was dismissed by the 9/11 Commission, and the relevance of the case of Sibel Edmonds as well as that of Indira Singh.

A book review at RealChangeNews.org:

911 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
Edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
Olive Branch Press, 2006
Paperback, 247 pages, $18

By JOE MARTIN
Contributing Writer

The eleven essays which comprise this urgent work are penned by reputable scholars and scientists. It would perhaps be comforting if these erudite individuals could be written off as crackpots and alarmists, but given their impressive academic credentials, that would be impossible. With meticulous care, Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, and the nine other learned contributors collectively build an unsettling yet cogent argument: that elements of our own government were complicit in the horrific atrocity of 9/11.

Itching to implement their designs for the military and economic domination of the planet — as well as of outer space — bellicose neocons of the Bush administration yearned for a “new Pearl Harbor” that would stun the American citizenry and open the door for an audacious and unprecedented global power grab. The conflagration of 9/11 proved to be an effective catalyst for the realization of rapacious neocon desires. And it may very well have been an elaborate “false flag” operation.

Continued...

New Revelations about Ali Mohamed

Source: globalresearch.ca

by Dr. Peter Dale Scott
October 8, 2006

The following text is an expanded version of Peter Dale Scott's Talk at Berkeley, September 24, 2006, entitled "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out.”

I want to talk tonight about using the 9/11 Report as evidence – evidence of what is being suppressed. We can use it in this way because some parts of the Report are accurate and reliable. This base line of reliability helps define other parts of the Report which are misleading, and in a few places I believe dead wrong. These relevant omissions and deceptions should be taken as clues as to what is being suppressed, and where the hidden truth lies.

I shall talk of the Report’s occasional resistance to the truth. Let me give an easy and incontrovertible analogy from the Warren Report. The Warren Report got many things right; but it also minimized the links between Jack Ruby and organized crime.1 This resistance was a clue that Ruby in fact was crime-related and that this was important. The House Select Committee on Assassinations, even though they got many things wrong, amply confirmed the importance of Ruby’s crime links.

Guns & Butter

Wednesday, October 4th, 1:00pm

Five years on the air and still going strong, Guns and Butter is the only show on KPFA that has consistently provided in-depth coverage of alternative 9/11 analysis.

Please show your support by calling in a pledge at 800-439-5732 during air-time today, from 1-2pm (or any time, but reference Guns and Butter!). If you don't want to or can't afford to pledge, you can still support us by calling the listener comments line at 510-848-6767 x 622 and saying something nice about the show.

Today's show will be highlight's from the recent event held in Berkeley: 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (event info below). This was a riveting and informative event, so don't miss the show!

Airing live at 1pm on KPFA 94.1FM Berkeley, and streaming and archived at www.kpfa.org

www.gunsandbutter.net

***************
9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out

A KPFA original event gathering scholars who confront the unspeakable:

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN - Professor Of Philosophy and Theology, Emeritus, Claremont Graduate University. He is the author or editor of some 30 books, including The New Pearl Harbor, Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005) and Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006)

(From www.PeterDaleScott.net - thanks for posting the PDF, Sitting-Bull.)

The 9/11 Report and Ali Mohamed, Al Qaeda's Chief Terrorism Trainer

Peter Dale Scott Talk September 24, 2006, Berkeley, "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out"

I want to talk tonight about using the 9/11 Report as evidence - evidence of what is being suppressed. We can use it in this way because some parts of the Report are accurate and reliable. This base line of reliability helps define other parts of the Report which are misleading, and in a few places I believe dead wrong. These relevant omissions and deceptions should be taken as clues as to what is being suppressed, and where the hidden truth lies.

I shall talk of the Report's occasional resistance to the truth. Let me give an easy and incontrovertible analogy from the Warren Report. The Warren Report got many things right; but it also minimized the links between Jack Ruby and organized crime.[1] This resistance was a clue that Ruby in fact was crime-related and that this was important. The House Select Committee on Assassinations, even though they got many things wrong, amply confirmed the importance of Ruby's crime links.

We find similar symptomatic resistance in the 9/11 Report.

A couple of weeks ago, Peter Bergen did an email Q & A as part of the promotion for CNN's "In the Footsteps of bin Laden."

I asked a couple prominent researchers on 9/11 and "Deep Politics" to submit their opinions about this particular exchange;

Q: If it’s true that bin Laden once worked for the CIA, what makes you so sure that he isn’t still?

BERGEN: This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA—that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There’s no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn’t have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn’t have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn’t really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him…