9/11/7 Who Blew Up America? And the World?

Digest Commentary:
Assessing whether 911 was an inside job means asking "who benefits" and taking into account the entire violent history of american capitalism in its white supremacist quest for 'manifest destiny'. Those who insist the U.S. govt. could never commit such a heinous crime reflect the carefully inculcated popular ignorance of america's history, a country born and fattened on genocide, slavery and unprecedented crimes against humanity -- including all the manufactured pretexts for all its imperialists wars. It is critical to place 911, like all other events firmly in this context of U.S. capitalism's past history and the present deep structural crisis behind the bipartisan urgency to secure full-spectrum dominance before other capitalist powers -- China and/or Russia especially -- sink their hegemonic empire.

When neo-liberal imperialist democrat Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out the necessity for U.S. dominance in his 1997 'Global Chessboard', etc., that geo- strategic goal was clear, though he envisioned more gunboat diplomacy tactically than his 'neocon' imperialist successors hell-bent to get it all now, militarily.

Neoliberal or neoconservative, these imperialists thugs all agree that U.S. capitalism's crisis and strategic weakness demands exceptionally drastic measures: thus analyses of the 'trees' in the U.S. capitalist jungle must be framed in this context because what is at stake is the survival, or death, of U.S. capitalism. Thus 'preventive' maneuvers against serious obstacles and rivals for global top-dog are a must.

911, cui bono, is clear. The bogus "war on terrorism" was manufactured to carry out this U.S. geostrategic agenda by eliminating all serious
opposition and obstacles . 911 was necessary, a "mini Pearl Harbor", to launch this state- terrorist global war. And most of the world knows it,
painfully familiar with the savage reality U.S. propaganda calls 'democracy' and 'liberation'. When your country, your culture, your family, friends and future have been systematically terrorized, plundered, dehumanized, raped and destroyed by the barbarism unleashed in the name of 911, the truth is clear.

We whose names these lies and crimes are executed in need to take a fresh look from another perspective: put 911 in personal as well as historical and current political context. "If you aren't with US, you're with the terrorists" was not off-the-cuff Bushspeak but a carefully crafted political message embodying the entire purpose and direction of the imperialist war planned for world domination. It expressed an ideologically vicious circle: by definition those who question or resist are 'un-patriotic americans' [in 'war' time, traitors] or 'terrorists' endangering the 'national security' of the 'homeland' --whose state, 'for our own good', in the name of freedom-- will destroy freedom to imprison the globe with deadly imperialist democracy and 'free markets'.

Since america was built on national oppression with its ideological spawn racism the lynchpin, an anti-Arab-Muslim witch-hunt, a 'clash of civilizations', was an easy sell to whip up racist patriotic support for the critical first step in the U.S.-Israeli strategy to destroy Iraq and Arab nationalism to get control of 'middle east' oil/energy resources -- the essential leverage to control friends and enemies for 'full spectrum' global dominance.

But the bloodsuckers will be defeated. Capitalists are constitutionally unable to grasp a problem they cannot solve, an obstacle they can not buy or kill off: the passionate desire and unquenchable determination of the vast majority of humanity for dignity and liberation--by any means necessary. The Iraqi national resistance, the irrepressible just revolutionary struggles of Palestinians, Africans and peoples on every continent, prove, as Marx put it, that ultimately capitalism must and does produce its own gravediggers.

confessions between the lines...
"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th..."
GWB, July '07 press conference

"It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago, he says. If nothing happens, it will be harder still to say this [Canadian meddling in Afghanistan] is necessary."
Chertoff's rationale was illuminated in an interview with Lt. Colonel Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, a NATO intelligence center in the words of the interviewer:

"If the people are not convinced (that the Free World is in mortal danger) it would be impossible for Congress to vote the vast sums now being spent to avert danger. With the support of public opinion, as marshalled by the press, we are off to a good start. It is our Job - yours and mine -- to keep our people convinced that the only way to keep disaster away from our shores is to build up America's might."
Charles WilsonChairman of the Board of General Electric and Truman appointee to head the Office of Defence Mobilization, in a speech to the Newspaper Publishers Association, 1950

“The greatest threat now is ‘a 9/11’ occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities."
Dick Cheney on Face the Nation, CBS, April 15, 2007

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists"
J. Edgar Hoover

...The heresy of heresies was common sense... after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?... The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth's centre... Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four...
George Orwell

quotes from Gamila Zahran's Arabian Sights
To subscribe/unsubscribe send a blank message with appropriate request in subject window.

911 Commentary, Gary Zatzman
The first point that must be made repeatedly about the 9-1 discourse is that it is initiated as a renewed version of the Devil Theory of History.

Second point is: there are no events that actually happen out of the blue. The representation of such events as bolts from the blue is a deliberate attack on people' intelligence. Here there are several subsidiary points and examples.

A. The misrepresentation of what took place within those events, e.g., doing everything to deny the obvious physic of how modern-constructed skyscrapers cannot possibly pancake into their own footprint on impact from airplanes flying into them --- in order to buttress claims that it
was some Muslim terrorist conspiracy, constitutes a deliberate misrepresentation.

B. Making all the relevant evidence and possible witnesses or witnesses' video clips disappear does not jibe with the Muslim terrorist conspiracy discourse/narrative.

C. Claiming that all the events that couldn't be made to disappear were just unhappy coincidences (e.g., the non-scrambling of any of the extensive network of U.S. defence forces in the air or on land, etc.) had and still has nothing to do with protecting national security or it secrets.

D. The melodrama concocted by the government and purveyed in the media that some passenger reached a telephone number on the ground from a cellphone 36 000 feet in the air can only have been invented. Why? Angels will fit on the head of a pin before this ever happens, at least with current technology. It could only be to cover up the fact that civilian lives were deliberately sacrificed, and the inventor(s) themselves were implementing such a plan.

No particularly specialised knowledge or "digging for the facts" --- just straightforward addressing the 9-11 discourse itself, and the deep, deeply self-serving, hole renting its fabric from every direction --- immediately suggested, at the time and on the day, that this was no
Muslim terrorist conspiracy. It was and remains a conspiracy by the forces in charge of the American empire, for the purposes of empire.

Such is the disinformation sown everywhere over the last several decades, as part of the consciously-propagated political demobilisation of the people of the United State that, regardless of how far they actually glimpse or suspect it, most cannot handle that truth. Even then, however, at the time and on the day, countless numbers were reminded of "the McVeigh thing" the moment the blame was pinned on Muslim terrorists. As we watched the second plane crash, listening in Halifax to the CBC television anchor in Toronto go on about "which Muslim terrorist group" (sic) could be responsible for the first plane crashing, one of my comrades said out loud -- "o yeah, Timmy baby!"

Very few people outside the United States believed the initial discourse, and the immediate propaganda about invading Afghanistan and rumblings against Saddam within days of 9-11 just confirmed that this was US imperialism on a rampage, using 9-11 as a pretext. The only still not- absolutely-confirmed detail is whether a plot by others was detected, allowed to happen with "assistance" [i.e., planting explosives between the floors of the towers at lower levels] and then exploited, or whether the entire thing was consciously planned by one group within the U.S. imperial hierarchy from the get-go.

FBI inspector general’s report: more evidence of government complicity in 9/11 attacks
Without 9/11, there would be no US occupation of Iraq, putting an American army squarely at the center of the world’s largest pool of oil. Without 9/11, there would be no US bases across Central Asia, guarding the second largest source of oil and gas. And without 9/11, the administration would have been unable to sustain itself politically, faced with a deteriorating economy and widespread opposition to its tax cuts for millionaires and social measures to appease the fundamentalist Christian Right.

911 CONTEXT: imperialist liberation and democracy ...
We have entered an age of constant conflict.
We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent.
There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.

The REAL Face of War
(recommended for adults only)
The images the media won't show you.....

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous
Carl Sagan

more timely and true than ever...
Interrogating 9/11 Five Years On…
© By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

“The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organisations known as al Qaeda,”
US President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks…

And thereafter was officially launched the “War on Terror,” an unlimited war against an amorphous network of Islamist extremists who could strike out at any time, in any place, without warning, and without mercy, in order to pursue their ultimate goal of global domination

Cold War Pentagon Memo Confirms
State-Sponsored Self Terrorism

For those well-versed in the history of Western covert operations, the official narrative of 9/11 could not simply be accepted at face value. Questions were perfectly legitimate. But the 9/11 truth movement has largely missed the value of one of the biggest "covert operation smoking guns" of 20th century history: Operation Gladio, perhaps the only instance of successfully completed state-sponsored self-terrorism that is fully and directly confirmed by declassified secret documents, European Parliamentary inquiries, and confessions from intelligence operatives.

The most authoritative study of this 'Strategy of Tension’, NATO’s Secret Armies, was released last year, and authored by Dr. Daniele Ganser, Senior Researcher at the Centre for Security Studies in the Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.

His groundbreaking book shows that it is now a matter of historical record that during the Cold War, high-level sections of the American, British and western European secret services participated in a sophisticated NATO-backed operation to engineer domestic terrorist attacks to be blamed on the Soviet Union. The objective was to mobilise drastic anti-Communist policies at home and abroad, and to legitimise interventionism against nationalist independence movements throughout the "Third World."1

In July 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered the establishment of a secret army to "set Europe ablaze by assisting resistance movements and carrying out subversive operations in enemy held territory."2 By 4 October 1945, the British Chiefs of Staff and the Special Operations branch of MI6 directed the creation of a "skeleton network" capable of expansion either in war or to service clandestine operations abroad.3

In the ensuing years, Col. Gubbins’ Special Operations branch of MI6 cooperated closely with Frank Wisner’s CIA covert action department Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) on White House orders, and in turn coordinated US and UK Special Forces, to establish stay-behind secret armies across western Europe.4

The programme soon developed into a dangerous conglomerate of unaccountable covert operations controlled by clandestine structures operating as parallel sub-sections of the main intelligence services. Dr. Ganser does us the greatest service in unearthing the only smoking gun Pentagon memo which proves that state-sponsored self-terrorism is standard strategy for elements of Western military-intelligence services: classified Field Manual 30-31, with appendices FM 30-31A and FM 30-31B, authored by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

As Ganser observes: "FM 30-31 instructs the secret soldiers to carry out acts of violence in times of peace and then blame them on the Communist enemy in order to create a situation of fear and alertness. Alternatively, the secret soldiers are instructed to infiltrate the left-wing movements and then urge them to use violence." In the manual’s own words:

There may be times when Host Country Governments show passivity or indecision in the face of Communist subversion and according to the interpretation of the US secret services do not react with sufficient effectiveness… US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger. To reach this aim US army intelligence should seek to penetrate the insurgency by means of agents on special assignment, with the task of forming special action groups among the most radical elements of the insurgency… In case it has not been possible to successfully infiltrate such agents into the leadership of the rebels it can be useful to instrumentalise extreme leftist organisations for one’s own ends in order to achieve the above described targets… These special operations must remain strictly secret.5

In this way, US and UK intelligence services orchestrated devastating waves of terrorist attacks blamed on the Soviet Union, not only in Italy, but also in Spain, Germany, France, Turkey, Greece, and throughout western Europe.

Reasonable Doubt…
But why suspect that the same thing is happening now in the new "War on Terror"? The answer lies in what almost amounts to a signed confession in the form of the "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" document published one year prior to 9/11 by the neo-conservative think-tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The document was sponsored by all the leading lights of the Bush Cabinet, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, among many others.6 It advocates a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

The US military is described as "the cavalry on the new American frontier," whose "core mission" is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" to preserve what is candidly portrayed as a "global Pax Americana." But the most significant revelation is on pages 62-63, stating that:

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of US national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets.… Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.7

The PNAC blueprint echoed the strategic concerns about legitimising US military expansionism expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to President Carter, made three years earlier:

The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor… As America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.8

Immediately, it becomes clear that interrogating the US government’s relationship to 9/11 is absolutely essential. It seems that in the preceding years, senior US policymakers had seriously contemplated the usefulness of a Pearl Harbor-scale attack to mobilise domestic populations in support of US military power projection. As Daniel Ellsberg, Special Assistant to the Assistant Defense Secretary of the United States during the Vietnam War, who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers, asked in June this year:

Is this administration capable, humanly and psychologically of engineering such a provocation [as 9/11]? Yes, I would say that, I worked for such an administration myself, Johnson, ah, President Johnson put destroyers in harm’s way in the Tonkin Gulf not only once, but several times, with the, with a lot of his people hoping that it would lead to a confrontation and claiming that it had. And could have resulted in the loss of many lives in the course of it.9

9/11 Commission:
Denounced by the 9/11 Families
Thankfully, not everyone bought into the official narrative of 9/11 so easily. Least of all the bereaved families of the 9/11 victims, many of whom struggled and lobbied despite their own mourning for an independent public inquiry into the terrorist attacks, an inquiry that might resolve the numerous questions that hung over almost every single dimension of the government’s explanation for what had happened that Tuesday morning.

The 9/11 families’ courageous struggle, supported by a loose association of researchers, organisations and activists around the United States and the world, forced the US government to hold first the Joint Inquiry by the House and Senate, and finally to instate the National Commission to Investigate the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, in Washington DC. But despite both processes making public some valuable new information about the attacks and raising a few important questions, they were ultimately pitiful failures in the task of genuinely, impartially interrogating the 9/11 attacks.

Last year on 22 July, I had the honour of testifying as an expert at a special all-day Congressional hearing in Washington sponsored by Hon. Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Hon. Rep. Raul Grijalva, "The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizen’s Response – Did They Get it Right?"

I was joined by a host of academic experts, journalists, and former senior US intelligence officers, all of them questioning the official 9/11 narrative from their own perspectives. But by far the most powerful address was from the 9/11 families who came to support and inform the meeting, including Robert McIlvaine, father of 9/11 victim and member of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows; Marilyn Rosenthal, mother of 9/11 victim, and professor at University of Michigan; and especially Lauri von Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Monica Gabrielle representing the 911 Family Steering Committee.

"This report was supposed to provide the definitive account of what had transpired on September 11, 2001," said von Auken in her opening address at the hearing. "We hoped that our thousands of unanswered questions would be addressed and answered. Yet, incredibly, we have found that the Commission’s definitive final report has actually yielded more questions than answers." She indicted the 9/11 Commission Report as just "some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people, violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us one day soon."10

Her characterisation of the Commission Report was the most damning condemnation that the 9/11 Families Steering Committee had ever made about the official inquiry process. Yet it was met with resounding silence from the American media, which refused to report the hearing in general, and ignored von Auken’s heart-rending testimony on behalf of the 9/11 families.

Whither the Movement?
Five years on from 9/11, the "truth movement" that has emerged in the vacuum of legitimate answers to the countless questions about the terrorist attacks remains in a state of internal disarray, despite significant progress and achievements. The movement is plagued with accusations and counter-accusations between researchers based on their theoretical preferences about what happened on 9/11...

Perhaps one of the most obvious splits worth noting here is the apparent gulf between "physical evidence" theorists, who emphasise discrepancies in official accounts of the collapse of the WTC buildings, the movements of the planes that hit the buildings, and the Pentagon crash, among other things; and "covert operations" theorists, who emphasise the role of intelligence operations in liaising with terrorist networks, the extent of prior advanced warnings of the attacks, and the manipulation of "terrorist threats" to justify the pursuit of US geostrategic interests on the pretext of fighting the "War on Terror."...

As readers familiar with my work will know, I myself prefer to engage in the kind of research loosely categorised here as belonging to the "covert operations" camp, but this has nothing to do with my view of the value of the evidence at hand. On the contrary, it is largely to do with my own expertise in international relations and conflict analysis, and my lack of familiarity with the relevant scientific disciplines.

Having said that, the overemphasis on particular kinds of 9/11 research at the expense of others, for the movement as a whole, must be dropped. The fact of the matter is that both kinds of research are essential to develop a full and accurate understanding of what happened on 9/11, how and why. An impartial inspection of the relevant data in these two seemingly opposed areas of analysis firstly shows that there is a great deal we do know about what happened, and secondly opens up new avenues of inquiry about what we still don’t know.

The World Trade Centre: Demolishing Conventional Collapse Theories
Thankfully, there are non-scientists unlike myself who despite a lack of specifically relevant qualifications, do feel confident about addressing some of the physical and scientific issues concerning 9/11.

Some of the best work on this subject has, indeed, been done by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, who applies his well-honed academic methods of analytical analysis to the questions surrounding the collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings.

Griffin is perhaps best known in the movement for his New Pearl Harbor (2004), which attempted to summarise the best evidence about 9/11 produced by other researchers, including apart from myself, Paul Thompson at the Centre for Cooperative Research and author of The Terror Timeline; Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa; and Michael Ruppert, former LAPD narcotics investigator who uncovered CIA narco-trafficking and author of Crossing the Rubicon.

But Griffin went further in using the works of researchers like Eric Hufschmidt, a non-scientist who collected together serious discrepancies in the government’s claims about the WTC collapses, and Jim Hoffman, who specialises in applying scientific visualisations of mathematics. Griffin also tackled the anomalies in official accounts about the Pentagon crash.

Griffin’s best work in this area was published earlier this year in what is arguably the best collection of academic 9/11 research to date. The collection, "Hidden History of 9-11-2001", was published in the peer-reviewed annual volume Research in Political Economy (REP), edited by Paul Zarembka, professor of economics at New York State University.

Griffin’s contribution systematically deconstructs the various official explanations for why the WTC buildings collapsed, and finds them hopelessly inadequate.11 Once again, he relies heavily on the research of other scientists, particularly Hoffman’s. He notes the basic claim, also endorsed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, that the towers collapsed due to fires, and points out that scientific studies carried out by NIST itself "found no evidence that any of the core columns were exposed to temperatures greater than 482˚F (250˚C)." The problem is that steel "does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit. And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene – which is what jet fuel is – can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel." In other words, the fires were nowhere near hot enough to cause the steel to either buckle, or melt.

Griffin’s analysis is also the first attempt to review testimony about explosions from fire fighters and emergency medical workers in the over 500 9/11 oral histories recorded by the New York Fire Department. These were only publicly released in August 2005 under pressure from the 9/11 families and the New York Times. In conclusion of his review, Griffin quotes Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac saying that "there were definitely bombs in those buildings," and that "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact."

Unknown to many, however, is the debacle behind the publication of Griffin’s article in Research in Political Economy. The piece was only submitted after another article on the WTC collapses, authored by Steve Jones, professor of physics at Brigham Young University (BYU), was banned from publication in the journal by his own physics department.

Jones’ groundbreaking analysis – the first peer-reviewed deconstruction of the official account of the WTC collapses from an American physicist – was eventually posted on Jones’ website at the BYU physics department, which also permitted him to publish it in a separate prospective volume edited by Griffin, for which the paper went through yet another peer review process. Jones’ contribution is the first peer-reviewed refutation of the official account of the WTC collapses by a qualified physicist.12

One of his most explosive arguments concerned discoveries of molten metal in the basements of the two WTC towers, which were hit by planes, as well as in the third building, WTC 7 – a building which symmetrically collapsed despite not being hit by a plane. In all cases, the official account blames intense fires, made hotter due to jet (or in WTC 7’s case diesel) fuel. Jones points out that all scientific investigations by NIST, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and independent experts establish that the fires were simply not hot enough to melt the steel. In that context, the deposits of molten metal found after the collapses constitute "direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product."13

Long before Jones’ devastating conclusions – only 3 months after 9/11 – the inadequacy of the official account had been flagged up by fire protection engineering experts. Editor Bill Manning wrote in Fire Engineering that:

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official Investigation’ blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure… Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers….14

And late last year, similar reservations were aired by structural engineers, concerned that: "World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers." The visualisations are needed to iron out the many "simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls" made in the investigation.15

Pentagon Disinformation: Concealing the Nuclear Device
Unlike the growing scientific literature critiquing the government’s account of the WTC collapses, there remains considerable ambiguity over what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. There are no scientific peer-reviewed analyses of the subject either for or against the official account. It is therefore difficult for a layperson to assess the strength of the evidence on either side.

For instance, Griffin, using the work of French journalist Thierry Meyssan, has argued that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a Boeing 757. Mathematics professor A. K. Dewdney has also supported this thesis. The main grounds for the argument are, 1. The photovisual evidence of the crash scene, where no debris from a Boeing jet can be seen anywhere, and where the entry-point in the west wing wall is a small hole with no damage on either side of it; 2. Photovisual evidence showing that whatever entered the Pentagon had the power to penetrate six reinforced walls; 3. The systematic concealing of evidence relevant to the crash, including debris, camera footage, etc.; among some other issues.

But the Pentagon crash debate illustrates precisely the kinds of ambiguities that can arise when non-scientists try to assess physical evidence without the qualifications to do so.

Perhaps the best critique of the sort of analysis done by Meyssan and Griffin, is by the French engineering professor, Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, who also holds a private pilot’s license. Desmoulins notes that it is often wrongly assumed that the famous AP "hunt the boeing" photo was taken only a few minutes after the crash: "Examined more carefully the photo reveals that this E-Ring zone had already collapsed." Desmoulins notes that the photo, taken from afar, shows very little detail, and therefore chastises those who assume that the photo provides proof that there is no damage above or on either side of the hole. Indeed, he argues that although "there’s no damage above the central (fuselage) hole, there is extensive damage extending on both the left and right sides of this hole."16

Desmoulins assessment is corroborated by Joe R.’s so far undisputed calculation of the actual size of the hole, based on examining the photovisual evidence in relation to the known sizes of the clearly visible windows in the damaged Pentagon wall, the known size of the wall itself, etc. Joe concludes that the total width of the primary hole is 20ft, compared to the fuselage width of a 757 at 12.5 ft – ample size for a 757 to pass through.17

The photo is also selective. Although fuselage debris "are not visible on the area shown by this photo, i.e. south-west of the impact point," Desmoulins points out with photovisual evidence that "there were a lot of small (and some middle size) aluminium pieces on the north-west side of the impact point. This is normal, as the impact occurred with an angle of 55° from the plane of the facade. The parts of the aircraft which didn’t enter the building bounced away, like confetti, in a sector comprised, approximately, between 0° and 55° from the planular facade on the NORTH side."18

Crash studies suggest that the over-300-mph impact of a jetliner with the Pentagon’s reinforced wall would have reduced the entire aircraft – and certainly its relatively light wings and tail – to confetti.19

Desmoulins also notes the role of the "Owen Effect," whereby the temperature was likely to reach higher than the melting point of aluminium, a phenomena commonly recorded in tunnel fires in Europe (e.g. in the channel tunnel, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in a funicular fire in Austria where aluminium was completely melted and iron partly melted). As there was a sprinkler system recently installed in the zone of the crash, the input of water "on a mix of fuel and molten aluminium at high temperature creates a chemical reaction between aluminium and water, producing alumina (a white powder) and hydrogen." The reaction would have "disintegrated most of the parts of the plane which were placed in this inferno condition… Any engineer in an aluminium production plant knows the dangers created by the encounter of water and melted aluminium."

Desmoulins then forwards an alternative explanation, consistent with the findings of a growing number of credible 9/11 researchers like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, Joe R., among others, that the Pentagon was indeed hit by a Boeing 757. This is consistent with the overwhelming bulk of the eyewitness evidence compiled by Bart,20 as well with the physical evidence assessed by Hoffman. But the large-scale impact of the crash inside the Pentagon can only be explained by the hypothesis that the airliner carried a military load. Indeed, professor Desmoulis argues that the scale of the explosion and its effects on the building structures is consistent only with the impact of a depleted uranium warhead.21

The use of DU on 9/11 at the Pentagon crash has been corroborated by radiation scientist Leuren Moret, who worked on radiation issues at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory. Moret and another radiation expert Dr. Janette Sherman took Geiger counter readings showing over eight to ten times higher than normal, 12 miles from the Pentagon.

According to Moret, they alerted radiation experts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI who later confirmed high radiation levels at the Pentagon crash site.22 For Desmoulins, the high levels of radiation that would have penetrated the crash scene debris account for the authorities’ refusals to release the Pentagon evidence, which would confirm the planting of an advanced DU warhead in the nose of the Boeing.

Remote Hijacking of Hijackers?
In any case, the Pentagon debate appears less easy to resolve than another line of inquiry, the role of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The best research on the subject is by Jay Kolar, in yet another stellar contribution to the "Hidden History" REP volume.

Reviewing credible reports from the BBC, CNN, and other mainstream sources around the world, he concludes that "at least ten of those named on the FBI’s second and final list of 19 have turned up and been verified to be alive, with proof positive that at least one other 'hijacker’, Ziad Jarrah, had his identity doubled, and therefore fabricated." Kolar, who has expertise in film analysis, examines the visual evidence furnished by the government to support its narrative – including alleged footage of the hijackers at Dulles Airport and the infamous Osama bin Laden confession tape. He finds them to be riddled with impossibilities and anomalies, and concludes that they are utterly unreliable at best, and downright forgeries at worst.23

This leaves us, however, with another problem. If there were no hijackers, then what happened on 9/11? In the same volume, professor Paul Zarembka notes that the available evidence from the FAA and elsewhere tends to support the conclusion that there were hijackings of the four flights that morning.24 So if the planes were hijacked, who did it?

In my view, this is where Kolar’s 'doubles’ theory comes in. Kolar argues that as many of the alleged hijackers are now alive, they must have had 'doubles’ who were using their identities as aliases. In my own research, I’ve noted that the alleged hijackers had trained in US military installations in the 1990s, had connections to the CIA and DEA, and worse still, displayed patently non-Islamic behaviour in the form of drinking alcohol, snorting cocaine, and frolicking with women at lap-dancing clubs and illicit parties – behaviour not commensurate with that of normal practising Muslims, let alone Islamist al-Qaeda fanatics about to conduct the most spectacular martyrdom operation in history. At the forefront of this line of inquiry is former PBS and NBC journalist Daniel Hopsicker.

Kolar’s 'doubles’ theory can perhaps begin to explain how the 9/11 cell was in fact made up of double agents who could have gone on to carry out the hijacking operations on the morning of 9/11.

But questions still remain. Nila Sagedevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot, explores how it is a matter of record that the vast majority of these individuals were notoriously incapable of flying properly according to their own flight instructors. Mohammed Atta, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Marwan al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour, were all described by their trainers as utterly incompetent. Hanjour’s instructer proclaimed incredulously: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."25

But the flight into the Pentagon, as is well-known, was described by pilots as one of the most sophisticated flying operations they had ever seen. Consider the observation of retired US Army Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff about Hanjour:

A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts. When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator. This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush.26

Thus, while it may be necessary to factor in the hijackers as involved in the initial part of the operation to takeover the civilian airliners, a fuller explanation would suggest that they were not aware of the wider ramifications of the operation as a suicide mission; and that new methods for the control of hijacked aircraft using remote technologies were implemented that morning to take the operation to its final, terrible conclusion. These technologies did exist prior to 9/11, as reported by the New Scientist, the Economist, ITN News, and many other sources.

For example: "Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground," said Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.27

This of course highlights the failure of the US air defence system to do anything for about one and a half hours, as recently acknowledged by experts such as Lt. Col. (ret.) Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars programmes under Presidents Ford and Carter. Not only were standard operating procedures systematically violated, such that no military jets were implemented in a timely fashion to the right targets; the technology in place to remotely direct the hijacked aircraft was not used to take them to safety. Given that the conventionally identified hijackers could not have flown the planes either, we are left with an unavoidable, if startling scenario of an "al-Qaeda" operation that was itself "remotely hijacked" by elements within the US national security establishment itself.

There is, indeed, significant circumstantial evidence consistent with the possibility that remote control technologies were being used on the morning of 9/11. It is no longer disputable that there were over half a dozen war-games in operation on the morning of 9/11, including Vigilant Warrior, "a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner," being run by NORAD and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.28

A further exercise whose special significance has been relatively unnoticed by most 9/11 researchers was run by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), a secretive US intelligence agency which "designs, builds and operates the nation’s reconnaissance satellites" in order to "help plan military operations" and "monitor the environment" for the "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD)."29 According to the Associated Press: …one US intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings... National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

The exercise was first publicly revealed in an announcement for a homeland security conference in Chicago, which noted that CIA officer John Fulton, also Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance Office, was on the very morning of 9/11 "running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building…"30

NRO officials promptly denied that the simulation was a counterterrorism and/or security exercise, claiming that it was to simulate a mere accident – and insisted that the simulation was cancelled when "real world events" began. But this is hard to believe given Fulton’s specific credentials – not only the CIA/NRO chief war gamer, but also a member of the US Joint Forces Command’s Project Alpha, and an adviser on counterterrorism and homeland defense to the Director Central Intelligence Staff.31 Fulton’s expertise as chief NRO war gamer is therefore fundamentally concerned with exploring scenarios related to security and terrorism.

And what of Fulton’s Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM)? It describes itself as the Pentagon’s "transformation laboratory," tasked among other things to develop concepts, test these concepts through live experimentation, and implement joint training exercises involving the "choreographing" of multiple military commands.32 In particular USJFCOM’s Project Alpha, in which Fulton is specifically involved, pursues programmes concerned with utilising advanced space-based satellite, surveillance, and communication technologies for military operations. Intriguingly, many of these programs have significant aerial connotations, including the use of remote control technologies using "unmanned, autonomous airborne vehicles" in war.33 Project Alpha – which is subordinate to the Department of Defense – also conducts military experiments that bring live field exercises and computer simulations together.34

Fulton’s job, in other words, is not to simulate accidents – it is to wargame complex joint military operations involving space-based and aerial technologies. Whatever the "plane into building" simulation that Fulton was exercising on the morning of 9/11, it was almost certainly a highly complex wargame. Given Project Alpha’s function, Fulton’s NRO exercise could have provided the mechanism for joint coordination of the live-fly hijack exercise, war game simulations, and remote control operations on 9/11 – remotely hijacking an al-Qaeda hijacking.

"Al-Qaeda": A CIA Database
Indeed, much of my own latest research in The War on Truth (2005), The London Bombings (2006), and my own contribution to the "Hidden History" RPE volume, has focused on examining this entity "al-Qaeda." Does it exist? If so, what is it?

The late former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote in The Guardian one day after the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London that the term "al-Qaeda" was invented by the CIA to designate a computer database of CIA-trained mujahideen recruits around the world, administered by Osama bin Laden.35

Overwhelming evidence in the public record confirms that groups identified as being affiliated to al-Qaeda in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Asia-Pacific, have been penetrated, subverted and manipulated by Western intelligence services. But why? Largely to destabilise regional environments to pave the way for new "security" policies that serve to protect not people, but foreign investors taking over regional markets – especially markets with significant oil and gas deposits.36

Indeed, one CIA analyst described the covert strategy in plain words to the mainstream Swiss television journalist Richard Labeviere (currently chief editor at Radio France International): "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilise what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

It should not be a surprise then (although it was at first to me!), to discover that al-Qaeda operatives as senior as Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s own right-hand man, are in fact CIA informants. The latter was confirmed by none other than Yousef Bodansky, former Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism, reporting in Defense & Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy that the al-Qaeda deputy leader was approached by a CIA emissary in November 1997, and essentially offered $50 million to protect US interests in the Balkans.37

It should not be lost on us that the same al-Zawahiri appears on the recently released al-Qaeda videos claiming responsibility for the London bombings. The implication is dire, but it is one supported by other academics such as University of Ottawa professor Michel Chossudovsky and University of California (Berkeley) professor Peter Dale Scott: that "al-Qaeda" has continued to function throughout the post-Cold War period as an instrument of Western statecraft, a covert operations tool. This, and everything else discussed here, renders the whole "War on Terror" narrative meaningless, and exposes it as an ideological framework engineered to legitimise a state of unlimited war for power and profit. [digest emphasis]

Looking Ahead
...9/11 truth needs to be understood and advocated in the context of clarifying the long tradition of state-sponsored self-terrorism that is so deeply embedded in our societies, as well as in relation to the wider dynamics of an increasingly unstable and indeed crumbling global imperial system, which the powers-that-be are desperately attempting to rehabilitate under the mantle of fighting the "War on Terror." ...


1. Apart from having his Gladio research – which was part of his PhD thesis – published by the reputable British academic press Frank Cass, Ganser also published a summary of his findings in the peer-reviewed Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, (Winter/Spring 2005), pp. 69-95, www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/Terrorism_We
2. Cited in Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (London: Frank Cass, 2005) p. 40.
3. Ibid., p. 41.
4. Ibid., p. 42.
5. Ibid., p. 234, 297. The field manual was published in the 1987 parliamentary report of the Italian parliamentary investigation into the terrorist activities of P2, the CIA-MI6 sponsored Italian anti-communist network. See Commissione parlamentare d’inchiesta sulla loggia massonica P2. Allegati alla Relazione Doc. XXIII, n. 2-quarter/7/1 Serie II, Vol. VII, Tomo I, Roma 1987, p. 287-298.
6. Neil Mackay, "Bush planned Iraq 'regime change’ before becoming President", Sunday Herald (15 September 2002) www.sundayherald.com/27735.
7. PNAC Report, "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century", Project for the New American Century, Washington D.C., (September 2000), p. 62-63, www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.
8. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Books, 1997, pp. 24-25, 211.
9. Enviromentalists Against War, "Daniel Ellsberg Calls for 9/11 Investigation", 21 July 2006, www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=4402.
10. Transcript of opening address by Lorie von Auken, "Unanswered Questions and the Call for Accountability", The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizen’s Response – Did the Commission Get it Right?, Complete record of transcripts and written submissions, House of Representatives (Washington DC: Cannon House Office Building, 22 July 2005), pp. 11, 18.
11. David Ray Griffin, "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True", in Paul Zarembka (ed.) The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006, pp. 79-122.
12. Steven E. Jones, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse on 9-11-2001?" Brigham Young University (2005) www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
13. Steve Jones interviewed by Carlson Tucker, "Questioning what happened on 9/11", MSNBC, 16 November 2005, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/.
14. Bill Manning, "Burning Questions Need Answers", Fire Engineering (January 2002) http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=O
nlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICL ... 15. New Civil Engineer (6 October 2005)
16. Pentagon 2001/9/11: the fraud!, www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-griffin.html
17. Joe R., "Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass of Itself", http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_es
18. Pentagon 2001/9/11: the fraud!, www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-griffin.html.
19. Noted by Jim Hoffman here, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html#physica
l. Studies reviewed here, http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html.
20. Voluminous compilation of verifiable eyewitness accounts of a Boeing 757 available in the public record, http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart
21. Pentagon 2001/9/11: the fraud!, www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-griffin.html.
22. Greg Szymanski, "High-Ranking Army Officer: Missile Hit Pentagon", 19 August 2005, www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm.
23. Jay Kolar, "What We Know About the Alleged 9/11 Hijackers", in Zarembka (ed.), op. cit., pp. 3-45.
24. Paul Zarembka, "Initiation of the 9-11 Operation, with Evidence of Insider Trading Beforehand", in Zarembka (ed.), op. cit., pp. 49-77.
25. Nila Sagadevan, "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training", www.physics911.net/sagadevan.htm.
26. Stan Goff, "The So-Called Evidence is a Farce", Narco News, 10 October 2001, www.narconews.com/goff1.html.
27. Sources linked and reviewed here www.911blogger.com/2006/07/wheres-remote-control.html.
28. Michael C. Ruppert, 'TRIPOD II and FEMA: Lack of NORAD Response on 9/11 Explained’, From The Wilderness, 5 June 2004, www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html. Also confirmed by former White House counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke in his Against All Enemies, p. 4-5.
29. National Reconnaissance Office website, www.nro.gov.
30. Lumpkin, John J., 'Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building’, Associated Press, 21 August 2002, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/08/2
31. National Law Enforcement and Security Institute announcement, 'Homeland Security: America’s Leadership Challenge’, www.nlsi.net/hs-alc-info.htm.
32. United States Joint Forces Command website, (viewed 30 June 2004), www.jfcom.mil/about/about1.htm.
33. USFJCOM Project Alpha website, (viewed 30 June 2004), www.jfcom.mil/about/fact_alpha.htm.
34. See for example USFJCOM Project Alpha, Millenium Challenge website, (viewed 30 June 2004), www.jfcom.mil/about/experiments/mc02.htm.
35. Robin Cook, "The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means", The Guardian, 8 July 2005, www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0%2c12780%2c1523838%2c00.
36. See my "Terrorism and Statecraft: Al-Qaeda and Western Covert Operations after the Cold War", in Zarembka (ed.), op. cit., pp. 140-188.
37. See my The War on Truth (Olive Branch, 2005) and The London Bombings (Duckworth, 2006).

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the author of The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth, 2006 [www.independentinquiry.co.uk]) and The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (Olive Branch, 2005). He teaches political theory, international relations, and contemporary history at the University of Sussex, Brighton. His first book, The War on Freedom: How & Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001, was written to critique the official account of 9/11, winning him the Naples Prize, Italy’s most prestigious literary award. After that, he wrote a comprehensive deconstruction of Western imperialism in Iraq and the wider Middle East since the collapse of the Ottoman empire, Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq (New Society, 2003). His blog is at http://nafeez.blogspot.com.

author does not admit that this 'myth' hides the truth: Iraqi national resistance is defeating US occupiers who've created the 'sectarian strife'
The Myth of al-Qaeda in Iraq
Andrew Tilghman, The Washington Monthly
... After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an alternative explanation. The press blasts such dubious conclusions back to American citizens and policy makers in Washington, and the incidents get tallied and quantified in official reports, cited by the military in briefings in Baghdad. The White House then takes the reports and crafts sound bites depicting al-Qaeda as the number one threat to peace and stability in Iraq ... When the White House singles out al-Qaeda in Iraq for special attention, the bureaucracy responds by creating procedures that hunt down more evidence of the organization. The more manpower assigned to focus on the group, the more evidence is uncovered that points to it lurking in every shadow. "When you have something that is really hot, the leaders start tasking everyone to look into that," explains W. Patrick Lang, a retired U.S. Army colonel and former head of Middle East intelligence analysis for the Department of Defense. "Whoever is at the top of the pyramid says, 'Make me a briefing showing what al-Qaeda in Iraq is doing,' and then the decision maker says, 'Aha, I knew I was right.'"
With disproportionate resources dedicated to tracking AQI, the search has become a self-reinforcing loop. The Army has a Special Operations task force solely dedicated to tracking al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Defense Intelligence Agency tracks AQI through its Iraq office and its counterterrorism office. The result is more information culled, more PowerPoint slides created, and, ultimately, more attention drawn to AQI, which amplifies its significance in the minds of military and intelligence officers. "Once people look at everything through that lens, al-Qaeda is all they see," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer who also worked at the U.S. State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. "It sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."...
"Sometimes it's as simple as an anonymous tip that al-Qaeda is active in a certain village, so they will go out on an operation and whoever they roll up, we call them al-Qaeda," says Alex Rossmiller. "People can get labeled al-Qaeda anywhere along in the chain of events, and it's really hard to unlabel them." Even when the military backs off explicit statements that AQI is responsible, as with the Tal Afar truck bombings, the perception that an attack is the work of al-Qaeda is rarely corrected. The result can be baffling for the troops working on the ground, who hear the leadership characterizing the conflict in Iraq in ways that do not necessarily match what they see in the dusty and danger-laden villages. Michael Zacchea, a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Reserves who was deployed to Iraq, said he was sometimes skeptical of upper-level analysis emphasizing al-Qaeda in Iraq rather than the insurgency's local roots...
The view that AQI is neither as big nor as lethal as commonly believed is widespread among working-level analysts and troops on the ground. A majority of those interviewed for this article believe that the military's AQI estimates are overblown to varying degrees. If such misgivings are common, why haven't doubts pricked the public debate? The reason is that alternate views are running up against an echo chamber of powerful players all with an interest in hyping AQI's role... The press has also been complicit in inflating the threat of AQI. Because of the danger on the ground, reporters struggle to do the kind of comprehensive field reporting that's necessary to check facts and question statements from military spokespersons and Iraqi politicians. Today, for example, U.S. reporters rarely travel independently outside central Baghdad. Few, if any, insurgents have ever given interviews to Western reporters.... Today multiple Iraqi insurgent groups target U.S. forces, with the aim of driving out the occupation. But once our troops withdraw, most Sunni resistance fighters will have no impetus to launch strikes on American soil... no one has more incentive to overstate the threat of AQI than President Bush and those in the administration who argue for keeping a substantial military presence in Iraq. Insistent talk about AQI aims to place the Iraq War in the context of the broader war on terrorism. Pointing to al- Qaeda in Iraq helps the administration leverage Americans' fears about terrorism and residual anger over the attacks of September 11....

U.S. getting increasingly desperate...and careless
Bin Laden Video Is a Forgery: All References to Current Events Are Made During Video Freeze
George Maschke, Booman Tribune
Osama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 36 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=36119

another confession...
"This is about the best he can do," Townsend said of bin Laden. "This is a man on a run, from a cave, who's virtually impotent other than these tapes."
Frances Fragos Townsend, Bush's Homeland Security adviser, about Osama bin Laden, Sun. Sept. 9, 2007, "Fox News Sunday" and CNN's "Late Edition."

The Truth behind 9/11: Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
By 11am, on the morning of 9/11, the Bush administration had announced Osama was behind the attacks.
by Michel Chossudovsky
September 10, 2006
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.

That same evening at 9.30 pm, a "War Cabinet" was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11.00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the "War on Terrorism" was officially launched.

The decision was announced to wage war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in retribution for the 9/11 attacks. The following morning on September 12th, the news headlines indelibly pointed to "state sponsorship" of the 9/11 attacks. In chorus, the US media was calling for a military intervention against Afghanistan.

Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops. Americans were led to believe that the decison to go to war had been taken on the spur of the moment, on the evening of September 11, in response to the attacks and their tragic consequences.

Little did the public realize that a large scale theater war is never planned and executed in a matter of weeks. The decision to launch a war and send troops to Afghanistan had been taken well in advance of 9/11. The "terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event" as it was later described by CentCom Commander General Tommy Franks, served to galvanize public opinion in support of a war agenda which was already in its final planning stage.

The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage a war on "humanitarian grounds", with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the "international community".

Several prominent "progressive" intellectuals made a case for "retaliation against terrorism", on moral and ethical grounds. The "just cause" military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11, without examining the fact that Washington had not only supported the "Islamic terror network", it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.

In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country of 30 million people.

I started writing on the evening of September 11, late into the night, going through piles of research notes, which I had previously collected on the history of Al Qaeda. My first text entitled "Who is Osama bin Laden?" was completed and first published on September the 12th. (See full text of 9/12 article below).

From the very outset, I questioned the official story, which described nineteen Al Qaeda sponsored hijackers involved in a highly sophisticated and organized operation. My first objective was to reveal the true nature of this illusive "enemy of America", who was "threatening the Homeland".

The myth of the "outside enemy" and the threat of "Islamic terrorists" was the cornerstone of the Bush adminstration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.

Without an "outside enemy", there could be no "war on terrorism". The entire national security agenda would collapse "like a deck of cards". The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US adminstrations. Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet-Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: "he turned against us".

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive "outside enemy" had been fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

Forget September 11
by Anthony Alessandrini

Forget “September 11” a glib phrase that has obfuscated this larger context and has been instead used by the U.S. government to wreak havoc throughout the world in the name of a principle that has not yet been actively rejected by people in the United States: the principle that American lives are somehow worth more than the lives of others.

In this context, it becomes necessary to try to imagine the five years since September 11, 2001 from the perspective of people in Afghanistan, who bore the first brunt of the U.S. government’s revenge. The initial U.S.-led attack alone, mostly in the form of a brutal air campaign, killed an estimated 3,400 people. Thousands more have died due the subsequent violence that has marked the continuing U.S.-led occupation of the country. Lest we forget, the establishment of a pattern of collective punishment and slaughter perpetrated against a larger population that had nothing to do with a given an act of aggression -- which we have seen repeated in recent months by the Israeli government against populations in Gaza and Lebanon -- was firmly set in place by the U.S. attack on and occupation of Afghanistan in retaliation for the attacks of September 11.

While the brutal attack on Afghanistan was being carried out, people in the United States were introduced to two innovations in governance: the Patriot Act, part of an unprecedented attack on civil liberties whose effects are only now beginning to make themselves known through revelations such as those involving the National Security Agency; and the unveiling of the term “enemy combatants,” as part of the U.S government’s equally unprecedented attack on the guiding principles of international law and, in practice, as part of the larger process that has led to the detention, imprisonment, and torture of thousands of people throughout the world in a global prison system the full extent and horrors of which still remain unknown to us.

The anniversary of September 11, 2001 has to be viewed from the perspective of people in Iraq, who -- as we now know -- were always seen by the Bush Administration as the primary target of its manipulation of “September 11.” Two years ago, estimates of the number of Iraqis killed as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation stood at 100,000; according to recent reports, more than 10,000 have been killed in the last four months alone. But one does not have to engage in this calculus of horror to understand the scale of the destruction unleashed by the U.S. government wielding a sword labeled “September 11.”

If we can allow ourselves to forget this “September 11,” we might be able to remember that five years ago marked the beginning of a specific pattern of targeting communities in the United States that continues today. In the first year following September 11, 2001, three thousand Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians were detained in the United States without criminal charges. Thousands more have faced detention and deportation since then. Today U.S. politicians from both parties actively embrace racial profiling measures at airports and other public places -- for “our” safety, of course. If it were not for the cloud of fear that has been caused by the constant invocation of “September 11,” these proposals -- essentially a set of differential and discriminatory laws, policies, and procedures directed at a particular group of citizens and residents based on their race, ethnicity, and/or religion -- would be instantly identifiable for what they are: a recipe for apartheid.

In short, if people in the United States can forget the official version of “September 11,” we stand a chance of remembering what these five years have meant to all the people of the world: in Palestine, as Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government instantly picked up the rhetoric of the U.S. government and began to intensify the brutality of its acts of repression and ethnic cleansing in the name of the global “war on terror”; in Haiti, as Haitians had to withstand yet another all-too-familiar intervention and occupation by U.S. and French troops; in Iran and Syria, which have lived under the threat of a U.S. attack since the inception of the war in Iraq; in Colombia, the first target of the Bush Administration’s re-positioning of the “war on drugs” within the terms of the “war on terror,” as Alvaro Uribe used his financial and military backing from the U.S. to consolidate power and repress dissent; in the Philippines, another “front” of the U.S.-backed “war on terror,” where Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s government has similarly used the rhetoric that has arisen since “September 11” in order to repress democratic dissent.

In fact, if people in the United States can manage to momentarily forget “our” September 11, we might even be able to remember, against the forgetting pushed upon us, that the world did not begin on September 11, 2001. As a particular pneumonic device, there is the memory of what Ariel Dorfman and others have called “the other September 11”: September 11, 2006 marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of the U.S.-sponsored coup in Chile that overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. This can help us remember the struggle of people throughout the Americas against U.S. imperialism that has been going on for decades and that continues today...

This particular form of historical remembering also means remembering -- or, for many people, learning for the first time -- that none of what has been listed above as the aftermath of “September 11” in fact began on that day. Afghanistan had been a site of U.S.-sponsored violence since the Cold War days of the 1980s; Iraq has been under attack at the hands of the U.S. and its allies in the form of sanctions and air strikes since 1991; in the other instances, the “war on terror” has led to the intensification of already-existing forms of repression and violence, generally with U.S. funding and military support, over the past five years. In the U.S. itself, all of the necessary laws and mechanisms necessary for the Patriot Act and the state of siege imposed against particular immigrant communities since September 11, 2001 had already been put in place under the Clinton Administration throughout the 1990s. This is not to mention the many communities in the United States, foremost among them the African American community, who have not had a moment of respite from “racial profiling” and a state of lived apartheid since the establishment of the nation...

But another thing has happened during those five years whose anniversary we are being told to commemorate. Around the world, people’s movements have constantly resisted the U.S. government’s attempts to impose its own vision of the world through the use of “September 11.” In place of this “September 11,” I offer another date to remember: February 15, 2003, when more than eleven million people across the world stood together, not just against the imminent U.S. attack on Iraq, but against the larger imposition of U.S. hegemony across the globe.

The spirit of resistance that came together on February 15 still exists; it manifests itself, for example, in the massive protests that erupt every time a U.S. official sets foot anywhere in the world today. But the millions who stood, and who continue to stand, against the actions of the U.S. government are also watching us today, and wondering -- as they should -- about the relative lack of resistance on the part of people here in the United States against their own government’s acts of terror since September 11, 2001. It is past time for people in the United States to forget the official version of “September 11” and to join this new world that was glimpsed on February 15...
[Forgetting 'September 11] It would mean, for people in the United States, at long last trying to find a way, with due humility, to join the rest of the world.
Anthony Alessandrini is an Assistant Professor of English at Kingsborough Community College/CUNY in Brooklyn, and an organizer with the Action Wednesdays Against War collective. He can be reached at: tonyalessandrini@yahoo.com.

Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics
By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles

On September 11th the whole world watched as jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center. These heinous crimes were labeled as acts of war. However, scientific principles show much more happened that day than we were told.

09/08/07 "ICH" -- -- The majority of us accept as fact that the current administration manipulates science for political ends. Few were surprised to hear experts from industry challenge overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change. Frustration within the scientific community had grown so much that by Dec. 2006 more than 10,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, had signed a statement accusing the Bush administration of "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends".

Scientific integrity within the administration has often not been rewarded. Recently fired US surgeon general Richard Carmona said after leaving, "In public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

Truth, even when grounded in strong scientific evidence, is the first casualty of war, and the US is at war. The pattern is clear, and it affects us all.

On September 11th the whole world watched as jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center. These heinous crimes were labeled as acts of war. However, scientific principles show much more happened that day than we were told. The most striking feature of these World Trade Center collapses is that each came down within a few mere seconds of the time it would have taken a brick dropped from the buildings' tops to hit the ground. Through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Committee Studies our government told us that the damage from the planes hitting the buildings and the resulting fires caused them to collapse at near freefall speed.

What we were told is physically impossible without additional forces to bring the buildings down.

We were told that the undamaged towers below the impact zone offered very little resistance -- effectively little more than air -- resulting in the complete destruction by the accelerating mass of the smaller top sections cascading downwards. But principles of physics starting with Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion show that what we were told happened by the NIST Commission's Reports is not possible. Principles like Newton's Laws of Motion are facts that cannot be dismissed. The NIST Reports absurdly failed to carefully consider these physics principles when it told us the damage and subsequent collapse was caused by fires from the jet fuel. The swift collapse we witnessed, in fact, could not have been caused by the fires or any other damage from the planes.

Applying 2 basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their Reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each Tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous volumes of study.

The only explanation supported by the physics is multiple explosions in both Towers. Without an additional energy source to blow the lower floor support structure out of the way of the falling upper mass, the observed fall speeds were unachievable. Any true scientific model must take into account the fact that that the kinetic energy of falling material would continually be dissipated to break more structural energy of parts of the remaining building unless explosions have already done the job. Thus, without explosions this mandatory expenditure would continually decrease the fall velocity through all the levels. In other words, the top portions of the buildings as they came down would be significantly slowed down by the undamaged parts of the buildings below.

Even if the fires had gutted the entire building, causing universal structural weakening, the fall times would still be about 2-3 times longer than the fall time observed. In reality, the North Tower had 92 floors and the South Tower had 77 floors of intact structure designed to withstand major adverse damage below the impact zone and fires. If the planes and fires did more minor damage to the buildings before setting off the supposed critical fall, either building would take 3-10 times as long for complete collapse than was observed, even if complete collapse could occur and even then if it occurred all at once.

Is there proof of how the buildings came down? Examining the more technical details of the collapse shows direct evidence that explosives caused the collapse. Videos and photos taken clearly show the very-quick appearance of rapidly growing dust clouds in the collapse of the both Towers. These clouds expanded much faster than the gravitational pull could produce, clearly indicating that explosive heat energy caused that expansion. Multiple squibs (material ejecting horizontally from high-pressure regions) traveling over 160 feet a second were observed in both towers, and could only be generated by explosions. Several parallel squibs came out of the South Tower just a floor or 2 below where the plane hit less than an hour before, and these explosions that caused the twisting of the top 34 floors that initiated the collapse of that tower. Multiple squibs were also seen at the times of collapse of building 7, which collapsed later that day and was not hit by any plane. The appearance of these squibs in all 3 cases came within seconds of the time each building started to collapse.

These squibs provide clear direct evidence of explosions, as simple math elaborates. Data taken from a photograph by KTLA channel 5 news shows a streaming clear line of ejecting material which is similar to several other squibs photographed that day. This stream is mostly made up of bits of material large enough that air resistance is small compared to the ejection force, and after ejection from the North Tower it has traveled nearly 70 feet in a horizontal direction, whereas the distance it has descended because of gravitational pull is small. If we estimate that the front end of the ejecting material has fallen about 3 feet, then, for material for which air friction is small (e.g. a 3-inch piece of glass or 1-inch piece of steel) we find it has been just under 0.5 sec since the front end first ejected from the building. The material in that squib is traveling horizontally at over 160 feet/sec.

Defenders of the NIST Reports have tried use to explain these squibs as compressed air and gasses coming out of the collapsing buildings, but that cannot begin to account for the energetic focused horizontal blasts observed. Explosions produced those extremely high speeds, making the ejecting material into a swath of bullets shooting out of the buildings.

So where does this squib hit the ground? Assuming the height of ejection is about 1300 feet (400 m), gravitational descent of that ejection to the ground lasts for 9 seconds if air resistance is negligible. In 9 seconds that squib has shot out almost 1300 feet, or about 1/4 mile away from the building. There is unmistakable evidence of damage from this high-speed material away from the Towers. Pictures on the Web show remains of hundreds of autos that were broadsided and severely damaged by such streaming material for blocks from the collapsing buildings. Many such explosions were necessary to produce these devastations scattered around over the 40 acres of the site.

The evidence is mounting and accredited scholars are coming out every day questioning the NIST Studies. In recent weeks alone, former NIST scientist James Quintiere has declared that he no longer accepts NIST's work and has called for a new investigation. World-renowned scientist Lynn Margulis strongly rejected the NIST Studies, suggesting that "the glaringly erroneous official account of 911 be dismissed...".. These are some of the finest scientists in the world. Can the mainstream press catch on? Reporters and pundits selectively use science to support less controversial issues but is this an inconvenient science. The rapidly expanding huge concrete dust clouds from the towers, the very-quick appearance of multiple squibs on all 3 collapsing buildings, and the destruction of hundreds of autos for several blocks around the World Trade Center from these squibs, are some of the dramatic examples clearly pointing to explosions. Scientific methods imply these were the cause of our greatest destruction in the 21st century.

Crockett Grabbe is an applied physicist engaged in research at the University of Iowa who received his Ph.D. from Caltech. He has been profiled multiple times in Who's Who in Science and Engineering.

Lenny Charles is the creator and producer of the International News Net World Report, one of only 2 daily alternative national televised news programs in America.

Painful 9/11 Truth
Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V Convention
Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. More difficult than discovering the truth, however, is convincing most of the public to accept the bitter truth.
Americans easily block out painful truths. Powerful societal forces keep much of the population distracted and uninterested in complex issues. Entertainment-oriented mainstream media contribute to mass ignorance. And the political establishment often buries the truth, uses propaganda and manipulates citizens. Intelligent, strong-willed people can fight all these.

But on a deeper level, many truths are blocked psychologically, because they produce too much pain. This results when truths sharply disagree with strongly held beliefs. The conflict produces cognitive dissonance that can block full acceptance of the disturbing truth. People fall victim to self-manipulation and self-delusion. Truths are dismissed and false beliefs remain embedded.

When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only Al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the two towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. If correct - IF - the immediate reaction is like a cosmic big bang. It would have taken considerable effort by a number of people with expertise and access to the buildings to rig them so that they could be intentionally collapsed when the two jets hit the towers. Tough questions flood in: Who could have engineered all this? Could foreign agents accomplish such complex actions - and if they did, why not take credit for it? If Americans did it, why would they intentionally inflict inevitable mass death and devastation? Worse, they seemingly knew about the plan to fly the jets into the towers.

Post-9/11, why have the government and official investigations not come to the same controlled demolition conclusion? This might be explained if the government was involved.

Pull one string and the whole 9/11 story unravels as your imagination triggers unending questions. Can Americans support a reinvestigation and rethinking of the 9/11 event? Or would they rather avoid even more pain and preserve the official account that places all blame on Al-Qaeda? So easy to criticize those who offer different explanations as conspiracy nuts. After all, the new truth would be so shocking that we would have to question our political and government system. Could there have been such malevolence somewhere in our government? Did a monumental conspiracy push us into attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq? Did petroleum and corporate interests shape 9/11?

Like other groups, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth wants a new, honest and comprehensive study that considers all the evidence for controlled demolition. First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions. But let us not allow a possible painful truth block the primary task of determining once and for all what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and building no. 7.

If there were non-Muslim forces - possibly U.S. government ones - that played a major role in the WTC catastrophe, then let us have the courage to face the truth. Suppose some element of our government played a secret, awful role. If we do not uncover it, then we are vulnerable to repeat nefarious and unimaginable activity in the future - possibly to impact the 2008 presidential election. Discovering 9/11 truth would enshrine the wisdom of the old adage: the truth hurts. That means suffering the pain of revealing lies and cover-ups. Mourning over the deaths of building victims and heroic first responders would expand with new anger. And another reason to hate and oppose the Iraq war would surface.
If those that believe the official 9/11 story - especially elected officials - trust their views, then let them support a serious investigation to test the validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they fear and reject doing so, then let us see that as suspicious and unacceptable.

As a former engineering professor with growing skepticism about the official WTC story, I joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth; you can learn about the controlled demolition findings and other similar truth-seeking efforts at www.ae911truth.org. You choose: seek the truth yourself or take the easy way and just criticize those who question the official story.
To sum up, horrific possible answers can cause us to shun a question. But clearing our minds of fears of painful truths is essential to clearing our nation of destructive lies. Otherwise, we stay stuck in a delusional democracy.

Dear Osama:
Why did you inform the CIA of your plans?
It's clear that you did, because it's been proved that pre-9/11
insider trading on United Airlines and American Airlines options
lead directly to the highest ranks of the CIA. Investigations
proved that none of your people benefited from any of these
transactions. So what's with your desire to make the CIA brass rich?

Why did you ask FEMA to be in New York the day before 9/11?
FEMA emergency teams conveniently arrived in New York on 9/10 in
preparation for an emergency "drill". If you didn't ask them to be there,
who did? Or was this just an incredible coincidence?

Why did you tell Larry Silverstein months in advance to prepare WTC7 for demolition?
You had to have to told him -- Mr. Silverstein openly admitted that he
"pulled" it. He couldn't possibly have wired the building for a "pull" on
the day of your attack - it takes months to set up a building for a pull.

How did you manage to get the entire United States Air Force to stand down on the day of your attack?
The US military has spent billions of dollars developing stealth aircraft which are invisible to radar so they can mount surprise
attacks on adversaries, but it seems they should have saved their money and bought a fleet of airliners because they appear to be
far more effective.
On 9/11 the world's only military superpower was apparently oblivious to
the location of your hijacked airliners in it's airspace for over an hour,
and military commanders were left perplexed on how to deal with the
situation of your ace hijackers using these planes as flying bombs. This
confusion resulted in fighter jets flying around aimlessly at 200 MPH
whilst the hierarchy fully assessed what was going on, and this total lack
of cohesion ultimately led to the loss of nearly 3,000 lives. How did you
know that all that was required to outsmart America's military might on
9/11 were 19 of your guys armed with box cutters aboard 4 airliners?

Why did you inform the US Secret Service that President Bush would NOT be a target?
President Bush's agenda on the morning of 9/11 had been widely publicized,
so you must have known he was going to be at the The Booker Elementary
School. The school video shows the Secret Service did not rush in to
remove the President to a secure location, or at least to the safety of
the armored Presidential Limousine. That's their job. That's what they do
in the case of a real surprise attack with many unknowns.
They don't do anything else. But the Secret Service did absolutely nothing
for 25 minutes after President Bush was told the nation was under attack

Why did you contact New York's authorities to inform them that the WTC was going to collapse?
Again, you had to have, because they knew it was going to collapse. No
steel-framed building had ever collapsed through fire prior to 9/11. There
was no factual or historical basis for this prediction. When was Giuliani
warned? Why were only a select few people warned?

How did you manage to plant explosives in the twin towerto ensure perfect collapses?
Explosives HAD to have been used, because all 3 towers collapsed
into their own footprints at near-freefall speeds. This kind of
collapse is impossible without explosives. How did your boys gain
access to these buildings well in advance of 9/11
in order to place and wire the explosives?

How did you make provisions with the Bush administration to ensure the investigation into the collapse of the twin towers
would be an under-funded farce?
Over $65 million was spent investigating Bill Clinton's sexual
indiscretions, but the entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million. How
did you manage to pull this off? And why? Was your reason in any way
connected to your desire to have all the WTC steel - vital crime scene
evidence of your dastardly crime - shipped to smelting
plants in China, Korea and India as quickly as possible before
experts could analyze the steel for signs of explosives? If so,
while you were at it, why didn't you also hush-up the editors of
the respected Fire Engineering magazine who later called the
WTC investigation a "half-baked farce"?

“Two private monitoring organizations—SITE intelligence Group and IntelCenter—say an announcement, in the name of al-Qaida’s media-production arm, al-Sahab, seen on an Islamist website this week indicates the new al-Qaida video is about to be released,” VOA continues....

Israeli Connected SITE Institute Hypes Dead Grecian Formula Terrorist
Kurt Nimmo
... the purveyors of this latest sham, the SITE Institute, of are more interest, not that we can expect the corporate media to do a background check.
SITE, described as “a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, that provides information related to terrorist networks to the government, news media, and general public,” has a rather suspicious history. “The listed staff consists of two individuals, and the website seems to be an aggregator of publicly-available data on the internet, mostly consisting of current news items,” notes the SourceWatch wiki. SITE’s “Terrorism Library, on cursory investigation, looks to be a straight data scrape from the U.S. Department of State’s Patterns of Global Terrorism - 2003, Appendix B.”

Not surprisingly, SITE is connected to Israeli intelligence. “Rita Katz is Director and co-founder of the SITE Institute. Born in Iraq, her father was tried and executed as an Israeli spy, whereupon her family moved to Israel [the move has been described as both an escape and immigration in different sources]. She received a degree from the Middle Eastern Studies program at Tel Aviv University, and is fluent in Hebrew and Arabic. She emigrated to the US in 1997.” Katz’s partner, Josh Devon, is less colorful. “Devon is Senior Analyst and co-founder of the SITE Institute. He has a BA from University of Pennsylvania (English) and a BS from Wharton College (Economics). Devon is currently attending the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University with the intentions of receiving an International Studies Degree with a focus on the Middle East,” that is to say a globalist perspective on the Middle East. According to this article, SAIS is a CFR cover. “CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski is SAIS Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy…. CFR member Paul Wolfowitz, Ph.D. is SAIS Chairman and Dean.” As well, SAIS appears to be connected to the American Enterprise Institute [...]

About SITE:
SITE Intelligence Group Monitoring Service
"By monitoring terrorist and extremist websites and penetrating password-protected Al Qaeda linked sites, SITE provides a state-of-the-art intelligence service to both practitioners and analysts to understand the adversary." - Rohan Gunaratna, Author, Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror (Columbia University Press)

Studying the primary source propaganda, training manuals, and chatter of terrorists offers insight into terrorists and their activities that can not be obtained anywhere else. Failing to monitor terrorist propaganda is a failure in intelligence. To fulfill this need, the SITE Intelligence Group offers its Monitoring Service, which provides numerous daily translations of terrorist propaganda and multimedia from primary source terrorist websites.

“We're very impressed with the daily feed we are receiving from you. This is probably some of the wisest money we have spent this year. Thank you!” -United States European Command (USEUCOM)

“We are all deeply indebted to you here for your service-you are the talk of the town.” -Baghdad Bureau, New York Times

in case any readers still favorably inclined to and impressed by pernicious capitalist patriotism..
110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
200+ Engineers and Architects
50+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
150+ Professors Question 9/11
190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
90+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

Much Love - C.I.A.
Posted Sep 8, 2007

Who Blew Up America
Amiri Baraka

Listen to it here http://www.amiribaraka.com/Somebody.mp3

Somebody Blew up America

They say its some terrorist,
some barbaric A Rab,
in Afghanistan
It wasn't our American terrorists
It wasn't the Klan or the Skin heads
Or the them that blows up nigger
Churches, or reincarnates us on Death Row
It wasn't Trent Lott
Or David Duke or Giuliani
Or Schundler, Helms retiring

It wasn't
The gonorrhea in costume
The white sheet diseases
That have murdered black people
Terrorized reason and sanity
Most of humanity, as they pleases

They say (who say?)
Who do the saying
Who is them paying
Who tell the lies
Who in disguise
Who had the slaves
Who got the bux out the Bucks

Who got fat from plantations
Who genocided Indians
Tried to waste the Black nation

Who live on Wall Street
The first plantation
Who cut your nuts off
Who rape your ma
Who lynched your pa

Who got the tar, who got the feathers
Who had the match, who set the fires
Who killed and hired
Who say they God & still be the Devil

Who the biggest only
Who the most goodest
Who do Jesus resemble

Who created everything
Who the smartest
Who the greatest
Who the richest
Who say you ugly and they the goodlookingest

Who define art
Who define science

Who made the bombs
Who made the guns

Who bought the slaves, who sold them

Who called you them names
Who say Dahmer wasn't insane

Who? Who? Who?

Who stole Puerto Rico
Who stole the Indies, the Philipines, Manhattan
Australia & The Hebrides
Who forced opium on the Chinese

Who own them buildings
Who got the money
Who think you funny
Who locked you up
Who own the papers

Who owned the slave ship
Who run the army

Who the fake president
Who the ruler
Who the banker

Who? Who? Who?

Who own the mine
Who twist your mind
Who got bread
Who need peace
Who you think need war

Who own the oil
Who do no toil
Who own the soil
Who is not a nigger
Who is so great ain't nobody bigger

Who own this city

Who own the air
Who own the water

Who own your crib
Who rob and steal and cheat and murder
and make lies the truth
Who call you uncouth

Who live in the biggest house
Who do the biggest crime
Who go on vacation anytime

Who killed the most niggers
Who killed the most Jews
Who killed the most Italians
Who killed the most Irish
Who killed the most Africans
Who killed the most Japanese
Who killed the most Latinos

Who? Who? Who?

Who own the ocean

Who own the airplanes
Who own the malls
Who own television
Who own radio

Who own what ain't even known to be owned
Who own the owners that ain't the real owners

Who own the suburbs
Who suck the cities
Who make the laws

Who made Bush president
Who believe the confederate flag need to be flying
Who talk about democracy and be lying

Who the Beast in Revelations
Who 666
Who know who decide
Jesus get crucified

Who the Devil on the real side
Who got rich from Armerican genocide

Who the biggest terrorist
Who change the bible
Who killed the most people
Who do the most evil
Who don't worry about survival

Who have the colonies
Who stole the most land
Who rule the world
Who say they good but only do evil
Who the biggest executioner

Who? Who? Who?

Who own the oil
Who want more oil
Who told you what you think that later you find out a lie

Who? Who? Who?

Who found Bin Laden, maybe they Satan
Who pay the CIA,
Who knew the bomb was gonna blow
Who know why the terrorists
Learned to fly in Florida, San Diego

Who know why Five Israelis was filming the explosion
And cracking they sides at the notion

Who need fossil fuel when the sun ain't goin' nowhere

Who make the credit cards
Who get the biggest tax cut
Who walked out of the Conference
Against Racism
Who killed Malcolm, Kennedy & his Brother
Who killed Dr King, Who would want such a thing?
Are they linked to the murder of Lincoln?

Who invaded Grenada
Who made money from apartheid
Who keep the Irish a colony
Who overthrow Chile and Nicaragua later

Who killed David Sibeko, Chris Hani,
the same ones who killed Biko, Cabral,
Neruda, Allende, Che Guevara, Sandino,

Who killed Kabila, the ones who wasted Lumumba, Mondlane,
Betty Shabazz, Die, Princess Di, Ralph Featherstone,
Little Bobby

Who locked up Mandela, Dhoruba, Geronimo,
Assata, Mumia, Garvey, Dashiell Hammett, Alphaeus Hutton

Who killed Huey Newton, Fred Hampton,
Medgar Evers, Mikey Smith, Walter Rodney,
Was it the ones who tried to poison Fidel
Who tried to keep the Vietnamese Oppressed

Who put a price on Lenin's head

Who put the Jews in ovens,
and who helped them do it
Who said "America First"
and ok'd the yellow stars

Who killed Rosa Luxembourg, Liebneckt
Who murdered the Rosenbergs
And all the good people iced,
tortured, assassinated, vanished

Who got rich from Algeria, Libya, Haiti,
Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine,

Who cut off peoples hands in the Congo
Who invented Aids
Who put the germs
In the Indians' blankets
Who thought up "The Trail of Tears"

Who blew up the Maine
& started the Spanish American War
Who got Sharon back in Power
Who backed Batista, Hitler, Bilbo,
Chiang kai Chek

Who decided Affirmative Action had to go
Reconstruction, The New Deal,
The New Frontier, The Great Society,

Who do Tom Ass Clarence Work for
Who doo doo come out the Colon's mouth
Who know what kind of Skeeza is a Condoleeza
Who pay Connelly to be a wooden negro
Who give Genius Awards to Homo Locus

Who overthrew Nkrumah, Bishop,
Who poison Robeson,
who try to put DuBois in Jail
Who frame Rap Jamil al Amin, Who frame the Rosenbergs,
The Scottsboro Boys,
The Hollywood Ten

Who set the Reichstag Fire

Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed
Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers
To stay home that day
Why did Sharon stay away?

Who? Who? Who?

Explosion of Owl the newspaper say
The devil face cd be seen

Who make money from war
Who make dough from fear and lies
Who want the world like it is
Who want the world to be ruled by imperialism and national
oppression and terror violence, and hunger and poverty.

Who is the ruler of Hell?
Who is the most powerful

Who you know ever
Seen God?

But everybody seen
The Devil

Like an Owl exploding
In your life in your brain in your self
Like an Owl who know the devil
All night, all day if you listen, Like an Owl
Exploding in fire. We hear the questions rise
In terrible flame like the whistle of a crazy dog

Like the acid vomit of the fire of Hell
Who and Who and WHO who who
Whoooo and Whooooooooooooooooooooo!

Gamila Zahran's Arabian Sights
To subscribe/unsubscribe send a blank message with the appropriate request in subject window. Feel free to forward for information and educational purposes with signature intact, please!

When Wishful Thinking Replaces Resistance
Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
By Jean Bricmont
Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or, perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an enterprise. Various particular reasons are put forward, such as: If he attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US supply lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will block the Straits of Ormuz or will unleash dormant terrorist networks worldwide. Russia won't allow such an attack. China won't allow it -- they will dump the dollar. The Arab world will explode.

All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply obedient to Iran. If they don't rise against the United States when their own country is occupied (or if don't rise very systematically), they are not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country is attacked. As for blocking the Straits or unleashing terrorism, this will just be another justification for more bombing of Iran. After all, a main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that it supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq, as if those troops were at home there. If that can work as an argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that Iran might take will simply "justify" more bombing, possibly nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be invaded, but there is little it can do against long range bombing, accompanied by nuclear threats.

Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags far behind the U.S. one), but it can't do anything else, and Washington will be only too glad to use the Russian reaction as an argument for boosting its own military forces. China is solely concerned with its own development and won't drop the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most Arab governments, if not their populations, will look favorably on seeing the Iranian shiite leadership humiliated. Those governments have sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition-- after all, that is what they managed to do after the attack on Iraq.

With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete elimination of what was left of the Gaullists (basically through lawsuits on rather trivial matters), France has been changed from the most independent European country to the most poodlish (this was in fact the main issue in the recent presidential election, but it was never even mentioned during the campaign). In France, moreover, the secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion). There will be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the war is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced with memories of the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war will come from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and enemies of our "democratic civilization").

All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not ­according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.

Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us.

As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto totalitarian society--no articulate opposition is acceptable. The U.S. Congress passes one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution after another with "Stalinist" majorities. The population does not seem to care. But if they did, but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system is extremely biased against the emergence of a third party and the two big parties are equally under Zionist influence.

The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the "reassuring arguments" cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren't, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others might do the job.

Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been spewed upon the world. But in the short term, it may look like a big Western "victory", just like the creation of Israel in 1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953; just like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big German victory after the French defeat at Sedan in 1870. The Bush administration will long be gone when the disastrous consequences of that war will be felt.

PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong.
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press. He can be reached at bricmont@fyma.ucl.ac.be.

tightening fascist state infrastructure against resistance in the "homeland"...
U.S. preps NORTHCOM for domestic emergencies
Top official tells WND of changes, follows directive expanding presidential powers

October 2007 the Department of Homeland Security will open a new office called the National Applications Office (NAO) charged with civil/domestic intelligence gathering
"The use of geospatial information from military intelligence satellites may turn out to be a valuable tool in protecting the homeland." in letter from the House Homeland Security Committee
National Applications Office
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Applications Office (NAO) is the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes within the United States. The office will begin initial operation by fall 2007 and will build on the long-standing work of the Civil Applications Committee, which was created in 1974 to facilitate the use of the capabilities of the intelligence community for civil, non-defense uses in the United States.
While civil users are well supported for purposes such as monitoring volcanic activity, environmental and geological changes, hurricanes, and floods through the current Civil Applications Committee, homeland security and law enforcement will also benefit from access to Intelligence Community capabilities. As a principal interface between the Intelligence Community and the Civil Applications, Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Domains, the National Applications Office will provide more robust access to needed remote sensing information to appropriate customers by:
* Enabling a wide spectrum of civil applications, homeland security, and law enforcement users greater access to the collection, analysis, and production skills and capabilities of the intelligence community;
* Enhancing intelligence and information sharing and dissemination to federal, state, and local government and law enforcement users;
* Educating customers about the capabilities and products of the intelligence community;
* Advocating future collection technology needs of the civil applications, homeland security and law enforcement customers in the intelligence community and Department of Defense forums; and
* Providing a forum for discussion of proper use oversight and management of new uses of classified information on behalf of domains, in addition to already established uses.

resistance is 'terrorism'
Police break up anti-war meeting in Washington:
Mounted police charged in to break up an outdoor press conference and demonstration against the Iraq war in Washington on Thursday, arresting three people, A.N.S.W.E.R organizers and an AFP reporter said.

The Iraq War is Political Plutonium
The End Begins
By Stan Goff
...Many believe that the administration will resort to strikes against Iran, but I have said, from the time this particular chicken-little rumor started, that I don't believe it will happen. Before the Iraq occupation, the adminstration could harbor delusions about Iraq, about liberation parades across the Al-A'imma Bridge and cocktail parties at the Oil Ministry. Their information came from crackpot academics (Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al) and an Iraqi confidence-artist(Chalabi).

But the recklessness of that decision cannot be mapped onto the current administration. Regardless of their staggering apologetics from the podia, this administration has a lengthening list of political casualties on the one hand, and four-and-a-half years of bitter experience in actually-existing Iraq now. The interpreters of that experience are the Generals. In those quiet enclosed spaces where they dare speak the truth, there is one truth that none of the Generals can withhold. An attack against Iran would spark a general uprising in Iraq that would extend from Baghdad to Basra; and the US would find its already tenuous position in Iraq untenable. The only thing that might be worse than an American attack on Ian would be one launched by the Israelis, who are rightly identified by Iraqis as an American forward base in the region.

The outcome would not be the destruction of Iranian influence. In the wake of a certain and final US defeat in Iraq, such an attack would be the guarantor of Iranian ascendancy in the context of a catastrophic standoff with China and Russia, the former of which has the capacity to shatter the US economy by selling down Dollars and the latter of which can absorb that sell-down in conversion to rubles in the growing fossil energy economy of Russia.

How this war will end has never been a decision that can or would be made by the leadership of either American political party, any more than the defeat in Vietnam was the result of politicians and protesters. The occupied people made the decision. It was not revoked in Vietnam. It will not be revoked in Iraq.

The puzzle that will preoccupy both parties now, since neither knows who will inherit this dilemma, is how to salvage what is left of waning American imperial power. You won't be able to slide shim-stock between Rudy or Hillary on this question... and neither of them will have the power to stand before the historical macrotrend of US power dissolution.

The first that acknowledges and learns to deal with the fact of Iranian ascendancy will be the one that will suffer least... but that's about it. In less than a decade, we will see Russia, China, and Iran at the head of a re-set Central Asian chessboard, and they will contend with a descendant American empire. The end of all empires is inevitable. The Great City always exhausts the rural soils and eats the seed-corn, and its debilitated, dependent rulers will always be usurped by "the barbarians" who were formerly bent before the Great City's plunder. As Dr. King -- once himself called one a barbarian -- said, "the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."

History will record that a decisive misstep in the crash of the American Empire was taken on March 19, 2003. September 3, 2007 will be a historical place-holder for a kind of death-gasp of empire ... former guerrillas sitting the Prez down as an equal across the table at Al Asad. ...
www.stangoff.com. Goff can be reached at: stan@stangoff.com