http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye

Discussion of the very real doubts over the World Trade Center attacks was conspicuously absent from the US presidential race. But America's international image will always be tainted as long as the uncertainty remains

Richard Falk
Sunday 09 November 2008, The Journal Issue 13

Every so often attention is called anew to the doubts surrounding the true character of the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Recently, the report of the collapse of Building 7 represented such an occasion. Any close student of 9/11 is aware of the many serious discrepancies between the official version of what took place and the actual happenings on that fateful day in 2001. David Ray Griffin and others have analyzed and assessed these discrepancies in such an objective and compelling fashion that only wilful ignorance can maintain that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book, and that the public should move on to address the problems of the day.

To accept such a view is to acquiesce in what can be described at best as governmental evasiveness and irresponsibility, a resolve to leave the discrepancies unexplained. It is not paranoid under such circumstances to assume that the established elites of the American governmental structure have something to hide, and much to explain. What has not been established by the “9/11 Truth Movement” is a convincing counter-narrative – that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction, and outright complicity.

For democratic government to work, citizens must never refrain from seeking answers to the most difficult questions. Here, what is at stake is enormous. It is not only the memory of those killed and deprived by the attacks, but also the fashioning of a climate of opinion that gave rise to international wars, as well as led to widespread denial of rights under the pretext of “homeland security” and counter-terrorism. There is also a profound challenge to the legitimacy of a governing process that stands accused of letting such crimes take place, if not aiding and abetting their commission and subsequent cover-up.

It might be asked whether it is not just an expression of morbid curiosity for non-Americans to harp on this issue of finding out the truth about what happened on 9/11. My response is that what takes place in the United States often has global reverberations, and never more so than in this instance. The US is the first truly global state in history, with its military presence established worldwide by more than 700 overseas bases, by navies in every ocean, and by the military domination of space.

The brighter side of US influence was revealed recently by the sense of peoples around the world that the election of Barack Obama as the new American president was a global event, and not just a national election. But what should be obvious is that the 9/11 experience has been relied upon to wage bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to underwrite a disastrously conceived “war on terror” that should be concern of everyone on the planet.

From this perspective, and given the dark cloud of doubt that lingers over the official 9/11 narrative, why was the issue not even discussed during the many months of presidential campaigning? As far as I know it was never mentioned. And the explanation is not the urgency associated with the widening economic crisis or the tactical interest of the Democrats to avoid offending Republicans in their search for support across party lines. The truth is deeper, and far more disturbing.

As far as I can tell, the real explanation is a widely shared fear of what sinister forces might lay beneath the unturned stones of a full and honest investigation of 9/11. Ever since the assassinations in the 1960s of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X there has been waged a powerful campaign against “conspiracy theory” that has made anyone who dares question the official story to be branded as a kook or some kind of unhinged troublemaker. In this climate of opinion, any political candidate for high office who dared raise doubts about the official version of 9/11 would immediately be branded as unfit, and would lose all political credibility. It is impossible to compete in any public arena in the United States if a person comes across as a “9/11 doubter.”

A few talk show hosts, investigative citizens, and publishers have kept a low flame of controversy burning sufficiently to sustain a large and growing grassroots constituency that shares the view that the truth about the 9/11 events is not yet known, or more radically, that the truth is known but being actively suppressed. These doubters are determined to continue their difficult quest for truth, and this could possibly result in disclosures at some point that are sufficiently dramatic to force the issue onto the public stage – where it belongs.

The persisting inability to resolve this fundamental controversy about 9/11 subtly taints the legitimacy of the American government. It can only be removed by a willingness, however belated, to reconstruct the truth of that day, and to reveal the story behind its prolonged suppression. What exactly that truth would be is certainly unknowable at present, and even an honest, collaborative effort might never altogether remove doubts. But that honest effort is just what should be demanded and expected by persons of good will everywhere.

Richard A. Falk is Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University, and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories

Several days ago I reported on the the Papal rehabilitation of Bishop Richard Williamson.

At that time I believed that the development was a positive one, however subsequent denunciations from Pope Benedict as well as apologies from three other traditionalist Bishops has changed this assessment.

Mainstream news stories reporting on the Bishop's views now simplistically conflate 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial and this cannot be a good thing.

The editorial position of this website is as follows: while I abhor censorship and affirm the basic human right of every citizen to ask difficult questions on any issue, I don't support Holocaust revisionism and I see no valid reason why questions regarding 9/11 should ever be paired with questioning the Holocaust. These are separate issues which have no similarities other than that they are "taboo" in certain circles.

To illustate how absurd and outrageous it is to use this "taboo" quality as a point of similarity, imagine if articles appeared comparing 9/11 truthers with pedophiles or terrorists.

The use of "taboo" labels by the corporatist media is a conscious, deliberate and malicious strategy to stifle dissent.

However, the way though is not to embrace the label but to deconstruct the malicious strategy of those who would silence us.

"Art Exhibit" visualises nuclear terrorism and fascist world government

The Murdoch owned telegraph.co.uk is featuring a fictional slideshow presentation in the arts and culture section which graphically depicts a series of nuclear terror attacks in the the UK, Canada, US and Mexico, leading to the creation of a Union of North America under a patently fascist New World Order.

The final images in part two of the slideshow depict a flag with a Nazi eagle and the phrase Novos Ordo Seculorum, and the last image is of a UK policeman with the same fascist symbol on his helmet.

Part three is yet to come.

Paul Watson of Prison Planet has noted the similarity between the eagle in the slideshow and the Nazi eagle:

Could this be a warning or is it merely an example of art imitating life? Or is it the other way round? Only time will tell.

No matter how you look at it there is something very disturbing about this material appearing on a major mainstream website. It would be utterly foolish to disregard it. The scenario depicted is very familiar to those who have studied the history of false flag terrorism. It is not at all implausible, and I hope that anyone reading this will think about it deeply and consider the real threat represented by the new generation of globalist ideologies.

Consider this: just yesterday the Guardian reported that British PM Gordon Brown has called for a "new global order". This is code for world government. Historically the only way such massive changes in political and social organisation have occured has been through devastating wars.

It would be naive to think that we will be exempt from the laws of history.

I am trying to clear a back log of video footage. The following is from 11 December 2009 when the Sydney 9/11 Truth Action group were outside Parliament house, Sydney.

More coming soon (:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=aDe3RNwDEe8

Richard Williamson and three other ex-communicated  traditionalist bishops, have been officially rehabilitated by the Pope, sparking outrage among Jewish lobby groups.

The fact that Bishop Richardson has gone on record quesioning the official view of 9/11 is overshadowed by his highly controversial views on the Holocaust which are now the subject of heated controversy in the media.

The video presented below is from a sermon where the Bishop urges his congregation to question all aspects of the official 9/11 story, and to be critical of the evolving police state and erosion of civil liberites in many western countries.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=E7fjGxfNsKk

More Links

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19147

Anthony Cipriano was working at Madison Square Garden on the morning of september 11th 2001. He witnessed the first plane fly over his head and hit tower 1. Several weeks later he worked clean up near ground zero. He recalls his thoughts about the steam that was rising from the pile in mid October the plight of the first responders and the need for a new investigation into 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PD372CnAgk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8287302

By BEN FOX

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) Two alleged orchestrators of the 2001 attacks on America casually declared their guilt on Monday in a messy and perhaps final session of the Guantanamo war crimes court. This week's military hearings could be the last at Guantanamo as President-elect Barack Obama has said he would close the offshore prison and many expect him to suspend the military tribunals and order new trials in the U.S.

Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the terrorist attacks, were unapologetic about their roles during a series of outbursts as translators struggled to keep up and the judge repeatedly sought to regain control.

"We did what we did; we're proud of Sept. 11," announced Binalshibh, who has said he wants to plead guilty to charges that could put him to death. The judge must first determine if he is mentally competent to stand trial.

Mohammed shrugged off the potential death sentence for the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We don't care about capital punishment," said Mohammed, whose thick gray beard flows to the top of his white prison jumpsuit. "We are doing jihad for the cause of God."

Mohammed, representing himself, insisted that a uniformed lawyer assigned to assist him be removed from his defense table, saying he represents the "people who tortured me."

In another diatribe over secrecy, the acknowledged terrorist ridiculed the government's position that national security had to be protected. "They want to hide their black sites, their torture techniques," he said.

Told by the judge to limit his remarks to a legal issue being discussed at that moment, Mohammed bristled: "This is terrorism, not court. You don't give me the opportunity to talk."

Mohammed has openly sought to become a martyr at the hands of the Americans. He threw his death-penalty trial into disarray in December when he declared that he would confess to masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks. In March 2007, he told a military panel that he played a central role in about 30 other terrorist plots around the world.

Separately, a judge held pretrial hearings for Omar Khadr, who was 15 when he allegedly killed a U.S. soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer of Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a grenade during a battle in Afghanistan in 2002.

Lawyers for the Toronto, Canada native want to exclude statements they say Khadr made through torture and coercion. Prosecution witnesses denied their allegation. One, identified only as "interrogator 11," characterized some sessions as "lighthearted," and testified that "he always came in smiling and very willing to talk to us."

In both cases, judges denied defense requests to make the Pentagon arraign the men all over again after withdrawing and refiling charges in about 20 cases, a step the Pentagon described as merely procedural.

The judge in the Sept. 11 case, Army Col. Stephen Henley, acknowledged doubts about the future of the hearings, saying one legal matter could be addressed "at later sessions, if later sessions are scheduled."

Lawyers and representatives of human rights groups who observed the hearings believe Obama will suspend the military commission system created by Congress and President George W. Bush in 2006 to prosecute dozens of men held at Guantanamo.

Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, in his confirmation hearing, said the commissions lack sufficient legal protections for the defendants, and said they could be tried in the United States.

"The military commissions should be at the very least suspended immediately," said Gabor Rona, observing as the international legal director of New York-based Human Rights First. "I'm certainly optimistic and hopeful that it will happen as one of the first orders of business."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

http://www.prisonplanet....dope-smoking-terrorists.html

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 19, 2009

A new FBI drama currently showing on A&E portrays 9/11 truthers as dope smoking terrorists in its pilot episode, a ploy made all the more interesting for the fact that A&E is part-owned by Hearst Corporation, which has also attempted to debunk 9/11 truth with savage hit pieces via its subsidiaries The History Channel and Popular Mechanics.

The plot of the show, which stars Patrick Swayze, centers around an attempt to infiltrate a group who are suspected of smuggling Rocket Propelled Grenade launchers into Iraq. In one scene, a member of the group talks with an FBI agent who is operating undercover.

“Are you a truther or a sheep?” the man asks the FBI agent.

He continues, “9/11 was a false flag operation man, wake up, a self-inflicted wound to control the masses, you know there was no planes, all of them were holograms and CGI.”

The man then takes a drag on a marijuana spliff and gives the FBI agent a crazed look.

The insertion of the 9/11 truther caveat in the episode serves no purpose except seemingly to convince the viewer that the man is unstable and dangerous. The mention of CGI and holograms, an obsessive tenet of an extreme fringe that attempted to hijack the 9/11 truth movement a few years ago, also serves only to detract more credibility from the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakyDB_Fskg

The A&E network, which stands for Arts & Entertainment, is jointly owned by Hearst Corporation (37.5% ownership), The Walt Disney Company (37.5% ownership) and NBC (25% ownership). NBC is owned by General Electric, a major player in the military-industrial complex and a huge benefactor of the 9/11 attacks, which of course could only have resulted in gargantuan profits for military contractors if the official story was upheld.

Hearst Corporation, the founder of which became synonymous with the term “yellow journalism” for his publication of dubious and sensationalized stories, also owns The History Channel and Popular Mechanics magazine, both of which attacked 9/11 truth in separate hit pieces in 2005 and 2007.

A&E also has close ties with the British Broadcasting Corporation, which has also attempted to debunk 9/11 with a series of hit pieces over the last few years.

Portrayals of the 9/11 truth movement in popular culture have manifested with both negative and positive connotations. An episode of South Park satirized truthers but a more recent episode of the firefighter drama Rescue Me showed actor Daniel Sunjata, himself a truther in real life, talking at length and with clarity about issues surrounding 9/11 being an inside job.

The very fact that the 9/11 truth movement has entered into popular culture alone and that giant media corporations and arms of the military-industrial complex are having to go to such lengths in a desperate attempt to debunk questions surrounding the attacks, is proof positive that the movement as a whole has had a significant impact on public consciousness, a fact that debunkers are loathe to admit.

In episode 2 of the fifth season of the popular TV show "Rescue Me", the character played by Daniel Sunjata presents the case for 9/11 as an inside job to a French documentary film maker. His diatribe, which goes for several minutes and includes many of the major planks of the 9/11 truth movement, ends with the question "are you single?" thus putting the whole scene into the context of "humour" and defusing some of the tension raised by the preceding monologue. Nevertheless the episode has generated some attention on the blogosphere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5jsb4Yzd8g

"9/11? Inside job. Plain and simple. And all you gotta do is connect the dots. ... I am talking about a massive neoconservative government effort, been in the works 20 years. Ever heard of PNAC? Project for a New American Century? According to them, the end goal of their effort is American global domination. Full spectrum dominance, they call it. Now, first question that pops into my mind is: How do you pull that off in this day and age?"

EXCERPT FROM INTERVIEW:

DANIEL SUNJATA: I'm really gratified that they allowed that to be focused through my character, because I happen to subscribe to a lot of those theories and beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job.

TVB: You're serious?

DANIEL SUNJATA: Oh, absolutely, 100 percent, yeah.

PETER TOLAN (show co-creator): That's part of the reason why we wrote it, is because Danny actually has -- is actually well-read on -- he's done a lot of research on this and has told us about it. And, you know, look, obviously not all of us buy in. But we went, wow, that's interesting, and he's passionate about it. Let's use that.

DANIEL SUNJATA: I mean, if it weren't for the structural constraint of consicion and speaking in a sound-bite format, you know, there are some very, very well-thought-out ideas and theories that seem to me to make a lot more sense than the ones that are popularly espoused. And anyway, the fact that they've allowed that conversation to be had within the world of RESCUE ME, I think, is admirable and should be applauded.

MORE LINKS:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19081
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2009/01/rescue-me-chara.html