this page you're going to learn what the experts really say about
the 9/11 events; the truth about the "anthrax" ploy; the truth about
Muslim "jihad"; how mythology about 9/11 is exploited to steal your
liberty and property; and much more. Plus, you'll get access to a
host of excellent essays and video presentations on this subject. I
won't say "Enjoy"-- no rational person will enjoy this material in
light of its implications. I'll say, rather, pay attention, please.
Regarding The American "Reichstag Fire"
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." -Adolf Hitler
In 1979, an Air New Zealand DC 10 crashes at full speed into Mt.
Erebus, Antarctica, due to a navigation error, killing all 257 on board.
As can be plainly seen from the image below, actual high-speed
large-commercial-aircraft crashes leave a whole lot of obvious wreckage:
Faked high-speed large-commercial-aircraft crashes look more like
Those continuing to be taken in by the ridiculous and thoroughly debunked mythology about the events of 9/11 endlessly promoted, and exploited,
by enthusiasts for unlimited state power really need to wake up, and do so
quickly. (Click here for a short video nicely expressing this crass and cynical exploitation.)
I cannot say what really happened on 9/11, and am not trying to do so.
I CAN make rational observations as to whose interests were served by the events
of that day, though. I can also observe that even just a cursory
examination of the voluminous available evidence makes clear to any but a willful
fool that the official story is nonsense on stilts (at the very least), and that passive acceptance of that story is being hungrily exploited by those
interests at the life-threatening expense of liberty and the rule of law in America.
Wouldn't you rather be suspicious and wrong than complacent and wrong?
I know, I know, only tin-foil-hat types could harbor suspicions that our political class is capable of "malfeasance"...
Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003: "I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye... It is a national scandal... this White House wants to cover [9/11] up."
Senator Mark Dayton - Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security: "[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.. .the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence"
Congressman Ron Paul - Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee: “The [9/11] investigations that have been done so far are more or less cover-up and no real explanation"
Congressman Curt Weldon: "[9/11 Commission] there's something very sinister going on here... something desperately wrong... This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people"
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney - Member of the House Armed Services Committee: “The [9/11] Commission ran up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies... the errors and omissions immediately jumped out at us"
Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh: "[9/11 Commission findings] raise serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself"
Former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, PhD: "Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East... We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false"
Assistant Secretary of Housing, Catherine Austin Fitts: "The official story could not possibly have happened... It’s not possible. It’s not operationally feasible... The Commission was a whitewash."
U.S. Army Intelligence officer, Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice, John Loftus: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence"
Foreign Service Officer, George Kenney: "I cannot believe, much as I might like to, the standard account of 9/11"
Foreign Service Officer, J. Michael Springman: "Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah"
Deputy Attorney General, State of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, Esquire: "The official story of what actually took place on 9/11 is a lie. "
Major General U.S. Army, Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Albert Stubblebine [his specialty – analyzing satellite photos]: "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole. So what did hit the Pentagon?’”
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center: "I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate."
Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force, Director of Advanced Space Programs, PhD Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering: "The official 9/11 story is impossible .. There is a cover up... high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened... highly placed individuals in the administration. ..Dick Cheney...the very kindest thing we can say about George W Bush...is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force, aircraft accident investigator: "I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident... The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from view .. with all the evidence readilty available at the pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged .. the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army: [Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001] "When you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."
Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, fighter pilot, commercial pilot flying
707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777s: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple...[Regarding Flight 77]"The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won't go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles... The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77"
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, staff of the Director of the National Security Agency: "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics...There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked Pentagon, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage one would expect from the impact of a large airliner... this visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ' missile ' ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of contact ~ no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon .. all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected was not evident .. the same is true with regard to the damage we expected .. but I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 0r 40 minutes, with the roof remaining relatively straight .. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would have expected if a missile had struck the Pentagon "
Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, Barbara Honegger, MS: "The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11...A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high-speed 270-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon's anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building...Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system"
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2...and WTC7...not hit by an airplane...the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon"
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army, Intelligence officer: "I view the 911 event ...as a matter that implies either...A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down or B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East"
Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’s Daily Brief, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, Raymond L. McGovern: "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke...just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11...making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11...that' s certainly an impeachable offense...But compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited."
National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, William Christison: "There is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them...this all was totally an inside job. I have since decided that... at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen... The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions.. . I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all... It's a monstrous crime."
U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, case officer CIA. Robert David Steele: "I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others...This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism... I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."
CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations, Awarded Career Intelligence Medal, Robert Baer: [Regarding the opinion there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. Government], "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it."
Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the federal Aviation Administration. Team leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team in the Federal Air Marshall program, Coast Guard officer, Bogdan Dzakovic: "At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous."
Minister of Justice, West Germany, Horst Ehmke, PhD: "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."
State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Defense, West Germany, Andreas von Buelow, PhD: "The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one...This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry."
President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga: "[9/11] could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."
General Leonid Ivashov, Chief of Staff, Russian armed forces, Ministry of Defense: "Only secret services and their current chiefs or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation [9/11] of such magnitude... Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders."
Foreign Minister of Egypt, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal: "Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation [9/11] of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaida has been penetrated by American intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication. "
Chief of Staff, Pakistani Army, General Mirza Aslam Beg: "The information which is now coming up, goes to prove that involvement by the "rogue elements" of the U.S. military and intelligence organization is getting more obvious. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda definitely do not have the knowhow and the capability to launch such operations involving such high precision coordination, based on information and expertise."
European Parliament, Committee on Security and Defense, Giulietto Chiesa: "Billions of people were given only one explanation. ...which is entirely false....everyone who dares to question it is treated as if he was a fool."
French Army Intelligence and artillery officer, Col. Pierre-Henri Bunel, Expert in the effects of artillery weapons and explosives: "Image of the impact on the Pentagon is very instructive as to the nature of the explosion. ... It corresponds to a detonation of an explosive with high energetic power. The explosion does not correspond to a deflagration of kerosene...suggests a single engine flying vehicle much smaller in size than an airliner...resemble s the effects of anti-concrete hollow charges that I have been able to observe on a number of battlefields. ..lead me therefore to think that the detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile."
Safety Engineer and accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority, Finland, Heikki Kurttila, PhD:
"Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
Counter-Terrorism Officer, MI5 (Britain), David Shayler: "The available evidence indicates that people in key positions in the FBI, the State Department, the CIA and so on were not loyal to the Constitution; that they saw an opportunity in plans laid down by genuine Islamic terrorists to carry out an operation that would shock the world and would therefore justify U.S. adventurism in the middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Former Governor of New Jersey: "FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue...We, to this day, don't know why NORAD told us what they told us...It was just so far from the truth."
Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security Advisory Council: "We got started late; we had a very short time frame...we did not have enough money...We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."
9/11 Commissioner, Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "That panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general...We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting."
Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission, John J. Farmer, Jr., Former Attorney General, NJ, Former Commissioner of the State Commission of Investigations: [Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public] - "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years."
"Taxes are not raised to carry on wars, wars are raised to carry on taxes."
By the way, for the sake of those who just can't keep inconvenient facts in their heads:
In primetime address, president will refer to 9/11 to gain support for unpopular Iraq war.
Stewart M. Powell / Detroit News wire services
WASHINGTON -- President Bush will cite the Sept. 11 attacks in an effort to build public support when he unveils his long-awaited "new" Iraq strategy in a nationally televised address at 9 p.m. Wednesday, the White House announced.
"The president understands that there is a lot of public anxiety about Iraq," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said. "He also understands that Americans do believe in spreading the boundaries of liberty and also that Americans don't want another Sept. 11."
Bush and other administration officials have frequently cited the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks on the United States as justification for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq,
though the president has acknowledged that neither the late Saddam Hussein nor Iraq had anything to do with the attacks.(Emphasis added -PH)
News Conference, August 21, 2006:
BUSH: "Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --"
QUESTION: "What did Iraq: have to do with that?"
BUSH: "What did Iraq: have to do with what?"
QUESTION: "The attack on the World Trade Center."
BUSH: "Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq: was a -- Iraq: -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."
As those currently commanding the U.S. military and "security" apparatus prepare to attack Iran, I hope everyone will keep firmly in mind that Iran is a Shi'ite country, and WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES have been furnishing support to Sunni "insurgents" in Iraq, or anyone else acting against the Shi'ite government installed in Iraq (or its installers and defenders-- that is, the U.S. military).
Further, even if this were not so, it is inconceivable that Iran would
actually do anything to furnish a legitimate pretext for attack to bellicose antagonists armed with nuclear weapons , particularly in light of the recent rhetoric and behavior of those antagonists. When the time comes that we are told Iran HAS furnished such a pretext, know it for a lie.
People who are commanded to aggression or hostility against other cultures
by their religions do not sit on their hands during 600-year interludes
between efforts to do as their scripture instructs them. Even those
whose scriptural doctrine provides for the occasion of some specified
catalyst to prompt acts of aggression or hostility don't bide their time for
century after century awaiting the event. Instead, some adherents
inevitably perceive the prophesied conjunction of circumstances regularly,
just as some Christians have imagined the second coming every century or so
over the last 2000 years.
If such perceptions were not enough to prompt spontaneous Islamic crusades
against the West (or the East, for that matter-- if Islamists were
scripturally compelled to hostility against others, the Buddhists, Hindus,
Greek Orthodox, Baha'is and everyone else would be being targeted by endless
assaults, wouldn't they?), ambitious Islamic demagogues would have constantly
manipulated this alleged scriptural prescription to fuel military
adventures, or at least bloody pogroms against the cultural and religious
aliens which have historically co-existed in peace within or alongside the
What does this mean?
Simple. It means Muslims ARE NOT commanded to aggression or hostility
against other cultures by their religion. The recent
sporadic hostile behaviors by some in the Islamic world toward certain
Western interests (what little there actually has been outside of normal
reaction to occupation by foreign armies) are no more a manifestation of some
immutable cultural/religious incompatibility than was the behavior of the
Irish toward Britain during the British conquest and occupation of the
Emerald Isle, or the behavior of the Filipinos toward United States troops
in the early years of the 20th century. (Hey, I'm noticing a trend!
The Irish and Filipinos are both heavily Catholic! Maybe the
"terrorism" they were accused of by their occupiers was really an expression
of some Catholic scriptural command to make violent and unprovoked war on
"The West" out of hatred of its freedoms...?!)
Frankly stated, the notion that Islam is inherently and murderously hostile
to non-Muslims is puerile BS peddled to the historically-ignorant in the
Western world. This is done in order to secure mindless support for
sustained acts of unjustifiable aggression by various economic and
geo-political interests against selected targets in the Islamic world whose
presence or local stability are hindrances to the ambitions of those
Don't let yourself be fooled, and don't let yourself be used.
Aren't You Glad You've Taken Control Of
Whether Any Of YOUR Money Goes To Washington, Just As The
For seven years now you and I and most of the rest of America have been bled
like a hung steer in a slaughterhouse. Our treasure has been bled from
us in vast amounts and funneled into the hands of political operatives and
their cronies. Our incalculably precious individual liberties, without
which we become no more than beasts of burden-- tools of the purposes of
others-- have been steadily bled from us during these years at a
dramatically faster pace, and to a dramatically greater depth, than at any
point in our history.
We are at the point where even the cynical lip-service paid to our
Constitutions by those holding office and exercising authority exclusively
by virtue of those instruments is on par with, "Of course I'll respect you
in the morning..." So brazen are these office-holders in their
contempt for the law-- the disregard of which inherently and automatically
de-legitimizes their exercises of power-- that they routinely declare with a
straight face that "all Constitutional provisions will be respected" while
announcing the adoption of flagrant and undisguised un-Constitutional
Most importantly, perhaps, our righteousness has been bled from us during
these years, as we have allowed or encouraged our children to be killed,
maimed and traumatized in huge numbers-- and to themselves kill, maim and
traumatize others in numbers almost beyond comprehension-- for the most part
in an exercise of sheer selfishness or disgraceful apathy. Even George
Bush has acknowledged that
Iraq, at least, had nothing to do with 9/11 or even al Quaida generally.
Thus, our invasion and brutal occupation of that country is a plain crime.
Even if there was a scintilla of sense behind the absurd argument that, "If
we don't fight "them" "over there", we'll end up fighting "them" "over
here"" (as though our going "over there" would stop an actual, purposeful
foe from coming "over here"), it wouldn't justify our doing our fighting in
someone else's house.
This week and last, one of the most glaring subterfuges deployed in the late
summer and early autumn of 2001 in order to guide us into the bleeding room
has been forced briefly into the limelight by current events. The
starting point for this was the $5.28 million settlement by the Bush
administration of scientist Stephen Hatfill's lawsuit over his defamation as
responsible for the "anthrax letters" by which the events of September 11,
2001 were fanned into a national state of panic-- or at least served to make
plausible government assertions that America had been made the object of a
sustained assault by hostile and capable enemies.
This settlement having proven to be un-suppressable and embarrassing grist
for the new-media mills, the convenient death last week of anthrax
researcher Bruce Ivins-- who we are told has lately been the new "person of
interest" to the FBI's allegedly ongoing investigation of these letters--
has offered the Bush administration a chance to quickly "close the books" on
the whole affair. Ivins is now being declared to have been the lone
actor in the "anthrax letters" attacks; he's dead; let's move on.
However, whether Ivins WAS an actor, or even THE actor in the preparation
and mailing of these letters-- which were targeted at recipients markedly
distinguished by their ability to hinder or help the push by the Bush
administration and its political allies towards the adoption of draconian
measures such as the USA PATRIOT Act and a bellicose demeanor leading to the
eventual invasion of Iraq-- his actions ARE NOT the whole story. Who
prepared and mailed these letters is not even the most important part of the
Far and away the most important aspect of the "anthrax letters" affair is
the matter of the deliberate lies deployed in the autumn of 2001 about the
discovery of bentonite-- a signature chemical associated with Saddam
Hussein's dabblings in biological warfare years earlier-- in the anthrax.
These lies, which were fed to news organizations by administration sources
during late 2001 and then proven years later to have been complete
fabrications-- that is, proven not to have been mistakes about bentonite
being present in the anthrax, but to have been lies about there ever having
been even a mistaken "discovery" of bentonite in the anthrax--
unquestionably were deployed for the sole and explicit purpose of accusing
Iraq of having a hand in the letters.
The bottom line is that AT A MINIMUM, the "anthrax letters" were
deliberately manipulated AND FORTIFIED-- ENHANCED-- in order to support
pre-existing aims of the Bush administration and its fellow-travelers.
Let that sink in...
Now, Glenn Greenwald and Justin Raimondo do some excellent reporting on this
Read their work. As you do, re-visit the conclusions and beliefs you
harbor regarding the rest of the "official" stories about
9/11, and remember this old saying:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
If you believe the government is doing wrong and you do nothing in response, it
may be true that the government is corrupt; but it is certainly
truethat you are.
(Click on the title above to learn about this continuingly critically important topic)
"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away," says United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on January 18, 2007. He continues,
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended"
The only thing more disturbing than hearing such calculated drivel spewed by a high official of the federal government in service of efforts by the current administration to further slip the leash of the Constitution, and to shield itself from the consequences of offenses already committed, is the fact that the room in which this was uttered didn't erupt into either astonished laughter, or rage.
"...freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation."
- Thomas Jefferson
To get this bumper sticker and speak a little truth to power (and help wake up the neighbors), send $5 and a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Lost Horizons WOT, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382
What's next? Poking through our mail without a warrant?
The Would-Be Rapists Get A Little More Naked, While Miss Liberty And Her Protectors Sleep On...
WASHINGTON have already gotten away with fastening in place
pretty nearly every standard tool of a police-state here in the "Homeland". This has been accomplished by flogging the desperately defective pretext of defending us against what is at most
a retaliation for brutal and corrupt foreign policy initiatives perpetrated on behalf of various special interests wielding improper influence in Washington, if not a blatant "false flag" fabrication of one kind or another.
Encouraged by its astonishing successes so far, these folks are now pushing the envelope a little further, announcing that Americans will now be the targets of 24/7 warrantless surveillance
by their very own spy satellites. No doubt if these folks are still harboring even the slightest concern about blowback from a suddenly aroused America, they just remind themselves of the ancient poacher's wisdom:
"As well hung for a sheep as for a lamb..."
In any event, this latest assault invites a review of what the supreme law governing federal authority in this area actually says and means. I hope everyone will take a few moments to study the following analysis and learn what the Fourth Amendment really says and means:
Maine's action is notable for its clarity and focus. This is not a "resolution", it is a law prohibiting any organ of the state from acting to implement, facilitate or cooperate with this grossly unconstitutional, and essentially corrupt federal outrage. The reasons given for the state's action aren't the usual mealy-mouthed harbingers of eventual compromise or surrender usually seen in cases like this, in which the state complains about the costs that compliance would impose on the state. Instead, and oh, so refreshingly, the reasons given are that the Real ID Act is a grossly unconstitutional, and essentially corrupt federal outrage. Go Maine!
Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington have since acted as well, with varying degrees of firmness and clarity. Legislation is pending in Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. At a luncheon meeting I attended today along with the Michigan Secretary of State's "point woman" on Real ID and a number of key Michigan political leaders, the legislative director of the Michigan ACLU discussed that organization's planned effort to immediately put Michigan on this honor roll, too.
A video of a New Hampshire anti-REAL ID rally can be seen:
I'm no great fan of much of the ACLU's agenda, but one has to give credit where credit is due, and this presentation deserves credit.
Ordering Pizza in 2010:
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry, speaking for himself, and every decent American since
Aren't You Glad
You've Taken Control Of Whether Any Of
YOUR Money Goes To Washington, Just As The Framers Intended?
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H. L. Mencken
THE LAST DATE COVERED by this newsletter edition will be the 7th
anniversary of the "new Pearl Harbor" called for by those behind the
Project for a New American Century: "9/11". Doubtless in
anticipation of this anniversary, Americans were treated last week
to the latest self-evidently-absurd,
conclusion" related to the events of 9/11.
This pre-emptive strike is an AP report of a new "official story"
from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology-- after "a
three-year study"!-- regarding the collapse of WTC 7 which "finally
explains" the this unprecedented event (unprecedented other than by
the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, of course). Are you ready?
reported by AP, we are first informed that, "Scientists with
the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their
three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of
WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the
total failure of a modern skyscraper." Say, it didn't take
them long to forget about those other WTC buildings, both of which
collapsed before building 7, did it? Further, it may just be
my poor memory, but I distinctly recall that observations that fire
had never before caused a similar collapse by everyone questioning
the last official 9/11 story were met with a stony and
hostile silence by the producers and consumers of that last batch of
Anyway, here's the exciting, long-awaited official explanation for
just exactly how a couple of small fires brought down this 47-story
skyscraper in a coherent heap onto its own footprint at free-fall
speed after exhibiting a standard controlled-demolition center-crimp
(drum-roll, please...): "The reason for the collapse of World
Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder,
the lead investigator on the NIST team. "[T]he 13th floor collapsed
[due to the fires in the building], weakening a
critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure."
I guess the reason that no OTHER building ever
demolished itself into concrete dust with not even its steel core
projecting above the rubble as a result of a mere fire in the
history of the world (other than WTC 1 & 2 earlier that day) was
simply because-- by sheer good luck-- none of the other (sometimes
raging inferno) building fires that have struck skyscrapers over the
decades caused the 13th floor (or any other) to
"collapse", weakening (apparently to the point of evaporation) a
critical steel support column and leading to catastrophic failure!
You can continue to harbor doubts if you must, but I know
I feel better now that this has been cleared up once and for
Nist report briefly airs the notion that the earlier collapse of
WTC 1 & 2 had damaged the underground water lines which would have
fed the WTC-7 fire-suppression system, and suggests that had this
not happened, the sprinkler system would have put out the fires and
prevented the collapse. Apparently when floating this
ridiculous non-sequitur everyone responsible for the report had
already forgotten all those other building fires-- some of which
raged far longer and far more extensively than those in any WTC
structure-- which had never before resulted in a collapse, and thus
had long-since demonstrated that fire-suppression is irrelevant to
(For instance, this Madrid skyscraper burned for two days in 2005
before going out. It never collapsed.)
The report also declares that there
couldn't have been any
explosives involved in the collapse, because, "the smallest blast
event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a
“sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,”
yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on
videos any explosion." Really! Perhaps all the
firefighters and other witnesses in WTC 1 & 2 who reported hearing
sequences of explosions within the buildings just prior to and
during the collapse of those two buildings-- none of which produced
sound levels of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile--
were suffering from fatigue-induced hallucinations.)
SERIOUSLY NOW, I cannot say what really happened on 9/11, and am not trying to do so.
I CAN make rational observations as to whose interests were served by the events of that day; and I CAN say that it takes only a cursory examination of the
voluminous available evidence to make perfectly clear to any but
a willful fool that the official story is nonsense on stilts (at the very least), and that passive acceptance of that story is being hungrily exploited by those
interests at the life-threatening expense of liberty and the rule of law in America.
As Hitler once gratefully remarked:
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think."
Speaking of Hitler, this week marks the anniversary of another false-flag operation, the
German-faked Polish attack on a radio station in Upper Silesia
used as the pretext for the invasion of Poland the next day.
Thus began World War II.
I say "another" false-flag operation, and I recognize that some
might accuse me of using the term a bit loosely in suggesting that
9/11 may have been the same sort of affair. But let me
German subterfuge with the radio station attack, in which
German soldiers in Polish uniforms attacked the station, and a body
dressed in a Polish uniform was planted at the scene, is an example
of a straight-up, classic, text-book "false-flag" gig.
Interest A does the deed but leaves obvious evidence pinning the
blame on Interest B.
The sole point of the exercise is to equip oneself with a
marketable pretext for doing what has really been one's
purposeful intention all along. Consequently, even though the
most basic version of this subterfuge involves "Interest A" engaging
in overt acts, it isn't actually necessary for the instigator of a
false-flag operation to do anything other than capitalize on the
pretext in order for doing so to qualify as a "false-flag" affair.
The overall 9/11 sequence of events qualifies as the perfect example
of how this can be so.
As was admitted by George Bush and the
other actors fanning and exploiting the panic and outrage engendered
by the attacks of that date once it was too late for second
thoughts, Iraq had nothing whatever to do with those attacks.
Nonetheless, the suggestion that it did was used to gain national
acquiescence to an invasion of that country long-sought by those
actors. Thus, without having to consider anything at all about
who committed, facilitated, or was complicit in the overt crimes
that occurred on 9/11/2001, the Bush administration and its
fellow-travelers are guilty of conducting a false-flag op in
connection with the events of that day.
Furthermore, an event can still qualify as a "false-flag" operation
(or its equivalent) even if "Interest B" (the target of the
operation) really DOES commit an overt act which is then seized upon
as the pretext for "Interest A" doing what it has been wanting an
excuse to do. Remember, the object of the exercise is
acquiring a MARKETABLE pretext. This objective can be met, and
the whole process can qualify as a legitimate "false flag" affair,
merely through the sophisticated use of "spin".
For example, as has
long been established beyond rational dispute (despite
intense efforts on behalf of contrary mythology), the Roosevelt
administration-- wanting to sway a strongly non-interventionist
American public to shift gears and get involved in the madness of
World War II-- engaged in a sustained, intense provocation of Japan
in order to induce the eventual attack on Pearl Harbor. The
warmongers went so far in this endeavor as to withhold their
foreknowledge of the impending attacks from the military commands in
Hawaii in order to ensure that the casualty count was sufficiently
high to make the subsequent marketing to the American public
effective for their purposes.
When that marketing effort commenced after the attack, everything
that had gone before (the embargoes of Japan that had put it in
desperate straits; the Roosevelt administration's adamant refusal to
meet with Japanese negotiators seeking to address the U.S.'s
mysterious sudden hostility; the foreknowledge of the eventual
attack) was left unmentioned. All that was trumpeted in the
call for the "retaliation" that had been Roosevelt's goal all along
was the "heinous, unprovoked attack" on that "day that will live in
Thus, although Japan had indeed acted, the deliberate distortion of
context and withholding of key information made the affair into a
"false-flag" event-- a deliberate mis-attribution of responsibility
so as create a marketable pretext for "retaliatory" conduct which
had always been the goal of the "retaliating" side. Lincoln's
inducing the South to fire on Fort Sumter in order to make his
adversary technically guilty of firing the first shot offers another
excellent example of this type of "false-flag" op.
This brings us back to 9/11. Perhaps the attacks of that day
WERE conducted merely by 19 Muslim fanatics so devout as to
willingly sacrifice their lives in a blow against the decadent West
(after spending the previous evening in decadent Western
strip-clubs, according to the "official story"). Perhaps the
stand-down of our air-defense system, the simultaneous failure of
all Pentagon video cameras, the extended disinterest of George Bush
after allegedly being first told of the attacks and all the other
aspects of the event that simply COULDN'T have been accomplished by
these "Muslim fanatics" were just a matter of the PNAC war-mongers
capitalizing on someone else's gig of which they had conveniently
become aware in advance.
Perhaps jet-fuel really DID turn thousands of tons of concrete and
steel into dust and ignite high-temperature fires that smoldered at
ground zero for weeks after 9/11; and perhaps it's purely a
coincidence that the first three skyscraper-collapses-from-fire in
along with a host of other unique and inexplicable (or unexplained)
oddities, all happened that day. Nonetheless, the sustained
and deliberate denial of
U.S. misbehavior in Muslim countries over
decades prior to this event, and the ridiculous treatment of the
attacks as an ideology-, culture- or religion-based expression of
general Islamic intolerance or hostility (and thus a justification
for a particular batch of "retaliatory" measures long-sought and
long-since scripted), makes 9/11-- taken as a whole-- nothing but a
corrupt, exploitive and shameful "false-flag" operation by which all
too many Americans have allowed themselves to be duped.
Happily, it is in the nature of things that liars eventually paint
themselves into corners, giving everyone a good look at what had
once been a moving and blurry target. Let's hope this latest
idiotic and transparent "official story" concerning WTC-7 draws a
lot of eyes.
"I confidently trust that the American people will prove
themselves...too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous
ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves
under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: 'Our country, right or
wrong!' They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free
institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming
generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the
watchword of true patriotism: 'Our country--when right to be kept
right; when wrong to be put right.'" -Senator Carl Schurz, October 17, 1899
After reading these two stories,
this news story about a member of the Congressional "Homeland Security Committee" being denied even secure-room access to prepared plans for the "continuity of government" after whatever future "incident"
the president decides merits invoking his claim of authority under the "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act"
will be of interest. This one
about George Bush's decision that faithfully executing ALL the laws simply wouldn't be convenient if it means executing them against his own loyalists will be of interest as well...
Or maybe not... After all, it can't happen here, right?
Aren't You Glad You've Taken Control Of Whether Any Of
YOUR Money Finances Unconstitutional Activities-- Just As The Founders Intended?
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
More video resources
An excellent unique new (summer, 2009) analysis of the "Pentagon
A punchy, and very short, presentation of the 9/11 Pentagon incident can be seen at
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf. (This film appears to borrow heavily from material originally, and much more comprehensively, presented in
Loose Change (2nd Edition):
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth offer this excellent new
Another good three-part video on this subject can be found
here for a video which appears to reveal that the BBC reported the collapse of WT7 a half hour or so before it actually happened... I know, it would be silly to suggest that the Blair-government-owned BBC could for some reason have been working off a prepared script intended to steer the reactions of a shocked western world that day, and had just gotten its synchronization with scheduled events slightly wrong, so I won't do so...
But it seems similarly unlikely that the BBC would have just innocently anticipated that a building NOT hit by a plane, further from the twin towers than buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6, and afflicted by nothing more than a couple of minor fires would become the third steel-framed building to collapse into its own footprint at freefall speed that day (making it the third steel-framed building in history to-- allegedly-- collapse due to fire, and, by even more astonishing coincidence, on the very same day that, for the first time in modern history, an airliner went off course without receiving a fighter-jet checkout/escort within minutes-- whoops, make that four airliners...).
By the way, while I by no means intend to diminish the significance of the fact that two brave firefighters lost their lives in this unfortunate incident, I can't help but note that
the raging fire that swept three upper floors of the 26-story Deutchse Bank Building near the remains of the World Trade Center on Saturday, August 18, 2007 for seven hours DID NOT result in the building collapsing...
Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11
I had the good fortune to come across this excellent film regarding
9/11 hoax. I strongly encourage everyone to view it. The
following links should connect to the ten parts of the film posted on YouTube Australia (it may be available elsewhere as well, but this is where
I found it. To say, "Enjoy!" is always inappropriate where this sleazy
subject is concerned, but I think everyone will find this well-done Italian
study of "the new Pearl Harbor" to be fascinating and illuminating.
The London Daily Mail reported
as long ago as 2007 that as many as 100 million people had already viewed 'Loose Change', and that a New York Times poll
that year revealed that 3 out of four Americans had come to disbelieve the official story about 9/11. Maybe there's reason to hope.