Andrew Napolitano, Fox Business Host, Reveals He Is A 9/11 Truther
First Posted: 11-24-10 03:18 PM
Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano revealed on Tuesday that he does not believe the government's account of the 9/11 attacks. Napolitano, who hosts "Freedom Watch" on Fox Business and is frequently seen on Fox News as a legal analyst, told radio host Alex Jones — who is a prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorist —that the attacks "couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us."
The subject came about when Jones noted that Geraldo Rivera had recently raised questions about the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Napolitano's Fox Business Show. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have centered on that building's collapse, contending that it was blown up by government forces. Jones asked Napolitano what his opinion about the issue was.
"It's hard for me to believe that it came down by itself...I am gratified to see that people across the board are interested. I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us."
New book by former Intelligence insider Susan Lindauer exposes 9/11 cover up
10 October 2010
The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq
What if the government decided to invent a great lie to sell a disastrous war and a questionable anti-terrorism policy? What would happen to the Assets who know the truth?
Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government’s lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of “black budget” betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging, EXTREME PREJUDICE reveals one Asset’s desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq. EXTREME PREJUDICE delivers a high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA’s advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq’s contributions to the 9/11 investigation. For the first time, it discloses the existence of a comprehensive peace framework before the War, which would have accomplished all major U.S. objectives in Baghdad without a single casualty. A true life spy thriller that goes inside the Iraqi Embassy and prison on a Texas military base, EXTREME PREJUDICE reveals the depths of deception by leaders in Washington and London to promote a questionable image of their successful anti-terrorism policy, and the shocking brutality used to suppress the truth of their failures from the American people and the world community.
Above all, EXTREME PREJUDICE offers a critical examination from the defendant’s chair of the Patriot Act’s assault on the most cherished Constitutional rights in a Court of law, when liberty and freedom to dissent from government policy are the highest stakes.
“Susan Lindauer deserves unreserved admiration for this brave and moving account of her steadfast refusal to crumble under the shameful abuses to which she was subjected. She has provided us with an overdue exposure of the depths to which governments are all too prepared to descend to prevent disclosure of their dishonesty and malfeasance, her knowledge having been gained through bitter personal experience.” –Robert Black, Q.C., Scottish architect of the Lockerbie Trial at Camp Zeist
“Unfolds like a suspense thriller from deep within the struggle for global sanity, at the hands of those perpetrating dark secrecy. Lindauer reveals faces of our national truth few Americans imagine. Chilling, heartbreaking, horrifying and hopeful, EXTREME PREJUDICE offers a depth of historical insight critical to transforming our future. Pay attention.” –Janice Matthews, Director, 911Truth.org
The Stench of American Hypocrisy
by Paul Craig Roberts
November 18, 2010
Ten years of rule by the Bush and Obama regimes have seen the collapse of the rule of law in the United States. Is the American media covering this ominous and extraordinary story? No, the American media is preoccupied with the rule of law in Burma (Myanmar).
The military regime that rules Burma just released from house arrest the pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The American media used the occasion of her release to get on Burma’s case for the absence of the rule of law. I’m all for the brave lady, but if truth be known, “freedom and democracy” America needs her far worse than does Burma.
I’m not an expert on Burma, but the way I see it, the objection to a military government is that the government is not accountable to law. Instead, such a regime behaves as it sees fit and issues edicts that advance its agenda. Burma’s government can be criticized for not having a rule of law, but it cannot be criticized for ignoring its own laws. We might not like what the Burmese government does, but, precisely speaking, it is not behaving illegally.
In contrast, the United States government claims to be a government of laws, not of men, but when the executive branch violates the laws that constrain it, those responsible are not held accountable for their criminal actions. As accountability is the essence of the rule of law, the absence of accountability means the absence of the rule of law.
The list of criminal actions by presidents Bush and Obama, Vice President Cheney, the CIA, the NSA, the US military, and other branches of the government is long and growing. For example, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney violated US and international laws against torture. Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union responded to Bush’s recent admission that he authorized torture with calls for a criminal investigation of Bush’s crime.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the ACLU reminded the US Department of Justice (sic) that “a nation committed to the rule of law cannot simply ignore evidence that its most senior leaders authorized torture.”
Rob Freer of Amnesty International said that Bush’s admission “to authorizing acts which constitute torture under international law” and which constitute “a crime under international law,” puts the US government “under obligation to investigate and to bring those responsible to justice.”
The ACLU and Amnesty International do not want to admit it, but the US government shed its commitment to the rule of law a decade ago when the US launched its naked aggression–war crimes under the Nuremberg standard–against Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of lies and deception.
The US government’s contempt for the rule of law took another step when President Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and had the National Security Agency bypass the FISA court and spy on Americans without warrants. The New York Times is on its high horse about the rule of law in Burma, but when a patriot revealed to the Times that Bush was violating US law, the Times’ editors sat on the leak for one year until after Bush was safely re-elected.
Holder, of course, will not attempt to hold Bush accountable for the crime of torture. Indeed, Assistant US Attorney John Durham has just cleared the CIA of accountability for its crime of destroying the videotape evidence of the US government’s illegal torture of detainees, a felony under US law.
Last February Cheney said on ABC’s This Week that “I was a big supporter of waterboarding.” US law has always regarded waterboarding as torture. The US government executed WW II Japanese for waterboarding American POWs. But Cheney has escaped accountability, which means that there is no rule of law.
Vice president Cheney’s office also presided over the outing of a covert CIA agent, a felony. Yet, nothing happened to Cheney, and the underling who took the fall had his sentence commuted by president Bush.
President Obama has made himself complicit in the crimes of his predecessor by refusing to enforce the rule of law. In his criminality, Obama has actually surpassed Bush. Bush is the president of extra-judicial torture, extra-judicial detention, extra-judicial spying and invasions of privacy, but Obama has one-upped Bush. Obama is the president of extra-judicial murder.
Not only is Obama violating the sovereignty of an American ally, Pakistan, by sending in drones and special forces teams to murder Pakistani civilians, but in addition Obama has a list of American citizens whom he intends to murder without arrest, presentation of evidence, trial and conviction.
The most massive change brought by Obama is his assertion of the right of the executive branch to murder whomever it wishes without any interference from US and international law. The world has not seen such a criminal government as Obama’s since Joseph Stalin’s and Hitler’s.
On November 8, the US Department of Justice (sic) told federal district court judge John Bates that president Obama’s decision to murder American citizens is one of “the very core powers of the president.” Moreover, declared the Justice (sic) Department, the murder of American citizens is a “political question” that is not subject to judicial review.
In other words, federal courts exist for one purpose only–to give a faux approval to executive branch actions.
If truth be known, there is more justice in Burma under the military regime than in the USA. The military regime put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest in her own home.
The military regime did not throw her into a dungeon and rape and torture her under cover of false allegations and indefinite detention without charges. Moreover, the military “tyrants” released her either as a sign of good will or under pressure from international human rights groups, or some combination of the two.
If only comparable goodwill existed in the US government or pressure from international human rights groups had equal force in America as in Burma.
But, alas, in America macho tough guys approve the virtual strip search of their wives and daughters by full body scanners and the grouping by TSA thugs of three-year old children screaming in terror.
Unlike in Burma, where Aung San Suu Kyi fights for human rights, the sheeple in Amerika submit to the total invasion of their privacy and to the total destruction of their civil liberties for no other reason than they are brain dead and believe without any evidence that they are at the mercy of “terrorists” in far distant lands who have no armies, navies, or air forces and are armed only with AK-47s and improvised explosive devices.
The ignorant population of the “Great American Superpower,” buried in fear propagated by a Ministry of Truth, has acquiesced in the total destruction of the US Constitution and their civil liberties.
Sheeple such as these have no respect anywhere on the face of the earth.
November 22 2010
In a recent column, "The Stench of American Hypocrisy," I noted that US public officials and media are on their high horse about the rule of law in Burma while the rule of law collapses unremarked in the US. Americans enjoy beating up other peoples for American sins. Indeed, hypocrisy has become the defining characteristic of the United States.
Hypocrisy in America is now so commonplace it is no longer noticed. Consider the pro-football star Michael Vick. In a recent game Vick scored 6 touchdowns, totally dominating the playing field. His performance brought new heights of adulation, causing National Public Radio to wonder if the sports public shouldn't retain a tougher attitude toward a dog torturer who spent 1.5 years in prison for holding dog fights.
I certainly do not approve of mistreating animals. But where is the outrage over the US government's torture of people? How can the government put a person in jail for torturing dogs but turn a blind eye to members of the government who tortured people?
Under both US and international law, torture of humans is a crime, but the federal judiciary turns a blind eye and even allows false confessions extracted by torture to be used in courts or military tribunals to send tortured people to more years in prison based on nothing but their coerced self-incrimination.
Compare Vick's treatment of dogs with, for example, the US government's treatment of Canadian "child soldier" Omar Khadr. Khadr was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2002, the only survivor of a firefight and an air strike on a Taliban position. He was near death, with wounds to his eyes and shoulder and shot twice in the back. The Americans accused the boy of having thrown a hand grenade during the military encounter that resulted in the death of a US soldier.
As there was no witness to support the accusation, Khadr was tortured into submission. He was beaten, deprived of sleep, left hanging with his arms chained above his head, hooded and threatened by dogs. The National Post of Canada (Nov. 6, 2010) reports: "His chief interrogator at Bagram admitted to telling the teenage boy that unless he co-operated, he would be sent to a U.S. prison, where a group of black men would gang rape him to death."
Despite this and other evidence that Khadr was coerced by torture into agreeing that he killed a U.S. soldier during a military firefight that left Khadr all but dead, U.S. military judge Col. Patrick Parrish ruled that Khadr's "confession" had been freely given and could be used to convict him in court.
The charge against Khadr is an invention. We don't know whether Khadr was a combatant or just happened to be in the place where the American attack took place.
Khadr is accused of "murder in violation of the laws of war." Such a crime does not exist. Soldiers who are enemy combatants are not tried for killing one another. As the Americans had pulled Khadr's "crime" out of a hat, they definitely needed a guilty plea. Shortly before the "trial," the Americans told Khadr that if he did not plead guilty and escaped conviction, they would hold him indefinitely in a torture prison as an enemy combatant.
This is the behavior of Nazi Germany. When German courts freed Nazi victims from false charges, the Gestapo simply picked up the cleared defendants when they left the court house and sent them to camps or prisons.
At the last minute new charges appeared out of thin air in order to beef up the nonexistent case against Khadr. He was forced to admit to killing two Afghan soldiers and to sign away his right to sue his jailers for torturing him. In court, Col. Parrish repeatedly emphasized that Khadr admitted his guilt freely of his own accord. In other words, Parrish lied in court by presenting a coerced confession as"willingly given." This is typical of US prosecutors.
In a powerful editorial, "Stalin Would Have Been Proud," the National Post of Canada said: "what it really was, was a show trial. . . . They could have told him to confess that he had simultaneously piloted all four hijacked planes on 9/11, and he would have done it."
The National Post goes on to say that Stalin's torture techniques, which "inspired the standard operating procedures at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo and the secret black sites, were not designed to elicit truth. They were designed to produce false confessions."
The Americans need false confessions in order to maintain fear of terrorists among the deceived population and in order to cover up the US government's crimes of torture.
If a case can be worse, it is the case of the young American educated neuroscientist, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. Read Yvonne Ridley's account in Cage Prisoners, February 12, 2010.
Siddiqui and her three young children were kidnapped. Siddiqui was tortured and abused by the Americans and their Pakistani puppets simply because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, according to Wikipedia her second husband's uncle, mentioned her name during one of the 180 times that he was waterboarded. Reminds me of reports by Soviet dissidents that when they were being tortured by the KGB, they tried to remember names on gravestones to give to the authorities, and when they couldn't they gave whatever names popped into their memories.
Siddiqui's young children apparently are still missing. While she was in detention, Siddiqui herself was shot in the stomach by an American soldier, allegedly after she managed to seize his rifle and point it at him. This absurd story was enough for federal judge Richard Berman to sentence her to prison for 86 years for assault with a deadly weapon and attempting to kill U.S.personnel. Obviously, Berman knows where his bread is buttered, and it is not by justice.
We imprisoned Michael Vick, because he tortured dogs. But Department of Justice (DOJ) officials John Yoo and Jay Bybee, in close collaboration with the George W. Bush White House and VP Dick Cheney's office, fabricated the argument that US and international laws against torture do not apply to the US president. Yoo and Bybee were found by the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility to have violated professional standards. However, DOJ official David Margolis reduced the charges to "exercised poor judgment." This despite the fact that Yoo actually asserted to an Office of Professional Responsibility investigator than Bush's powers as commander-in-chief provided Bush with the authority to unilaterally order, without recourse to law, the mass murder of civilians.
Vick didn't get off with "exercised poor judgment." In US "justice," torturing dogs is a worse crime than torturing people.
In the US, if you torture a dog you go to prison, but if you are a member of the government you can give a green light to torture, and your reward will be to be appointed professor of law at the "liberal" University of California, Berkeley (Yoo) and to the federal bench (Bybee).
With so many executive branch known criminals running around at large, what did the lobbyists' representatives, aka the US Congress, do? They excoriated Charles Rangel, the black US Representative from Harlem.
What had Rangel done? Had he indulged in even more heinous acts of torture, rape, and murder than the executive branch officials? No. Rangel helped a school raise money, and as the school was going to name itself after him, Rangel "benefitted personally" from using the power of his office to help the school to raise money. Rangel also committed another grave crime. He used a New York apartment, which was designated for residential use only, as a campaign office. Rangel also failed to pay income tax on rent from a condo in the Dominican Republic, most likely an insignificant sum of which an 80-year old man run off his feet by his demanding job might not have been aware.
Because of these "serious crimes," the House Rules Committee concluded that Rangel brought discredit upon the House of Representatives.
I mean, really, how many things can you think of that are of less consequence than Rangel's transgressions? We have a Congress that is bought and paid for by lobbyists, whose every vote is lobbyist determined by campaign contributions that financially benefit the Representatives and Senators. But Rangel is guilty because he helped a school raise money?
We have a Congress that has forfeited its power to declare war and sits complicit while the president not only usurps its power but uses illegitimate power to commit war crimes by launching naked aggressions on the basis of lies and deception.
We have a Congress that turns a blind eye to criminal actions by the president, vice president, and executive branch, including violations of US statutory law against torture, violations of US statutory law against spying on Americans without warrants, and violations of every legal protection in the Bill of Rights, from the right of privacy to habeas corpus.
The hallmarks of the remade US legal system, thanks to the "war on terror," are coerced self-incrimination and indefinite detention or murder without charges or evidence. "Freedom and democracy" America has resurrected the legal system of the Dark Ages.
But Rangel who helped a school is stripped of his Ways and Means chairmanship and censored by the bought-and-paid-for-Congress. One has the impression that Rangel must have done something far more serious, such as criticize the illegal wars or the banksters' rip-off of American taxpayers. Or do we simply have a case of white people ganging up on a black?
With the criminal mega-rich banksters, thanks to their agents ensconced in the US Treasury, regulatory agencies, and the Federal Reserve, free of regulatory oversight, on whose head does regulation fall? It falls on 13-year olds who sell cupcakes in public parks.
In Westchester County, New York, New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn called the police on 13-year olds Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff for selling cupcakes, cookies, brownies and Rice Krispie treats in a Chappaqua park. The kids were guilty of being vendors on town property without a license.
The kids were making about $100 a day and had capitalist dreams of starting a business. But regulation stopped them cold. A license cost between $150 and $350 for a scant two hours, and a $1 million insurance certificate is also required.
So banksters, who were able to purchase with campaign contributions, and who knows how much in under-the-table-payoffs, the repeal of the depression era banking regulations and then some, are scot free after having robbed taxpayers of bailout funds and their pension retirements. But the cupcake business of two 13-year olds is closed down.
What does it say about a population of 300 million that fails to see the hypocrisy in this?
Has a more insouciant population ever existed?
George Galloway Endorses Call for New 9/11 Inquiry
Ian Henshall | 20 November 2010
Former MP George Galloway endorsed the objectives of Reinvestigate 911 on his mass audience show on Talksport Radio this morning. George grilled Ian Henshall from Reinvestigate 9/11 for some 15 minutes on the need for a new 9/11 inquiry. Galloway remained doubtful of any inside job conspiracy but agreed there were serious unanswered questions which merited a new inquiry. Henshall summarised the main areas of concern as the astonishingly rapid collapse of the three World Trade Centre buildings and the discovery of apparently engineered nanoparticles in the dust; the anti-hijack exercise that the Pentagon now admits it was conducting at the same time as the attacks; and the role of the CIA's top secret Osama bin Laden unit which did nothing to help and seems to have blocked FBI offices from their own investigations prior to 9/11.
Henshall explained that Reinvestigate911 is open to anyone who wants a new investigation. He reminded listeners that, according to the original version of the official 9/11 story, the attacks succeeded as a result of the stupendous powers and resources of Al Qaeda. This was the justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. But it is now generally admitted that Al Qaeda must have been extremely lucky in many ways, benefiting from the amazing incompetence of the intelligence agencies. George Galloway supported this, observing that all the subsequent attacks were low level and against the softest targets.
Henshall commented afterwards: "In recent weeks George Galloway and Noam Chomsky have both endorsed the principle that it is legitimate to ask questions about 9/11. They have recognised that, whether you think 9/11 was an inside job or not, the official 9/11 story was a con which launched the 9/11 wars. We are delighted at this development. It is no longer possible to say that the traditional left is opposed to the 9/11 truth movement."
Reinvestigate 911 are currently campaigning for the Iraq Inquiry to ask questions about 9/11. They ask supporters to contact their MPs and make submissions directly to the Inquiry. To see how to do this easily please go to www.reinvestigate911.org
Huge News! TV host Geraldo Rivera supports the 9/11 truth movement’s key claim that Building 7 was b
13 November 2010
Gordon Farrer (top journalist at The Age): “9/11 conspiracy theory is a load of twaddle” ... conspir
Gordon Farrer | 5 November 2010
Gordon Farrer is the technology editor of The Age
ABC Melbourne broadcaster Jon Faine got into a stoush a couple of weeks ago with the September 11 conspiracy movement. It was entertaining talkback radio, but the phenomenon of large numbers of people willing to believe dastardly things — even in the face of solid, contradictory evidence — was scary and depressing.
(Conspiracy sympathisers: please read to the end before you unleash the flame campaign.)
Here’s how it unfolded: while locking horns with Faine on some other, now-forgotten issue, Kevin Bracken, president of the Victorian Trades Hall and secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, let slip that he didn’t believe the official version of what happened on September 11, 2001.
Faine leapt on Bracken like a barracuda on a sprat. And quite rightly, too: 9/11 conspiracy theory is a load of twaddle. Some of it is laced with malicious intent; some is fed by ignorance; and much is the embodiment of natural anxiety voiced by well-meaning folk who worry that they can’t trust their government or media to tell the truth.
A barrage of calls followed during talkback and continued for several days (many more, I understand, didn’t go to air). Furious conspiracy believers accused Faine of censoring the truth about September 11 and of complicity in the cover-up; some callers said conspiracy believers are stupid and shouldn’t be allowed to poison the airwaves with their idiotic ideas because they’re dangerous; others said conspiracy believers are stupid but should be allowed to fill the airwaves with their idiotic ideas because we still live in a democracy.
Several callers claimed that 50 per cent of people in Australia and the US do not accept the official account of what happened on September 11. If true, that’s a huge number, and we have to wonder why and how people’s trust in the established organs of society can become so warped.
My theory is that it has something to do with how the brain works and with how internet search works.
Scratch a conspiracy sympathiser and you usually find a natural cynic, a person who likes to think of themselves as a free-thinking individual, or someone with a deep-seated anxiety about the world. Sometimes they are combinations of all three. This is because their intellectual approach to the world is shaped by their amygdala — also known as the ‘‘lizard brain’’ — the oldest and most primitive part of the brain that controls our survival instinct. When the amygdala kicks in, emotion overrules reason and rational thought leaves the building.
The amygdala punches above its weight and has an excessive influence on our behaviour and beliefs. This makes sense in evolutionary terms: out on the savanna it’s in our interests to recognise every potential threat, otherwise that tawny shadow creeping through the long grass might be the last thing we see.
The downside is that it’s much harder to undo opinions that have fear at their core; they are immune to reason and facts. (These effects of the amygdala can become ingrained in cultures and societies, not just individuals. It plays a role in everything from racism to the strife in the Middle East.)
When our lizard brain takes over it puts us on edge, makes us want to find the threat, expose it and fight it — to the death, if necessary.
And that’s why there’s often a whiff of the manic in the voices of those presenting 9/11 conspiracy theories: the conspiracist believes that at some level, to some degree, their survival is at stake. And when politicians and media don’t give them voice they feel more threatened, more suspicious, cornered, helpless; and so they go on the attack.
Naturally, those wired with a predisposition for cynicism/anxiety/independent thought find comfort in theories of the world that reinforce how they feel. Here the internet plays a role.
Search results for information about conspiracy theories are distorted — distorted by fear (which shapes the approach used by the person searching) and distorted by the paradigms used by search engines.
A Google search for ‘‘9/11’’ brings up 115,000,000 results. The first is a Wikipedia entry about the attacks. The second is a Wikipedia entry about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Next come links to YouTube videos ‘‘exposing’’ the truth about 9/11; then entries for websites dedicated to archiving ‘‘facts’’ about the events of the day, links to various branches of the 9/11 Truth Movement and so on. That fills the first page of results and countless more pages filled with the same kind of results follow. The report of the 9/11 Commission — the official account of the events, which took three years to compile and is based on thousands of interviews and examination of evidence — doesn’t get a look-in.
The problem is that the high ranking of conspiracy theories resulting from a search is mistaken as authority when all it indicates is popularity of the search term and the websites visited. Just because something is widely believed doesn’t mean something is true; and just because conspiracy theories about 9/11 rank high on search results only means that lots of people are curious about them. Search engines tend to look for what other people are looking for and to throw those result higher. After a certain tipping point a topic’s popularity becomes self-fulfilling.
People too often use the internet to reinforce their ‘‘feeling’’ that something is true. (To describe this flawed kind of reasoning, American comedian Stephen Colbert coined the term ‘‘truthiness’’ — the ‘‘truth’’ a person claims to know intuitively ‘‘from the gut’’ without being based on evidence, logic, intellectual examination or facts. Truthiness is the amygdala in action.) The internet’s democratic nature — with its widespread tools for communicating and organising — means fringe ideas can coalesce and find traction when they might not have in previous times. The internet then becomes an echo chamber for crackpot ideas and misinformation, creating ghettos of poorly reasoned opinion. Contrary ideas that wander into these ghettos are bashed and abused, tarred and feathered and dumped on the outskirts of town. Look like us, sound like us or get the hell out of here. It’s an unfortunate but widespread kind of human behaviour.
And so it is with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Never before has bad information been able to be distributed so far, so quickly, to such a receptive audience.
To properly understand an issue requires an open mind, willingness to look objectively at both sides of an issue and good judgment to assess the information found. The internet too easily steers those who’ve already made up their minds in directions that confirm their biases, and to the exclusion of alternative ideas.
To get useful answers to legitimate questions requires a rigorous, honest approach on the part of the investigator. My advice:
* When researching anything on the internet, don’t go looking for information that simply reinforces what you already believe (or ‘‘feel’’) to be true.
* Don’t mistake questions about an event for proof that something dastardly happened.
* Don’t think that the number of hits on a subject makes it more authoritative than another.
On that last point, consider this: a Google search for ‘‘9/11 conspiracy’’ yields 4,660,000 results. A search for ‘‘the earth is flat’’ throws up 56,500,000 results.
I’m just saying.
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
This is one of the most important 9/11 independent research videos I have seen.
Colorado Democrats Call for New 9/11 Investigation: An Insider Tells Us How They Did It
Frances Shure, Colorado 9/11 Visibility | 9 November 2010
It’s true! The Democratic Platform for the state of Colorado is the fir1st major party in the US to adopt a resolution for a new investigation into the official story of the events surrounding 9/11.
It started in 2004 when I, a complete novice in political processes, decided to participate in my precinct caucus in order to try to make a difference here in Colorado. (1) The night before, I learned that the caucus is also a time to bring policy resolutions for consideration. Hurriedly, I wrote a resolution for a new, independent investigation into 9/11, figuring that here is an opportunity, at least, to educate a few more people. To my surprise, my precinct caucus neighbors voted for it!
The next step was to get it passed at the county level: the Denver County Assembly and Convention. To do this, I needed to get 10% of the attendees to sign a petition – another chance to educate more people! I needed 200 signatures, which I managed to get with the spontaneous help of a couple of other 9/11 truth activists. Now I could present this resolution to the Assembly, at the end of a long hard day, which wound up being attended by about 100 of the most serious participants.
Managing to transcend my considerable stage fright, and fearing I might be tarred and feathered, I read the full resolution aloud. The call for a vote came. To my shock, the resolution passed by 98%!
Discovering that the next step was the Colorado Platform Committee, I attended that meeting. Other dedicated activists were there as well, trying to figure out this mysterious process. (We could attend and comment, but not vote.) We were stunned to see that the Committee did not even have copies of the passed county platforms by which to determine what should be included at the state level. They were just going to decide unilaterally what they wanted on the state platform!
I firmly but politely confronted the chair of the committee about this. He replied testily, “We’re doing the best we can!” (I.e. sit down and shut up!) I replied back as testily, “No, you are not! Democracy has just flown out the window!”
Those more politically savvy than I informed me that the Democratic Party is controlled from the top down. What people want at the grassroots is not welcome, and when controversial resolutions are passed, they can be mysteriously removed at the state level. The State Platform Committee balks at including any resolutions not supported by the party’s presidential candidate –just the opposite of how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
Not to be deterred, in the months following, a few of the citizens who had been educated by our Colorado 9/11 Visibility speaking events joined the Colorado Democratic Platform Committee. In 2008, these people informed other committee members about the need for a new 9/11 investigation. In this same year, other Colorado citizens presented resolutions in their caucuses and county assemblies across the state. This time, they actually reached the Colorado Democratic Platform Committee, and, lo and behold, the following resolution was passed:
"We hereby declare that the investigations into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the illegal invasion of Iraq, Abramoff and other lobbyists, the hurricane Katrina response, and other major issues were inadequate and warrant review."
Not at all unhappy with this, several of us proceeded to try for a stronger statement in 2010, beginning with the precinct level. At my precinct caucus, there was a backlash waiting, and I was unsuccessful. Other activists, however, were successful in getting their resolutions passed at precinct and county levels. To my utter surprise, the Colorado Platform Committee kept the previous resolution and added another to the 2010 Colorado Democratic Platform:
“Whereas many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.”.
Now understanding the controlling and top-down nature of the Democratic Party, I fully expect a backlash, and realize that the grassroots desire for a new investigation into 9/11 will likely never be considered by the Democratic National Committee, unlike the Green Party (2). However, activists in any state with the caucus system (3) can use this political process to at least educate our fellow citizens. It is a rare opportunity in which the audience is right there waiting for us to speak our truth!
The 2008 version of the resolution may be viewed here.
The Resolution presented at Shure’s caucus in 2010 may be viewed here.
 There are two methods by which states choose their delegates and pass resolutions for the national conventions: the caucus and the primary. Caucuses are simply neighborhood meetings, open to all registered voters of the party, in which delegates and resolutions are chosen for the county conventions and assemblies. The states that have primaries do not have this grassroots advantage. They are open to all registered voters, and voting is done through a secret ballot as in general elections.
 In 2004, the National Green Party called for an independent commission, with full participation of surviving family members, to investigate the government’s handling of 9/11 and information leading up to the attacks. To date, this is the only national political party to support a new, independent investigation.
States with the caucus system are Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Wyoming, Texas, and Utah.
Chemistry Professor Niels Harrit debates Physics Professor Denis Rancourt on WTC collapse
Download audio: click here (right-click, save link as...)
9 November 2010
This debate hosted by Kevin Barrett is very interesting indeed, and unusual in that it is rare to actually hear any debate at all on this subject.
From Kevin Barrett:
On last Saturday’s show (read about it here, and listen here) physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.
But wait – what about the unexploded nanothermite chips (making up as much as .1 percent of the WTC dust) found by chemistry professor Niels Harrit and eight other scientists? While I don’t know much about chemistry, I’m good at judging arguments. Those who have attacked Dr. Harrit’s paper have used such blatantly bad arguments as to have made a prima facie case that the paper is unassailable. Let’s see whether Denis Rancourt, who knows something about nanotechnology, can do any better! (I wonder whether he thinks it’s a coincidence that much of the NIST cover-up crew, who pretended they had never heard of nanothermite, were in fact nanothermite experts!)
Niels Harrit is an Associate Professor at University of Copenhagen. He is an expert in organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence, and nanotechnology, and the lead author of a potentially historic scientific paper on nanothermite residues in World Trade Center dust.
Denis Rancourt was a tenured professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. His activism on many issues, including the conflict in Occupied Palestine, led to his being fired and dragged off campus in handcuffs by police – an amazing moment in Denis’s ongoing academic freedom struggle
Chomsky: “There is no evidence that al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks”
"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.
"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."
The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.
"The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany."
Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, "a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban... That was later turned into the official justification for the war."
"All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said.
The 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan was launched with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country.
Nine years on, however, the American and Afghan officials admit that the country remains unstable and civilians continue to pay the heaviest price.