Make it happen on purpose

http://www.nyccan.org/contact.php

Donna Marsh O’Connor, Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer

As the world moves further and further away from the actual events of 9/11/2001 both in time and spirit, and as 9/11 effaces into yet another simple story cast in history, as the parent of Vanessa Lang Langer lost as the towers fell, I want to let it go. I want to stop talking about 9/11. I am tired of the questions unasked and unanswered. I am tired of the effort to burst yet another happiness bubble in our collective American psyche. And, too, I am tired of talking about Vanessa’s death. Better for my family, in the immediacy of trying to live out our present days, to focus on Vanessa’s life. To laugh at her memories and revel in pictures of her beautiful face. If it were only for the present and the joys I can still share with my children, my family and my fellow citizens, not just of this country but the world, I would let it go. I would so let it go.

But there is, after all literally, the future. And the future never relied so heavily on redress of questions unanswered in the present. To first ask and then answer what happened that day. Who committed this crime? Who should be held accountable? That is why I support the NYC CAN Ballot Initiative, and I ask for your support as well. It is beyond time for an investigation. It is beyond time.

———————————————————————–

Dear 9/11 Truth Movement Supporters,

As authors of the recent mainstream scientific articles relating to events at the World Trade Center, we urge you to support a tremendous opportunity for getting the truth out about 9/11.

On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) filed a petition containing 52,000 signatures calling for a referendum on the creation of a New York City independent commission to begin an investigation with subpoena power. Unlike the first 9/11 Commission, this one will consider all of the evidence, including evidence for the use of explosives in bringing down the buildings.

This is what many of us have been working toward for years. With a new commission, our scientific evidence can be used to achieve real results.

NYC CAN now needs only 20,000 more signatures to override City Council if the referendum is vetoed. If NYC CAN gets the signatures the referendum will go on the ballot, and surely New York City will vote in favor of a new investigation. Please donate now so that this new investigation can happen: http://nyccan.org/donate.php

If everyone reading this donates at least $10, or the full amount they are able, we will raise enough to not only collect the signatures, but also to launch a summer PR blitz that will ensure all of New York City will be watching if Mayor Bloomberg and City Council try to kill the effort.

There are some true heroes on the NYC CAN Executive Council, and together with them, we have never been this close to giving 9/11 Truth a real chance. This is your opportunity to alter the course of history.

Please donate now: http://nyccan.org/donate.php

Sincerely,

James Gourley
Niels Harrit
Steven Jones
Brad Larsen
Frank Legge
Gregg Roberts
Kevin Ryan

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

“whatever force is necessary”

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/23/washington.metro.crash.victims/index.html

Retired Maj. Gen. David F. Wherley Jr. and his wife, Ann, both 62, were killed along with seven others Monday in the most deadly train crash in the history of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

“He was as fine a public servant, as dedicated to the United States of America … as anyone I have ever met,” Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty told reporters Tuesday.

On the morning of the September 11 attacks, Wherley, commander of the 113th Fighter Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, deployed pilots with orders from then-Vice President Dick Cheney to protect the White House and take out any aircraft that threatened the Capitol, according to the 9/11 Commission Report.

“They said challenge them, try to turn them away; if they don’t turn away, use whatever force is necessary to keep them from hitting buildings downtown,” Wherley told the Washington Post in a 2002 interview.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=david_wherley

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrews-air-force-base-stand-down-how.html

At the time the 9/11 attacks began, many of the pilots with the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) were in the headquarters of the 121st Fighter Squadron at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. They had been suspicious upon learning of the first crash in New York, but when a second plane hit the World Trade Center the emergency became obvious. “We’re under a terrorist attack!” someone yelled. One DCANG officer at the base exclaimed, “Well, holy shit, if this is a terrorist attack, we need to get something in the air!” According to Lt. Col. Steve Chase, who was at the operations desk there: “People just launched into action. There was a buzz in the unit.” [1]

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation in Prince George’s County, Maryland. [5] It is the home of the 113th Wing and associated units of the DC Air National Guard, including the 121st Fighter Squadron. [6]

Andrews Air Force Base is located just 10 miles southeast of Washington, DC, and has been described as “one of the most modern bases in the Air Force.” [2] Yet the first fighter jet did not take off from there until well after the time the Pentagon was hit–possibly as late as 10:38 a.m.–and this was armed only with training ammunition. [3] The first properly armed jets took off at 10:52 a.m. [4]

Why did the units at Andrews perform so badly? Why did this base fail to protect the nation’s capital and prevent an attack on the nearby Pentagon? Despite the absence of any serious official investigation of these questions, evidence already available indicates that a number of subtle but effective measures may have been used to deliberately sabotage the emergency response and render the DC Air National Guard useless.

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE AND THE DC AIR NATIONAL GUARD

According to a book published by the 1st Air Force, the 113th Wing “is not part of the NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] air sovereignty force and did not have an alert mission” in 2001. [7] However, evidence clearly indicates it still should have been involved in defending the Washington area in response to the 9/11 attacks. Shortly before September 11, the “DC Military” website stated that the 113th Wing’s mission included providing “capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency.” [8] The day of 9/11, Knight Ridder reported, “Air defense around Washington, DC, is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base.” [9] Indeed, the DC Air National Guard was known as the “Capital Guardians.” [10] And while he has said, “We’ve never been an air defense unit,” Lt. Col. Phil Thompson–the chief of safety for the 113th Wing–admitted, “We practice scrambles [i.e. taking off as fast as possible, to inspect enemy aircraft], we know how to do intercepts and other things.” [11]

Why then didn’t Andrews AFB successfully defend Washington? The following five key pieces of evidence suggest its ability to respond to the attacks may well have been sabotaged:

1) ONLY SEVEN PILOTS WERE AVAILABLE FOLLOWING THE ‘RED FLAG’ TRAINING EXERCISE

The 121st Fighter Squadron had recently participated in a massive training exercise in Nevada. “Red Flag,” an exercise held four times a year at Nellis Air Force Base, ran from August 11 to September 7, 2001, and the 121st FS only returned from it on September 8. [12] Most of the DC Air National Guard pilots are involved with the unit on a part-time basis, while flying commercial jet planes in their civilian lives. [13] Apparently as a result of Red Flag, most of the 121st FS’s pilots were back at their usual airline jobs, and the unit only had seven pilots available on September 11. [14] Prior to taking off in response to the attacks, some of these pilots had been uploading onto disks the flight data they would need once airborne, such as navigational waypoints, maps, and frequencies. Reportedly, these disks “still contain[ed] all the Nellis data from the Red Flag training exercise they just returned from.” [15] This raises the question of whether the job of replacing the exercise data delayed the takeoffs.

2) THREE ANDREWS JETS WERE AWAY ON A TRAINING MISSION IN NORTH CAROLINA

Furthermore, when the 9/11 attacks began, three F-16s belonging to the 121st FS were 207 miles away from base, flying a training mission in North Carolina, where they’d gone “to drop some bombs and hit a refueling tanker.” [16] Therefore, three of the squadron’s seven pilots were unavailable to respond to the attacks. Critically, the F-16s were out of radio range with the base. So when weapons officer Major Daniel Caine wanted to recall them, he had to contact a tanker refueling plane they were scheduled to meet and ask its pilot to pass on an urgent “return to base” message. [17] The three fighter jets did not arrive back at Andrews until after the Pentagon was hit. [18]

3) THE SECRET SERVICE SAID IT DIDN’T NEED HELP

Unlike other Air National Guard units, the DC Air National Guard reported to the president rather than a state governor. The president, in turn, had delegated that authority to the Department of Defense. Also, because of its responsibility to protect the president, the Secret Service had a level of authority over the DCANG, and 121st FS officers had a close relationship with Secret Service agents who worked at Andrews Air Force Base. [19]

After the second attack in New York, at 9:03 a.m., Daniel Caine called a contact in the Secret Service that he was friends with. He asked: “Do you have any additional information? Are you guys going to need some help?” Even though it was now obvious the U.S. was under attack and that Washington was a likely target for terrorists, the agent responded, “No, but I’ll call you back if that changes.” Lt. Col. Marc Sasseville, the commander of the 121st FS, has claimed: “At that time, we weren’t thinking about defending anything. Our primary concern was what would happen to the air traffic system.” [20]

It wasn’t until after 9:34 a.m., when the Secret Service learned of an unidentified aircraft approaching the White House, that an agent at the White House Joint Operations Center called Caine to request help. He asked: “Can you guys do anything? Can you get some fighters in the air as soon as possible?” [21] This was more than half an hour after the second plane hit the WTC. However, the emergency response was delayed even further. Caine has recalled, “Then [the Secret Service agent] told us to stand by and that somebody else would call.” The 113th Wing’s maintenance section started getting several F-16s armed and ready to fly. Finally, in a subsequent phone call, the Secret Service ordered Andrews AFB, “Get in the air now!” [22]

4) THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE WAS UNABLE TO GET INFORMATION

The DC Air National Guard’s ability to respond to the attacks may also have been hindered because it was being denied the information it needed about what was happening, and had to rely instead upon CNN. At around 9:30 a.m., its intelligence officer went onto the SIPRNET–the Department of Defense’s classified version of the Internet–in search of pertinent information, but to no avail. He phoned anyone he could think of who might be able to help, including the Air Combat Command Intelligence Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, the 9th Air Intelligence Squadron at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, Washington’s FBI field office, and the White House Joint Operations Center. Yet he was unable to find out anything more than what he’d learned from television. Author Lynn Spencer has claimed, “As DCANG is a general purpose F-16 unit, no one [was] specifically tasked with keeping the squadron informed.” [23]

The question to be investigated is whether this apparent agency-wide information blackout can be dismissed as the result of mere confusion, or was it due to sabotage?

5) THE SLOW REACTIONS OF GENERAL DAVID WHERLEY

The actions of Brigadier General David Wherley Jr. are particularly notable. As the commander of the DC Air National Guard, Wherley surely had a crucial role to play in responding to the attacks. However, although accounts are vague and sometimes contradictory, descriptions of what he did give us serious cause for concern.

Wherley was in the headquarters of the 113th Wing the morning of September 11. Yet reports indicate he only started taking action after 9:37 a.m., when the Pentagon was hit. According to the Washington Post, Wherley’s “first inkling that the attacks would go beyond New York was when one of his officers, whose husband worked at the Pentagon, saw on television that the building had been hit and began shrieking.” [24] After taking a moment to comfort the officer, he “raced out of his office and ran several hundred yards to the headquarters of the DC Guard’s 121st Fighter Squadron.” But then, upon learning that the Secret Service wanted Andrews to launch fighter jets, Wherley told squadron officers he wanted more explicit authorization, saying: “We have to get instructions. We can’t just fly off half-cocked.” [25]

Wherley talked over the phone with the Secret Service, which wanted the DCANG to establish a combat air patrol (CAP) over Washington. Yet he seemed reluctant to help. He told the Secret Service agent, “I would feel more comfortable receiving such an order from someone higher in the chain of command, preferably in the military.” He was given the number for the Presidential Emergency Operations Center–a bunker below the White House–which he then called. The Secret Service agent who answered implored Wherley: “We want you to put a CAP up over the city. We need some fighters now.” Yet Wherley was “not very comfortable taking orders from a Secret Service agent. That’s just not how things are done.” He asked, “Is there anybody else there from the military available to talk?” As there was not, he asked, “Is the vice president available?” The vice president was on the phone with the president. Only after further reflection did Wherley finally agree to help, saying: “Okay, then. What exactly do they want me to do?” [26]

Wherley then had to wait for the Secret Service to determine “exactly” what it wanted. According to the Washington Post, the instructions came “within a half-hour.” Again, another delay. [27] The Secret Service agent who got back to Wherley said he had received instructions that came from the vice president. The guidance was “to send up the aircraft, with orders to protect the White House and take out any aircraft that threatened the Capitol.” If the 9/11 Commission is correct, these instructions were not passed on to the first fighter jet that took off from Andrews, but instead only to “the pilots that launched at 10:42 and afterward.” By that time, of course, the attacks were long over. [28]

ANDREWS JETS ONLY TOOK OFF AFTER THE PENTAGON ATTACK

Taking into account these five pieces of evidence (and presumably there are other relevant details that we are as yet unaware of) it is unsurprising that the DCANG was so slow in responding to the 9/11 attacks. The first fighter jet to take off from Andrews Air Force Base in response was an F-16 piloted by Major Billy Hutchison–one of the aircraft that had been away on a training mission in North Carolina and had just returned to the base. Hutchison’s was the only one of the three returning jets with enough fuel remaining to take off again immediately, though he had just 2,800 pounds, which is equivalent to one-eighth of a tank in a car. He had no missiles and only training ammunition. He took off “without afterburner to conserve fuel, go across the White House over the Georgetown area and continue northwest up the Potomac.” [29]

The time when Hutchison took off is unclear. Different accounts have said he did so “Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon,” [30] some time roughly around 10:00 a.m. [31], or “about 50 minutes after the Pentagon was hit.” [32] According to 113th Wing operations desk records, he did not take off until 10:33 a.m. [33], and, according to the 9/11 Commission, he was not airborne until 10:38 a.m. [34]

Hutchison has recalled that he circled low over the Pentagon some time after taking off. [35] Many witnesses who were on the ground have recalled seeing the first military jet arriving over the Pentagon following the attack there at around 10:40 a.m., or “closer to 11″ o’clock, according to the New York Times. In other words, the first Andrews jet to reach the Pentagon in response to the 9/11 attacks only arrived an hour or more after it had been hit–far too late to have been any use in preventing the attack there. Understandably, upon seeing the F-16 above, one firefighter exclaimed: “Thank God that guy’s there! Where has he been?” [36]

The next two F-16s to launch from Andrews took off at 10:42 a.m. These also had no missiles, and only non-explosive training rounds for their Gatling guns–”hardly enough to bring down an airliner,” the pilots have conceded. Finally, at 10:52 a.m., the first fighters armed with live ammunition and AIM-9 air-to-air missiles took off. [37] Their pilots were instructed to establish a combat air patrol over Washington and intercept any incoming aircraft. [38]

So, although the DC Air National Guard is meant to have realized, “We’re under a terrorist attack!” when the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and immediately to have “launched into action,” its first properly armed fighters did not take off until more than an hour after the Pentagon was hit, and more than two hours after the first attack in New York.

OTHER UNITS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

The information currently available on Andrews Air Force Base and what happened there on 9/11 is vague, often contradictory, and only serves to raise new questions. For example, we know that, as well as the 113th Wing, there were other units at the base with fighter jets available. These included Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321, which flew the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet, and Naval Air Facility, Washington, DC, which provided “Naval air operations support for the Naval District of Washington,” and also had F/A-18 Hornets available. [39] Yet little is known about these units’ activities on September 11 and what they could have done to defend the capital.

It seems logical to assume, however, that fighter jets from Andrews should have been in the air protecting Washington and the Pentagon long before the Pentagon was hit. The question of why they failed to do so needs to be part of a serious and unrestrained new investigation of the 9/11 attacks.

NOTES
[1] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.” Washington Post, April 8, 2002; Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 123.
[2] “Andrews AFB, Maryland.” GlobalSecurity.org, March 3, 2002.
[3] NBC Nightly News. NBC, September 11, 2001; Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital”; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 44.
[4] Steve Vogel, The Pentagon: A History. New York: Random House, 2007, p. 446.
[5] “Andrews Air Force Base: Welcome.” DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001; “Andrews AFB, Maryland.”
[6] “Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units.” DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001; “113th Wing.” GlobalSecurity.org, October 21, 2001.
[7] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, p. 76.
[8] “Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units.”
[9] Steve Goldstein, “Focus of Training for Terrorist Attacks has Been Chemical, Biological Warfare.” Knight Ridder, September 11, 2001.
[10] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 122.
[11] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93.” Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 9, 2002.
[12] “Photo: Exercise Routine.” Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 22, 2001; Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital”; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 476.
[13] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.”
[14] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 156.
[15] Ibid. pp. 236-237.
[16] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93″; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 79.
[17] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 124.
[18] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 79; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 216-218.
[19] Steve Vogel, The Pentagon, p. 445; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 122-123.
[20] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93″; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 124.
[21] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 9; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 156.
[22] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93″; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 78.
[23] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 79; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 155-156.
[24] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.”
[25] Steve Vogel, The Pentagon, pp. 445-446.
[26] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 184-185.
[27] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.”
[28] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 44.
[29] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital”; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, pp. 79-81.
[30] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93.”
[31] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 216-220.
[32] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.”
[33] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, pp. 81 and 89.
[34] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 44.
[35] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, pp. 81-82.
[36] David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “In Four Days, a National Crisis Changes Bush’s Presidency.” New York Times, September 16, 2001; Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11. New York: Presidio Press, 2008, pp. 130-131.
[37] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93″; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, pp. 82-84; Steve Vogel, The Pentagon, p. 446.
[38] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 238.
[39] “Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units.”

 

Where are you going, Where have you been?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iranpoliticsmediauspahlavineda;_ylt=Ah7WCaK3bZYzoraxY8lpjNYFO7gF

The son of the late shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, was Monday carrying in his breastpocket a photograph of the slain protester known as Neda said to have been killed in the Tehran protests.

“I have added her (Neda) to the list of my daughters. She is now forever in my pocket,” Pahlavi told AFP fighting back tears, after calling at a press conference for Western media and governments to stand strongly alongside the protest movement in Iran.

The former crown prince of Iran took from his left breastpocket photographs of his wife, Yasmine, and three daughters, Noor, Iman and Farah, and, in the same clutch of images, one of a veiled Neda.

He held them up silently, and stammered an apology for having tears in his eyes.

A video of a blood-drenched young woman, purportedly killed in protests in Tehran, has been flashed around the world via the Internet since it was posted Saturday.

The woman, known only as Neda, has become a symbol of Iranian defiance of the country’s Islamic rulers and their insistence that hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won this month’s presidential election.

In a speech at the packed National Press Club in Washington, Pahlavi slammed the “brutal violence of the regime’s plain-clothes thugs against unarmed people” and urged global media to continue to be “the international artery” of the Iranian protest movement.

“No one will benefit from closing his or her eyes to knives and cables cutting into faces and mouths of our young and old, or from bullets piercing our beloved ‘Neda’ whose only sin was the quest for freedom — no one but tyrants and their thugs,” Pahlavi said, breaking off his speech as he was overcome by emotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

After removing the left-leaning government of Mohammad Mosaddeq, (which had planned to nationalize Iran’s oil industry), from power on 19 August 1953, in a coup, supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments, the Shah decided he wanted an effective internal security service and set up the large organization known by the acronym SAVAK in 1957 to strengthen his regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repress dissident movements.

According to Iranian political historian Ervand Abrahamian, after this attack SAVAK interrogators were sent abroad for “scientific training to prevent unwanted deaths from ‘brute force.’ Brute force was supplemented with the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo—an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/the-cias-role-in-iranian_b_220217.html

Regardless, Rustmann and Lenczowski say, the CIA may now help set Tehran’s smoldering tinder ablaze by supplying the opposition factions with money, intel, press placement, and weapons–perhaps the most potent of which may be BlackBerrys.

“What we could do immediately is essentially manipulate Iranian media, especially the media that serves the Iranian diaspora,” says the former CIA operations officer who goes by–and wrote an espionage memoir under–the pseudonym Ishmael Jones. “The internet-driven communication between Iranians worldwide and those in Iran is frenetic.”

“The CIA already has a cooperative program in place with [certain American publications],” he adds. “Reporters from [those publications] meet regularly with the top CIA officials–not a conspiracy hatched in a smoke-filled room, but the natural result of reporters working hard to develop top-level sources within the CIA. Just switching [those reporters] for journalists who serve the Iranian diaspora would do the trick. These journalists will be eager to [cooperate].

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

Written in 1954 by one of the coup’s chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran’s elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

The document shows that:

- Britain, fearful of Iran’s plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

- The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi’s regime two days after the coup prevailed.

- Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric’s home in a campaign to turn the country’s Islamic religious community against Mossadegh’s government.

- The shah’s cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah’s twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/#documents

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/appendix%20B.pdf

 

 

Occam’s razor removes paint: a “primer” by Niels Harrit

http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/

WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT

by Niels Harrit, May/June 09

It has been suggested, that the red/grey chips discovered in the dust from the WTC collapse catastrophe¹ could originate from rust-inhibiting paint (primer paint) applied to the steel beams in the towers. This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips.

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE PRIMER PAINT

The primer paint applied to the steel beams of WTC is described and characterized in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D².

The primer paint is red/orange and was originally applied in order to protect the steel against corrosion.

Examples of typical beams are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1
 M2-C2M (WTC 1, Col.130, Fl 98)
from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D².

Figure 2
Perimeter columns in WTC towers from NIST.

The color is due to the pigments in the paint. Iron oxide is red and zinc chromate (”zinc yellow”) is – well – bright lemon yellow (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Composition of primer paint from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D².

Since the ”vehicle” is obviously fluid, the values for the ingredients in it must refer to the paint before application in w/w percentage.

Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4:

Figure 4
Extract from Material Safety Data Sheet for Tnemec pigment³.

Talc is magnesium silicate hydroxide, Mg₃Si₄O₁₀(OH)₂.

The content of calcium silicates and aluminates is inexact, and that the relative contribution of aluminates is not specified.

Since the Tnemec pigment contributed 33.7 % to the wet primer paint, the content of these two ingredients and the solvent in the wet primer paint was:

Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2	7 – 10 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates	2 – 3.3 %
Mineral spirits:	7.6 %

 

After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) 40 %. If we subtract these from the w/w composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint.

That is, by dividing by 0.6 we get the following values for the decisive ingredients of the hardened paint (dismissing the trivial elements iron, silicon, carbon and oxygen):

Component	Composition in wet paint	Composition in dry paint
Zinc chromate (ZnCrO4)	20.3 %	34 %
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2)	7 – 10 %	12 – 17 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates	2 – 3.3 %	3.3 – 5.5 %

Table 1
Pertinent components of primer paint corrected for solvent evaporation.

COMPARISON WITH THE COMPOSITION OF THE RED/GRAY CHIPS

The elemental composition of the red/gray chips was obtained by means of X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) in the SEM mode¹. Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these three elements could be expected from the primer paint according to Table 1.

Figure 7 in Harrit et al.¹, showing the four different samples investigated.

 

The same spectrum as in frame (a) with intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales expanded. Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium.

 

Figure 5
SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) spectra from fresh surfaces of red phase of red/gray chips.

In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).

Figure 6

SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) from unbroken chip before soaking in MEK. The calcium and sulfur are likely to originate from contamination with wallboard material (gypsum, calcium sulfate). The signals from zinc and chromium could be from surface contamination with primer paint.

Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint (Table 1).

It should also be noticed, that the only possible source of aluminum in the primer paint is the rather vague reference to ”calcium silicates or aluminates” in 3.3 – 5.5 % presence. Without attempting any quantitative estimates (not a trivial matter in XEDS), it is still very hard to accept this component as the source of the bright-and-clear signals for aluminum from the red phase of the red/gray chips.

THERMAL STABILITY OF PRIMER PAINT

NIST was interested in the thermal response of the primer paint since examination of the condition on the recovered steel beams could be indicative of the temperatures they had been exposed to.

NIST carried out temperature studies on selected beams and made the following observations². The paint is unaffected to temperatures up to 250 °C (Figure 7a). At higher temperatures the paint starts showing ”mud-cracks” as they can be seen in Figure 7b (left). This fracture is due to the different expansion coefficients of the steel and the paint. It gets worse at 650 °C (Figure 7, right) at which temperature black ”scales” (layers) begin to form between the paint and the steel (Figure 8). NIST took the samples beyond 800 °C at which temperature the scale formation and peeling off of the paint from the steel was prevailing. One may hypothesize that formation of the black scales is due to charring of the organic binder.

Primer paint on exterior WTC column at temperatures below 250 °C (panel a) and beyond (panel b).

Exposure of primer paint on steel to 650 °C for 1 hr.

Figure 7

Figure 8
From NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D² showing formation of a black layer under the primer paint at temperatures beyond 650 °C.

Notice, that the primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C.

COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS

In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 °C, since the residues of molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope (Figure 9).

Figure 9

Optical microscope picture of red/gray chip after reaction in a DSC instrument¹.

CONCLUSION

The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent.

The red/gray chips cannot be the primer paint as it is characterized by NIST.

REFERENCES

(1) Harrit, N.; Farrer, J.; Jones, S. E.; Ryan, K.; Legge, F.; Farnsworth, D.; Roberts, G.; Gourley, J.; Larsen, B.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Chemical Physics Open Journal 2009, 2, 7-31.
(2) NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf
(3) http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

Up

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040525163309716

“I fear that if the underlying issues of 9-11 truth are not demanded, that Iraq may be but a flame on an ocean of gasoline that may be used to ignite war after war after war. We cannot, as a peace & justice movement only address the flames. We must look at the fuel being used to justify the flames of war and repression at home and abroad. We must look deeply at the events leading up to, on and since 9-11. We must demand full 9-11 truth.”

- Ed Asner

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/43

October 6, 2008

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to thank Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for presenting the scientific facts behind the unprecedented destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. AE911Truth presents solid research that contradicts the official story of the building’s destruction with the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition.

An accurate understanding of history is required to make good decisions in the future. Over and over again, history has shown that the first public perceptions of historical events are not always correct. I, along with millions of others, have serious questions about our country’s recent history about 9/11.

I have signed the AE911Truth.org petition calling for an unbiased investigation of the “collapses” of these three high-rise buildings. I encourage everyone to do the same, and also become a Sustaining Member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Sincerely,

Edward Asner

http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/ed_asner_cast_in_up

“Despite the show being in the A.C. Nielson Top Ten in its last year, CBS decided to cancel Lou Grant in March of 1982. Asner maintained that CBS’ decision was a ‘punishment’ for Asner’s outspoken liberal views on many topics. Actor Howard Hesseman, who had helped Asner promote a medical aid package for El Salvador, found his equally popular show W.K.R.P. in Cincinnati canceled the same day Lou Grant was tossed.”

http://www.nyccan.org/

Make it happen

http://www.nyccan.org/

Wake-up Show

Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is interviewed respectfully for seven minutes on KMPH FOX 26, Fresno.

Transcript courtesy of Sheila Casey:

female anchor:  He’s an architect experienced in steel structures.  Now Richard Gage is touring the country with a controversial message about September 11. 

male anchor:  Richard Gage is here to show us why he’s calling for a more thorough investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.  Thank you so much for joining us.

Gage:  You’re very welcome, it’s great to be here.

male anchor:  Well first of all give us a little bit more about your background.

Gage:  I’m an architect of twenty years, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and have been studying steel frame fire proof buildings for about that long. 

female anchor: We ask that for clarification because as we get into this we want people to make sure that you’re not just somebody with a wacky idea, you come with some science to you.  What is the official reason for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers?

Gage:  Well we’re told that the planes hit the buildings, and there was an explosion and a fire, and about a hour and a half later, in the case of the north tower, the buildings collapsed due to structural weakening, due to the fires.  The problem is that we don’t have large gradual deformations associated with collapses.  And fires in high rises have never brought down a steel frame high rise building at all, ever.  And what we have, unfortunately, is the evidence in the twin towers and the third skyscraper to collapse that day, which most people don’t know anything about it.  We have the evidence of the ten key features of controlled demolition.  In the case of building seven, it collapses straight down into its own footprint, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet.  It’s dropping, as you can see symmetrically, smoothly, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet.  Two and a half seconds.  This is uncanny, there’s forty thousand tons of structural steel designed to resist this collapse. 

female anchor:  So, what, a forty-seven story building?

Gage:  Yeah, it’s called Building Seven, a football field away from the Twin Towers. 

female anchor:  Okay, so what we’re showing is left, what happened in fact, and right is  controlled, where you are using or the people who made this happen, used demolition, explosive devices.  

Gage:  Indeed, this a direct comparison.  You can see that indeed, almost freefall speed, freefall acceleration, through forty thousand tons of structural steel.  That is uncanny.  So we have 700 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation as a result of this evidence and the evidence in the World Trade Center that is very explosive. Almost every architect and engineer we’ve showed this information to, agrees with us that these are controlled demolitions.  If we can get them to look at the information, because obviously the implications of a controlled demolition are…dark for our country.  Because that means somebody besides Al Qaeda was involved.  Because these have to be easily, three of the most highly secure buildings, outside of the Pentagon. 

Male anchor:  Now if that was a controlled demolition, would there not be any evidence at the ground level of explosives within the debris that’s left?

Gage:  Indeed.  And what we find down there is pools of molten iron.  Several tons.

male anchor:  What is that doing there?

Gage:  Exactly, what is it doing there?   The first responders see it, the structural engineers see it, it’s documented by FEMA.  The melting of steel.  Normal office fires is what’s supposed to have brought these buildings down.  Along with jet plane impacts.  Jet fuel and office fires don’t produce molten iron or molten steel.  It doesn’t begin to melt until three thousand degrees.  But what we have is, the fires only produce maybe fourteen, sixteen hundred degrees.  So what produced all that molten iron?  Well, it has in it the chemical evidence of a special incendiary, which is thermite, a high tech incendiary used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.

female anchor:  You found that?

Gage:  Indeed, in all the dust throughout lower Manhattan, we have a four to six inch thick layer of this dust, and throughout it we have evidence of tiny spheres, billions of them, several tons of previously molten iron.  Well how does that happen?  If you have molten iron…the by-product of thermite is molten iron and it’s dispersed through out all this dust. 

male anchor:  You were allowed to go in and get samples and examine it?

Gage:  Oh, there’s plenty of dust.  A lot of people have this dust, and four of these samples have been sent to physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University. And they find in it, not only these spheres, which others have found too, USGS, RJ Lee, doing toxicology studies.  These spheres have iron, aluminum, fluorine, manganese, very unusual elements associated only with thermite. And there are small chips of unignited thermite as well.  This is very high-tech thermite, nano-thermite, it’s not found in a cave in Afghanistan, it’s produced in very sophisticated defense department contracting laboratories. 

female anchor:  Okay, well, we have an enemy here, the finger has been pointed to, this was the work of Al Qaeda, this was the work of Osama bin Laden, at least to get the planes all going into the buildings and into the field in Pennsylvania and into the Pentagon.  Is there no way that they then could still be the enemy that placed those in the buildings first, and then did the incendiary device via a plane second?

Gage:  What you have to ask is who had access to the buildings?  Did Al Qaeda have access to these highly secure buildings?  Probably not.  Did they have access to sophisticated nano-thermite, where the particles are one thousand times smaller than a human hair?  Probably not.  Somebody else has to be investigated. That’s why we have 700 architects and engineers demanding a real investigation.  We don’t have the whole theory as to how this happened, who did it, why.  We just lay out the facts, like we did last night in the Veterans Memorial Auditorium, and we demand a real investigation, and they’ll find out who, why, how, et cetera. 

male anchor:  Now let me ask you, I’m person X, I want to place something in one of those buildings.  Where would I carry it, how big would it be?  Is it that visible that I would be spotted by security?  Can I place it in one of my tooth fillings?

Gage:  We’re talking about several tons of nano-thermite and ordinary thermite.  One would have to have access through security.  So the security company involved for the World Trade Center should be thoroughly investigated.  It turns out to be Securi-com, Stratesec, somebody should look and see who’s on the board of those companies. Some very interestings individuals turn out to be.  In addition, one would have to have the cover, of say, an elevator modernization, which was in fact going on nine months prior to 9/11, so that there were workers throughout the World Trade Center, that had access to the hoistway that was immediately adjacent to the core columns and beams in the building. 

female anchor:  You’re not trying to freak out the country, but you can’t help but feel a little freaked out by this. 

Gage:  Yeah, you’re getting it. 

female anchor:  And of course this is something we want to talk to you about a whole lot more, and we’re out of time.  We do have a great deal of information on our website, kmph.com.  Thank you very much for your time today.  You’re opening  up a lot to think about.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://stj911.com/

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Torture and 9/11

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22684.htm

By John S. Hatch

It could be argued that of the panoply of evil of which human beings find themselves uniquely capable, nothing is as abominable as the deliberate infliction of mental or physical pain on a helpless captive person.

That a nation grandiosely referring to itself as the world’s lone ‘superpower’ would, on the basis of very thin manufactured evidence stoop to such behavior as using sodomy (even against innocent children), cramming people into coffin-like boxes, chaining them in stress positions, karate-kicking them (even to death), suffocating them, slamming their heads into walls, taking away their clothing, freezing them, using sensory deprivation and drowning, plus a hundred other cruel measures gives the lie to that assertion. An evil power, certainly. Hardly a ‘shining city on a hill’.

And now that we know that orders for torture came right from the very top of the unrepentant Bush Administration even before the twisted entitlement of the Yoo/Bybee memos, and even as it is revealed that torture was employed not to gain information but to bolster the false assertion that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaeda and thus justify the indefensible invasion of Iraq, we are treated to ad nauseam appearances by the previously mute and bunkered Dick Cheney defending his cretinous actions and calling for more of the same. It is unbelievable that a nation that calls itself Christian could even countenance a debate on torture, and, after killing perhaps a million innocent Iraqi citizens in an illegal war, call for more of the same in Afghanistan. Or to employ white phosphorous and other war crime weapons in either location. The combination of hypocrisy and self-serving delusion is stunning. These ‘Christians’ are statistically more likely to favor torture than non-believers.

One would think that such aberrant leaders would be held to task by an outraged public and by their political replacements. Instead, the American people are offered more of the same. Quantanamo will not close anytime soon, and contrary to Mr. Obama’s statements, the outrages there have not ceased, but if anything have become worse. He has upheld the Bush policy of denying all human rights to prisoners at Bagram and elsewhere. He has attempted every means to suppress details of American torture, such as the use of scalpels on genitals. Officials would rather keep innocent people imprisoned until they die, untried, rather than to admit to the embarrassment of having illegally imprisoned and tortured them. Bagram continues to be a hell-on-earth. We don’t know how many others even exist. In Iraq children as young as eight remain imprisoned. Children are mercilessly abused as a method to intimidate their parents. And this is to keep scared-rabbit America safe? How?

But Mr. Obama wants to ‘move forward’ even as remote control drones (they’re Obama drones now) kill around 140 innocent Afghanis, including 93 children, one of them 8 weeks old. As usual the military denies, lies, and then admits limited culpability while stressing how very much they value Afghan civilian lives. They even attempt to keep a straight face. Mr. Obama can’t move forward when he’s mired and sinking in innocent cold blood.

If Mr. Obama were to take a deep breath, look back and take a lesson from some of America’s darkest days, here’s what he would find:

The Iraq invasion was conceived long before 9/11 which was simply used as a pretext for achieving ‘full spectrum domination’ of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace as outlined in The Project for a New American Century, of which Dick Cheney was a founding member, and President Bush a willing dupe. The goal was nothing short of attempted world domination, and Iraq and Afghanistan were pawns on a list which included Syria and Iran. PNAC spoke longingly of a ‘new Pearl Harbor event’ as a catalyst to galvanize fearful American opinion to allow the former to have its way, which is exactly what happened after 9/11 (and don’t forget that mailed weaponized Lawrence Livermore anthrax, that ‘bonus terror’ that hurried the Patriot Act unread through Congress and that was since so conveniently blamed on a dead guy).

An investigation would reveal (indeed we already know) that torture was employed to establish a false link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda in order to make a preconceived invasion more acceptable to the American people. (Lots of troops in Iraq still think that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and still exact bloody revenge against innocent people.)

Since everything the people were told turned out to be lies, questions would inevitably arise regarding the ‘catalyst’ itself, the new Pearl Harbor event so useful to PNAC and the Bush Administration.

This, I submit is what officials in the Obama Administration fear the most. An investigation of torture would inevitably lead to questions about what 9/11 was really about. We know with certainty that the official version of events is a pack of lies; what if America had to confront the fact that 9/11 really was an inside job? (The recent finding of nano-thermite in WTC dust is just one more compelling argument.) It’s even possible that Cheney has threatened to spill the beans if anyone comes after him for torture for which he has openly and brazenly taken credit. Would a torturer refuse to stoop to blackmail? If that seems farfetched wouldn’t torture itself have seemed so a relatively short time ago? Cheney et al have ‘enhanced interrogated’ at least a hundred people to death. To paraphrase the Bard, ‘Cheney crap by any other name would smell as foul’. Torture is torture, even by their twisted Bybee/Yoo definitions.

Such a finding would so undermine Americans’ core beliefs as to have profoundly unpredictable consequences. It would mean that no American is safe from its own terrorist government. It would mean that government is not only corrupt to its very foundations, but also that it is a force of malevolence toward its citizens. It would mean that there is nothing in which to place one’s political faith. It would mean that the same forces that killed 3000 Americans on that day (and many subsequently) still operate behind the scenes in Washington, and ‘change’ is only cosmetic. It would prove that over the last two terms, democracy was a cruel illusion in America (and some would say since November 22, 1963). It would mean that for the patriotic American citizen, at last there’s nothing left to lose.

That’s what they’re rightly afraid of.

That’s why they want to allow the Bush putsch to get away with murder.

And to look even further into the abyss.

The gas must flow

http://www.aprodex.com/pipeline-opens-new-front-in-afghan-war-1028-n.aspx

To prepare for proposed construction in 2010, the Afghan government has reportedly given assurances it will clear the route of land mines, and make the path free of Taliban influence.

In a report to be released today, energy economist John Foster says the pipeline is part of a wider struggle by the United States to counter the influence of Russia and Iran over energy trade in the region.

The so-called Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from Washington because the U.S. government is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran.

The TAPI pipeline would also diminish Russia’s dominance of Central Asian energy exports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

American airstrikes that Afghan officials and villagers said Wednesday had killed dozens and perhaps more than 100 civilians in western Afghanistan threaten to stiffen Afghan opposition to the war just as the Obama administration is sending 20,000 more troops to the country.

“We have some other information that leads us to distinctly different conclusions about the cause of the civilian casualties,” said the senior American commander in Afghanistan

“The governor said that the villagers have brought two tractor trailers full of pieces of human bodies to his office to prove the casualties that had occurred,” Mr. Farahi said. “Everyone at the governor’s office was crying, watching that shocking scene.”

Mr. Farahi said he had talked to someone he knew personally who had counted 113 bodies being buried, including those of many women and children. Later, more bodies were pulled from the rubble and some victims who had been taken to the hospital died, he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/08/terror/main5001358.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_5001358

A local official said that he collected from residents the names of 147 people killed during fighting on Monday night and Tuesday. If true, it would be the deadliest case of civilian casualties in Afghanistan since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that ousted the Taliban regime.

But the U.S. military described that toll from the fighting as over the top.

“The investigators and the folks on the ground think that those numbers are extremely over-exaggerated,” U.S. military spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said. “We are definitely nowhere near those estimates.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/05/jones-imprudent.html

President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Gen. Jim Jones told me this morning that it would be “imprudent” to end U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan.

During his visit to the U.S. this past week, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan demanded all U.S. airstrikes end. He said a recent airstrike may have killed as many as 130 civilians.

“I think that we’re going to take a look at trying to make sure that we correct those things we can correct, but certainly to tie the hands of our commanders and say we’re not going to conduct air strikes, it would be imprudent,” Jones said in his first television interview.

“That’s part of the combined arms package and so we probably would not do that.  But we are going to take very seriously the — and redouble our efforts to make sure that innocent civilians are not killed.”

Of Karzai’s demand, Jones said, “I think he understands that we have to have the full complement of our offensive military power when we need it. ”

—————————————————————————————

Yes, General Jones. I think he understands:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879462053487927.html

National Security Adviser James Jones reported $900,000 in salary and bonus from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as director fees from a number of corporations. He received, for example, $330,000 from Boeing Corp. and $290,000 from Chevron Corp.

We will not submit.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20013

Intellectual Dishonesty In The Age Of Universal Deceit:
a message to the corporate media and our elected officials.

By Daniel Sunjata – May 4, 2009

“The inert masses are mentally and spiritually ill equipped to deal with reality, so they block it out of their minds – aided of course, by the corporate media and the propaganda apparatus of the government itself. This is why fantasy is frequently substituted for reality, plutocracy is mistaken for democracy, and the majority of the people do not know the difference. Millions of good people thus refuse to allow into their psyche the suffering and misery that U.S. policies have produced and exported to the world, even as that reality is closing in upon them.” – Charles Sullivan

“They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality…and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.” – George Orwell, 1984

“Article XXXIV OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001” – From the 35 articles of impeachment introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on 06/09/08 in H.Res. 1258 by Congressman Dennis Kucinich

The list is not a short one. It includes professors, architects, aerospace and aviation professionals, structural/mechanical/& aeronautical engineers, demolition experts, firefighters and other first responders, scientists, theologians, senior members of both the military and intelligence communities, Republican administration appointees, state department veterans, and other government officials from the United States and abroad; credible experts of impeccable pedigree with impressive track records from relevant fields of expertise, whose coolly rational intellects are not easily given to an unfounded belief in outlandish, unsubstantiated, or unverifiable claims. Individuals such as these are numbered among the ranks of skeptics and critics of the official theory of conspiracy regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some pose questions, others draw conclusions, still others (like Congressman Kucinich) go so far as to level accusations and to substantiate them with evidence.

Organizations like Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth (MP911truth.org), Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911Truth.org), Lawyers for 911 Truth (L911T.com), The Journal of 9/11 Studies (journalof911studies.com), Pilots for 911 Truth (PilotsFor911Truth.org), Fire Fighters for 911 Truth (FireFightersFor911Truth.org), and Veterans for 911 Truth (V911T.org), have posted carefully crafted signing statements for all the world to see, and online petitions calling for a new and independent investigation with power of subpoena. Their unanswered questions, the consequent implications that arise, and the fundamental inadequacies they point out in the official reports issued by FEMA, NIST, and the now infamous 9/11 Commission are disturbing to say the very least. Even more disturbing, however, is the corporate media’s revolving door of silence and violence with which those who pose such questions have been greeted. In most cases they are completely ignored, and what might otherwise be front-page news goes virtually unreported. Feigned and transparently disingenuous gestures aimed at affecting the appearance of fair and balanced news coverage occasionally result in an arguably credible expert being granted an interview only to be condescended to, constantly interrupted, shouted down, and verbally abused in the process. Examples abound. Thus, in spite of having shouted their findings from the proverbial rooftops for years, and in spite of such notorious historical precedents as the now declassified Operation Northwoods, there has yet to be any substantive debate, journalistically integrous investigation, or scrutinous inquiry by the establishment or its media into the claim that 9/11 bears all the hallmarks of a complex covert operation of state intelligence; false flag terror; an inside job.

This is not to say, however, that the issue has gone entirely unaddressed by mainstream sources. Hand in hand with the marginalization of informed dissent and deep concern expressed by qualified skeptics like Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, PhD (Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter), Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Sect. Of Treasury under Pres. Reagan), Lynn Margulis (National Medal of Science recipient), James Quintiere (former Chief of NISTs Fire Science Division), Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (retired fighter pilot and Topgun Air Combat Instructor), and Sibel Edmonds (former FBI translator specializing in counter-terror, and gag-ordered whistleblower) is the corporate media’s rabid eagerness to confront, shame, condemn, and discredit celebrities and other citizens who have tried to draw public attention to the same issue. Marion Cotilliard, Martin and Charlie Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, Ed Asner, Willie Nelson, and former Governor Jesse Ventura among many others, have uniformly fallen under swift and venomous attack upon questioning the official theory of conspiracy, and for daring to utter the blasphemous assertion (recently echoed in sentiments expressed by Melissa Rossi in her recent Huffington Post article titled ‘Obama: Reopen The 911 Investigation’) that a new investigation is warranted given the innumerable inconsistencies, omissions, and outright distortions that permeate the aforementioned “official” reports.

Unfairly attacked based not upon the substance of the arguments they have advanced, but rather upon the basis of inane irrelevancies related to their private lives and public personas, they have been dismissed out of pocket as paranoid conspiracy fanatics, drug addicts, Nazis, and narcissists who should stick to playing their position as entertainers and leave the thinking up to the grown-ups when it comes to things they could not possibly understand. This is the classic ad hominem approach – to dismiss the source as a means to dismissing the message. Consequently, nothing of what they have actually said has been given its due diligence by our supposedly free press. Even though their questions and conclusions rest upon broad-shouldered analysis, expert testimony, diligent research, peer reviewed scientific studies (most notably that of Danish scientist Niels Harrit, whose findings on undetonated nano-thermite explosive residues found in WTC dust samples can be read online in The Open Chemical Physics Journal), and a preponderance of other damning forensic and circumstantial evidence, such prominent skeptics have been greeted with outright hostility and the most virulent brands of journalistic irresponsibility and intellectual dishonesty. This in fact is anti-journalism; the exact opposite of what one would expect to find in a society aspiring to exemplify the democratic ideal. If I didn’t know any better, I might think that such tactics were being employed just to shut these experts and celebrities up, and to keep the general public from paying them any mind. I might think that childish insults, character assassination, reductionist clichés, insipid platitudes, necessary illusions and emotionally potent oversimplifications had taken the place of journalistic integrity, objective scrutiny, and investigative rigor.

For instance, when Joe Scarborough covers a story about a 9/11 demonstrator being arrested during an appearance by Bill Clinton in Corpus Christi, and he and his MSNBC ‘Morning Joe’ co-hosts utter things like “Where is the taser? Tase him!” and “Led away in handcuffs…hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in Eastern Europe and never to be heard from again. I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists” it is quite difficult to grant them high scores for anything other than spewing fascistic rhetoric. Similarly only willful ignorance or a deliberate contempt for accuracy and logic can explain Glen Beck’s lumping together of Congressmen, law abiding citizens, highly decorated military personnel, prominent artists, and CIA veterans with violent radicals, in sweeping statements such as his ridiculous contention that 9/11 activists are “insane, dangerous anarchists” who comprise “”the kind of group a Timothy McVeigh would come from.” It is an easily verifiable fact that in the thousands of 9/11 protests that have taken place since 2001, not a single individual has ever been arrested for violent conduct or convicted of a violent crime. It is also, shall we say, less than candid to assert that a movement whose implicit moral imperative arises from a desire to protect constitutional integrity could in any way be considered anarchistic in nature. Also, in one of the most irresponsible acts of journalism on record, Geraldo Rivera conflated the notoriously non-violent 9/11 activist community with terrorists in the following statement he made on FOX News Channel’s ‘FOX and Friends’ program while covering the 03/08 Times Square Bombing of a US Armed Forces recruiting station:

“I think that this bomber isn’t Al Qaeda, isn’t anything like that… He’s more like those ‘9/11 was an inside job’ kind of guys… Protesting in a violent way, but in a violent way almost like the eco-terrorists… where they don’t intend to inflict casualties.”

The most egregious examples of this type of filth masquerading as responsible news commentary can perhaps be found emanating from the twisted and blusterous mouth of Bill O’Reilly. When the story broke that Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, was set to finance the distribution of ‘Loose Change 911’ (the most downloaded documentary in internet history) with Charlie Sheen set to narrate, O’Reilly (conceding his hypocrisy by admitting to not having seen the film or looked at the evidence) responded by unleashing a blitzkrieg of idiotic non-sequiturs, calculated ambiguities, and thinly veiled threats. After an erroneous and lame attempt to dismiss and discredit 9/11 Truth as “lunacy” from the “far-left fringe” (the movement transcends both liberality and conservatism alike, is a mainstream phenomenon, and its basic premise is in fact eminently sane), he compounded his ignorance by comparing 9/11-dissent to Nazi propaganda and holocaust denial. Like…dude…SERIOUSLY?! It is the very height of disingenuity to suggest that by demanding truth and accountability one is somehow offending and dishonoring the victims or their families, when the only way to honor them is by finding out the truth and holding the guilty parties responsible for their crimes. It would be more apt to compare Nazi propagandists and holocaust deniers to an administration that skewed intelligence about Iraq in order to fear-monger the American people into supporting the doctrine of preemption, while evading the initiation of any official inquiry into the most catastrophic day in our nations history, for 441 days. Either O’Reilly didn’t know or he didn’t care to know that Bill Doyle, founder of World Trade Center United Family Group (one of the largest 9/11 victims’ family organizations, comprised of over 7000 members from 2,573 families) believes that the government was complicit in the attacks. He has also publicly stated that at least half of his members harbor deep suspicions about what happened on 9/11 and why. Mr. Bill also saw fit to put Mark Cuban and Charlie Sheen on notice, so to speak. Sounding not altogether unlike a mafia don threatening to issue a hit, O’Reilly states “this is a warning to Mark Cuban, who is distributing that film in a few weeks. This is a warning to you Bud, okay, you pull that movie or I’m gonna be your worst nightmare, because this is gonna lead to death.” “We’re looking out for you, Charlie Sheen. Don’t do this. You’re not going to come back from it, if you do…”

As I said, examples abound. Such pathetically transparent diversionary tactics smack of cowardice and a reluctance to engage the subject of 9/11 based upon the facts at hand, and have no place in the realm of professional journalism (or info-tainment as the case may be). This must cease. If we are to have any hope of change as a nation, then we must recognize that turning the page on one of the darkest chapters in American governmental history without having properly read it, would be a grave and disastrous error. Regardless of how inconvenient, uncomfortable, or outlandish the implications may at first appear, this subject demands to be substantively addressed, free of spin or bias, for neither it nor its advocates are going to just fade away. Only a ship of fools would blatantly disregard the opinions of such highly qualified and erudite critics as those listed on sites like patriotsquestion911.com without closely examining their actual and factual claims. Now that Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy has officially introduced a proposal to investigate the Bush administration for war-crimes and the subversion of Constitutional Law, it stands to reason that 9/11 should also be soberly looked into once and for all. Given the swirling cloud of criminal accusations and populist rage regarding the legalization of torture, the illegal wiretapping of American civilians (including the intentional targeting of journalists and intellectuals according to NSA whistleblower Russell Tice) as well as other allegations of treasonous conduct, and taking into consideration the claims, statements, and research of critical thinkers across a wide spectrum of expertise who publicly doubt the government’s official explanation, it shouldn’t (although apparently it does) take a rocket scientist to see the disturbingly plausible connections between the inside job hypothesis and every Orwellian legislative and militaristic act for which 9/11 and its victims have been invoked as justification. Indeed the logic of context is fundamentally derailed by the prevailing ring-pass-not approach of investigating every area to which 9/11 is crucially relevant and intimately related, while treating the subject itself as sacrosanct. Clearly this should be part of any investigation into the alleged criminality of the previous administration; indeed it should be given priority. This above all else is President Obama’s litmus test of integrity and the quintessence of this nation’s hope for change. For if 9/11 was in fact an inside job, then it places all of the evils that flowed from and followed that event into vivid contextual focus. Bogus claims of executive privilege should offer no protection to those towards whom the preponderance of evidence points; chips fall where they may.

My own reasons for speaking out on this issue are fairly simple. I didn’t choose it; it chose me. Upon being hired to act the part of a post-9/11 NYC firefighter on Rescue Me, my research for the character led me to take a more objective look at what actually happened versus what we were told in the wake of the event. Nothing added up. No matter from which angle I approached 911, it invariably unraveled into contradictions and inconsistencies requiring the suspension of my logic and common sense in addition to several laws of physics. Slowly I came to the determination that I had no choice but to speak out, because (as Franco Rivera) I presume to represent the memories of the heroes who died that day, as well as the reality of the heroes who still mourn their loss. I work with these men; looking them daily in the eye. Therefore it is a citizen’s act of moral conscience and social responsibility, nothing more. To know or even to merely suspect, and yet remain silent, would be anti-American, unpatriotic, and tantamount to betrayal. Therefore this is no stunt on my part to gain publicity or to garner attention for myself by appearing edgy and controversial. Believe it or not, I rather covet my relative anonymity as a quasi-celebrity/working actor. I would much rather direct media and public attention to those most credible dissenting experts who have looked at and analyzed the facts (circumstantial as well as forensic) and found that they do not fit the government’s theory of conspiracy. People like Professor Emeritus David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage (AIA), Physics Professor Steven Jones (co-author of the above mentioned peer reviewed study proving that explosives were in fact used to implode the WTC towers as well as WTC 7), William Christison (former CIA Station Chief and Director of Regional and Political Analysis), Ray McGovern (27 year CIA vet., and former Chair of National Intelligence Estimates), Coleen Rowley (former F.B.I. Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel), and Sibel Edmonds must be given fair and open forums on mainstream media platforms, as well as access to those with the power and responsibility to reopen the 9/11 investigation; or rather, to finally conduct one as the case may be. Until that happens we will not be silent. We will not go away. We will not submit.