Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is ‘annoyed’ by 9/11 truth

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is ‘annoyed’ by 9/11 truth

“Wanted by the CIA: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange”
Belfast Telegraph, July 19, 2010

In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about “conspiracy theories”. Assange subsequently explains his position.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? “I believe in facts about conspiracies,” he says, choosing his words slowly. “Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there’s enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news.” What about 9/11? “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” What about the Bilderberg conference? “That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes.”

Mr. Assange seems to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 may be, in a very concrete sense, a ‘conspiracy for war’, leading directly to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the permanent “War on Terror”.

In November 2009, Wikileaks released “half a million US national text pager intercepts” covering a “24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.”^[1] This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange’s rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?

Perhaps it should be pointed out to Mr. Assange that former senator Bob Graham, who chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it performed its Joint Inquiry^[2] into 9/11, gave an interview to the BBC in which Graham said the following:^[3]

Bob Graham: “I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security.”

Narrator: “Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the administration.“

Bob Graham: “I called the White House and talked with Ms. Rice and said: “Look, we’ve been told we’re gonna get cooperation in this inquiry and she said she’d look into it and nothing happened.”

Interviewer: “Was there any sort of sense of embarrassment or apology or…?”

Bob Graham: “No. Embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current White House.”

Narrator: “So it was a conspiracy to cover-up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead up to 9/11?”

Bob Graham: “If by conspiracy you mean, more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person and there was some … collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public’s hands.“

The BBC then concludes their documentary with a reassuring, paternalistic commentary explaining why this isn’t something we should all be furious about. Furthermore, in 2009, 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said, in a candid dialogue with We Are Change LA:^[4]

Bob Kerrey: “It’s a problem… it’s a 30-year-old conspiracy“

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: “No.. I’m talking about 9/11″

Bob Kerrey: “That’s what I’m talking about”

Many interpretations could be given as to what sort of conspiracy these two former senators are referring to. The BBC documentary “Conspiracy Files: 9-11″ was an obvious hit piece against 9/11 truth, in which the BBC went out of their way to handwave all abnormalities as ‘blunders’, ‘failures’, ‘mistakes’ and ‘cock ups’. This angle is not new, in fact, it’s part of a long BBC tradition of ‘limited hangouts’. Nor is it any less outrageous if it were true that these ‘blunders’ and ‘gaffes’ were deliberately covered up, as the BBC and Bob Graham allege. A criminal cover-up alone warrants criminal prosecution of the conspirators involved, and most 9/11 researchers know this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Bob Kerrey’s remark could be taken to mean the covert funding and training of the Mujahideen, initiated in 1979.^[5]

Nobody is asking Mr. Assange to depart from his objective role, but now that he has spoken out, he deserves a reply. In both cases, clearly the terminology used is “conspiracy” or “cover-up”. Bob Graham doesn’t hold back and mentions “withholding of (..) secrets”, chastising the Bush administration for being unapologetic, self-serving and obstructive. So it seems that Julian Assange, as the founder and director of an organization supposedly dedicated to supporting whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing, has his work cut out for him, unless he is determined to be part of the problem. The perception management and misguided credibility building Mr. Assange seems so concerned with conflict with the stated mission of Wikleaks:^[6]

“WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.”

I bet whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds^[7] and certainly Daniel Ellsberg^[8], who is mentioned several times in the mission statement, approve. Surely, a 9/11 cover-up that “led to the heart of the administration” is worthy of Wikileaks’ attention. Or is it?

---

[1] “9/11 tragedy pager intercepts” — http://911.wikileaks.org/

[2] 9/11 Joint Inquiry — http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

[3] Relevant excerpt from the 2007 BBC documentary “Conspiracy Files: 9-11″ — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6QLnvvyIzg/

[4] We Are Change LA: “9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it’s job”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45

[5] Operation Cyclone — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

[6] http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:About

[7] Documentary “Sibel Edmonds: Kill The Messenger” — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497

[8] Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg together — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSbmRHqKL4

New Documentary About Operation Gladio and False Flag Terrorism

New Documentary About Operation Gladio and False Flag Terrorism

Check out this excellent recent documentary, which has just been posted on the Internet, about Nato’s secret armies that were set up across Western Europe after the Second World War. While these “stay-behind” armies were supposedly intended to help put together a resistance if the Soviet Union invaded their countries, they went on to commit terrorist attacks against their own populations, so as to influence domestic politics.

The documentary describes how, from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, Western intelligence agencies collaborated with right-wing extremist groups to commit false flag terrorist attacks, which would often be falsely blamed on left-wing groups. It features interviews with, among others, Daniele Ganser, author of NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe.

(Source of documentary: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/07/09/18653266.php)

9/11 Documentary Film Resources

9/11 Documentary Film Resources

I have compiled some of the 911 film resources that I am aware of.
I’m sure some will be considered controversial to people here.
Please add to this list.

911 Share the Truth
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/911dvds.htm

Peace Resource Project
http://www.peaceproject.com/books/av.htm

Progressive DVDs
http://www.progressivedvds.com/servlet/StoreFront

Top Documentary Films
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/

Free 9/11 Documentaries & Videos
http://www.911docs.net/

Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth Store
https://www.ae911truth.net/store/

Documentary Wire
http://www.documentarywire.com/category/911

Esoteric Tube
http://www.esoterictube.com/category/911

911 Truth Television for Public Access
http://communitycurrency.org/911TV/

Free Documentaries
http://freedocumentaries.org/index.php

Films for Action 911
http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/default.aspx?Subject=1

True World History
http://www.trueworldhistory.info/

911 Truth Store DVDs (Veterans for 911 Truth)
http://www.v911t.org/911DVDs.php

World for 911 Truth DVD
http://astore.amazon.com/w9t-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=1

$1 DVD Project
http://www.onedollardvdproject.com/DVD-new/Home.html

SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options

SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options

<!–break–>

 

***

At least one Wall Street firm reported their suspicions about this activity to the SEC shortly after the attack.

The same thing happened with United Airlines on the Chicago Board Options Exchange four days before the attack. An extremely unbalanced number of trades betting United’s stock price would fall — also transformed into huge profits when it did after the hijackings.

"We can directly work backwards from a trade on the floor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange. The trader is linked to a brokerage firm. The brokerage firm received the order to buy that ‘put’ option from either someone within a brokerage firm speculating, or from one of the customers," said Randall Dodd of the Economic Strategy Institute.

U.S. investigators want to know whether Osama bin Laden was the ultimate "inside trader" — profiting from a tragedy he’s suspected of masterminding to finance his operation. Authorities are also investigating possibly suspicious trading in Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan.

 

 

On September 29, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out:

"Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and run," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Whoever did this thought the exchange would not be closed for four days.

"This smells real bad."

***

There was an unusually large jump in purchases of put options on the stocks of UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. in the three business days before the attack on major options exchanges in the United States. On one day, UAL put option purchases were 25 times greater than the year-to-date average. In the month before the attacks, short sales jumped by 40 percent for UAL and 20 percent for American.

 

***

Spokesmen for British securities regulators and the AXA Group also confirmed yesterday that investigations are continuing.

The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of the options.

***

Last weekend, German central bank president Ernst Welteke said a study pointed to "terrorism insider trading" in those stocks.

On October 19, 2001, the Chronicle wrote:

On Oct. 2, Canadian securities officials confirmed that the SEC privately had asked North American investment firms to review their records for evidence of trading activity in the shares of 38 companies, suggesting that some buyers and sellers might have had advance knowledge of the attacks.

***

FMR Corp. spokeswoman Anne Crowley, said her firm — which owns the giant Fidelity family of mutual funds in Boston — has already provided "account and transaction" information to investigators, and had no objection to the new procedures announced yesterday. Crowley declined to describe the nature of the information previously shared with the government.

So the effort to track down the source of the puts was certainly quite substantial.

What were the results and details of the investigation?

Apparently, we’ll never know.

Specifically, David Callahan - executive editor of SmartCEO - submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the SEC regarding the pre-9/11 put options.

The SEC responded:

This letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the September 11 (9/11) Commission Report.

***

We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.

If the SEC had responded by producing documents showing that the pre-9/11 put options had an innocent explanation (such as a hedge made by a smaller airline), that would be understandable.

If the SEC had responded by saying that the documents were classified as somehow protecting proprietary financial information, I wouldn’t like it, but I would at least understand the argument.

But destroyed? Why? (See Afterword for additional details.)

Not the First Time

This is not the first destruction of documentary evidence related to 9/11.

I wrote in March:

As I pointed out in 2007:

The 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.

The official 9/11 Commission Report states:

Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.

In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.

The Commission didn’t really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005:

We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.

As I noted last May:

Newsweek is running an essay by [New York Times investigative reporter] Philip Shenon saying [that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees]:

The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda’s history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.

The panel raised no public protest over the CIA’s interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.

That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission’s final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.

And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission’s report may have been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission….

Information from CIA interrogations of two of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydah—is cited throughout two key chapters of the panel’s report focusing on the planning and execution of the attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda.

Footnotes in the panel’s report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report’s footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA’s "enhanced" interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.

Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel’s behalf.

The commission’s report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had "no control" over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information "with documents and statements of others."

But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?

Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat on the commission, told me last year he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking ….

Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11.

Abu Zubaida was well-known to the FBI as being literally crazy. The Washington Post quotes "FBI officials, including agents who questioned [alleged Al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaida] after his capture or reviewed documents seized from his home" as concluding that he was:

[L]argely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.

For example:

Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida’s capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA’s harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida’s information.

"I don’t have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn’t believe him. The problem is they didn’t realize he didn’t know all that much."

***

"They said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,’ " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " ‘This guy’s a Muslim. That’s not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?‘" Coleman helped lead the bureau’s efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004.

 

Coleman goes on to say:

Abu Zubaida … was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.

***

Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they’re going to tell him anything?"

ACLU, FireDogLake’s Marcy Wheeler and RawStory broke the story yesterday that (quoting RawStory):

 

Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney.

In the message, the officials denied the bipartisan commission’s request to question terrorist detainees, informing its two senior-most members that doing so would "cross" a "line" and obstruct the administration’s ability to protect the nation.

"In response to the Commission’s expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation," the letter read. "There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross — the line separating the Commission’s proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government’s ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks."

***

"The Commission staff’s proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line," the letter continued. "As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees."

Destruction of Evidence

The interrogators made videotapes of the interrogations. The 9/11 Commission asked for all tapes, but the CIA lied and said there weren’t any.

The CIA then destroyed the tapes.

Specifically, the New York Times confirms that the government swore that it had turned over all of the relevant material regarding the statements of the people being interrogated:

“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission ….

“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.

But is the destruction of the tapes — and hiding from the 9/11 Commission the fact that the tapes existed — a big deal? Yes, actually. As the Times goes on to state:

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

Indeed, 9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

The CIA also is refusing to release any transcripts from the interrogation sessions. As I wrote a year ago:

What does the fact that the CIA destroyed numerous videotapes of Guantanamo interrogations, but has 3,000 pages of transcripts from those tapes really mean?

Initially, it means that CIA’s claim that it destroyed the video tapes to protect the interrogators’ identity is false. Why? Well, the transcripts contain the identity of the interrogator. And the CIA is refusing to produce the transcripts.

Obviously, the CIA could have "blurred" the face of the interrogator and shifted his voice (like you’ve seen on investigative tv shows like 60 Minutes) to protect the interrogator’s identity. And since the CIA is not releasing the transcripts, it similarly could have refused to release the videos.

The fact that the CIA instead destroyed the videos shows that it has something to hide.

Trying to Create a False Linkage?

I have repeatedly pointed out that the top interrogation experts say that torture doesn’t work.

As I wrote last May:

The fact that people were tortured in order to justify the Iraq war by making a false linkage between Iraq and 9/11 is gaining attention.

Many people are starting to understand that top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.

Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the U.S. used torture techniques specifically aimed at extracting false confessions (and see this).

And as Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

[A]ccording to NBC news:

• Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured

• At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being "tortured."

• One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

• The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

In fact, the self-confessed "mastermind" of 9/11 also confessed to crimes which he could not have committed. He later said that he gave the interrogators a lot of false information - telling them what he thought they wanted to hear - in an attempt to stop the torture. We also know that he was heavily tortured specifically for the purpose of trying to obtain false information about 9/11 - specifically, that Iraq had something to do with it.

***

Remember, as discussed above, the torture techniques used by the Bush administration to try to link Iraq and 9/11 were specifically geared towards creating false confessions (they were techniques created by the communists to be used in show trials).

***

The above-linked NBC news report quotes a couple of legal experts to this effect:

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he is "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures.

"If you’re sitting at the 9/11 Commission, with all the high-powered lawyers on the Commission and on the staff, first you ask what happened rather than guess," said Ratner, whose center represents detainees at Guantanamo. "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect."…

Karen Greenberg, director of the Center for Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law, put it this way: "[I]t should have relied on sources not tainted. It calls into question how we were willing to use these interrogations to construct the narrative."

The interrogations were "used" to "construct the narrative" which the 9/11 Commission decided to use.

Remember (as explored in the book The Commission by respected journalist Philip Shenon), that the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was an administration insider whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true. He wrote an outline of what he wanted the report to say very early in the process, controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission’s inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).

***

As constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley stated:

[The 9/11 Commission] was a commission that was really made for Washington - a commission composed of political appointees of both parties that ran interference for those parties - a commission that insisted at the beginning it would not impose blame on individuals.

Other Obstructions of Justice

[Other examples of obstructions of justice include the following:]

• The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into 9/11 said that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses

• The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements

• The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

• Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:
  
  

  Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence . . .

  * * *

  The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

  In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.” On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

We don’t need to even discuss conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11 to be incredibly disturbed about what happened after: the government’s obstructions of justice.

Indeed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves are disturbed:

• The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"

 

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . ."
  

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
  

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"
  

• The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true."

Afterword: Footnote 130 to chapter 5 of the official 9/11 Commission Report states:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 

9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options- investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price-surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10-highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

Did the Commission have full access to information regarding put options? Was the Commission misled, as it was on other issues? Was evidence destroyed or fabricated? We will never know, as the underlying documents have - according to the SEC - been destroyed.

Full Article:  http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/sec-government-destroyed-documents.html

Hypothesis Trailer

Hypothesis Trailer

The trailer for ‘Hypothesis’ a documentary short about Steven Jones and his 9/11 research. The film tells his story in his own words and reflects the explosive controversy that ensued which resulted in everything from threats, bribery, and academic suspension. What started as a mere hypothesis became so much more.

 

For those of you who remember ‘Between the Lines,’ that movie became this one. I plan to submit it to film festivals so we’ll see what happens.

 

President Ahmadinejad: Rest assured that Osama Bin Laden is in Washington D.C.

President Ahmadinejad: Rest assured that Osama Bin Laden is in Washington D.C.

(small) excerpt from: Transcript: George Stephanopoulos Interviews Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10558442

ABC News website, 5 May 2010

“Good Morning America” anchor George Stephanopoulos interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a day after Ahmadinejad spoke before the U.N.’s conference on the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty Monday, claiming his country’s nuclear program was not a threat to global security, but the United States’ is.

The following is an excerpt from the transcript of the interview, which took place on Tuesday, May 4, 2010.

__________________

STEPHANOPOULOS: One final question. There’s a new documentary out that says that Osama Bin Laden is living in Tehran. And the subject of the documentary, a man named Alan Parrot, one of the world’s foremost falconers living in Iran, says he’s spoken to Osama bin Laden several times since 2003. Is Osama bin Laden in Tehran?

AHMADINEJAD: Your question is laughable.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why?

AHMADINEJAD: The U.S. government has invaded Afghanistan in order to arrest Bin Laden. They probably know where Bin Laden is. If they don’t know he is, why did they invade? Could we know the intelligence?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I think if they knew, they would find him. They would get him.

AHMADINEJAD: First they should have tried to find his location, then invade, those who did not know about his location first they invaded and then they tried to find out where he is, is that logical? Do you think this is logical?

STEPHANOPOULOS: What I think is that you didn’t answer my question. Is he in Tehran or not?

AHMADINEJAD: Our position is quite clear. Some journalists have said Bin Laden is in Iran. These words don’t have legal value. Our position towards Afghanistan and against terrorism is quite clear.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it true or not?

AHMADINEJAD: Maybe you know, but I don’t know.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m asking you. You’re the President of Iran.

AHMADINEJAD: I don’t know such a thing, you are giving news which is very strange.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, let me ask it a different way. If you did know that Osama bin Laden was in Tehran, would you show him hospitality? Would you expel him? Would you arrest him?

AHMADINEJAD: I heard that Osama bin Laden is in the Washington, D.C.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you didn’t.

AHMADINEJAD: Yes, I did. He’s there. Because he was a previous partner of Mr. Bush. They were colleagues in fact in the old days. You know that. They were in the oil business together. They worked together. Mr. Bin Laden never cooperated with Iran but he cooperated with Mr. Bush–

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’ll ask one more time and then I’ll let you go. If you knew that Osama bin Laden was in Tehran, which you say you don’t. If you knew, would you expel him? Would you arrest him? Would you show him hospitality?

AHMADINEJAD: Our borders, our borders are closed to the illegal entry of anyone. Anyone who that may be. Whether it’s the three American mountaineers, Mr. Bin Laden or anyone else. The borders are closed. Our position is clear.

I’m quite surprised, to see that you adjust your daily lives based on the news that is being broadcast. I’m concerned that the government of the United States takes positions based on such news. If it is so, it is too bad. The news must be accurate and accountable, otherwise it will disrupt the relations between the nations. Just like this, did the government of the United States knew about the location of Mr. Bin Laden? And you said, “No, they went to find out.” Well, first you locate–

STEPHANOPOULOS: They lost the trail.

AHMADINEJAD: –to find out they have invaded Afghanistan. First they have to find out his location and then invade. It’s like for a judge to arrest someone and then go after the evidence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you deny categorically that he’s in Tehran today? He is not– Osama bin Laden is not in Tehran today?

AHMADINEJAD: Rest assured that he’s in Washington. I think there’s a high chance he’s there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I don’t agree.

Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

__________________

The video of this interview is available at:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/iran-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-defiant-fac…

Toronto, ON: Dr. David Ray Griffin & Richard Gage, AIA on Sunday, May 2nd

Toronto, ON: Dr. David Ray Griffin & Richard Gage, AIA on Sunday, May 2nd

SPECIAL LECTURES BY DR. DAVID RAY GRIFFIN & RICHARD GAGE, AIA
“9/11: Explosive Evidence and the War in Afghanistan”

Presented at the University of Toronto’s Walter Hall, Edward Johnson Building (80 Queen’s Park)
(located west of Museum Subway Station, behind the ROM)
7-10 pm, Sunday, May 2nd, 2010
Tickets available at Hart House or UofTtix.ca, or call (416)978-8849

TORONTO, ON – The Toronto 9/11 truth community is presenting two world-renowned independent researchers of the attacks of September 11th, 2001: Dr. David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage, AIA, at 7 pm on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010.
<!–break–>
Dr. David Ray Griffin is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He is the author of 36 books, nine of which are on 9/11. His most recent book is The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False. He was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (2008 and 2009), and was ranked in September 2009 by Britain’s venerated New Statesman as #41 of “the 50 people who matter today”. Recently featured in major documentaries on the BBC and CBC, Griffin will be speaking on the legal and moral aspects of the war in Afghanistan. Due to the carefulness and sweep of his writings, Griffin is widely considered the world’s leading critic of the official story about 9/11.

Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect, member of the American Institute of Architects and founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org). He has been practicing architecture for over 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.

Although it is widely reported that the destruction of the World Trade Center occurred as a result of the impact of jetliners and the ensuing fires, Mr. Gage and over 1100 professional architects and engineers listed at AE911truth.org have signed a petition that claims there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the investigation into 9/11. Mr. Gage’s presentation will be focused on reviewing data gathered by government reports, videos of the collapses, and eye-witness accounts. He was recently featured on the CBC’s flagship documentary series the fifth estate, and was described as lucid by the National Post.

Special Attention to professional architects in Ontario: this lecture will count as Self-Directed learning under the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA)’s Continuing Education Program, and receipts will be issued for attendance.

For more information, please contact Adam Parrott, B.Sc.Eng., at (647) 287 4350 or adam.parrott@gmail.com

The wars on truth, freedom and sanity

The wars on truth, freedom and sanity
Amal, a young girl featured in Channel 4’s “Children of Gaza”. Watch it here. Tonight TNRA covers three major topics in as much detail as humanly possible within the time constraints. Internet Filter and Copyright Laws The Obama administration has questioned the Rudd government’s plan to introduce an internet filter A chronology of Australian censorship controversies proves that the [...]

Tonight TNRA covers three major topics in as much detail as humanly possible within the time constraints.

Internet Filter and Copyright Laws

• The Obama administration has questioned the Rudd government’s plan to introduce an internet filter
• A chronology of Australian censorship controversies proves that the definition of “RC” is already very problematic
• Conroy’s internet censorship agenda slammed by tech giants
• Leaked ACTA treaty gives border agents powers to search, seize and destroy your equipment for copyright infringement
• “Gag the Filter” protest information

Psychiatry Gone Mad / Big Pharma

• Australian of the Year Psychiatrist Wants Millions in Government Funding for Brave New World of “Pre-Drugging” Kids
• Children as young as one are being prescribed powerful anti-psychotic drugs
• Drug company Merck created a “hit list” of critics and even faked a medical journal to promote arthritis drug Vioxx

The Israel/Palestine conflict

• New documentary “The Children of Gaza” explores the impact of Israel’s military assault and subsequent blockade of Gaza
• Democracy Now! interviews Prof. Norman Finkelstein

9/11 Truth At LA Peace March

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiqPQdWvo4

Hope you enjoy the show - and thanks for listening!

Source: www.truthnews.com.au

Exploring the hidden truth of HIV and AIDS

Exploring the hidden truth of HIV and AIDS
In tonight’s show we bring you a gripping interview with American film maker Brent Leung, whose documentary on AIDS, House of Numbers, has collected a swag of awards at film festivals across the United States.  The interview was conducted on the Radio Skid Row 88.9 FM breakfast show in Sydney on 21 Jan 2010. The film [...]

In tonight’s show we bring you a gripping interview with American film maker Brent Leung, whose documentary on AIDS, House of Numbers, has collected a swag of awards at film festivals across the United States.  The interview was conducted on the Radio Skid Row 88.9 FM breakfast show in Sydney on 21 Jan 2010.

The film explores a controversy which has been all but hidden from the general public due to blatant censorship in mainstream media over several decades, and consists of a series of interviews with some of the most distinguished biomedical scientists of our age, including two Nobel Prize winners.

At its core the controversy over AIDS is easy to state: there are many qualified experts who vigorously assert the HIV does not cause AIDS.

This claim however belies deeper questions about whether AIDS is really a disease at all, since the label is applied in different countries based on quite different criteria. An added complication is the fact that there are major uncertainties about whether the HIV anti-body tests actually work, which has led some scientists to question the fundamental existence of the HIV virus.

The AIDS controversy may be an obscure and perplexing scientific problem, but the politics of AIDS is a reality which affects billions of people all over the world, leading to public policies which, if based on flawed science, may have caused the death of millions by the use of highly toxic chemical treatments.

Nobel Prize winner Luc Montaigner states in the film that AIDS in Africa could be eradicated by improved nutrition and the provision clean drinking water instead of costly and unproven programs of mass medication and vaccination. This approach was also advocated by former president of South Africa, Thabo Mbecki, who was pilloried in the press as an “AIDS Denialist”.

This broadcast is one of the most important we have done at TNRA - please share it around and take a good look into the issues raised.

Related Links

• HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS – A new perspective
  
• Scientific Papers on AIDS by Peter H. Duesberg Ph.D
• Oncogenes, aneuploidy, and AIDS: a scientific life & times of Peter H. Duesberg
• VirisMyth.org - A rethinking AIDS website
• Since When Is the Expression of Fear and Ignorance a Basic American Right?
• Filmmaker, Brent Leung Responds to Huffpo Blogger, Thomas DeLorenzo
• A Daughter’s Death, A Mother’s Survival
• Christine Maggiore, vocal skeptic of AIDS research, dies at 52
• AIDS Denialism Under Fire From Researchers
• Mbeki admits he is still an AIDS dissident six years on
• AIDStruth.org - The scientific evidence for HIV/AIDS

Source: www.truthnews.com.au

Contact

Contact
Documentary about SETI, watch entire video and please leave comments. This will be of interest to anybody intriged by topics like aliens, UFO' … video.google.com
Source: www.google.ca

Next Page »