A Diversionary Attack?

One really has to wonder exactly what the terrorists had in mind when, according to the official 9/11 story, they decided to hijack several commercial aircraft and slam them into key symbolic buildings in the US.

While such an attack obviously was horrible, the most tragic and lethal part of 9/11 was when the WTC towers collapsed.

I have to wonder-- did terrorists really expect to bring down the WTC by hitting them with airplanes? It wasn't exactly intuitive that such a thing would occur. Ramming airplanes into the WTC without them collapsing would have been horrible, but seemingly something that would have been more bearable than the huge tragedy of those towers coming down.

The question is, did "someone" really want the towers to come down?

If so, slamming airplanes into them wasn't a guaranteed way to do it. But slamming airplanes into the towers was a classic "diversionary attack" if you were using bombs to bring down the towers. That is, everyone is focussing on the crashed airplanes, and ignoring the bombs that were planted and starting to go off.

Certainly, if someone had planted bombs in the WTC to bring them down, having airplanes hit the buildings completely took people's minds off the idea that someone had planted bombs, and thus whoever planted the bombs essentially got away. It's an alibi, so to speak.

Why the November Bin Laden Video Was a Hoax

Link.

The Bin Laden tape of last week was clearly a cheap fake. My proof is very simple, as a devout and devoted ultra-fundamentalist Wahabi Muslim, Bin Laden does not believe in kings, queens, princes or princesses. Thus, when this alleged “Bin Laden” called Zarqawi,
“the prince of Al Qa’eda”—it shouted, this is not Bin Laden. Bin Laden would never use these words, but some Hollywood or Pentagon or State Department hack might think it sounded good, as praise for Zarqawi. But in the very doing of this, it made clear that this tape was not Bin Laden.

So why was this tape made? Obviously to be shown to the gullible American public.
Of course it’s always backed-up by the State Department and other American “experts” who claim the voice is definitely that of Bin Laden.

Quite likely bin Laden is dead, and the government is "keeping him" alive, because they find him very useful.

The 9/11 Coup

Tarpley makes the argument that on 9/11, there was actually a coup within the US government, where Bush acceded to the demands of a rogue network bent on promoting a "clash of civilizations" campaign in the Middle East.

Apparently, during the day of 9/11, there were several threats made against Bush himself, including a coded threat against Air Force One. This last threat is most interesting. It was widely discussed in the mainstream media right after 9/11, William Safire even wrote a column talking about moles in the government who would know about the Air Force code name. Then later the White House denied that this specific threat happened, presumably in order to draw attention away from the key question of who would have known the Air Force One code name. This specific threat is actually exetremely incriminating evidence that elements of the government were behind 9/11. And this type of coup strongly implicates that the US military was involved-- which makes sense knowing what we know about the wargames being run on 9/11 that mimicked hijackings.

The thesis is fascinating and makes sense. On the morning of 9/11, Cheney may have been acting as a go-between for this rogue group, transmitting their demands to Bush. Part of their demands apparently would be to officially promote the idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Tarpley thinks Bush quickly caved in to the demands of this group, who were bent on waging a world war, and in so doing, completely abdicated his responsibilities to the constitution and to the country.

An intriguing part of this story is seen by looking at the speeches Bush made on the day of 9/11. At Booker elementary, when the attacks were first starting, Bush made a short speech referring briefly to terrorism. Then later Bush taped a short speech from Barksdale Air Force base, where he was visibly shaken and omitted any reference to terrorism-- rather, he referred (tellingly) to a "faceless enemy". Then later in the evening, Bush gave a much longer speech to the nation, where he was much calmer and in command, and spoke forcefully about terrorism and good and evil. Tarpley speculates that the Barksdale speech came right after Bush realized the coup threat-- this would have right after the specific threat on Ar Force One.

It seems quite possible, if the 9/11 attacks had gone off completely as planned, that they would resulted in the killing of Bush and the destruction of Congress-- essentially the government would have been decapitated. This might well have left the country under martial law under (shiver) Dick Cheney. However it seems only half-hearted attempts were made to kill Bush, and likely the intent was more to scare him into capitulation than completely remove him. They knew he would be malleable-- Bush was, after all, essentially a puppet.

Pain

It is painful to see Democrats apparently trust the CIA--- ESPECIALLY after 9/11 and the Iraq debacle. What is with this new view that the CIA is just a error-prone bunch of intelligence "analysts"?

It is painful to see Democrats trust the mainstream media on 9/11 when they don't trust them on Bush and they didn't trust them on the run-up to the Iraq war. Why trust the media on such a critical issue as 9/11?

It is very painful to see Democrats trust the Bush administration on the key point that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, when they don't trust the Bush administration on anything else they say. Moreover, Democrats can't see the disconnect when the Bush administration has clearly shown no great interest in going after Al Qaeda in the last two years, and they have shown no interest at all in getting bin Laden. Why on earth should Democrats trust anything the Bush administration says about 9/11?

Scott Ritter and Iran

A couple of days ago I posted this piece about Scott Ritter saying two remarkable things:
1) the Iraqi election was cooked to have the Shiites have less than 50% of the vote
2) Bush has signed authorization to start bombing Iran in June.

Seems to me like both of these are big news, particularly the second one.

Yet, strangely, no one else, not even the major blogs have picked up on this story.

Need I remind everyone that Scott Ritter WAS 100% RIGHT ABOUT THE LACK OF WMD IN IRAQ?

Seems to me his credibility on issues of war is rather good.

So why the big yawn?

We're potentially talking about the start of a major conflict here.

I don't get it.

I really wonder about many of the lefty bloggers. They dropped the ball on Bush stealing the election. They have ignored the 9/11 skeptic movement. It's almost like they are just like most mainstream Democratic politicians-- afraid to speak out on really controversial topics.

p.s. I noticed Democratic Underground has a thread on this, at least. DU is really among the most open and truly Democratic web-sites.

The WTC Tower Collapses

The fact is, I was unconvinced whether there were explosives used in the WTC collapses, until I read Webster Tarpley's new book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA", and then I have switched over to the controlled demolition camp.

The argument for explosives used to bring down the tower goes something like this:
1) the WTC was bombed before--in '93, so there is precedent
2) the extreme speed at which the towers fell-- not consistent with pancake model, where each floor gave way due to pressure from above
3) both towers collapsed same exact way though the damage to each was very different
4) there were abundant eye-witness reports of explosives on 9/11, including from firemen
5) the Fire Dept is suppressing discussion of bombs in the WTC on 9/11 by firemen
6) Giuliani and the government clearly hindered any investigation into the collapse-- quickly cleared away the material before it could be analyzed. Giuliani didn't even want tourists taking photos at the WTC site.
7) Silverstein-- the owner of the WTC complex took out a huge insurance contract as soon as he bought the buildings
8) there were reports of molten steel at the base of the WTC collapse-- this is not consistent with a pancake collapse
9) there were many empty offices in the WTC where bombs could have been planted
10) a worker at the WTC said power was shut off in the WTC the weekend before the attacks for laying cables
11) finally, recently a Madrid skyscraper where it burned for 24 hours-- 12 times as long as the WTC, but only suffered a partial collapse of a few floors.

The argument against demolition is something like this:
1) the weakened steel from the fires led to a sequential pancake collapse of each floor-- this is an unproven theory
2) there couldn't have been more layers to the 9/11 conspiracy-- this is more of a belief it seems than anything else.

R.I.P. H.S.T.

I know this is old news, but heck, I've been busy.

The ironic thing for me is that over the weekend I went to my old bookshelf get something different to read (9/11 gets depressing after a while), and I found my old copy of "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72" and pulled it out to read.

Then Monday morning, I wake up and he's dead. I hadn't read one of his books for years, then I pull out his book the day before he dies.

Anyway, I thought his stuff was brilliant when I was a teenager and in my twenties, but of course his Gonzo image doesn't seem so amusing when you are older.

Nonetheless, I find it gratifying that Thompson was a 9/11 skeptic. OF COURSE he was-- he was too smart not to be.

The last thing I read by Thompson was quite good-- his analysis of the 2004 campaign:

I look at elections with the cool and dispassionate gaze of a professional gambler, especially when I'm betting real money on the outcome. Contrary to most conventional wisdom, I see Kerry with five points as a recommended risk. Kerry will win this election, if it happens, by a bigger margin than Bush finally gouged out of Florida in 2000. That was about forty-six percent, plus five points for owning the U.S. Supreme Court -- which seemed to equal fifty-one percent. Nobody really believed that, but George W. Bush moved into the White House anyway.

It was the most brutal seizure of power since Hitler burned the German Reichstag in 1933 and declared himself the new Boss of Germany. Karl Rove is no stranger to Nazi strategy, if only because it worked, for a while, and it was sure as hell fun for Hitler. But not for long. He ran out of oil, the whole world hated him, and he liked to gobble pure crystal biphetamine and stay awake for eight or nine days in a row with his maps & his bombers & his dope-addled general staff.

They all loved the whiff. It is the perfect drug for War -- as long as you are winning -- and Hitler thought he was King of the Hill forever. He had created a new master race, and every one of them worshipped him. The new Hitler youth loved to march and sing songs in unison and dance naked at night for the generals. They were fanatics.

That was sixty-six years ago, far back in ancient history, and things are not much different today. We still love War.

George Bush certainly does. In four short years he has turned our country from a prosperous nation at peace into a desperately indebted nation at war. But so what? He is the President of the United States, and you're not. Love it or leave it.

*****

War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .

Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)

Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him?

If Nixon were running for president today, he would be seen as a "liberal" candidate, and he would probably win. He was a crook and a bungler, but what the hell? Nixon was a barrel of laughs compared to this gang of thugs from the Halliburton petroleum organization who are running the White House today -- and who will be running it this time next year, if we (the once-proud, once-loved and widely respected "American people") don't rise up like wounded warriors and whack those lying petroleum pimps out of the White House on November 2nd.

Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him.

You bet. Richard Nixon would be my Man. He was a crook and a creep and a gin-sot, but on some nights, when he would get hammered and wander around in the streets, he was fun to hang out with. He would wear a silk sweat suit and pull a stocking down over his face so nobody could recognize him. Then we would get in a cab and cruise down to the Watergate Hotel, just for laughs.

*****

Even the Fun-hog vote has started to swing for John Kerry, and that is a hard bloc to move. Only a fool would try to run for president without the enthusiastic support of the Fun-hog vote. It is huge, and always available, but they will never be lured into a voting booth unless voting carries a promise of Fun.

At least thirty-three percent of all eligible voters in this country are confessed Fun-hogs, who will cave into any temptation they stumble on. They have always hated George Bush, but until now they had never made the connection between hating George Bush and voting for John Kerry.

The Fun-hogs are starving for anything they can laugh with, instead of at. But George Bush is not funny. Nobody except fellow members of the Petroleum Club in Houston will laugh at his silly barnyard jokes unless it's for money.

When young Bush was at Yale in the Sixties, he told the same joke over and over again for two years, according to some of his classmates. One of them still remembers it:

There was a young man named Green
Who invented a jack-off machine
On the twenty-third stroke
The damn thing broke
And churned his nuts into cream.

"It was horrible to hear him tell it," said the classmate, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. He lifted his shirt and showed me a scar on his back put there by young George. "He burned this into my flesh with a red-hot poker," he said solemnly, "and I have hated him ever since. That jackass was born cruel. He burned me in the back while I was blindfolded. This scar will be with me forever."

There is nothing new or secret about that story. It ran on the front page of the Yale Daily News and caused a nasty scandal for a few weeks, but nobody was ever expelled for it. George did his first cover-up job. And he liked it.

*****

I watch three or four frantic network-news bulletins about Iraq every day, and it is all just fraudulent Pentagon propaganda, the absolute opposite of what it says: u.s. transfers sovereignty to iraqi interim "government." Hot damn! Iraq is finally Free, and just in time for the election! It is a deliberate cowardly lie. We are no more giving power back to the Iraqi people than we are about to stop killing them.

Your neighbor's grandchildren will be fighting this stupid, greed-crazed Bush-family "war" against the whole Islamic world for the rest of their lives, if John Kerry is not elected to be the new President of the United States in November.

The question this year is not whether President Bush is acting more and more like the head of a fascist government but if the American people want it that way. That is what this election is all about. We are down to nut-cutting time, and millions of people are angry. They want a Regime Change.

Some people say that George Bush should be run down and sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would be a lot easier to just vote the bastard out of office on November 2nd.

*****

BULLETIN
KERRY WINS GONZO ENDORSMENT; DR. THOMPSON JOINS DEMOCRAT IN CALLING BUSH "THE SYPHILLIS PRESIDENT"
"Four more years of George Bush will be like four more years of syphilis," the famed author said yesterday at a hastily called press conference near his home in Woody Creek, Colorado. "Only a fool or a sucker would vote for a dangerous loser like Bush," Dr. Thompson warned. "He hates everything we stand for, and he knows we will vote against him in November."

Thompson, long known for the eerie accuracy of his political instincts, went on to denounce Ralph Nader as "a worthless Judas Goat with no moral compass."

"I endorsed John Kerry a long time ago," he said, "and I will do everything in my power, short of roaming the streets with a meat hammer, to help him be the next President of the United States."

*****

Which is true. I said all those things, and I will say them again. Of course I will vote for John Kerry. I have known him for thirty years as a good man with a brave heart -- which is more than even the president's friends will tell you about George W. Bush, who is also an old acquaintance from the white-knuckle days of yesteryear. He is hated all over the world, including large parts of Texas, and he is taking us all down with him.

Bush is a natural-born loser with a filthy-rich daddy who pimped his son out to rich oil-mongers. He hates music, football and sex, in no particular order, and he is no fun at all.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, but I will not make that mistake again. The joke is over for Nader. He was funny once, but now he belongs to the dead. There is nothing funny about helping George Bush win Florida again. Nader is a fool, and so is anybody who votes for him in November -- with the obvious exception of professional Republicans who have paid big money to turn poor Ralph into a world-famous Judas Goat.

Nader has become so desperate and crazed that he's stooped to paying homeless people to gather signatures to get him on the ballot. In Pennsylvania, the petitions he submitted contained tens of thousands of phony signatures, including Fred Flintstone, Mickey Mouse and John Kerry. A judge dumped Ralph from the ballot there, saying the forms were "rife with forgeries" and calling it "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court."

But they will keep his name on the ballot in the long-suffering Hurricane State, which is ruled by the President's younger brother, Jeb, who also wants to be the next President of the United States. In 2000, when they sent Jim Baker down to Florida, I knew it was all over. The fix was in. In that election, 97,488 people voted for Nader in Florida, and Gore lost the state by 537 votes. You don't have to be from Texas to understand the moral of that story. It's like being out-coached in the Super Bowl. There are no rules in the passing lane. Only losers play fair, and all winners have blood on their hands.

*****

Back in June, when John Kerry was beginning to feel like a winner, I had a quick little rendezvous with him on a rain-soaked runway in Aspen, Colorado, where he was scheduled to meet with a harem of wealthy campaign contributors. As we rode to the event, I told him that Bush's vicious goons in the White House are perfectly capable of assassinating Nader and blaming it on him. His staff laughed, but the Secret Service men didn't. Kerry quickly suggested that I might make a good running mate, and we reminisced about trying to end the Vietnam War in 1972.

That was the year I first met him, at a riot on that elegant little street in front of the White House. He was yelling into a bullhorn and I was trying to throw a dead, bleeding rat over a black-spike fence and onto the president's lawn.

We were angry and righteous in those days, and there were millions of us. We kicked two chief executives out of the White House because they were stupid warmongers. We conquered Lyndon Johnson and we stomped on Richard Nixon -- which wise people said was impossible, but so what? It was fun. We were warriors then, and our tribe was strong like a river.

That river is still running. All we have to do is get out and vote, while it's still legal, and we will wash those crooked warmongers out of the White House.

Damn good stuff.

Scary News

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS.

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans’ duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Oy. God help us.

NYFD Chiefs Are Suppressing Discussion of Bombs in the WTC Towers

According to Webster Tarpley in his new book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA", most NY City firefighters know there were bombs placed in the WTC that went off on 9/11. Some of them experienced the explosions first hand. They know that the WTC would not have collapsed without explosives-- otherwise, why would so many of them have risked going up into the building to fight the fires? However, the firemen are being kept from talking about bombs in the WTC by their bosses, and their jobs and pensions have been threatened if they talk publicly about it.

In fact, news videos made on 9/11 show firemen and other people discussing bombs in the WTC. However, these people have been kept quiet by their superiors or by the FBI.

The clincher is that the NYFD hired former CIA director and neocon James Woolsey as their anti-terrorism consultant, and he actively suppresses any discussion that bombs were placed in the WTC.

Woolsey is a liar. I have heard him lie on news shows. He can't be trusted.

One other twist: in testimony before the 9/11 commission, Bernard Kerik, in discussing how the city planned for emergencies, referred to the many drills they ran, then mentioned collapsing buildings.

The key events of 9/11 were previously run as drills by the government-- on-board hijackings, NORAD responses to hijacked planes.

I have to wonder if there was a building collapse drill planned for 9/11, and if this drill was subverted and brought to life by the 9/11 planners.

Evidence That the 9/11 Hijackers Did Not Really Fly the Planes

1) None of the flight instructors of the hijackers who took flight lessons said they were good students. In fact, most of the hijackers who took flight lessons seemed remarkably inept at flying.

2) None of the hijackers had ever flown a large jet before, even according to the official story.

3) The hijackers had to take over the cockpits then fly hundreds of miles without the help of autopilot. This is not a trivial feat.

4) The hijackers must have used either visual geographic landmarks for navigation or portable GPS instruments. The first feasible but is not an easy feat, particularly for someone not from the US. The routes the hijackers did choose were not well suited to using key geographic landmarks-- for instance the planes going to the WTC could have navigated down the Hudson river fairly easily, or down the Long Island Sound, but they didn't do this. I don't know how feasible it is to use store bought GPS instruments on a plane, but I supect it is not trivial.

5) Not only did the hijackers have to steer the planes in rather extreme turns, when they had never before flown a large jet, but they also had to descend at least 20,000 feet-- from cruising position to near ground level. It is essentially impossible to believe that they could do this, using only manual controls with their level of experience, without losing control of the plane.

6) The hijackers had to make very tight, controlled maneuvers to strike the targets perfectly. The odds of this being done three out of three times by untrained jet pilots is miniscule.

7) Flight data recorders were recovered from the Pentagon as well as from the WTC, but the data has never been released. In fact, the black boxes recovered from the WTC weren't even acknowledged by the government-- just by the firefighters who worked at the clea up site. This strongly suggests the authorities are hiding key details about the flights that would show the hijackers weren't flying the planes. Even the full cockpit recording from flight 93 has not been released to the public, again suggesting the authorities are hiding key details. The government has only released parts of the flight 93 tape that conform to their story of the passenger revolt and cockpit storming.

8) Remote control of airplanes is a fact, and remote control drones have been used extensively by the military. NORAD has used such drones as practice targets in live-fly exercises. In fact, there was such a live-fly exercise being run by NORAD on 9/11.

THUS--

First, we have a fairly strong case that the hijackers simply were not physically capable of flying the planes into the WTC towers and Pentagon.

Second, we have a cover-up of the flight data for the planes that crashed into WTC towers and Pentagon.

Third, there is a good alternative explanation for how the planes could have been piloted if they were not piloted by the hijackers.***

On the other hand, what evidence is there that the hijackers WERE flying the planes?

None really. The only "evidence" for the idea that the hijackers were flying the planes is the (naive) disbelief that the government would never lie and would never carry out such a monstrous act. But the fact is, the government does monstrous acts all the time under the general rubric of "covert operations".


***Of course, one other explanation is that the airline pilots were doing most of the flying under orders of the hijackers. However, this defies belief for several reasons, since we have to believe that, a) the pilots had no idea what the hijackers were going to do (particularly after the first plane crashed into the WTC), b) the pilots were able to control the plane but then did not fight the hijackers, or try to crash the plane, when the hijackers wanted to take control, c) the pilots could not surreptitiously warn air traffic control of the hijackings by pressing 7500 on the transponder, d) the hijackers kept the pilots from talking to air traffic control by radio when called, even though that would have forestalled air traffic control recognition of the hijacking. With all of these things taken together, it is fairly unlikely that the airline pilots were doing the flying after the hijackers took control of the cockpit.

9/11: Light Conspiracy versus Heavy Conspiracy

Light Conspiracy: US intelligence agents knew Al Qaeda was going to strike on 9/11, was following the hijackers but "let it happen" to further the US geopolitical agenda. Not too hard to believe for many people. There is some evidence for it.

Heavy Conspiracy: The hijackers weren't really flying the 9/11 planes-- the planes were either controlled by remote control or there was a plane swap with remote controlled drones. A much more involved plan, and on the face of it, hard to believe. But actually, the evidence is fairly strong for this sort of conspiracy.

The key to the heavy versus light conspiracy is in the answer to this question: WERE THE HIJACKERS CAPABALE OF FLYING THE 9/11 PLANES?

In my next post, I will go over the reasons why it is unlikely they were flying the planes.

Was Al Qaeda Really Behind 9/11?

It's funny how the Bush administration didn't think so-- at least initially.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

And this:

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Okay, so maybe the Bush administration was rushing to judgement about Iraq, right?

But can't we interpret this story quite another way? Perhaps the linkage of 9/11 to Al Qaeda wasn't nearly as clear-cut as Clarke makes us believe. Perhaps the Bush administration simply didn't believe the Al Qaeda linkage, and had to be convinced of Al Qaeda involvement. Perhaps the linkage of 9/11 and Al Qaeda was simply NOT THAT STRONG. Indeed, if the 9/11 attacks were really some bizarre hijacking drill gone wrong, there may not have been much of a link, without the FBI and CIA framing Al Qaeda.

Clearly Clarke and the CIA wanted to blame 9/11 on Al Qaeda-- for their own reasons to be sure. But perhaps a clear linkage was never really there.

Perhaps some deal was worked out, where the Bush administration would agree to attack Afghanistan first, if the Clarke and the CIA would support an Iraq invasion.

And we all know how bogus the CIA data on Iraq was.

The Roots of the Bush White House Gay Prostitute Scandal?

The Franklin Child Sex Scandal in the Bush-Reagan White House.

The Strategy of Tension

At the end of last month, Frank Cass in London released a new book by Dr. Daniele Ganser of the Center for Security Studies at the Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich called, “NATO’s Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe,” which offers plenty of evidence that there was also a “Salvador Option” in post-war Europe. It turns out that during the Cold War, European governments and secret services conspired with a NATO-backed operation to engineer attacks in their own countries in order to manipulate the population to reject socialism and communism.

It was called “the strategy of tension” and it was carried out by members of secret stay-behind armies organized by NATO and funded by the CIA in Italy, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and other European countries. The strategy apparently involved supplying right-wing terrorists with explosives to carry out terrorist acts which were then blamed on left-wing groups to keep them out of power.

Link.
That could NEVER happen here, could it?

The Second Wave of the 9/11 Truth Movement

as explained by John Kaminski. This bit was quite moving:

It came as a big — and pleasant — surprise to me. In a chance conversation with a complete stranger at the car wash, I screwed up my courage and dared to say it."You know ... our own government was behind 9/11!" I held my breath. My eyebrows scrunched up in anticipation of some mindwashed backlash of preprogrammed patriotic outrage.

The guy turned slowly and looked me squarely in the eye. "I know," he said, his furrowed brow mirroring all the painful pathos that has hogtied all the hearts in America these past three years. I breathed a big sigh of relief. And then I pushed the envelope.

"And you know ... all those people dead in Iraq — thousands of Americans and a hundred thousand Iraqis — all because of lies." The old guy tugged on his frayed plaid cap and wheezed. "I know," he repeated, shuffling his feet, his body involuntarily twitching from the realization of his long-suppressed acknowledgement.

9/11 Timeline with Some Interesting Details

Here.

Has a bunch of details about 9/11 advance warnings, WTC building 7, United flight 23 as well as a Korean Air flight that was sending a hijack signal for 90 minutes.

I'm curious what the original departure time for flight 23 was (it was supposed to leave from Newark). It says in this timeline that four Arab men got very agitated and demanded the flight leave when the flight didn't take off at 8:45am. If the flight was originally scheduled for 8:45am, then it was leaving much later than anyone of the 9/11 flights except for flight 93 (which also was leaving from Newark), which was delayed 45 minutes and didn't leave until 8:45am or so. There could have been a substantial delay at Newark, I suppose.

What is odd is the 8:45am departure time for flight 23 completely is at odds with this story, where the United flight controller Ed Ballinger specifically grounds flight 23 long after flight 93 has taken off-- which must have been well after 9:00am.

A 8:45am departure makes more sense for the flight being another 9/11 attack plane, but Ballinger's story suggests the flight was supposed to take off much later and doesn't mention Arabs wanting the plane to take off. I don't know how to reconcile these two accounts.

Actually, reading it again, the Ballinger story doesn't make sense since the article is talking about Flight 11 hitting the WTC and Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon BEFORE Ballinger realizes flight 175 is lost. So the Ballinger timeline is way off. Perhaps Ballinger got very confused on that day or the story is just wrong, I don't know.

The main question is-- if United flight 23 was supposed to be a fifth hijacked 9/11 plane, when was it supposed to take off? Why was it so delayed?

Moonie Link to the Male Prostitute "Reporter" in the White House?

Somehow it is not too surprising.

The Middle East Destabilization Campaign Continues Apace

Is Syria next on the agenda before Iran?

Not a good sign, the US has recalled its Syrian ambassador. This is in response to the US belief that Syria was behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Not surprisingly, the Hariri assassination took out one of "the Middle East's single most persistent and energetic advocate for civil society, for unrestrained media, for business-based solutions to the Levantine dilemma, and for a free, capitalist, forward-looking Arab world."

This fits the neocon plan exactly.

And the beauty for the neocons is that this destabilization campaign helps Israel as well as the US geopolitical goal of keeping the Middle East weak so it can be exploited by the US.

Tragically, I really worry we are looking at the early stages of another World War here. And this one may not end so well for the US.

Scoop Jackson: the First Neocon

Also mentor to slimeball Richard Perle.

Hmm-- I wonder why the CIA is taking his old papers?

Negroponte As the New Intelligence Czar

Uggh.

Not really much to say except that once again, Bush picks the most obscene people possible for positions in his administration.

The Iraq War All Makes Sense Now

If you believe the neocon plan is to inflame and divide the Muslim world.

The flimsy WMD premise for the invasion, the lack of post invasion planning, the razing of Fallujah, the torture and humiliation of Muslims at Abu Ghraib and other US detention camps-- this is all part of the neocon plan to inflame Muslim nations and disrupt modernization. This is why the neocons want Iraq to be as fucked up as possible.

Even allowing the Iraqi insurgency to develop fits into their plans-- it serves as a beacon for Jihadists and for recruitment of Islamic fundamentalists.

The democracy stuff in Iraq is almost purely for domestic consumption. Also this why the military has been so tight about letting western, especially US, journalists see what is happening in Iraq. They don't want the US public to see hwo badly they are behaving. Meanwhile, Arab news stations are freely broadcasting the carnage.

It all makes so much sense now.

Meanwhile all the Democrats can talk about is the incompetence in the Bush administration.

Don't they get it? Just like with 9/11, incompetence is the acceptable cover story for Democratic consumption (for Republicans, the cover story is that things are hard and they are doing everything they can and anyway all the problems are Clinton's fault).

The neocons are sick evil people, but they are not incompetent. They know exactly what they are doing. And they don't want Americans to know what they are doing. An important part of their ideology is deceiving the masses.

And sure enough, from 9/11 to WMD to bringing democracy to Muslims, Americans have mostly fallen for their deceptions.

The question is-- do the Muslim nations see through this plan? Are they smart enough to avoid falling into the trap?

That will be key in the next few years.

Rather Than Peak Oil

Webster Tarpley believes the root causes of the 9/11 attacks were:
1) global devaluation of the US dollar.
2) the increasing tendency of oil-producing countries not to trade oil in dollars (pre-invasion Iraq, Iran), further weakening the dollar and the ability of the US to control oil supples. Saudi Arabia has threatenend switching to the euro.
3) general global monetary instability.
4) the desire of the neocons to maintain American pre-eminence by waging war.
5) the desire of the neocons to confront the muslim world, whose huge population growth threatened American predominance.

Clearly this is a much more nuanced view than the idea that the US set-up the 9/11 attacks so as to provide an excuse to invade oil-rich countries, which was necessary because total oil supplies are peaking and will soon run out.

Tarpley's thesis fits in the neocons much better than the Peak Oil theory, and certainly the neocons are an important group who was pushing for more aggressive US military responses around the world and was looking for a spark or a new "Pearl Harbor".

Personally, I have tended to disbelieve the doomsday aspects to the Peak Oil theory, and thus Tarpley's thesis makes somewhat more sense to me.

Further, Tarpley posits that rather than wanting the Muslim world to democratize and modernize, the Anglo-US elites want destabilized Muslim countries. The reason being that modern forward-looking Muslim countries would look away from the US for economic development and seek separate economic accords with Europe, Japan and large third-world countries like Brazil. Thus, by fomenting Islamic fundamentalism, the US can keep Muslim countries backwards and isolated, and dependent upon the US. From this point of view, the US war in Iraq has been a smashing success-- in that rather than truly democratizing Iraq, the country is likely to be very unstable and ruled by backwards-looking Islamic leaders. Thus, Iraq is ripe for the picking by colonial powers such as the US. Moreover, the anti-American anger created by the US invasion of Iraq also plays right into the hands of this US strategy.

Note then, the false criticism waged by prominent US Democrats-- that the Iraq war will spark more instability and Islamic fundamentalism. The reason that this is a false criticism is because it misses the key point that this instability is exactly what the American elites and the neocons want. A major problem with US Democrats, it seems, is their ability to miss the big picture-- most acutely with Bush's "war on terror". If they do see the big picture, they are afraid to articulate it-- much to our detriment as a society.

Perhaps Democrats are more-or-less resigned to this imperial US policy-- they enjoy the benefits too-- and are content to merely criticize the sick US foreign policy around the edges for political purposes. If so, shame on them.

Not that Democrats are the major problem. That distinction obviously belongs to the evil and rapacious tendencies of the US elites, and their representatives in the Bush administration. But Democrats, by and large, are clearly enablers of these policies.

The ultimate goal the US elites and neocons is to maintain US world domination. The major obstacles to world domination are China (because of its population and incredible economic growth potential) and the Muslim world (for its control of oil supplies and huge population). Since China is highly militarized and has nuclear weapons, it is likely suicidal for the US to directly take on China. The US strategy therefore seems to be to take on the Muslim world, which is more ripe for domination, and in so doing, control much of the world's oil supply-- on which China is dependent for its growth. In other words, by taking on the Muslim world, they hope to kill two birds with one stone.

Whether the US elites and neocons can actually succeed in this or not is another question. Iran will be key for them-- especially in light of newly developing relations between Iran and China. Clearly, however, we are looking at a future with large-scale global tensions, perhaps played out slowly over the next decade rather than in the next four years.

Didn't Really Observe This Before

In this sequence showing the WTC South tower collapse, the top thirty stories almost completely collapse above the break point before the remaining lower, essentially unaffected, 70 stories of building starts collapsing.

I've never been completely convinced that there was controlled demolition of the WTC towers-- even though the physical appearance of the collapse is very similar to controlled demolition.

But the fact that this top chunk of the tower-- which was most affected by the fire-- starts caving in first, as shown in the sequence, this strongly suggests to me there is some type of sequential floor "pancaking" effect going on. Which means the collapse may have had nothing to do with explosives.

Note, the little squibs of smoke, that are highlighted by the author of the page, coming out below the breakpoint are hardly indicative of explosives.

The other thing arguing against explosives is that it is rather unlikely that buildings where thousands of people work could be wired for controlled demolition without people noticing.

So, I am leaning away from controlled demolition of the WTC at the moment, though still not completely sure. Certainly, I find it conceivable that there was something unusual about the structural design of the WTC towers 1 and 2 that made them susceptible to a pancaking type of collapse following a bullseye hit by a large plane and severe fires.

Insanity

The US is arming a new insurgency to counteract Islamic rule in Iraq.

Male Prostitute Working in the Bush White House

Turns out Jeff Gannon is not simply linked to a male prostitute service, he IS a male prostitute.

And I'm sure there is even MORE to the story than this.

Even More Fine-Tuning of the Incompetence, LIHOP and MIHOP theories-- the addition of HIHOP

In my last post, I argued that clandestine moles in the government "made" 9/11 happen (MIHOP), while the public officials in the Bush administration were guilty only of "letting" 9/11 happen (LIHOP).

After thinking about this further, I realized this needs even more clarification.

The evidence seems fairly strong that Cheney was running the wargames on 9/11 that AT MINIMUM helped the attack planes reach their targets. If we assume that this is the case, then Cheney is guilty of more than LIHOP-- he is guilty of HIHOP (Helping It Happen On Purpose).

So this is the new "guilt" breakdown for 9/11:

President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and officials such as Condoleeza Rice-- Cover story is INCOMPETENCE.

President Bush and officials such as Condoleeza Rice-- Actually guilty of LIHOP

Vice-President Cheney-- Actually guilty of HIHOP

Clandestine government moles-- Cover story is they don't exist

Clandestine government moles-- Actualy guilty of MIHOP


Note-- this could change if it turns out the live-fly hijacking exercise apparently run by Cheney on 9/11 was actually intimately involved in the attacks, particularly if remote-control drones were what hit the WTC and Pentagon. Then Cheney would also be guilty of MIHOP. Then, there could be two levels of MIHOP: a) setting up the hijacker legend-- done by the clandestine moles (which took a couple of years), and b) running the air show on 9/11-- done by NORAD, the Defense department and Cheney (?).

Incompetence, LIHOP or MIHOP-- a Clarification

Incompetence, LIHOP or MIHOP for the Bush administration and 9/11 seems to be a raging discussion on Democratic Underground lately.

Basically, in its purest form, the question refers to the Bush administration-- did 9/11 happen because they were incompetent, because they let it happen (LIHOP) or because they MADE it happen (MIHOP).

While I have tended to strongly believe in MIHOP, I realize that this may not be the best description for the Bush administration's role in 9/11.

That is, the 9/11 attacks were in the works for years before 9/11, before the Bush administration was in power. Thus, we simply can't say they MADE 9/11 happen out of the blue.

I strongly think however, that elements of the US government-- the non-elected officials comprising the national security state-- indeed MADE 9/11 happen. These people would act through groups such as the CIA and DIA and ONI, as well as the various private agencies and companies affiliated with these agencies.

The key point is that while 9/11 was certainly MADE to happen, by these clandestine groups along with Al Qaeda patsies, it wasn't made to happen by the Bush administration.

Rather, the role of the Bush administration was to LET IT HAPPEN. The Bush administration for instance likely insured wargames kept NORAD planes distracted during the hijackings. The Bush administration ignored all warnings of the attacks and simply LET IT HAPPEN. The Bush administration is very culpable. But they are not the ones who made the attacks happened.

So, really, 9/11 was the result of both MIHOP and LIHOP-- the difference being which people in power. Non-elected officials MADE it happen, elected officials LET it happen (or made sure it happened).

This way of viewing this issue removes some of the confusion with these terms.

So How Does the Bush Administration Compare with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia?

Billmon's got it covered.

Representative Waxman Calls for Investigation into New 9/11 Evidence

Three cheers for him!

Waxman, referring to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, says the recently reported FAA warnings raise either "serious questions about her preparation and competency" or that "Ms. Rice knew about the FAA warnings but provided misleading information to the public and the Commission."

In other words, she's either incompetent or a liar.

My guess is the latter.

I guess Waxman will be the next Democrat to get roughed up. How soon before he has to vacate HIS office because of a terror threat?

Shift in 9/11 Views?

The New York Times article from two days back, "9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings", seems to have hit some sort of nerve at Democratic Underground.

A lot more people are coming and talking about LIHOP/MIHOP and government complicity. It is good to see. One person wrote that the new documents switched him/her to MIHOP and another poster sensed a switch in opinion as well.

One can only imagine how opinion may have shifted away from the blogosphere. There is still hope.

My 9/11 Links

You may have noticed that I have added a disclaimer to my 9/11 links section. All the links I have on the chosen to put on the side have some useful information, which why they are there. Also, I like having as many 9/11 links as possible to show the strength and diversity of the community. However, some sites are much better than in others in terms of scientific rigour and balance. I thought initally of segregating the sites into "good" and "suspect" or into "reputable" and "dubious", but I decided not to for two reasons. First, I don't want to piss people off if they come here and find their site is not in the "good" category. Second, while some sites are clearly better than others, there are even other sites that fall in between-- they are good but have some things I don't quite agree with. So it becomes a big sorting game for many sites, and I'd rather not make such binary decisions. Finally, I decided to simply leave a large caveat and let you decide for yourself on what sites are worthwhile. I think it will become apparent to most people which sites are very strong and which are more dubious. Moreover, some of this is simply personal preference or personal bias.

Guckert-gate

While the mainstream story of Jim Guckert (aka "Jeff Gannon") is both amusing and disturbing, this story also has some dark seamy undertones, as explained at Rigorous Intuition.

I find the fact that a fake reporter who was used to spread White House propaganda was also affiliated with a male prostitution ring more than a tad significant.

How much would anyone like to wager that there is much much more to this story that hasn't come out yet?

Unfortunately, based on the history past scandals of this nature, if this story comes out at all, it be buried quickly-- since this sort of scandal touches and exposes the deep rot in Washington DC that has spread to all major concerned parties: Democrats, Republicans, the non-partisan oligoarchy representing the national security state and of course the media.

One thing for sure-- if there is any reason that "the powers that be" want to make trouble for the Bush White House, it could well be through this story. A big "if" however.

All Hell Breaks Loose

First, Popular Mechanics tries to debunk 9/11 conspiracies with this story. But all this article really shows is the problem with making a case based on physical evidence. This is Mike Ruppert's point, and a point I have brought up before (but keep forgetting). The article really does nothing to address MANY important questions about 9/11, as excellently rebutted by Jim Hoffman here. Overall, I think this article actually HELPS the 9/11 skeptic community to some extent, because it highlights the overall idea that people are skeptical of the official 9/11 story yet leaves so many critical questions unanswered.

Next, the NY Times comes out with a story today showing that YES THE "DOTS" WERE FUCKING "CONNECTED"!!!.

The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

The article lays 9/11 right at the doorstep of the FAA. Even if the FAA was more concerned about expediting airline travel than stopping hijackings, why didn't the Bush administraiton over-ride this? Moreover--- why the FUCK wasn't NORAD on high alert for hijackings? The Bush administration should be raked over the coals for this. It is nothing short of treason.

Then, this article in the NY Times: North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons and Rejects Talks. This basically speaks for itself.

Finally, a poster on Daily Kos shows why bloggers are kicking ass over the mainstream media. This story is on the Jeff Gannon-White House propaganda machine. It's got gay sex, the CIA, the Plame affair and selling the Iraq war all rolled into one nice package.

That's quite a shit storm.

Senator Mark Dayton, Minnesota

should be add to this list: US Politicians Who Dared Question 9/11 and Their Fates.

Dayton actually had the audacity to question the NORAD response on 9/11 in a special hearing.


Then his office was closed over the threat of a terror attack. (who actually made the threat I wonder?)

Lastly, Dayton has decided not to run for re-election.

The intimidation of any official questioning 9/11 has worked its magic once again!

Flight 93 Crash Explanation?

Here is a picture of the crater.

I just have a hard time imagining the scene of this horrible crash.

I suppose I can see the front of the fuselage burrowing deep into the ground because of the tremendous speed. BUT-- the plane made wing and tail imprints in the ground yet blew up without leaving any significant debris?

It just seems strange.

The Flight 93 Crash, Revisited, Again

In this post, I talked about how strange it was that flight 93 could plow deeply into the earth such that the plane was not even visible, but still explode violently, spewing debris hundreds of feet back in the direction from which the plane supposedly came.

Supposedly the plane could penetrate so deeply into the ground (15-25 feet) because the earth was soft dirt filled in over an old strip mine. The plane in fact plowed so deeply into the ground such that you could not even see recognizeable airplane pieces at the crash site. Fine.

(This information is from Jere Longman's book on UA Flight 93-- "Among the Heroes", which portrays the official flight 93 story in more detail than one is likely to find anywhere else.)

Here's the question. Wouldn't the soft earth act much like water would to dampen any explosion?

Let's put it another way-- if a plane crashed nose first into deep water, would we expect the plane to explode?

If someone could explain how the plane could burrow into the ground AND explode massively, I'd appreciate it.

Of All People, Cristopher Hitchens

Suspects Fraud in the Ohio Vote Count.

Christopher Hitchens has a new article in Vanity Fair entitled, OHIO'S ODD NUMBER'S. The lead-in states "No conspiracy theorist, and no fan of John Kerry's, the author nevertheless found the Ohio polling results impossible to swallow: Given what happened in that key state on Election Day 2004, both democracy and common sense cry out for a court-ordered inspection of its new voting machines."

Could this be a sign of some shift in the media landscape?

Wow.

Bizarre Details of the 9/11 Attacks

in this Sunday Herald Article from 9/16/01.
Like this:

Last week's attacks on the US involved at least 50 terrorists, including 19 hijackers, most of whom have distinctive tribal names from Saudi Arabia. A few others appear to be Yemeni. Among them were seven pilots, most of whom trained in Florida. At least another 50 people are wanted for questioning.

50 terrorists? Whatever happened to them? Then this:

Atta, Marawan, Waleed Alsheri, Aabdul Alomari and Walid Al Shehri all bought one-way tickets at Logan Airport. Waleed and Walid are believed to be brothers who fought together in Afghanistan. Many of the other hijackers also appear to be related. Two had employee passes, thought to come from a robbery in Italy where American Airlines staff had a pilot's uniform, passes and badges stolen.

But the airline uniforms? Weird. Another old article says Mohamed Atta had airline uniforms in his luggage that never made it on the plane. Sure sounds like some sort of planted evidence-- some sort of cheap spy trick. And this:

Flight 11 was bin Laden's blueprint hijacking. It worked like a dream. On board were Mohammad Atta, Walid Al Shehri, Aabdul Alomari, Satam Sugami and Waleed Alsheri. Piloted by John Ogonowski and Tom McGuinness, the aircraft received clearance for take-off to Los Angeles at 7.45am on Tuesday. Among the 92 passengers on board were Berry Berenson, the actress and widow of actor Anthony Perkins, and David Angell, executive producer of Frasier and former writer of Cheers. The hijackers struck at 8.10am at 10,000ft, seizing three air stewardesses and dragging one, screaming, to the end of the plane.

Atta and his team tried to break into the cockpit but the pilots had barricaded themselves in. The hijackers threatened to start killing passengers and crew unless the controls were handed over to them.

And there is more. Either this article is completely full of mistakes (Walid Al Shehri and Waleed Alsheri are really two different people?), or the story changed a lot from the first week. I suspect some of this story they may have simply made up-- like the description of the hijacking. It is completely different from any other description of the hijackings I've seen. It also begs the question-- if this barricading of the pilots really happened, why didn't the pilots alert Air Traffic Control of a hijacking? But no 9/11 pilot alerted ATC of a hijacking.

And many of the hijackers bought one-way tickets at the last minute? Moreover, they only checked out of their hotel in Portland at 5:33am to catch a 5:45am flight-- which they only barely caught. This hardly sounds like the hijackings were well planned and the work of mastermind criminals.

Oh yeah, this article also says Atta bought a GPS device, and set the coordinates by visiting the WTC before the attacks, to help him steer the plane to the WTC. This certainly SOUNDS good, but how realistic is it to use a portable GPS device on a plane? They don't know how to use the plane's navigation system but they can program and use a portable GPS system?

Is Dick Cheney the 9/11 "Maestro"?

Here is the case against him.

So was Dick Cheney the 9/11 "maestro"?

Frankly, I have a hard time believing he was orchestrating the attacks, as much as I dislike the man. The scenario Ruppert portrays makes sense but it also seems too transparent, too obvious. Would Cheney conduct such a horrendous attack in plain view of the White House staff like this? Also, I find it hard to see that much of what happened on 9/11 was affected by what Cheney was doing on the morning of 9/11. The attacks must have been planned well ahead of time.

Personally, I do not think Cheney was involved in the attack planning, and rather he was taken by surprise to some extent by what happened. Part of the reason for thinking this is the way Cheney went into seclusion after 9/11-- he seemed seriously freaked out. It is hard to believe this was all an act (but possible). Also, while Cheney likely knew something might happen on 9/11, for political cover he would want to "stay out of the loop" as much as possible.

Possibly, Cheney was framed in some way on the morning of 9/11, or that the exercise he was running backfired "unexpectedly" on him. My general opinion is that the 9/11 exercises went off in a very different way than Cheney planned.

The FTW article also mentions NATO commander Ralph Eberhart as an other possible 9/11 maestro. Unfortunately, it is extremely hard to know how much Eberhart knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time.

I think the key question, as always, with these wargames, is: was part of the drill to have remote-controlled planes targeted to specific structures?

Thus, what was the exact nature of the Vigilant Warrior hijacking drill?

Until we know the answers to those questions, it is almost impossible to assign blame for the attacks.


This article also has a good run-down on the NORAD wargames being run on 9/11.

And they mention yet ANOTHER 9/11 wargame: Northern Denial

That makes SIX different aircraft drills on 9/11!

1) Northern Vigilance
2) Northern Guardian
3) Vigilant Guardian
4) Vigilant Warrior
5) Northern Denial
6) NRO plane crash drill

9/11 TRUTH! (version 3.2)

9/11 Truth.org has a new look and a new sense of mission.

Please check it out.

I like this quote from them: "Exposing 9/11's lies will strike at the root of current military/corporatepower, rather than scattering our time and energy reacting to its countless symptoms."

Also, I can't argue with this: "This administration's primary source of political strength is still the 'official 9/11 story' (and all the fear and bigoted hostility that it continues to fuel).

This cynical fable has thus become the corporatists' essential power supply upon which all their military crimes, legislative overreach, and electoral success depend. (See how incessantly they invoke it to justify every brutality, theft and assault upon our rights.)

It is, however, also their gravest vulnerability since it is only sustained by a tissue of lies, corrupt media and public ignorance.

One of Karl Rove's most useful axioms is "attack your opponent's greatest strengths." He thus focused on Kerry's war record and Gore's intellect, and systematically savaged them with loud and clever lies. We can likewise devastate support for the current administration, but honestly and honorably, using 9/11 truth.

We can also use it to forge a wider, more diverse coalition with many others equally afflicted by this government's abuse of its misbegotten power. In fact, there are few groups fighting for social justice, the environment, or basic human rights in the world today who would not instantly and immensely profit from a fearless indictment of our top officials for their 9/11 lies and crimes."

Here is an action item from the e-mail I received from them:
"The 1000-plus member groups of United for Peace & Justice are gathering in St. Louis on February 19th for their annual convention. The Delaware Valley chapter of Peace Action has prepared a strong 9/11 convention proposal that it is now seeking cosponsors for. Please read the proposal below and think if you can get any other groups to co-sponsor it by the deadline of Feb 10. Please send all potential supporters to Phyllis Gilbert at peaceact@critpath.org"

US Politicians Who Dared Question 9/11 and Their Fates

1) Robert Torricelli, former Democratic Senator from New Jersey, represented where thousands of 9/11 victims lived. Torricelli wanted a real hard-hitting 9/11 investigation back in 2001-2002. He resigned from the Senate before the Nov. 2002 elections by a media-inspired smear campaign accusing him of corruption. Note: while Torricelli may not have been completely innocent of the charges, the media clearly went bonkers over his case even after he was cleared by a federal prosecutor.

2) The late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Democrat, who was a political opponent of the CIA and covert operations. Wellstone pushed for real answers about 9/11. He died in a highly suspicious plane crash right before the Nov. 2002 elections.

3) Cynthia McKinney, Democratic Representative from Georgia, dared to suggest that Bush might have wanted 9/11 to suit an agenda of invading middle east countries. She also said Bush had warnings and wanted an investigation into why the warnings were not heeded. She was widely ridiculed in the media, also smeared for taking donations from middle easterners, and then lost in the 2002 election primaries to a Democratic challenger apparently pushed strongly by the right-wing. The good news is that McKinney won back her seat in 2004.

4) Howard Dean, Democratic former governor of Vermont and Democratic candidate for president during the primaries for the 2004 presidential election. When Dean was on the Diane Rehm radio show in December 2003, Dean suggested that Bush might have gotten warning from the Saudis about 9/11. Dean didn't actually say that Bush had warning of 9/11, merely that Bush's secrecy was fueling conspiracy theories. Nonetheless, not too long after that, the media went bezerk on Dean (after he had the audacity to yell at a post-primary rally) and Dean went down in flames. The good news is that Dean is now a virtual lock to be the chairman of the DNC, a prospect that the elites in the mainstream media and in the Democratic party are upset about.

5) Tom Daschle, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader from South Dakota. He intially pushed for a strong investigation into 9/11 then caved quickly under pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney. Daschle's office was hit by an anthrax letter around this time. Daschle was kicked out of office in a contentious election in Nov. 2004.

6) Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, dared to question Attorney General John Ashcroft and some of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act. He was sent an extremely potent anthrax letter that was intercepted by the FBI before it reached his office. He was re-elected easily in Nov. 2004.

7) John Buchanan, Republican, ran for president in 2004 as a "9/11 truth candidate". A speech he gave on 9/11 truth is here. Buchanan was completely ignored by the media and lost his bid for Republican candidate for President.

Anyone see any patterns here?

9/11 -- Synthetic Terror

I have started reading the new book "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA" by Webster Tarpley.

So far, it is excellent. I think it is easily the best of the four books I have listed in my "Recommended Reading" section on the right side of the blog. Ruppert's book is the second best, in my opinion. Tarpley's book is more readable than Ruppert's and he doesn't talk at all about Peak Oil. His writing style is a little more lively and not so self-centered as Ruppert's. Griffin's book is good, but is mostly a simple introduction to 9/11 and alternative interpretations. Hopsicker's book is fun, but has a lot of problems, as I have documented previously.

What Tarpley does an especially great job at is bringing a historical perpective to the 9/11 attacks and showing how state-sponsored terrorism against the state is not new. Tarpley is an expert on the state-sponsored (synthetic) terror that went on in Germany and Italy during the 1970's and 1980's. Tarpley is also an expert on the Bush family, and is renowned for his unauthorized biography of George H. W. Bush.

The beginning is wonderful, as he completely eviscerates the 9/11 Independent Commission. This is just a small sample:
"For the Hamilton-Kean Commission is not a contribution to scholarly debate. It is just as much a part of the US government's assault on the world as an F-16 bombing Fallujah. For the Hamilton-Kean Commission is an act of ideological terrorism worthy of Senator Joe McCarthy."

I skipped into the middle and read over Tarpley's sections on the Pentagon hit and flight 93. There he has nothing really new-- it is the same info you can get from many websites. But Tarpley does a beautiful job with the "big picture" and he has clearly done a tremendous amnount of research on 9/11.

It's a substantial book, and I have just started reading it. I will update my thoughts as I progres through the book. I might as well try to review it, since the book will no doubt be ignored by the mainstream media.

The Oil Crash and Social Security

One has to wonder how much the flim-flam being put out by the Bush administration over Social Security is affected by Peak Oil considerations. Surely they have to know that the budget numbers they are projecting are bogus, because no one can really predict how the upcoming oil crash will affect the US and world economies. Most likely they are putting out numbers that sound somewhat rational, purely for domestic consideration and for sales purposes.

We are fairly sure the Bush administration is cognizant of Peak Oil and what the next ten years will look like as oil supplies dwindle in the face of increasing global demand. The powers that be undoubtedly have several wars planned over the next decade to deal with this crisis.

Actually, with the incessant talk from the Bush administration that the Social Security system is in crisis, in the face of the fact that most economists think the system is projected to do fine for the next forty years or so, I wonder if the Bush admin. talk of crisis is some sort of code for the upcoming oil crisis.

Certainly, the Bush administration suggests that in the absence of a fix, Social Security will not be there for people who are now twenty and younger-- in other words, forty years from now. But given the looming global oil crisis, the point may be more that US society may not exist in a functional state in forty years-- and certainly not in a state to give out social security benfits.

(I have to say at this point, usually I do not buy into doomsday theories. And the Peak Oil crisis is certainly a huge doomsday theory. This is one reason I have been skeptical to embrace the Peak Oil crisis theory. But it seems that overall, the evidence is fairly strong that future oil supplies are limited, the world population is huge and demand for oil is increasing in developing nations. Something HAS to give, and sadly enough, the developing nations will be most likely to give first. But eventually dwindling oil supplies have to strongly affect the US economy, and not in a good way.)

Thus, what is the Bush admin. doing with Social Security? As far as I can figure, they are TRYING to sow the seeds of its destruction with their privatization scheme, and meanwhile also enrich the pockets of Wall Street.

The Bush admin. probably won't get away with it, but that certainly doesn't mean the future of Social Security is guaranteed, since the future of US society is rather precarious.

But, what are you gonna do?

One suggestion: work on creating a novel energy technology.

Life After the Oil Crash

About as chilling an essay as you could ever read.

After reading it, I understand better why Mike Ruppert emphasizes Peak Oil so heavily, and why investigating 9/11 sort of pales in comparison.

Conservation is not a solution, nor are alternative energy supplies.

Peak Oil is an oncoming catastrophe for the US-- and for the world, since the likely reaction of the US to dwindling oil supplies will be resource wars all around the globe (in the name of fighting terrorism).

Unless there is some sort of truly miraculous technological breakthrough that gives us a new supply of cheap energy, we are looking at very dark ages in the near future.

Painful news, but it really is better to be prepared.

Business as Usual

NY Times: U.S. Drops Criminal Inquiry of C.I.A. Antidrug Effort in Peru.

The basic story-line:
1) the CIA "fucks up",
2) some official investigation is launched but the operation in question is deemed too sensitive to result in any meaningful investigation or any serious charges,
3) the survivors and relatives of the victims are paid off,
4) the CIA officers involved are promoted.

This pattern, of course, is what happened with 9/11.

With 9/11, we simply have to think that the "fuck-up" was intentional.

New 9/11 Scenario

involving plane swapping, remote-control drones, and hijacking/terror drills at The Movement.

The piece is fairly speculative, but does fit with many ideas I have been having.

The most interesting aspect of their scenario is that they have found that many of the 9/11 planes turned off their transponders right at spots where radar was coverage was minimal or non-existent. This sort of planning is almost certainly beyond the capability of Al Qaeda hijackers, and suggests a high level of sophistication in the way the flights were coordinated.

The piece also points out that there is a strange coordination to how the flights took off, were hijacked, and how oddly enough several of these flights came very close to each other.

Their model also explains how another plane might have been flying west near where flight 93 was supposed to have crashed. This plane could have been the source of debris found over Indian Lake.

The question right now, though, is WHAT TO DO with this information? It is highly suspcious and interesting but does it get us anywhere?

And since I just did some relatively conventional "liberal" blogging...

...I'll do some more.

Juan Cole has some choice words for Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again

Jonah Goldberg attacked yours truly in a column recently.

I think it is time to be frank about some things. Jonah Goldberg knows absolutely nothing about Iraq. I wonder if he has even ever read a single book on Iraq, much less written one. He knows no Arabic. He has never lived in an Arab country. He can't read Iraqi newspapers or those of Iraq's neighbors. He knows nothing whatsoever about Shiite Islam, the branch of the religion to which a majority of Iraqis adheres. Why should we pretend that Jonah Goldberg's opinion on the significance and nature of the elections in Iraq last Sunday matters? It does not.

Ouch. That's gotta leave a mark.

(please read the rest!)

Complete Idiocy

on Social Security and "liberals" from Nick Kristoff.

What a fucking tool.

Josh Marshall responds more effectively than I ever could. It's actually a great post overall.

Israel and 9/11

Israel almost certainly knew a great deal about the 9/11 plot before it happened. And it is very clear the State of Israel benefited tremendously from the 9/11 attacks.

If you don't believe me (about the latter point), then maybe you'll believe this guy:

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for USA-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].”

The same article also describes in great detail the story of the Israelis dancing on the roof of a van as they watched the WTC attacks. This is NOT an urban legend.

And there is the story about the Israeli art student spy-ring, which is well-documented.

So, Israeli intelligence knew about the attacks-- there is very little doubt.

This of course is very different from saying that Israel actually ran the 9/11 attacks as a "false-flag" operation, as some have said (scroll down).

The fact is, it is hard for me to absolutely rule out Mossad involvement directly in 9/11. There is, on the other hand, precious little evidence for Mossad involvement in 9/11, except for perhaps the presence of Daniel Lewin on flight 11.

One thing that is very clear is that criticizing Israel is as forbidden in the mainstream media as is questioning the Official 9/11 Conspiracy (TM). Some time back, I thought the reason that the media didn't want to look into 9/11 too carefully was actually because of Israel's involvement. But now I think this is far too simple of a view.

What can be said with a good deal of confidence is that, if Israel is complicit in 9/11, than the US and Pakistan are complicit to a much greater degree in 9/11. And they all cover for each other's involvement.

Of course, the cabal that ran 9/11 (and I'm not talking Al Qaeda here) most likely transcends individual nations. This cabal surely contains a pro-Israel contingent, and these people knew about the attacks and also knew that Israel benefited from 9/11. And, Israel ultimately HAS benfited from 9/11 -- since they have clamped-down completely on the Palestinians without any serious outcry from the US. The Iraq War also benefited Israel, though that wasn't the main reason the US went to war.

The key point-- and this is why 9/11 will be a very tough nut to crack-- is that the intelligence services several of different countries were complicit in 9/11, particularly the services of the US, Pakistan and Israel.

Interesting Democratic Underground Poll on 9/11

from August 2003, in the General Discussion section.

40% thought Bush administration waited for 9/11 to happen, but didn't really "Let It Happen on Purpose"-- sort of LIHOP-Lite.

Only 7% believed the Official Story.

32% believed in LIHOP or worse.

I'm curious if these numbers have changed much since then.

If They Call You a Conspiracy Nut--

Then you are probably onto something.

In the weeks leading up to the November 2 election, the New York Times was abuzz with excitement. Besides the election itself, the paper’s reporters were hard at work on two hot investigative projects, each of which could have a major impact on the outcome of the tight presidential race.

One week before Election Day, the Times (10/25/04) ran a hard-hitting and controversial exposé of the Al-Qaqaa ammunition dump—identified by U.N. inspectors before the war as containing 400 tons of special high-density explosives useful for aircraft bombings and as triggers for nuclear devices, but left unguarded and available to insurgents by U.S. forces after the invasion.

On Thursday, just three days after that first exposé, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.
(snip)
That the story hadn’t gotten more serious treatment in the mainstream press was largely thanks to a well-organized media effort by the Bush White House and the Bush/Cheney campaign to label those who attempted to investigate the bulge as "conspiracy buffs" (Washington Post, 10/9/04).

Of course, the story was spiked by the New York Times, and voters never saw this incredibly important and interesting story that could have changed the election.

The whole story is a good albeit depressing read.

Lies

Not to randomly Bush bash, or anything-- but here's a question: can anyone remember a president lying SO BLATANTLY AND SO CONSISTENTLY about any policy like Bush is about his Social Security plan? We're not talking about shading the truth here or lies of ommission or little white lies. We're talking big bald-faced LIES-- upon which the whole foundation of his insidious "plan" is based. I mean, even when they were selling the Iraq war, usually there was SOME basis for what they were saying. Most experts (obviously wrongly), believed Saddam Hussein was hiding some illegal weapons. But the idea that Social Security is facing any sort of crisis in the future is just a gross lie.

It is really quite amazing and sad that he gets away with it. It almost goes without saying how pathetic our media has become. In fact, it almost seems as though the media is more interested in privtizing social security than any politician. As Atrios says:

The truth is, collectively, the media is much more in favor of Social Security privatization than are Republican members of Congress. Print journos are improving, but the NPR/CNN/MSNBC/FOX/ABC/CBS/NBC coverage is just awful. By awful, I mean fact-free coverage which favors the Bush agenda.

And then there are the sick, cynical and racist lies that Bush makes to sell his Social Security plan to blacks. It is absolutely disgusting.

Odd Goings-on in Portland, Maine and in Boston Right Before the 9/11 Attacks

A great run-down of published accounts of what hijackers Mohamed Atta and Abdul-Aziz Al-Omari did the night before and the morning of the 9/11 attacks here.

Summary:
1) they went to three different restaurants, paying by credit card
2) they went to two different ATMs to get cash (where their pictures were taken by security cameras)
3) they went to Walmart to buy boxcutters (apparently) and some electronic device the FBI won't reveal.
4) Atta wore a very garish and noticeable shirt that he threw out before he left Portland
5) they stayed in a Comfort Inn in Portland
6) they were very lucky to make their commuter flight to Boston early Tuesday morning
7) they rented a car in Boston before catching flight 11 and 175.

Suspicious thing #1: why go to three restaurants the night before the big attack?

Suspicious thing #2: why go to two ATM's getting money the night before the big attack? Why would they need so much money if they were going to die the next day?

Suspicious thing #3: Why did Mohamed Atta wear such a garish shirt that was bound to be remembered by people who'd seen him that night?

Suspicious thing #4: why did they go to Walmart to buy boxcutters just the night before the attacks-- and they even had to get directions to go there? Talk about last minute preparations!

Suspicious thing #5: The ATM camera shot by the "Fast Green" ATM machine shows someone who clearly looks like Mohamed Atta-- the guy whose picture we've all seen. The ATM shot by the Jet Port Gas ATM and at Walmart shows someone who looks like Atta but not quite like the guy in the first ATM. Were there two Atta-like men going around that night?

Suspicious thing #6: Why is there so much confusion about whether Atta and Al-Omari came to Portland from Canada or from Florida via Boston?

Extremely Suspicious thing #1: Atta and Al-Omari almost missed their flight to Boston-- and would have if it wasn't delayed (they arrived at 6:40am for a 6:45 am flight, didn't go through security until 6:52 am). Talk about poor planning! If they missed the flight, the whole attack would have been screwed up.

Extremely Suspicious thing #2: Atta and Al-Omari rented a car in Boston the morning of the flight. Why??????????? Most suspicious: "When the abandoned car was found by the FBI, it contained flight manuals written in Arabic." Talk about a set-up.

Extremely suspicious thing #3: Atta and Al-Omari were captured by the security camera at Portland but not at Boston Logan Airport, even though they had to go through security at Logan.

This whole sequence suggests that more than doing anything functional, Atta (and a look-alike?) was setting up his whereabouts (and his "legend")-- and making sure to be noticed. This, of course, is an important job for a patsy in an operation like 9/11.

But surely, even if you don't believe that 9/11 was an "inside job", this sequence has to make you wonder, doesn't it?

Status of "Humint Events Online"

I've been doing this blog for almost six months now, and overall I have enjoyed it very much. The major problems I've had with this blog have been finding enough time between my professional life and family to work on it, and finding time to read news, other blogs and comment on other blogs. Writing in the blog mode is a lot of fun, and the power to be able to be your own editor and choose what you want to write on is an incredible thrill as well as a challenge.

My initial goals for this blog were to:

1) think through the events of 9/11, sift through the various stories, and decide "what really happened" on 9/11/01.

2) have some sort of forum for getting feedback on my various ideas and speculations.

3) help spread the word that the official story of 9/11 is bullshit.

Definitely, goal number one has been very successful from my perspective. My knowledge of 9/11 has grown tremendously since starting this enterprise. I also have gotten a much better feel for sorting out what I think are the weak theories versus the better ones, the compelling evidence versus the misleading evidence.

The forum and spreading the word aspects have not been nearly as successful. My traffic here is only about 50 visits a day and these stats have not changed for some time. Of course I'm honestly happy to get this many visitors-- but the lack of growth has been somewhat disappointing.

So, this is more just a "State of the Blog" post than anything else.

I am not planning to go anywhere-- I will still keep plugging away at 9/11. I'll keep this going for a while. Mostly, I am sorry that I have not had the time to do more research. But I will do my best, given my limited time constraints, to present what I think are key and interesting issues involving 9/11.

Thank you to all who come here.

The Mysteries of Flight 93

Are summed up pretty well in this DU post by John Doe II, and the links therein.

The major problem with the official account is that there are a LOT of debris that show up a two to three miles east of where the plane crashed, and these are not just pieces of paper. They found clothing, books, pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and what appeared to be human remains. These things are a little heavy to be blown miles by the wind.

But if you still think the wind might have blown these things from the crash site, a video taken shortly after the crash shows a wind blowing to the south. Additionally, much debris from the plane crash was found in the woods WEST of the impact crater. You can't have a wind blowing all these different directions.

The other major issue is there were a suspiciously large number of planes flying over that area that morning, including some witnesses who saw what looked like flight 93 heading west (as opposed to another set of witnesses who saw the plane going southwest).

How all these things can be reconciled is not clear without stipulating more than one plane acting like flight 93. Thus, one plane was going west spewing debris over Indian Lake, and one plane was flying Southwest extremely erratically (which consistent with the hijacker pilot behaviour described by the 9/11 Commission Report). It's not clear which plane created the crater.

Either way, the official explanation of flight 93 is dead wrong.

I Think This Guy is Right

at PentagonResearch. Look at the picture and read his analysis below. The plane must have been significantly compromised (i.e. blown apart) before it impacted the Pentagon. The question then is-- if the plane broke up before it went in (which explains the hole size) where did the debris go?

Was the plane possibly some cheap balsa wood mock-up of a 757 that simply burned up?

Seriously, though, it makes you wonder if this plane wasn't some sort of cheap mock-up of an American Airlines Boeing 757-- the kind that might be used in a hijacking drill.