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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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."
Capt. Russ 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
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
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.
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."
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
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 Muslim
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 interests.
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 Framers Intended?
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
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
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
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
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 story.
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 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 story
here. 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
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...
THOSE RUNNING WASHINGTON have already gotten away with fastening in
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.
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
fighting a foreign enemy."
"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
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
-Patrick Henry, speaking for himself, and every decent American
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
"investigative conclusion" related to the events of
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?
As 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 this subject...
(For instance, this Madrid skyscraper burned for
two days in 2005 before going out. It
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. But...
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
For example, as has
long been established beyond rational dispute
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 infamy".
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 history, 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.
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
"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
More video resources
An excellent unique new (summer, 2009) analysis of the
A punchy, and very short, presentation of the 9/11 Pentagon
incident can be seen at
(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
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
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 the 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