This is some blog description about this site
A 6 Feb 2013 report in the Santa Barbara Review discusses the slaying of a 9/11 author Philip Marshal and his two children Alex and Macaila in their home in the "gated community of Forest Meadows", California, east of Sacramento. I have been through this area several times as my Brother-in-Law lived in nearby Pollock Pines.
Philip was just completing his book, “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror.”
I wonder if the 9/11 Truth Community can help this brave man's family -- do any of us know him? We can also encourage a thorough investigation and fair reporting of the man's death. He was an outspoken member of our world-wide truth-seeking community. The photo in the article shows two beautiful youth with their father Philip.
[quote] Phillip Marshall Wrote About a Conspiracy; Was He the Victim of One?
By Editor on February 6, 2013 in News
A Santa Barbara View Exclusive Report
Former airline pilot Phillip (alternately, “Philip”) Marshall spent a great deal of time around Santa Barbara last year preparing for the release of his controversial 9/11 conspiracy book “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror.”
During the editing and pre-marketing process of Marshall’s book, he expressed some degree of paranoia because the nonfiction work accused the George W. Bush administration of being in cahoots with the Saudi intelligence community in training the hijackers who died in the planes used in the attacks.
“Think about this,” Marshall said last year in a written statement, “The official version about some ghost (Osama bin Laden) in some cave on the other side of the world defeating our entire military establishment on U.S. soil is absolutely preposterous.”
Marshall went on to say: “The true reason the attack was successful is because of an inside military stand-down and a coordinated training operation that prepared the hijackers to fly heavy commercial airliners. We have dozens of FBI documents to prove that this flight training was conducted California, Florida and Arizona in the 18 months leading up to the attack.”
The veteran pilot confided that he was concerned about his 10-year, independent 9/11 study and most recent book since they pointed to the Saudis and the Bush intelligence community as the executioners of the attack that defeated all U.S. military defenses on Sept. 11, 2001. Marshall said he knew his book might cause some people to take issue with him.
Slaying victims Alex and Macaila Marshall with their father, Phillip Marshall.
However, could last weekend’s killings in the remote, gated community of Forest Meadows outside the tiny town of Murphys be another conspiracy? Although sheriff’s investigators don’t know the motive, they reported that the killings as a double murder and suicide. Marshall was found in his home’s doorway in a pool of blood with a 9mm Glock pistol that he had just showed to a friend two weeks ago.
The Calaveras County coroner is having a toxicology report performed on the blood of Marshall and his children to determine if any drugs are present in their blood streams, which is standard procedure in cases like this. Reports from the county sheriff indicate the children were sleeping when shot. The coroner said Macaila Marshall, 14, and Alex Marshall, 17, were lying 6 feet from each other on separate parts of a large U-shaped sectional couch.
When asked whether it was possible the children were drugged, the coroner said he couldn’t say yet. “That’s a good question,” he said in published reports. “We will be checking tox on everybody. It did appear as though they were sleeping.” The toxicology results and pathologist’s report could be completed within three weeks.
“Cause of death is all going to be single gunshot wound to the head for everybody,” the coroner said. The family dog also was found dead from a gunshot in a bedroom.
Calaveras County officials said conspiracy theories about the deaths are growing on online comment forums below stories about the incident. Many of these stem from Marshall’s involvement with the CIA as a contract pilot in the 1980s and the books he wrote about 9/11.
The children’s mother, Sean Marshall, was traveling on business in Turkey at the time of the killings. The coroner said she is expected to arrive in the area soon to make funeral arrangements.
2008 crime reports indicate friction between Marshall and his spouse. Phillip Marshall was jailed briefly on suspicion of slapping Sean Marshall’s sister, but he was not prosecuted. Last year, Marshall told one of his book editors that he still was disputing custody of his children with his ex-wife, but gladly attended his son’s football games and was quite close with daughter.
However, at that time Marshall was heavily involved with publishing what became his last book.
“After an exhaustive 10-year study of this lethal attack that used Boeing airliners filled with passengers and fellow crew members as guided missiles, I am 100 percent convinced that a covert team of Saudi intelligence agents was the source of logistical, financial and tactical resources that directed essential flight training to the 9/11 hijackers for 18 months before the attack,” Marshall wrote. “This conclusion was determined six years ago and all subsequent evidence has only served to confirm this conclusion.”
On March 1, two former U.S. senators, who headed separate 9/11 federal investigations, also raised the possibility of Saudi involvement in the attacks that killed 3,000 people and spurred the global War on Terror. In sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, former senators Bob Graham and Bob Kerrey, who saw top-secret information on the Saudis’ activities, said they believe that the Saudi government played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.
“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of 9/11 victims and others. Graham headed a 2002 joint congressional inquiry into the attacks and has claimed he was muzzled into silence about his committee’s findings in 2002 by former Vice President Dick Cheney and other top members of the Bush intelligence community.
In his own sworn affidavit, Kerrey said “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the (9/11) attacks has never been fully pursued,” Kerrey said in a March 1, 2012, New York Times article.
The affidavits, which were filed Feb. 24, are part of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit going through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
Last year, Marshall spoke on the national radio broadcast AM Coast to Coast. He said the entire 9/11 episode was “a political stunt to favor the American shadow government that is currently doing business as the U.S. intelligence community.”
INFOWAR Denmark's Adam Jan, Brian / Joe, - I'm curious in learning more as to what your editorial policies are or will be?
It's always nice to see friends at INFOWAR touch on 9/11 issues and concerns but will you be covering more on WTC7, controlled demolition, topics and issues relating to 9/11.
Do you have a limit how far you will go with un-related 9/11 conspiracies and other news stories as you did In this YouTube talking about the Royal family, Fat Tax , Denmark government, Ron Paul and Canadian Freeman issues?
Will you also mirror Alex Jone's show by including unrelated conspiracies such vaccines, chem trails, new world order conspiracies, and very popular false flag predicting Alex likes to do daily but gets it wrong most of the time?
Will you eventually be selling ads like your friends in Austin's American Freedom Radio and GCN's Alex Jones and his INFOWAR?
I want to respect you and your efforts with infowar Brian, Jan, (Joe) - I really do but its hard for me since being a long time 9/11 truther of 6 years and full time activist of 5 years along with some 30 other activists friends in my hometown, I can tell you first hand I have found these unrelated conspiracies, right wing political positions by infowar a huge distraction from being a 9/11 truth only activist group with the goals of pursuing a independent public 911 investigation and being the media in our community by sharing AE911 leaflets and DVDs freely ( in the thousands) - It caused head-aches arguments, and disrupted our 911 truth group to a point it caused us to break-up our group and each of us go our separate ways- One guy tried to include Obama Deception DVDs and another guy wanted us to add his infowar poison in the water promotion with our 9/11 truth action efforts.
In this broadcast I did not hear anything about controlled demolition, WTC7 and not a word about Denmark's champion for 9/11 truth Dr. Neils Harrit? Maybe this was covered in another broadcast I'm hoping?
My wife who's a researcher has taken Alex Jones advise seriously on a dailey basis of not taking his word but researching what he claims to be truth - This caused her to publish her findings publicly on her very popular blog titled " Leaving Alexjonestown"
One Critic Dr Kevin Barrett , another media pundit and friends with Alex said my wife was opening herself to lawsuits from INFOWAR...
She dug her heels in deep and began to research the claims made by Jones and some of his guests and soon learned that much that he claims was questionalbe, some withhalf truths or no truths at all ... I call this yellow journalism and talk more about this in a previous 911 blogger post. I'll stop there so you can respond...
As so far as my loving wife goes - Don't take my wife's word - check this out for yourself - Her Bog is - http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.ca/
and Thanks for posting your YouTube.
Kudos for praise of science
Kudos for criticizing of dumbing down as in refusal of left gatekeepers of looking at Newton's third law, usually taught in junior high
Kudos for urging dialog of tough issues, like 9/11
Criticism for proposing a flat tax which is proposed by conservatives and ignores that those who have trouble making ends meet have such a hard time paying the same percentage as oligarchs. The graduated income tax is still simple.
Criticism for suggesting political correctness is all bad. Liberals who decry racist, sexist terminology just want people to not assume it is okay to put forward ugly stereotypes. The term" politically incorrect" implies those concerned with justice have no value to society.
The Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States. So much unaccountable power has been concentrated in the executive branch that the US Constitution is no longer an operable document.
Whether a person believes the official story of 9/11 which rests on unproven government assertions or believes the documented evidence provided by a large number of scientists, first responders, and structural engineers and architects, the result is the same. 9/11 was used to create an open-ended “war on terror” and a police state. It is extraordinary that so many Americans believe that “it can’t happen here” when it already has.
We have had a decade of highly visible evidence of the construction of a police state: the PATRIOT Act, illegal spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the initiation of wars of aggression--war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard--based on intentional lies, the Justice Department’s concocted legal memos justifying the executive branch’s violation of domestic and international laws against torture, the indefinite detention of US citizens in violation of the constitutionally protected rights of habeas corpus and due process, the use of secret evidence and secret “expert witnesses” who cannot be cross-examined against defendants in trials, the creation of military tribunals in order to evade federal courts, secret legal memos giving the president authority to launch preemptive cyber attacks on any country without providing evidence that the country constitutes a threat, and the Obama regime’s murder of US citizens without evidence or due process.
As if this were not enough, the Obama regime now creates new presidential powers by crafting secret laws, refusing to disclose the legal reasoning on which the asserted power rests. In other words, laws now originate in secret executive branch memos and not in acts of Congress. Congress? We don’t need no stinking Congress.
Despite laws protecting whistleblowers and the media and the US Military Code which requires soldiers to report war crimes, whistleblowers such as CIA agent John Kiriakou, media such as Julian Assange, and soldiers such as Bradley Manning are persecuted and prosecuted for revealing US government crimes. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33804.htm The criminals go free, and those who report the crimes are punished.
The justification for the American police state is the “war on terror,” a hoax kept alive by the FBI’s “sting operations.” Normally speaking, a sting operation is when a policewoman poses as a prostitute in order to ensnare a “John,” or a police officer poses as a drug dealer or user in order to ensnare drug users or dealers. The FBI’s “sting operation” goes beyond these victimless crimes that fill up US prisons.
The FBI’s sting operations are different. They are just as victimless as no plot ever happens, but the FBI doesn’t pose as bomb makers for terrorists who have a plot but lack the weapon. Instead, the FBI has the plot and looks for a hapless or demented person or group, or for a Muslim enraged over the latest Washington insult to him and/or his religion. When the FBI locates its victim, its agents approach the selected perpetrator pretending to be Al-Qaeda or some such and ply the selected perpetrator with money, the promise of fame, or threats until the victim signs on to the FBI’s plot and is arrested.
Trevor Aaronson in his book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s War on Terrorism, documents that the FBI has so far concocted 150 “terrorist plots” and that almost all of the other “terrorist cases” are cases unrelated to terrorism, such as immigration, with a terror charge tacked on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LpTOrNQ3G9Q#! The presstitute American media doesn’t ask why, if there is so much real terrorism requiring an American war against it, the FBI has to invent and solicit terrorist plots.
Neither does the media inquire how the Taliban, which resists the US invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan, fighting the US superpower to a standstill after 11 years, came to be designated as terrorists. Nor does the US presstitute media want to know how tribesmen in remote regions of Pakistan came to be designated as “terrorists” deserving of US drone attacks on the citizens, schools and medical clinics of a country with which the US is not at war.
Instead the media protects and perpetrates the hoax that has given America the police state. The American media has become Leni Riefenstahl, as has Hollywood with the anti-Muslim propaganda film, Zero Dark Thirty. This propaganda film is a hate crime that spreads Islamophobia. Nevertheless, the film is likely to win awards and to sink Americans into both tyranny and a hundred-year war in the name of fighting the Muslim threat.
What I learned many years ago as a professor is that movies are important molders of Americans‘ attitudes. Once, after giving a thorough explanation of the Russian Revolution that led to communist rule, a student raised his hand and said: “That’s not the way it happened in the movie.”
At first I thought he was making a witty joke, but then I realized that he thought that the truth resided in the movie, not in the professor who was well versed in the subject. Ever since I have been puzzled how the US has survived for so long, considering the ignorance of its population. Americans have lived in the power of the US economy. Now that this power is waning, sooner or later Americans will have to come to terms with reality.
It is a reality that will be unfamiliar to them.
Some Americans claim that we have had police states during other wartimes and that once the war on terror is won, the police state will be dismantled. Others claim that government will be judicious in its use of the power and that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
These are reassurances from the deluded. The Bush/Obama police state is far more comprehensive than Lincoln’s, Wilson’s, or Roosevelt’s, and the war on terror is open-ended and is already three times longer than World War II. The Police State is acquiring “squatter’s rights.”
Moreover, the government needs the police state in order to protect itself from accountability for its crimes, lies, and squandering of taxpayers‘ money. New precedents for executive power have been created in conjunction with the Federalist Society which, independent of the war on terror, advocates the “unitary executive” theory, which claims the president has powers not subject to check by Congress and the Judiciary. In other words, the president is a dictator if he prefers to be.
The Obama regime is taking advantage of this Republican theory. The regime has used the Republican desire for a strong executive outside the traditional checks and balances together with the fear factor to complete the creation of the Bush/Cheney police state.
As Lawrence M. Stratton and I documented in our book, The Tyranny Of Good Intentions, prior to 9/11 law as a shield of the people was already losing ground to law as a weapon in the hands of the government. If the government wanted to get you, there were few if any barriers to a defendant being framed and convicted, least of all a brainwashed jury fearful of crime.
I cannot say whether the US justice system has ever served justice better than it has served the ambition of prosecutors. Already in the 1930s and 1940s US Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland and US Attorney General Robert Jackson were warning against prosecutors who sacrifice “fair dealing to build up statistics of success.” Certainly it is difficult to find in the ranks of federal prosecutors today Jackson’s “prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”
Just consider the wrongful conviction of Alabama’s Democratic governor, Don Siegelman by what apparently was a Karl Rove plot to rid the South of Democratic governors. The “Democratic” Obama regime has not investigated this false prosecution or given clemency to its innocent own. Remember how quickly Bush removed the prison sentence of Cheney’s operative who revealed the name of a CIA undercover agent? The Democrats are a cowed and cowardly political party, fearful of justice, and as much a part of the corrupt police state as the Republicans.
Today the purpose of a prosecution is to serve the prosecutor’s career and that of the party that appoints him or her. A prosecutor’s career is served by high conviction rates, which require plea bargains in which the evidence against a defendant is never tested in court or before a jury, and by high profile cases, which can launch a prosecutor into a political career, as Rudy Giuliana achieved with his frame-up of Michael Milken.
Glenn Greenwald explained how Internet freedom advocate Aaron Swartz was driven to his death by the ambition of two federal prosecutors, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann, who had no aversion to destroying an innocent person with ridiculous and trumped-up charges in order to advance their careers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/ortiz-heymann-swartz-accountability-abuse
It is rare for a prosecutor to suffer any consequence for bringing false charges, for consciously using and even paying for false evidence, and for lying to judge and jury. As prosecutors are rarely held accountable, they employ illegal and unethical methods and routinely abuse their power. As judges are mainly concerned with clearing their court dockets, justice is rarely served in America, which explains why the US has not only a larger percentage of its citizens in prison than any other country on earth, but also the largest absolute number of prisoners. The US actually has more of its citizens in prison than “authoritarian” China which has a population four times larger than the US. The US, possibly the greatest human rights abuser in history, is constantly bringing human rights charges against China. Where are the human rights charges against Washington?
In America the collapse of law has gone beyond corrupt prosecutors and their concocted false prosecutions. Unless it needs or desires a show trial, a police state does not need prosecutors and courts. By producing legal memos that the president can both throw people into prison without a trial and execute them without a trial simply by stating that some official in the executive branch thinks the person has a possible or potential connection to terrorism, tyranny’s friends in the Justice (sic) Department have dispensed with the need for courts, prosecutors and trials.The Bush/Obama regime has made the executive branch judge, juror, and executioner. All that is needed is an unproven assertion by some executive branch official. Here we have the epitome of evil.
Evidence is no longer required for the president of the US to imprison people for life or to deprive them of their life. A secret Justice Department memo has been leaked to NBC News that reveals the tyrannical reasoning that authorizes the executive branch to execute American citizens on the basis of belief alone without the requirement of evidence that they are terrorists or associated with terrorists. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
In “freedom and democracy” America, innocent until proven guilty is no longer the operative legal principle. If the government says you are guilty, you are. Period. No evidence required for your termination. Even Stalin pretended to have evidence.
The United States government is working its way step by step toward the determination that any and every critic of the government is guilty of providing “aid and comfort” to Washington’s “terrorist enemies,” which includes the elected Hamas government in Gaza. The only critics exempted from this rule-in-the-making are the neoconservatives who criticize the US government for being too slow to throttle both its critics and “anti-semites,” such as former US President Jimmy Carter, who criticize the Israeli government’s illegal appropriation of Palestinian lands. Most of Palestine has been stolen by Israel with Washington acquiesce and aid. Therefore, nothing is left for a “two-state solution.”
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine is illegal; yet, Washington, on which Israel is totally dependent, does nothing about law. Law, we don’t need no stinking law.” Washington has might. Might is right. Get used to it.
Not only for Palestinians has law ceased to exist, but also for Americans, and for Washington’s NATO puppets in the UK and Europe, pitiful remnants of once great nations now complicit in Washington’s crimes against humanity. The Open Society Justice Initiative, a NGO based in New York, has issued a report that documents that 54 governments are involved in Washington’s rendition and torture program. Twenty-five of the governments that help Washington to kidnap, disappear, and torture people are European. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-report-uk-court
The opening decade of the 21st century has seen the destruction of all the law that was devised to protect the innocent and the vulnerable since the rise of the now defunct moral conscience of the West. The West’s moral conscience never applied outside of itself. What happened to people in Europe’s colonies and to native inhabitants of the US and Australia is a very different story.
Nevertheless, despite its lack of coverage to the powerless, the principle of the rule of law was a promising principle. Now America under Bush and Obama, two peas of the same pod, has abandoned the principle itself.
The Obama police state will be worse than the Bush/Cheney police state. Unlike conservatives who in times past were suspicious of government power, Obamabots believe that government power is a force for good if it is in the right hands. As Obama’s supporters see him as a member of an oppressed minority, they are confident that Obama will not misuse his power. This belief is akin to the belief that, as Jews suffered so much at the hands of Hitler, Israel would be fair to the Palestinians.
Glenn Greenwald writes that “the most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33847.htm
This is the power of a dictator. That Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were said to have this power was part of their demonization as “brutal dictators,” a justification for overthrowing their governments and murdering the dictators and their supporters.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the president of the United States now murders his political opponents just as Saddam Hussein murdered his. How long before critics move from the no-fly list to the extermination list?
Additional reading: The legal analysis in the URL below written by seasoned attorneys shows that Obama is a tyrant. The point made by the attorneys is too clear to be debatable. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/assassin_in_chief.html
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Also a shortened version covered on CounterPunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/the-police-state-is-real/
The pervasive news surrounding the confirmation hearing of John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, is paralleled by another, related story that has been largely ignored by the U.S. media. That is the story of the man called Abu Zubaydah, whose alleged torture testimony, obtained by the CIA while Brennan was the head of the agency’s Terrorist Threat Center, built the foundation for the official account of 9/11. This week I spoke to Lee Hamilton, former vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the serious problems that the government’s new stance on Zubaydah creates for the 9/11 Commission Report.
As stated in my last article on the subject, Zubaydah is at the center of an unraveling of the official account of the 9/11 attacks. His extensive torture at the hands of the CIA during Brennan’s tenure, which included at least 83 water-boarding sessions, hanging the man naked from the ceiling, slamming him against a concrete wall, and other atrocious experimental techniques, was said to produce valuable evidence about al Qaeda. However, the government now claims that Zubaydah was never a member or associate of al Qaeda and therefore he could not have known any of the information that the 9/11 Commission attributed to him.
From the start of our conversation, Hamilton told me that he was having trouble remembering Zubaydah. That was odd considering that an article he and Thomas Kean wrote for the New York Times in 2008, describing how the CIA obstructed the 9/11 investigation, referred several times to Zubaydah specifically. The article claimed that “Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives.” Kean and Hamilton further wrote that, “in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah.”
These requests from the 9/11 Commission should have resulted in the release of some revealing records. That is, while John Brennan was leading the CIA’s Terrorist Threat Center, the agency videotaped the torture of Zubaydah and others, and proceeded to intentionally withhold that information from the 9/11 Commission. Brennan and CIA director George Tenet were almost certainly involved in the decisions regarding that obstruction. The two men had worked closely together for years. As CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, Brennan often communicated directly with Tenet, avoiding the usual chain of command. At the time, as an apparent favor to the Saudis, CIA analysts were discouraged from questioning Saudi relationship to Arab extremists. It seems that Brennan and Tenet had a tendency to protect some terrorist suspects and cover-up the agency’s treatment of others.
In 2009, it was revealed that when Brennan was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in 2005, the CIA had destroyed the torture tapes, most of which featured Zubaydah. Describing the CIA’s obstruction, Hamilton wrote — “The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.”
Therefore Hamilton remembered very clearly, in 2008, that he had asked the CIA at least twice, in a potentially contentious manner, for information specifically about Zubaydah. Having not received that information, Hamilton asked the CIA for the opportunity to question Zubaydah directly. The CIA not only denied these requests, it denied the Commission access to the interrogators who compelled the alleged testimony. Despite such memorable denials, however, Hamilton cannot seem to recall anything about Zubaydah at all other than his feeling that Zubaydah did not play a significant part in the 9/11 Commission Report. He told me “I’m a little fuzzy on this but the information that we had from him was not critical to our report.”
Reasons for Hamilton’s new, unconvincing amnesia on the subject might include that the U.S. government recently backed off its claims about this “detainee,” who has been imprisoned by the U.S. for eleven years without charges. The retractions about Zubaydah create a tension with the 9/11 Commission Report that reveals an obvious need to revise the report.
For example, in response to the habeas corpus petition filed by Zubaydah’s defense team, the government stated that it does not contend that Zubaydah had “any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” The same response states that the government no longer claims that Zubaydah was ever “a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.” But footnote 35 to Chapter 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report states the exact opposite. According to this footnote, “Abu Zubaydah, who worked closely with the al Qaeda leadership, has stated that KSM originally presented Bin Ladin with a scaled-down version of the 9/11 plan, and that Bin Ladin urged KSM to expand the operation with the comment, ‘Why do you use an axe when you can use a bulldozer?’” That’s pretty extensive and intimate knowledge for someone who was never associated with al Qaeda.
In our talk, I reminded Hamilton that Zubaydah was mentioned over 50 times in the 9/11 Commission Report, and that his alleged torture testimony, along with that of KSM and Ramsi bin Alshibh (both of whom Zubaydah identified as being involved in the attacks), produced the foundation of the official account of 9/11. Creating the background for the official myth about al Qaeda, Hamilton’s report called Zubaydah an “Al Qaeda associate,” a “long-time ally of Bin Ladin,” a “Bin Ladin lieutenant,” and an “al Qaeda lieutenant.” Despite these important references, Hamilton told me that he just couldn’t remember Zubaydah, saying “my recollection is really quite vague with regard to him.”
To refresh his memory further, I reminded Hamilton that nine separate dates of Zubaydah’s interrogation were referenced in his report. After these reminders, Hamilton said that he still had to “stretch his imagination to remember” him. It seems that if Hamilton had read my article on Zubaydah, which I had sent to him over a week before he agreed to meet and eleven days before we talked, his memory would have returned easily. Instead, Hamilton’s inability to stretch his imagination on the subject was reminiscent of the “failure of imagination” excuse used by the 9/11 Commission when it proposed an overall explanation for the events of 9/11.
Because the government no longer contends that Zubaydah was in any way associated with al Qaeda and now says that he had no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, I asked Hamilton if he had an opinion on how Zubaydah could have known so much about al Qaeda as stated in his report. Bluntly stating “No,” Hamilton suggested that he was not concerned with these contradictions.
Our discussion went into the recent conviction of John Kiriakou, the CIA’s Chief of Counterterrorist Operations in Pakistan after 9/11, who was originally said to be responsible for the capture and initial interrogations of Zubaydah. Interestingly, Kiriakou’s story has evolved much like that of the official account concerning Zubaydah. According to people who would know, with regard to Zubaydah “Kiriakou now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up.”
Kiriakou has since been heralded as a whistleblower. And he recently said that, for embracing torture, John Brennan is a terrible choice to lead the CIA. Kiriakou claimed that he has known Brennan since 1990 and has worked for him twice. While in the CIA, Kiriakou noted, Brennan “would have had to have been intimately involved in—not necessarily in carrying out the torture techniques, but in the policy, the torture policy.” It is true that this would seem to make Brennan an especially poor choice but today it is clear that those who engaged in torture, and those who used alleged torture testimony to create false reports, will not be held accountable.
This week I also spoke to Brent Mickum, Zubaydah’s attorney. Unlike Hamilton, Mickum was very straightforward and convincing. The information he possesses suggests that Zubaydah was a victim of false claims from the beginning. Mickum believes there may be alternative reasons why his client, who does not support the murder of innocents or suicide attacks and who repeatedly refused to join al Qaeda, was chosen to become the first, experimental, torture victim. Mickum expects Zubaydah to be charged sometime this year but cannot say what the charges will be. The evidence no longer supports claims that Zubaydah conspired with al Qaeda in any way. Additionally, he cannot be charged as an enemy combatant through the 2006 Military Commissions Act considering that he was captured and tortured years before that law was enacted.
With this in mind, I asked Lee Hamilton if Abu Zubaydah should be allowed to tell his own story now that his illegal detention and torture have proven to be based on falsehoods. Hamilton said that he would not take a stand on the subject one way or another. This refusal is yet another reason to suspect that Lee Hamilton will never come clean on the 9/11 Commission’s use of unreliable torture testimony.
Although Hamilton has repeatedly stated publicly that he believes torture is immoral and that the U.S. must take a strong stance against it, his actions and his work speak otherwise. The glaring problem he faces now is that it is the 9/11 Commission Report that stands as the definitive argument supporting use of torture. After all, if not for the alleged torture testimony of Abu Zubaydah and the people he reportedly identified (KSM and Ramsi bin Alshibh in particular) Hamilton’s report would have little evidentiary basis. And as the U.S. government strains to come up with charges to apply to Zubaydah after disclaiming his connections to al Qaeda, the Commission’s report remains at risk of being further challenged by whatever charges are ultimately filed.
 James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, Free Press, 2006
 Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Stonewalled by the C.I.A
 Notes from my talk with Lee Hamilton, February 7, 2013
 Zayn al Abidin Muhammad Husayn v. Robert Gates, Respondents Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Discover and Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions. Civil Action No. 08-cv-1360 (RWR), September 2009
 Jeff Stein, Foreign Policy, CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding, January 6, 2010
Letter to the Editor in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 2/14/13
"The Drone Age" editorial (Feb. 8) asserts that our laws need to catch up with the United States' military tactics. Justification is based on the characterization that al-Qaida's surprise attack changed everything. What it actually changed was only our regard for law. Based on 9/11, the U.S. asserted it can attack any country without being attacked first, our executive branch can kill anyone by assuring us he was a threat, and government agencies can watch citizens from the skin up without oversight.
However, we were lied into Iraq. It was an illegal war. It's connection to 9/11 was a fabrication. We were also lied into Afghanistan. On 9/11 three buildings collapsed symmetrically at, or near, freefall speed into their own footprints. The tops of the twin towers fell (in near freefall) through thousands of tons of undamaged steel and concrete as though it offered no resistance to the falling debris. A third building, undamaged by planes, fell the same way. Collapsing skyscrapers symmetrically, with debris falling faster as it comes down, and keeping the debris in the building's own footprints can only be accomplished through controlled demolition.
It's not really a big surprise that the folks who lied us into Iraq lied us into Afghanistan. What is surprising is that the Post-Dispatch seems prepared to accept rewriting rules of law based on an unbelievable story about what supposedly happened to "change everything" on 9/11. 9/11 was an inside job. We need to find the real villains, not rewrite laws.
Phillip Michaels • University City
Asked my librarian: " do you want this book mentioned below, ‘torture team,: rumsfeld's memo and the betrayal of american values" for library?." l.
reply: "Absolutely. Thanks!"
no, d; thank YOU for your open mindedness re important issues." sincerely, l
Guardian letter online comments;;""Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald chides our government for its hypocrisy after a state department official ‘expressed concern’ about what he called a ‘climate of impunity’ over abuses by police and security forces in Egypt.
(‘Italy’s Ex-Intelligence Chief Given 10 year Sentence for Role in CIA Kidnapping.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/13/italy-cia-rendition-...)
Yes, the U.S. (des?)pot calls the kettle black! Further proof is in International lawyer/University College London Prof Philippe Sands’ ’08 book ‘Torture Team: Rumsfelds’ Memo and the Betrayal of American Values.’ It builds a detailed legal case scenario for a potential International Criminal Court prosecution of former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and top Bush administration lawyers who tried to ‘justify’ the ‘18 interrogation techniques’ used at Guantanamo and by extension, or, ’mission creep,’ Abu Graib. Prof Sands discovered that top Joint Chiefs of Staff attorneys were purposely bypassed in this planning because they knew the latter would not approve due to its illegality, threat to our own future-captured service people and, simply, because, torture does not work.
Although the ‘news’ we got at the time implicated rogue underling types, the book finds those at the top most responsible and describes how inexperienced recruits at Guantanamo followed the ‘creative’ lead beamed into the island prison by Fox TV’s popular program ’24.‘ My shocked impression years ago when chancing upon this fear mongering show was that it was propaganda ‘manufacturing consent’ in American minds for torture.
Prof. Sands draws similarities with the Nuremberg trials, and conducted numerous interviews culminating with NATO country judge and prosecutor who indicated the ‘techniques’ did, in their estimation, comprise torture, and warranted prosecution by the ICC (International Criminal Court) if within a reasonable time the U.S./relevant countries do not themselves prosecute. The administration lawyers’ behaviour, in their view, went beyond complicity.
It appears in this country the powerful are above the law, including the Constitution, which requires abiding by U.S. signed treaties/ international agreements such as the Geneva Accords, & Torture Conventions, (in which formation the U.S. played the moral, guiding force.)
Extremely relevant, and even worse in description of more recent torture committed by this country is the following article by most diligent researcher/former Underwriters Lab chemist/whistleblower Kevin Ryan: http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-10/forgetting-torture-lee-hamilton-jo...
“The pervasive news surrounding the confirmation hearing of John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, is paralleled by another, related story that has been largely ignored by the U.S. media. That is the story of the man called Abu Zubaydah, whose alleged torture testimony, obtained by the CIA while Brennan was the head of the agency’s Terrorist Threat Center, built the foundation for the official account of 9/11. Zubaydah is at the center of an unraveling of the official account of the 9/11 attacks. His extensive torture at the hands of the CIA during Brennan’s tenure, which included at least 83 water-boarding sessions, hanging the man naked from the ceiling, slamming him against a concrete wall, and other atrocious experimental techniques, was said to produce valuable evidence about al Qaeda. However, the government now claims that Zubaydah was never a member or associate of al Qaeda and therefore he could not have known any of the information that the 9/11 Commission attributed to him….. In 2009, it was revealed that when Brennan was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in 2005, the CIA had destroyed the torture tapes, most of which featured Zubaydah.”
A climate of impunity, indeed.
thymesup on Wed, 02/20/2013 - 1:31pm.
George Bush, Tony Blair and the century’s greatest crime
What US and Britain did to Iraq is nothing short of state terrorism
By Linda S. Heard | Special to Gulf News
Published: 20:00 February 18, 2013
It’s been almost 10 years since the US and Britain unleashed ‘Shock and Awe’ on the Iraqi capital Baghdad ostensibly to punish a rogue dictator for hoarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in non-compliance with binding UN Security Council resolutions. In reality, Saddam Hussain had shut down his nuclear programme and destroyed Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons more than a decade earlier.
UN weapons inspectors were almost certain of this fact and were on the point of giving Iraq a clean bill of health until they were leant-on by Uncle Sam. Indeed, the man who had supervised Iraq’s WMD programme for a decade Saddam’s son-in-law Hussain Kamal confirmed as much to CIA intelligence officers and UN officials following his defection to Jordan in 1995.
What was done to Iraq was nothing short of state terrorism beginning with 10 years of crippling sanctions that brought Iraq to its knees and were believed to have been responsible for the deaths of up to 500,000 children who died from malnutrition, lack of medicine and disease from polluted water supplies.
Rather than heed growing international calls to lift those sanctions, George W. Bush and his neoconservative band chose war which they and their British cohort Prime Minister Tony Blair then sold to gullible Western populations on lies too numerous to list. They were aided by a complicit right-wing media with Rupert Murdoch leading the charge, according to the diaries of Blair’s former spin doctor Alastair Campbell.
Blair was aware that the war would be illegal in the absence of an explicit UN resolution, as his legal advisor attorney general Lord Goldsmith had determined, but he went ahead regardless even as millions of anti-war protestors thronged London’s streets. He didn’t hesitate to sign-off on an intelligence dossier for public consumption falsely claiming that Iraq could deploy WMD against British interests within 45 minutes of receiving the order to do so — and another containing tracts from a student’s thesis published on the internet, typos and all.
Credible insiders who dared to challenge such nonsense such as weapons expert Dr David Kelly, who challenged the 45-minute claim, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who refuted Bush’s allegation that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger, and British translator Katherine Gunn who disclosed that the US was spying on UN Security Council members, were discredited.
Kelly was found dead in suspicious circumstances; Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame was exposed as a CIA agent by a US government media lackey. Gunn was arrested for breaching the Official Secrets Act and sacked.
One of the most respected figures in America Colin Powell signed the death of his own career when he spouted trumped up allegations against Iraq in the UN, a presentation he was to bitterly regret, calling it a painful blot on his record.
World’s greatest con
In short, the war was one of the world’s greatest cons. It had nothing to do with Iraq’s WMD or the removal of a dictator; it was part of a greater neoconservative plan to ensure America’s global domination as General Wesley Clark confirmed in his book Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire.
“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”
Up to a million Iraqis lost their lives as a result of the war and subsequent invasion and occupation; according to the respected journal The Lancet, over 600,000 had been killed as of July 2006, not to mention thousands of US and coalition military personnel.
Former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz announced that the war impacted the US economy to the tune of $3 trillion (Dh11.1 trillion). And for what! The only beneficiaries of this willful blunder chiefly perpetrated by Bush and Blair have been Iran that holds sway over the Shiite-dominated Nouri Al Maliki government and various terror organisations that have used western crimes against Iraq as a recruitment call. Today, Iraq is poised on the brink of all out civil war.
The Conservative MP and Minister without Portfolio Kenneth Clarke recently told the BBC that Iraq was “the most disastrous foreign policy decision of my lifetime … worse than Suez”. You don’t need Einstein’s IQ to realise that, but the Iraq Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot, and set up in 2009, has failed in its mission.
It’s been characterised by the British prime minister as “an establishment stitch-up”.
Where’s the public anger? American newspapers are running stories about the death of Bush’s pooch Barney and his penchant for painting while a tanned Blair has been busy accepting a Polish Business Leaders’ Award and pontificating on David Cameron’s plan to hold a referendum on Britain’s continued EU membership.
The deadly duo should be sharing a cell in The Hague awaiting trial for war crimes, but as we see time and time again, victors’ justice translates to no justice at all.
Shortly after 9/11, former White House press secretary, the notorious Ari Fleischer, uttered the following ominous and sinister words: "Americans had better watch what they say, and had better watch what they do". Being one of the hardliner Bush Administration neoconservative insiders, he was clearly in the know as regards what lay ahead for America and the coming erosion of civil rights and the coming maximum security state.The horrendous episode detailed in the article above is one of thousands of examples of gross injustices committed by the US authorities, all enabled by 9/11.
(To speculate, he might have been privy to what was going on that morning as well, as - anecdotally - Mr.Fleischer was the official who on the morning of 9/11, while George Bush cluelessly dithered, reading a book to schoolchildren as America's worst ever national crisis was unfolding, held up a placard with the words "don't say anything yet" inscribed in large upper case letters. The lowly press secretary giving instructions to the commander in chief, and barely an eyebrow raised?
Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage
By Peter Drew
Originally at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33984.htm
February 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.
Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.
As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.
Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.
Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:
Professor Niels Harrit
Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit's team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.
Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit's team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.
Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:
Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’
Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true
Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator
In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:
Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth
The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.
We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing – the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.
The date and location of the hearing are as follows:
February 25th at 10:00 am
Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at] hotmail.co.uk
On January 28, 2013 the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier U.S. District Court of Nevada ruling in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice, in the case of Monaghan v. DoJ, which sought the release of numerous FBI 9/11 records. (Many thanks to those who generously donated to this effort. Future efforts are pending)
Majority opinion (PDF):
Dissenting opinion (PDF):
Globalists Hate C-Span
Published on Mar 1, 2013:
Every day we are subjected to programming that tries to convince us that we are alone, powerless, and rightly shunned by society for asking questions about the propaganda we are subjected to. But we are not alone, we are not powerless, and there are more of us than you might think. Today we examine some examples of the public standing up to the globalist stooges in one of the few quasi-mainstream outlets they have to do just that: C-Span.
Hayden: Chinese cyber theft ‘on unprecedented scale’
Time Reference: 04:06
C-Span Video Library
Time Reference: 08:05
Zbigniew Brzezinski speaks about Trilateral Commission (C-SPAN 1989)
Time Reference: 08:52
Caller Confronts Kenneth Adelman On NWO CSPAN 1991
Time Reference: 10:27
Reshaping the Middle East (CFR’s Foreign Affairs journal Summer 1990)
Time Reference: 12:41
Lee Hamilton on C-Span 2005
Time Reference: 14:04
Mickey McCarter biography
Time Reference: 26:42
Mickey McCarter on C-Span 2012
Time Reference: 27:39
The Colossal Deceit Known As The Underwear Bomber Case
Time Reference: 34:32
Patrick Kennedy testifies to Homeland Security Committee (Transcript)
Time Reference: 35:59
Patrick Kennedy testifies to Homeland Security Committee (Video)
Time Reference: 35:59
Body scanner makers doubled lobbying cash over 5 years
Time Reference: 38:35
Chertoff grilled by C-Span callers
Time Reference: 40:59
Best WeAreChange Confrontations of 2012
Time Reference: 43:28
Song: “Kopeika” by et_
Time Reference: 51:32
Very good article Lars, thank you for pursuing this to your utmost. It is dispiriting to see the usual boilerplate 'don't ask us/we don't know/it didn't happen' dismissals of evidence with bank authorities and journalists (not you but the one in the UK you contacted) scurrying away from the obvious.
I read Ruppert's CROSSING THE RUBICON years ago and this seems to be yet another assertion from that book of which Ruppert and only Ruppert has the evidence for. Of course, the practical difference between a fact given to Ruppert by an unnamed, forever anonymous whistleblower with no additional supporting information, and a fact conjured up by Ruppert out of thin air, is very little. I'm not suggesting that Ruppert made the info up, just acknowledging he may as well have for all the good it does anyone. I also find Ruppert's assertion of nearly a dozen documented PROMIS deaths annoying - which ones are they Mike, or should we just have a guess? I'll grant him Danny Casolaro, sure. Then who after that? Ruppert doesn't say. I read a lot of documentation about Promis and Inslaw and the Bua rebuttal and Casolaro etc etc prior to 9/11, when the Casolaro Octopus was a hot topic (now supplanted by more recent conspiratorial crimes). Ruppert could have done everyone a favour by giving some names to his assertion, even if just as a reminder of past events, but that would have made things too clear, and god knows we don't want that to happen.
All that said I've read all the main 9/11 books and have followed the general thrust of pretty much every debate that has appeared here at 911Blogger and via all the other usual outlets, and I've never made head or tails of what the key role of Promis in 9/11 was intended to be, nor what the main evidence for its use on the day is.
Thank you again Lars for your hard work with this.
Speaking of the devil (just a phrase as your work here is all good), here's a conversation between Lars and Max Keiser -
and a darkly funny comment by Max on the whole thing. I know how he feels somedays.
When I was in college the cause célèbre was leveling sanctions and divestment schemes against South Africa. I was against this for several economic reasons. A female friend silenced my protestations with a Niagara of vitriol: "how dare you support a slave state....." I shouldn't have to tell this audience but sanctions hurt the poor more than anyone. Also, at the time unemployment was low and there was growth in the economy. The results of this were seen in the relaxing of Pass Law restrictions which allowed for the emergence of a Black technical class and a chance for Blacks to participate in the equity of the economy. Economics is not my field but my predictions proved to be prescient. While divestment had a hand in bringing down the apartheid regime it was also instrumental in capital flight. Unemployment is as high now as 26% with many living on U.S. $1.25 per diem. Also, the country has "sold its paper" to multinational corporations and bought into the whole IMF loan scheme. I still remember that day all those years ago walking under a banner suspended from a bridge over a four lane boulevard that said: " DIVEST NOW! with that woman (why did I ever love her) harping like a fishwife and telling me what to think. Well, come to find out these causes du jour are hatched out somewhere, I am not sure where, but they seem to emminate from Harvard or Yale. If I didn't know better I would think that some liberal progressive organization thinks them up. But I do know better because everything in this country outboard of Genghis's left stirrup is controlled by outriders; so no it is not the progressives; I am sure of that much. Perhaps they are dreamed up as some kind of "safety valve:"you want something to get really mad about, how about apartheid......" Back at the U., years later, doing some grad courses and some administrative research and the de rigeur protestations are centered around living wages for janitors and custodians. I check and the campus at Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts is awash in solidarity with the broom handlers as well. Remember John Reed? He was an American Communist who graduated from Harvard College in 1910. He was made famous in the movie Reds staring Warren Beatty. Jack, as he was called, covered the Russian Revolution and wrote about it in Ten Days that Shook the World . Jack Reed is burried in the Kremlin. Well it seems that any good, incipient, commie at Harvard around the tournant du siècle was interested in only two things: World Revolution and living wages for janitors. So, you see, these things are just dreamed up somewhere and even recycled. I hate to say it but your friend is not doing any original thinking but is reciting from a script, written and inculcated in her how and in what matter I don't know but I am sure of it because I have seen the pattern.
We bring to the consideration of our readers this incisive and carefully formulated analysis by Canada’s renowned philosopher Professor John McMurtry.
I was sceptical of the 9-11 event from the first time I saw it on television. It was on every major network within minutes. All the guilty partieswere declared before any evidence was shown.The first questions of any criminal investigation were erased. Who had the most compelling motives for the event? Who had the means to turn two central iconic buildings in New York into a pile of steel and a cloud of dust in seconds?[i]
Other questions soon arose in the aftermath. Why was all the evidence at the crime scenes removed or confiscated?
Who was behind the continuous false information and non-stop repetition of “foreign/Arab terrorists”when no proof of guilt existed? Who was blocking all independent inquiry?
Even 11 years on these questions are still not answered.
But those immediately named guilty without any forensic proof certainly fitted the need for a plausible Enemy now that the “threat of the Soviet Union” and “communist world rule” were dead. How else could the billion-dollar-a-day military be justified with no peace dividend amidst a corporately hollowed-out U.S. economy entering its long-term slide? While all the media and most of the people asserted the official 9-11 conspiracy theory as given fact, not all did.