portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

The September 11 X-Files

Dear EmailNation Subscriber,

Since September 11, conspiracy theories have spread fast, purporting to
explain the attacks and the continued war on terrorism. But their
advocates imply far more than they prove, and, in one case, a key player
in the alternative-9/11 world may be peddling theories to conceal a
criminal past.
On March 25, during a Pacifica radio interview, Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, said, "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11.... What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?" McKinney was not merely asking if there had been an intelligence failure. She was suggesting--though not asserting--that the US government had foreknowledge of the specific attacks and either did not do enough to prevent them or, much worse, permitted them to occur for some foul reason. Senator Zell Miller, a conservative Democrat from her state, called her comments "loony." House minority leader Dick Gephardt noted that he disagreed with her. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer quipped, "The congresswoman must be running for the Hall of Fame of the Grassy Knoll Society." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called her a "nut." Two months later, after it was revealed that George W. Bush had received an intelligence briefing a month before September 11 in which he informed told Osama bin Laden was interested in both hijacking airplanes and striking directly at the United States, McKinney claimed vindication. But that new piece of information did not support the explosive notion she had unfurled earlier--that the Bush Administration and/or other unnamed parties had been in a position to warn New Yorkers and had elected not to do so.

With her radio interview, McKinney became something of a spokesperson for people who question the official story of September 11. As the Constitution's editorial page blasted her, its website ran an unscientific poll and found that 46 percent said, "I think officials knew it was coming." Out there--beyond newspaper conference rooms and Congressional offices--alternative scenarios and conspiracy theories have been zapping across the Internet for months. George W. Bush did it. The Mossad did it. The CIA did it. Or they purposely did not thwart the assault--either to have an excuse for war, to increase the military budget or to replace the Taliban with a government sympathetic to the West and the oil industry. The theories claim that secret agendas either caused the attacks or drove the post-9/11 response, and these dark accounts have found an audience of passionate devotees.

I learned this after I wrote a colu mn dismissing various 9/11 conspiracy theories. I expressed doubt that the Bush Administration would kill or allow the murder of thousands of American citizens to achieve a political or economic aim. (How could Karl Rove spin that, if a leak ever occurred?) Having covered the national security community for years, I didn't believe any government agency could execute a plot requiring the coordination of the FBI, the CIA, the INS, the FAA, the NTSB, the Pentagon and others. And--no small matter--there was no direct evidence that anything of such a diabolical nature had transpired.

Hundreds of angry e-mails poured in. Some accused me of being a sophisticated CIA disinformation agent. Others claimed I was hopelessly naive. (Could I be both?) Much of it concerned two men, Michael Ruppert and Delmart "Mike" Vreeland. Ruppert, a former Los Angeles cop, runs a website that has cornered a large piece of the alternative-9/11 market. An American who was jailed in Canada, Vreeland claims to be a US naval intelligence officer who tried to warn the authorities before the attacks. Ruppert cites Vreeland to back up his allegation that the CIA had "foreknowledge" of the 9/11 attacks and that there is a strong case for "criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution." My article discounted their claims. But, I discovered, the two men had a loyal--and vocal--following. They were being booked on Pacifica stations. Ruppert was selling a video and giving speeches around the world. (In February, he filled a theater in Sacramento.) I decided to take a second--and deeper--look at the pair and key pieces of the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

The Ex-Cop Who Connects the Dot

By his own account, Ruppert has long been a purveyor of amazing tales. In 1981 he told the Los Angeles Herald Examiner a bizarre story about himself: While a cop in the 1970s, he fell in love with a mysterious woman who, he came to believe, was working with the mob and US intelligence. Only after she left him, Ruppert said, did he figure out that his girlfriend had been a CIA officer coordinating a deal in which organized crime thugs were transporting weapons to Kurdish counterrevolutionaries in Iran in exchange for heroin. In an interview with the newspaper, the woman denied Ruppert's account and questioned his mental stability. Whatever the truth of his encounter with this woman, the relationship apparently extracted a toll on Ruppert. In 1978 he resigned from the force, claiming that the department had not protected him when his life was threatened. According to records posted on Ruppert's site, his commanding officer called his service "for the most part, outstanding." But the CO also said Ruppert was hampered by an "over-concern with organized crime activity and a feeling that his life was endangered by individuals connected to organized crime. This problem resulted in Officer Ruppert voluntarily committing himself to psychiatric care last year.... any attempts to rejoin the Department by Officer Ruppert should be approved only after a thorough psychiatric examination."

In 1996 Ruppert showed up at a community meeting in Los Angeles concerning charges that the CIA had been in league with crack cocaine dealers in the United States. There Ruppert claimed the agency had tried to recruit him in the 1970s to "protect CIA drug operations" in South Central Los Angeles--an allegation that was missing from the guns-and-drugs story published in 1981. In 1998 he launched his From the Wilderness alternative newsletter, which examines what he considers to be the hidden currents of international economics and national security untouched by other media. On March 31 of last year, for instance, he published a report on an economic conference in Moscow where the opening speaker was a fellow who works for Lyndon LaRouche, the conspiracy-theorist/political cult leader. "I share a near universal respect of the LaRouche organization's detailed and precise research," Ruppert wrote. "I have not, however, always agreed with [its] conclusions." Ruppert claims that twenty members of Congress subscribe to his newsletter.

Ruppert is not a reporter. He mostly assembles facts--or purported facts--from various news sources and then makes connections. The proof is not in any one piece--say, a White House memo detailing an arms-for-hostages trade. The proof is in the line drawn between the dots. His masterwork is a timeline of fifty-one events (at last count) that, he believes, demonstrate that the CIA knew of the attacks in advance and that the US government probably had a hand in them. Ruppert titled his timeline "Oh Lucy!--You Gotta Lotta 'Splaining To Do."

In the timeline he notes that transnational oil companies invested billions of dollars to gain access to the oil reserves of Central America and that they expressed interest in a trans-Afghanistan pipeline between 1991 and 1998. He lists trips made to Saudi Arabia in 1998 and 2000 by former President George Bush on behalf of the Carlyle Group investment firm. On September 7, 2001, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed an order restructuring the state's response to acts of terrorism. There's a German online news agency report from September 14 claiming that an Iranian man had called US law enforcement to warn of the attack earlier that summer. The list cries out, "Don't you see?" Oil companies wanted a stable and pro-Western regime in Afghanistan. Warnings were not heeded. Daddy Bush had dealings in Saudi Arabia. Brother Jeb was getting ready for a terrible event. It can only mean one thing: The US government designed the attacks or let them happen so it could go to war on behalf of oil interests.

Space prevents a complete dissection of all Ruppert's dots. But in several instances, he misrepresents his source material. Item number 8 says that in February 2001, UPI reported that the National Security Agency had "broken bin Laden's encrypted communications." That would suggest the US government could have picked up word of the coming assault. But the actual story noted not that the US government had gained the capacity to eavesdrop on bin Laden at will but that it had "gone into foreign bank accounts [of bin Laden's organization] and deleted or transferred funds, and jammed or blocked the group's cell or satellite phones." Item number 9, based on a Los Angeles Times story, says the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in May 2001, "purportedly" to assist farmers starving since the destruction of their opium crop. Purportedly? Was the administration paying off the Taliban for something else? That is what Ruppert is hinting. The newspaper, though, reported that all US funds "are channeled through the United Nations and international agencies," not handed to the Taliban. Unless Ruppert can show that was not the case, this dot has no particular significance. What if Washington funded international programs assisting Afghan farmers? With his timeline, Ruppert implies far more than he proves. It is a document for those already predisposed to believe that world events are determined by secret, mind-boggling conspiracies of the powerful, by people too influential and wily to be caught but who leave a trail that can be decoded by a few brave outsiders who know where and how to look.

The "Spy" Who Tried To Warn Us?

Ruppert can claim one truly original find: Delmart "Mike" Vreeland. He is the flesh on the bones of Ruppert's the-dots-show-all timeline. On December 6, 2000, Vreeland, then 34, was arrested in Canada and charged with fraud, forgery, threatening death or bodily harm, and obstructing a peace officer. At the time, he was wanted on multiple warrants in the United States--for forgery, counterfeiting, larceny, unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, narcotics, reckless endangerment, arson, and grand theft. Months earlier, the Detroit News, citing law enforcement authorities, had reported that Vreeland was an experienced identity thief. While Vreeland was in jail in Toronto, law enforcement officials in Michigan began extradition proceedings.

On October 7, 2001, Vreeland, who was fighting extradition, submitted an exhibit in a Canadian court that he says shows he knew 9/11 was coming. And, Ruppert argues, this is proof that US intelligence was aware of the coming attacks. The document is a page of handwritten notes. There is a list that includes the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower and the White House. Below that a sentence reads, "Let one happen--stop the rest." Elsewhere is a hard-to -decipher collection of phrases and names. Vreeland claims he wrote this in mid-August 2001, while in prison, and had it placed in a locked storage box by prison guards. He says the note was opened on September 14 in front of prison officials. Immediately, his lawyers were summoned to the prison, according to one of them, Rocco Galati, and the jail officials dispatched the note to Ottawa.

Vreeland's believers, including Ruppert, refer to this note as a "warning letter." It is no such thing and, though tantalizing, holds no specific information related to the 9/11 assaults. There is no date mentioned, no obvious reference to a set of perpetrators. In a telephone interview with me, Vreeland said this document was not written as an alert. He claimed that throughout the summer of 2001, he was composing a thirty-seven-page memo to Adm. Vernon Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, and that this page contains the notes he kept during this process. What of the memo to Clark? Vreeland won't share it, maintaining that he wrote in such a manner that only its intended recipient would truly understand what it said. Who can confirm the note was indeed what he had placed in storage prior to September 11? Is it possible some sort of switch was pulled? Vreeland maintains that during court proceedings, five officials of the Canadian jail affirmed that he had passed this document to the guards prior to September 11. When I asked for their names, Vreeland said the judge had sealed those records. Kevin Wilson, a Canadian federal prosecutor handling the extradition case, and Galati, Vreeland's lawyer, say no seal has been ordered.

The note is one small piece of Vreeland's very big Alias-like story. He claims he was a US naval intelligence officer sent to Russia in September 2000 on a sensitive mission: to obtain design documents related to a Russian weapon system that could defeat a US missile defense system. He swiped copies of the documents and altered the originals so the Russian system wouldn't work. As one court decision states, "According to [Vreeland], he was sent to Russia to authenticate these documents because he had originally conceived of the theory behind this [anti-Star Wars] technology, when working for the US Navy in 1986." While in Moscow, he also snagged other top-secret documents that, he claims, foretold the September 11 attacks. And now the US government, the Russian secret police, organized crime and corrupt law enforcement officials are after him. As one Canadian judge noted, "No summary of the complex allegations of multiple concurrent conspiracies...can do justice to [Vreeland's] own description."

Ruppert and Vreeland assert that Canadian court records back up Vreeland. But court decisions in his case have questioned his credibility. In one, Judge Archie Campbell observed, "There is not even a threshold showing of any air of reality to the vast conspiracy alleged by the applicant." Judge John Macdonald wrote, "I find that the Applicant is an imaginative and manipulative person who has little regard for the truth.... the testimony that he developed the theory for anti-Star Wars technology in 1986, based on high school courses, personal interest and perhaps a law clerk's course and a 'Bachelor of Political Science' degree is simply incredible." Nor did he he believe Vreeland was a spy or that he had smuggled documents out of Russia. Macdonald, though, did state that the US records submitted in court regarding Vreeland's criminal record were "terse, incomplete and confusing," and he noted that the sloppiness of the filing might suggest the Michigan criminal charges were "trumped up." But he was not convinced of that, explaining "I see no reasonable basis in the evidence for inferring that the Michigan charges are 'trumped up.'"

It's not surprising those records might be a mess. After I first wrote about Vreeland, I received an e-mail from Terry Weems, who identified himself as Vreeland's half-brother. He claimed Vreeland was a longtime con man who had preyed on his own family. Weems sent copies of police reports his wife had filed in Alabama accusing Vreeland of falsely using her name to buy office supplies and cell phones in August 2000. Weems provided me a list of law enforcement officers who were pursuing Vreeland in several states. I began calling these people and examining state and county records. There was much to check.

According to Michigan Department of Corrections records, Vreeland was in and out of prison several times from 1988 to 1999, having been convicted of assorted crimes, including breaking and entering, receiving stolen property, forgery and writing bad checks. In 1997 he was arrested in Virginia for conspiring to bribe a police officer and intimidating a witness, court records say. He failed to show up in court there. In Florida he was arrested in 1998 on two felony counts of grand theft. In one instance he had purchased a yacht with a check written on a nonexistent account. He was sentenced to three years of probation. The Florida Department of Corrections currently lists him as an absconder. In 1998 he was pursued by the Sheffield, Alabama, police force for stealing about $20,000 in music equipment. Charges were eventually dismissed after some of the property was recovered and Vreeland agreed to pay restitution. In the course of his investigation, Sheffield Detective Greg Ray pulled Vreeland's criminal file; it was twenty pages long. "He had to really try to be a criminal to get such a history," Ray says. A 1999 report filed by a Michigan probation agent said of Vreeland, "The defendant has 9 known felony convictions and 5 more felony charges are now pending in various Courts. However, the full extent of his criminal record may never be known because he has more than a dozen identified Aliases and arrests or police contacts in 5 different states."

Michigan state police records (sent to me by Weems, Vreeland's half-brother) show that in 1997, while Vreeland was in jail after being arrested on a bad-check charge, he wrote a letter to the St. Clair Shores Police Department warning that his brother-in-law was going to burn down his own restaurant. The letter was dated five days prior to a fire that occurred at the restaurant, but it was postmarked three days after the fire. "Do you see a pattern here?" Weems asks.

Judge Campbell called Vreeland a "man who appears on this evidentiary record to be nothing more than a petty fraudsman with a vivid imagination." But Ruppert dismisses Vreeland's past, noting he has "a very confusing criminal arrest record--some of it very contradictory and apparently fabricated." When I interviewed Vreeland, he said, "I have never legally been convicted of anything in the United States of America." And, he added, he has never been in prison.

There are two odd bounces in this case. Vreeland claims that in Moscow he worked with a Canadian Embassy employee named Marc Bastien. Unfortunately, this cannot be confirmed by Bastien. He was found dead in Moscow on December, 12, 2000--while Vreeland was in jail in Toronto. At the time of his death, Canadian authorities announced Bastien died of natural causes, but Vreeland later claimed Bastien had been murdered. Then, this past January, the Quebec coroner said Bastein died after drinking a mixture of alcohol and clopazine, an antidepressant, and he noted that Bastien may have been poisoned--or may have been offered the medication to fight a hangover. Had Vreeland really known something about this death, or had he made a good guess about a fellow whose death was covered in the Canadian media? And during a courtroom proceeding, at Vreeland's insistence, the judge allowed his counsel to place a call to the Pentagon. The operator who answered confirmed that a Lieutenant D. Vreeland was listed in the phone directory. Afterward, Canadian prosecutors claimed that information from the US government indicated that a person purporting to be Lieutenant D. Vreeland had earlier sent an e-mail to a telephone operator at the Pentagon, saying he would temporarily be occupying a Pentagon office and requesting that this be reflected in the listings. Could a fellow in a Toronto jail have scammed the Pentagon telephone system?

In March the Canadian criminal charges against Vreeland were dropped, and he was allowed to post bail. Explaining why charges were removed, Paul McDermott, a provincial prosecutor, says his office considered the pending extradition matter the priority. Vreeland's extradition hearing is scheduled for September.

To believe Vreeland's scribbles mean anything, one must believe his claim to be a veteran intelligence operative sent to Moscow on an improbable top-secret, high-tech mission (change design documents to neutralize an entire technology) during which he stumbled upon documents (which he has not revealed) showing that 9/11 was going to happen. To believe that, one must believe he is a victim of a massive disinformation campaign, involving his family, law enforcement officers and defense lawyers across the country, two state corrections departments, county clerk offices in ten or so counties, the Canadian justice system and various parts of the US government. And one must believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of detailed court, county, prison and state records have been forged. It is easier to believe that a well-versed con man got lucky with the Bastien death/murder, was able to arrange a stunt with the Pentagon switchboard and either wrote a sketchy note before September 11 that could be interpreted afterward as relevant or penned the note following the disaster and convinced prison guards he had written it previously. Michigan detective John Meiers, who's been chasing Vreeland for two years, says, "The bottom line: Delmart Vreeland is a con man. He's conned everyone he comes into contact with. That's why he's wanted.... He keeps going back into court for hearings because he doesn't want to come back here. He knows he's going to prison, and he's fighting. In the interim, he's coming up with a variety of stories."

The Rest of It

The Vreeland case--despite the attention it has drawn--is not the centerpiece of all 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is much more: A CIA officer supposedly met with bin Laden in July 2001 in Dubai. Before September 11, parties unknown engaged in a frenzy of short-selling involving the stock of American Airlines, United Airlines and dozens of other companies affected by the attacks. The Pentagon was not actually hit by an airliner. Flight 93--the fourth plane--did not crash in Pennsylvania; it was shot down. The Bush Administration, in talks with the Taliban, warned that war was coming. And that's not a complete run-down.

Some of the lingering questions or peculiar facts warrant more attention than others. There was a boost in short-selling. But does that suggest the US government ignored a clear warning? Or might the more obvious explanation be true--that people close to Osama bin Laden were tipped off and took advantage of that inside information? Ronald Blekicki, who publishes Microcap Analyst, an online investment publication, says most of the short-selling occurred overseas--and escaped notice in the United States. If that type of trading had happened in the US markets, he explains, it would have stirred rumors about the companies involved. "Everyone on the exchanges would have known about it," he explains. "My best guess is that the people who profited were reasonably wealthy individuals in the inner circle of bin Laden and the Taliban." What is curious, though, is that news of the investigations into the short-selling has taken a quick-fade. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor the Chicago Board Options Exchange will say whether they are still investigating trading practices prior to September 11. And there has been no word from Congress or the Bush Administration on this topic. Suspicious minds, no doubt, can view the public absence of government interest as evidence of something amiss. In this instance, the lack of a credible official investigation creates much space for the disciples of conspiracy theories.

No airliner at the Pentagon? You can find websites devoted to that thesis. Another site, called www.flight93crash.com, offers a sober look at the anomalies that have led people to wonder if that last plane, the one in Pennsylvania, was blasted out of the sky.

The alleged CIA-bin Laden meeting in Dubai has attracted intense notice in alternative-9/11 circles. The story first appeared In Le Figaro, a French newspaper, on October 31, 2001, in an article by freelancer Alexandra Richard. Citing an unnamed "partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai," she maintained that bin Laden was treated at the hospital for ten days. Her story also asserted that "the local CIA agent...was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital room" and "bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden," but she provided no source for these details. The hospital categorically denies bin Laden was there. Even if a meeting occurred, that would not necessarily indicate the CIA was aware of bin Laden's plot. Such news, though, would be a huge embarrassment and prompt many awkward questions. But the meeting's existence--unattached to a single identifiable source--can only be regarded as iffy.

Two French authors, Jean-Charles Brisard, a former intelligence employee, and Guillaume Dasquie, a journalist, have written a book, Bin Laden; the Forbidden Truth, in which they maintain that the 9/11 attacks were the "outcome" of "private and risky discussions" between the United States and the Taliban "concerning geostrategic oil interests." As they see it, Washington, driven by fealty to Big Oil, threatened the Taliban with military action and replacement, as it was pursuing Osama bin Laden and seeking a regime in Afghanistan that would cooperate with oil firms. In response to Washington's heavy-handed tactics, the two suggest, bin Laden and the Taliban decided to strike first. This double theory--it's-all-about-oil and Washington provoked the attack--has resonated on anti-Bush websites. To prove their case, the French men attach sinister motives to a United Nations initiative to settle the political and military strife in Afghanistan. Citing a UN report, they depict this effort as "negotiations" between the Taliban and the United States, in which the Americans aimed to replace the Taliban with the former King. Yet a fair reading of the UN report shows that the endeavor--conducted by the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan--was a multilateral attempt to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan that involved discussions with the various sides in that country. It was not geared toward reinstalling ex-King Mohammad Zahir Shah.

Brisard and Dasquie's most dramatic charge is that former Pakistani foreign minister Niaz Naik, who attended one of a series of international conferences held by the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan, says that at the July 2001 meeting a "US official" threatened the Taliban, "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." (This portion of the book is similar to an earlier article in the British Guardian, in which Naik additionally noted that the Pakistani government relayed Naik's impression of this US threat to the Taliban.) The Taliban, though, were not present at the session, which was held in Berlin, and the three American representatives there were former US officials. One of the reps, Tom Simons, a past US Ambassador to Pakistan who spent thirty-five years in the foreign service, recalls no such threat but acknowledges that the Americans did note that if Washington determined bin Laden was behind the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, the Afghans obviously could expect the Bush Administration to strike bin Laden. That would hardly have been a remark to cause bin Laden to arrange quickly a pre-emptive assault. Simons--who says he was not interviewed by the French authors--believes Naik misheard the Americans on this point. Whether Naik did or not, the French authors, at best, suggest a line of inquiry rather than come close to validating their contention. (Brisard and Dasquie also argue--without offering an abundance of evidence--that the United States, by design, did not vigorously pursue bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network because doing so clashed with other diplomatic priorities, most notably, cozying up to the oil autocrats of Saudi Arabia.)

Official accounts ought not to be absorbed without scrutiny. Clandestine agendas and unacknowledged geostrategic factors--such as oil--may well shape George W. Bush's war on terrorism. And there are questions that have gone unaswered. For example, on September 12, 2001, a brief story in Izvestia, the Moscow-based newspaper, citing unnamed sources, reported that Moscow had warned Washington of the 9/11 attacks weeks earlier. Was such a warning actually transmitted? If so, who issued the warning and who received it? But questions are not equivalent to proof. As of now, there is not confirmable evidence to argue that the conventional take on September 11--bin Laden surprise-attacked America as part of a jihad, and a caught-off-guard United States struck back--is actually a cover story.

Without conspiracy theories, there is much to wonder about September 11. The CIA and the FBI had indications, if not specific clues, that something was coming and did not piece them together. Government agencies tasked to protect the United States failed. US air defenses performed extraordinarily poorly--even though there had been signs for at least five years that Al Qaeda was considering a 9/11-type scheme. Afterward, neither the Bush Administration nor Congress rushed to investigate. In fact, Senate majority leader Tom Daschle maintains that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney both told him in January they opposed any Congressional investigation of 9/11. (The White House denies this.) Congress finally greenlighted an inquiry, but the investigation bogged down as the Congressional investigators complained that the CIA and the Justice Department were impeding their efforts.

One problem with conspiracy theorizing is that it can distract from the true and (sometimes mundane) misdeeds and mistakes of government. But when the government is reluctant to probe its own errors, it opens the door wider for those who would turn anomalies into theories or spin curious fact--or speculation--into outlandish explanation. Not that all who do so need much encouragement. September 11 was so traumatic, so large, that there will always be people who look to color it--or exploit it--by adding more drama and intrigue, who seek to discern hidden meanings, who desire to make more sense of the awful act. And there will be people who want to believe them.

homepage: homepage: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66


Nation serves more Bush-shit 31.May.2002 22:26

99999

what. a. surprise.

real snappy comeback 99999 31.May.2002 22:35

Enji

you sure proved THEM wrong.

what's wrong with the Nation? 31.May.2002 23:15

sid

I believe that this is called a "ad hominem" attack, but it possibly goes beyond the bounds of a logical fallacy to slander. Why is the Nation wading into this journalistic sewage? 2+2=4, no matter who says it. Stick to the arguments and evidence.

Nail Clinton, suck up to Bush 01.Jun.2002 00:45

Umediawhores!

Like everything in The Nation except Greider's stuff, this is unreadable.

Even if everything reported here is true (I didn't read it all) I believe Ruppert is serving his country better then The (tedious) Nation.

Can anyone name a single issue or event where The freaking Nation magazine made any significant difference?

When they finish with Ruppert they'll go back to smearing Chomsky. The Nation has a long history of being divisive and diversionary; they're like the Project Bluebook record of leftist politics. Useless bastards!

the nation is very disappointing 01.Jun.2002 01:18

deva

<<<If that type of trading had happened in the US markets, he explains, it would have stirred rumors about the companies involved. "Everyone on the exchanges would have known about it," he explains.>>>

actually there are quotes from mainstream press from stock traders who talk about how they knew something was up and that red lights were going off within the stock exchange. . .

their assumption was someone had some inside information and was trying to profit from it, and they are always watching trends for signs of it (just like the CIA does)

you cannot sell or buy stocks or options anonymously. . .there have to be records of who did it. . .and those records have not been released to the public, nor information on who made the trades. Why has the FBI remained completely silent about this?

why do these apologists like Corn, never examine the glaring inconsistencies in the official story?

of course there is no proof for a particular alternative theory. . .however, there is also no proof for their accepted theory, and yet thousands of people have been killed based on it, civil liberties have been stripped, and Bush and those he associates with have profitted hugely from the attacks

the nation still refuses to examine this. . .who had motive, means and profitted from it?

why is there not one arab name on the flight lists?

come on. . .answer that one

Is it not rather coincidental that the US was planning to attack Afghanistan months before 9.11 and that the WTC attacks facilitated it to happen right on schedule?

then there is the amazing passport which survives the plane crash, and ensuing towering inferno only to end up virtually unscathed on the ground and just happens to be the passport of the alleged ringleader. . .how about that. . .the nation and others are rather quick to accept rediculous bullshit like that. . .why? cause they want to believe in the conspiracy theory put forth by a government they are desparate to trust because they haven't the courage to face the ugly reality of this country

what about the woman who was murdered the day before she was supposed to testify regarding involvement with the alleged hijackers and obtaining them fake drivers licenses. . .who killed her? and why has the FBI revealed nothing about it?

you have a dude like Ruppert. . .no doubt some things he is pointing out will end up being false. . .he is just one small person. . .Vreeland may well be a kook. . .however, you must look at the fact that the nation and progressive and others have not turned a critical eye towards the official story. . .all sorts of glaring holes are there, and nothing like a proof. . .but they spend their time debunking ruppert on this point or that but never the more important story the government is telling. . .this basic hypocracy shows their agenda, and it is not truth

how do you explain that the flight school instructors are quoted in the washington post as saying that the alleged hijacker pilots were lousy pilots and which indicates they were not capable of flying the hijacked planes? Then who did? and why has the FBI never addressed this point which if true disproves their entire theory just by itself?

why is the FBI refusing to focus on the likely suspect(s) in the anthrax letters and still acting like there are no specific leads? It was not Arabs who sent those letters made to look like it was Arabs, so there is at least one example of Arabs being framed.

Why when the fbi itself admits it has no hard piece of evidence linking its alleged suspects to the planning of the attacks, and there are already people on its list of 19 suspects that are proven incorrect does the FBI not release a corrected and updated list? if some of the names are wrong, others can be too

What about the instant messages sent to Odigo(confirmed by the CEO). . .a company in Israel? They were sent even before the hijacked planes left the ground. Oh yeah. . .those bloodthirsty arab terrorists would certainly want to warn their friends in Israel. . .ha!. . .Why has the FBI said nothing about this point? Someone knew.

Does David Corn address any of the central points? NO. . .instead he spend paragraphs on Vreeland who he even admits is not important, (but who makes a good excuse to avoid the sticky questions)

Not a one of these questions has been answered.

The FBI has a long history of dark and evil deeds. . .the CIA is worse. . .George Bush had his brother fix the votes in Florida in order to steal the election through fraud. . .The Bush familys power and position has all been through dark means. . .drugs, dealing with nazi germany, financial scandals (BCCI, S&L, ENRON)

and David Corn is cozy with the CIA. . .the CIA which has conspiracy as its job description!

History shows without any ambiguity, that these people are not to be trusted. . .it also shows how well conditioned people like Corn are. . .cleverly focusing on discrediting 'conspiracy theorists' as a way to avoid questioning their own blind allegiance to an unproven and improbable conspiracy theory

i am not a conspiracy theorist. . .i'm not putting forth a theory here. . .there is no theory, just critique of the vaporous conspiracy theory that the government is putting out. . .it is Corn and the other apologists who are blindly following a conspiracy theory that has no proof and many huge holes as yet unanswered

Pearl Harbor was called an 'intelligence failure'. . .only decades later did it come out that it was deliberately allowed by the president. . .hell, even Churchill said so in his book. . .

audio recordings using sophisticated new techniques predict a 99% certainty that there were shots from another direction in the JFK murder. . .and there is a mountain of evidence backing that up. . .this was covered up right from the highest levels of government, with many many people involved. . .

Martin Luthor King was assassinated by covert intelligence. . .

and the clever effort has been that anyone who actually uses common sense and an open mind to look at these things is labeled a kook, a 'conspiracy theorist' - oh my god. . .

the amount of conformity to government propaganda amongst the so called opposition is astounding

The 93 WTC attack - the FBI had an informant inside !!! who wanted and had the means to stop it - Why did the FBI allow it to happen, killing 6 and injuring 1000?

The Judi Bari trial is coming to close on another example of FBI 'intelligence failure'.

there are dozens of more points that can be made. . .

the CIA is giving warnings about increased Al Queda communications traffic. . .huh?. . .how the hell do they know that? If they haven't broken their communications, and dont know what is being said, then how do they know it is Al Queda and not someones grandmother giving cake recipies?

and where are these communications taking place? in Kansas City? in Afghanistan? where? is it email? phone? smoke signals?

we are being lied to people. . .big time. . .

EXPLAIN THIS THEN-one terrible pilot remark 01.Jun.2002 06:56

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Q And would you say hello to my son Jordan, and my daughter Patricia.

THE PRESIDENT: Jordan and who?

Q Patricia.

THE PRESIDENT: Hi, Patricia; how are you? How old is Patricia?

Q Five, and Jordan is in 3rd grade. And Jordan has a question, if I could give him the microphone.

THE PRESIDENT: You bet. Your mother is relaying the Mike to you, Jordan.

Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America. (Applause.)

I tried to get as many facts as I could, Jordan, to make sure I knew as I was making decisions that I knew exactly what I was basing my decisions on. I've got a fabulous team. A President can't possibly be President without a good team. It starts with having a great wife, by the way. (Applause.)

And so, I got on the phone from Air Force One, asking to find out the facts. You've got to understand, Jordan, during this period of time, there were all kinds of rumors floating around. Some of them were erroneous. Obviously -- for example, there was a news report saying that the State Department had been attacked. I needed to know what the facts were. But I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-In-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening. And so, I've talked to the Secretary of Defense; one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert.

An interesting thing happened shortly thereafter. Condoleezza Rice -- who was not with me but was with the Vice President because they were in the White House compound -- called me on Air Force One after that, and said that she had gotten a call from Russia, from Vladimir Putin, who understood why we were putting our troops on alert, and, therefore, wasn't going to respond. That was an important phone call. Because when I was coming up, and a lot of other older-looking people here who were coming up with me -- (laughter) -- that would never have happened in the past. An alert by the United States would have caused Russia to go on alert, which would have created a complicated situation. But that wasn't the case.

By the way, we're heading into a new era. One of the positive things that comes out of the evil was, we're reassessing relationships in order to make the world more peaceful. I believe it's important for us to have positive relations with our former enemy and to rethink the defenses of the United States of America. (Applause.)

At any rate, I knew I had a job to do. And I was quoted in the press the other day as saying I haven't regretted one thing I've decided. And that's the truth. Every decision I made, I stand by. And I'm proud of the decisions I've made. (Applause.)


Corn--mouthpiece for the whitey house 01.Jun.2002 10:46

as if they need any help

who's the dingleberry to post this stupid ****ing article again? we don't need irrelevant 'political' commentary from washed up *The Nation* "reporters"

WE NEED ANTI-CORPORATE ACTION IN THE STREETS

David Corn - Official Conspiracy Theorist 01.Jun.2002 11:02

Harry

"But questions are not equivalent to proof. As of now, there is not confirmable evidence to argue that the conventional take on September 11--bin Laden surprise-attacked America as part of a jihad, and a caught-off-guard United States struck back--is actually a cover story."

WHAT?! Questions aren't proof, but they're a START! With a government whose "chief executives" request (then deny that request) that a senator not investigate 911 too closely ... seal files ... impede congressional investigations, what kind of PROOF does Corn think he'll see? Maybe something will flutter down and land at his feet like the magical terrorist passport.

It's funny how he checks his sources to debunk those poor, crazy, gullible conspiracy theorists but acknowledges the HUGE FUCKING HOLES in the official conspiracy theory only long enough to assert there's no reason to think it's a cover story.

And, Corn's patronizing nod to those who think he's a CIA asset, just because he was chosen by ex-CIA agent Ted Schackley to write his authorized biography? Just because he refuses to allot the same amount of space and effort to "dissect" the official conspiracy theory? some people are SUCH kooks.

Conspiracy theory? So was Iran-Contra. And, many of the players are the same. Want to talk about gullible and unbalanced? How about believing, prima facie, that Our Government would simply not do such a thing to its "own people?" If that's what his oh-so-official sources tell him, it must be true. Or, if not true, truer. Easier to digest with his breakfast.

A friend of mine recently complained that the unofficial stories being pieced together about 9-11 just seem too convoluted, that the simplest explanation was usually true. I couldn't agree more.

The simple fact is ... and this isn't new ... there are people, hell, WHOLE FAMILIES, who prize money and power above all else. Whatever colors they're wearing, whatever flag they're waving, whatever morals they're mouthing, they're always working for themselves and those they think can help them achieve MORE POWER, MAKE MORE MONEY. Not coincidentally, they're usually in power. They're not one race. Not one nationality. Not one gender. One thing for certain, they're always on their own side. And, 'god' help anyone who happens to be sitting in between them and what they want.

It really is that simple.

Deva did you tell Mr Corn? 01.Jun.2002 11:07

another person

I hope you've sent Mr Corn your wonderful posting.

passports and fake videos 04.Jun.2002 05:26

bh

does anyone remember the 'it didn't burn' terrorist pass port story of September 12th?

does anyone remember the phony bin laden video? or the pipe line war that was in the planning stages last summer (now known as 'the war on terrorism')

such seamy frauds as this circulating around this issue do not inspire confidence

now that passport thing was an obviously ridiculous fraud, and the so called gloating bin laden video was visual fraud, and then there are the verbal lies, which do not inspire the greatest confidence either

a quote from my own 9-11 page

A second question has to do with Bush's statement
that, to paraphrase, when he received the intelligence reports about upcoming hijackings by Al
Queda , 'it never entered his head that they would use airplanes as missiles' and that everyone was
expecting 'conventional air plane hijackings.' Just several months previous to this, in the summit in
Genoa, the fear of air planes being hijacked and used as missiles was so high that Bush spent the
time on board a Navy vessel, and the entire summit was surrounded by anti air craft batteries. In
addition according to the Indian press, the upcoming attack on Afghanistan was a subject brought
up during the Genoa summit (as reported in the INdian press in June of last year) and so we also
know that not only were politicians, and Bush in particular, expecting a suicide bombing using air
planes as weapons, this was also discussed concurrent with the discussion of the attack on
Afghanistan. What we heard here was a deliberate falsehood. So then, it is worth noting that his
suggestion that 'no one is those days even thought of air planes being used as missiles' is a patently
absurd falsehood, since it was on everyone's mind, and having been subjected to this falsehood,
and then considering the convenient way in which this disaster was then used to facilitate the
already established plan to attack Afghanistan, and also given the way this war is now being
misrepresented as 'the war on terrorism' one can easily understand why people are asking all these
questions. It does not help to have intelligence reports going back years, as far back as the mid 90s,
which suggested that Al Queda was planning to use a plane as a missile to attack the Trade Towers,
and it also is damned strange, given the high state of alert all summer in regards to just such missile
attacks using passenger jets, as clearly evidenced at Genoa, that when intelligence reports came in
that suspicicious characters were training to fly planes, and that one was even stupid enough to ask
just learn to fly the plane, and not bother to learn to either take off and land a plane, well questions
are being asked that are not going to be simply swept under the rug through the use of that same old
same old and a canard such as letting it be discussed in secret by a clique of politicians who might
be trusted to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

my own 9-11 page
 http://www.awitness.org/eden_wing/9-11_investigation.html

the fishy bin laden video page, not to mention the Afghan pipeline war stories from June 2001
 http://www.awitness.org/news/december_2001/osama_nose_job.html
passports and fake videos
passports and fake videos

disapointing generalization 04.Jun.2002 22:08

b hardin

It is very disappointing to see this kind of spineless characterizations coming from the Nation. Obviously there are going to be the bizarre conspiracy theories flying around after such a large scale tragedy. especially considering the habits of secrecy and stonewalling of the Administration. But Corn fails to make the distinction between the crackpot conspiracies and those of merit that raise legitimate questions. For instance he lightly glosses over the trading prior to Sept 11, this is a significant piece to the puzzle and it was noticed here in the United States prior to Sept11, contrary to his claims  http://www.snopes2.com . There is also the Bush administrations ridiculous and irrelevant response when info of prior warnings first began to come public :"there is no way we could have known the terrorist would use the planes as missiles" we later found out that in fact there were several specific indications from within the intelligence community that this was a possibility, but that is besides the point the argument is irrelevant regardless of whether or not they knew what would happen once the planes were high-jacked the still should have prevented them from high-jacking the damned planes in the first place!!! So why offer this absurd excuse, well this is the kind of thing that is done when a party has it's back against a wall and guilty of something. Innocent parties do not offer excuses, they don't have to they are innocent. Corn can argue that they are only guilty of negligence and not of conspiracy and I suppose he has a point. But still there is one other issue ,that is, what they knew on Sept 11 and how they responded. If in fact they are only guilty of being sloppy as Corm and as a matter of fact the Bush administration are offering as explanation for Sept 11, they certainly knew on Sept 12 that they screwed up big time( "failed to connect the dots"). Knowing that they screwed up so badly I find it bold ,to say the least, that they not only tried to suppress this information but went about passing (shoving down our throats with fear and intimidation) a wide scale assault on American civil liberties with the Patriot Act giving the FBI broad new powers. Certainly these facts demonstrate that at least some of the more plausible "conspiracy theories" are worth looking at. No he lumps them all to gather and labels them all as coming from whacko "conspiracy theorists". I think what he is doing is playing it safe with his reputation, wouldn't want to put your neck on the line and risk being called a "conspiracy theorists" or worst yet unpatriotic.

The Impotent Left 04.Jun.2002 23:13

The Outsider

Corn demonstrates what's wrong with the so-called Left in this country! He wastes everyone's time bashing Mike Ruppert when he should be doing everything he can to expose the myriad scandals of the Bush regime. Get it- Bush is the enemy, not people who are trying to find out the truth.

FBI bombed Judi Bari... 05.Jun.2002 21:38

Friend

If the FBI and Oakland police conspired to bomb activist and organizer Judi Bari why wouldn't government officials do the same on 9-11? Everywhere we turn its becoming a police state...

the most relevant facts 06.Jun.2002 08:43

C.L.

"And it is not some kind of reign of terror which forces such explanations on the media. On the contrary, it is the peaceful existence of such explanations which should cause terror." Guy Debord


The main counterweight to the notion that there might have been U.S. government complicity in September 2001's terrorist attacks in America seemed initially to be the scale of the destruction, which appeared excessive for whatever purposes were likely to be served. Given the project that has subsequently been embarked upon - a declared, permanent, global state of war, with U.S. military expansion all over the world - the new heights which terrorism had suddenly managed to attain seems increasingly appropriate, as well as explicable.
Of course, it is natural that such events that such events, regardless of their origins, would be exploited in any case to pursue long held, and suddenly realisable, ambitions: so the sudden appearance of a grand imperial agenda could still perhaps have been taken as mere opportunism.
However, the other possibility, that the attacks had been anticipated, and allowed to happen, was soon proven by the emergence of two facts:
the war in Afghanistan, and the "war on terrorism" as a whole, had been planned in advance;1 (see below)
the biological element of the terrorism came from within the U.S. "security" establishment.2

In addition to this, it was also discovered that the FBI investigations into Al-Qaeda had been reined in in the months before the attacks 3, and that the standard U.S. air defence procedures had not been followed on September 11 4, along with the already known facts, leaving aside the confusion over the identity of the hijackers 5, that bin Laden appeared to have U.S. government protection , and that his family company had been directly rewarded by the U.S. government for past terrorist attacks against American targets 6. But this information was all secondary, compared to the former.

The inescapable conclusion is, naturally, unpopular, and not just in America. It really is indecent to talk about it - drawing attention to the weakness of the public, that they could be treated so badly by their rulers - and it will generally be taken as an insult to do so. So I know what an act of social gracelessness it is to be putting together lists of information, with sources and links even, for this kind of purpose, and how badly it is likely to be received. I shudder to think what kind of person I am.




The ugly details

1. The advance planning of the Afghan war and the "war on terrorism" in general

On June 26 2001, indiareacts.com reported that India had agreed to support a planned US military action in Afghanistan. Indian diplomatic sources told the public affairs magazine that America and Russia had concluded a joint plan for this, that Uzbekistan and Tajikistan had pledged participation, and that India and Iran had pledged logistical support. (indiareacts.com June 26)
 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&ctg=%20

In July 2001, the US told a Berlin meeting they were planning to attack Afghanistan. (BBC Sept.18,The Guardian Sept.22+26) No doubt to better demonstrate the really Orwellian characteristics of our situation, Britain's heroically-titled "The Guardian"could only conclude from this that September's attacks "may have been a pre-emptive strike", a possibility that would require the meaning of "pre-emptive" to be precisely inverted.
 link to news.bbc.co.uk - follow up

Throughout the year, military and diplomatic preparations were taking place - thousands of Russian troops were building up in Tajikistan, U.S. special forces in Kyrgyzstan, "teach-ins" involving Northern Alliance leaders in London, as well as the long scheduled arrival of huge U.S. and other NATO forces in the Middle East for Operation Bright Star and British forces for Operation Swift Sword. (The Guardian, CNN, The Telegraph, The Observer)
 link to www.guardian.co.uk

On September 9th, a top-secret formal National Security Presidential Directive was passed to the White House for presidential approval. This directive contained the strategy for the "war on terrorism" launched 2 days later, according to NBC's Jim Miklaszewski. According to the May 16th NBC report "The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf" ". This news report, quite unable to draw any explicit conclusions, finished nicely with " Such directives are top-secret documents that are formally drafted only after they have been approved at the highest levels of the White House, and represent decisions that are to be implemented imminently."
 http://www.msnbc.com/news/753359.asp?cp1=1


2. The source of the anthrax

The importance of the fact that the anthrax used in September's attacks came from the U.S.'s own biological weapons program can hardly be overstated, since it is irrefutable forensic proof that the biological element of the terrorism came from within the most inner and secret regions of the American military-industrial complex.
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-292197,00.html

It is clear that the fact that the anthrax was traced represents a major miscalculation on the part of the world's first bio-terrorists. The original intention had been to use the anthrax attacks to justify attacking Iraq, and in the early days of the anthrax panic the CIA were briefing journalists that Mohammed Atta had got the anthrax from an Iraqi agent in Prague. But certain leading US scientists, perhaps to everybody's surprise, began to break ranks in October, initially protesting about the destruction of evidence which occured on October 10th, just 5 days after the first anthrax death, when Iowa State University in Ames destroyed all its anthrax stocks, with, naturally, FBI approval. (The anthrax later turned out to be the "Ames strain".)
 http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2001/11/09/883334.xml

These scientists then began to voice their opinion that the anthrax could only have been produced in the U.S., something which quite quickly ceased to be denied. Some, such as Barbara Rosenberg, chairman of the Federation of American Scientists Working Group on Biological Weapons, have since publically stated their view that the FBI don't want to catch the perpetrator, or perpetrators, ( for example, as of February 8th 2002, the FBI had still not even subpoenaed employee records of the labs where Ames strain anthrax is worked with), and Rosenberg has even gone so far as to reveal that the CIA recently 'researched' sending anthrax through the mail, while Dr. Ronald Atlas, president-elect of the American Society of Microbiologists, has said the FBI are looking for an individual, when they should be looking for a group of people. We cannot expect any stronger hints than these from people whose careers, if not more, are at stake, and frankly I am surprised that they have gone as far as they have.
 http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_524975.html?menu=  http://www.guardian.co.uk/anthrax/story/0,1520,653082,00.html  http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_544625.html?menu=news.latestheadlines  http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_524975.html?menu=  http://www.guardian.co.uk/anthrax/story/0,1520,653082,00.html  http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_544625.html?menu=news.latestheadlines  link to news.bbc.co.uk

Nevertheless the memory of the anthrax has been successfully soothed away, to the extent that it has not even been found necessary to produce a scapegoat, although the FBI and the media have of course made it clear that while they don't know who did it, it was certainly a lone individual, pursuing a strictly personal agenda. The practice of referring to the terrorist attacks as "September 11" or "9-11" shows how successfully the biological terrorism was eased from consciousness once it turned into proof of U.S. involvement.


3. Blocking the FBI investigations

The war on terrorism is often described as "asymmetric warfare", a piece of jargon referring not to the imbalance of forces between the two sides, as a too casual listener might assume, but to the fact that they will only exceptionally actually face each other in combat, instead conducting a war by proxy against each other's host populations.
In such a war, the real imbalance, for both sides, is between the offensive and defensive aspects of their campaign. In the US, for example, there could be no greater asymmetry than that between their offensive preparations, which might appear to be psychic, and their defensive preparations, which did not occur.
As part of the famous "massive intelligence failure", everyone now knows that the efforts of FBI agents to investigate Al-Qaeda suspects behaving suspiciously at flying schools in the US were thwarted by their superiors. This has been portrayed as a failure of the results of the FBI's division of labour to be reunited aqain at a higher level for reasons of particularly drastic bureaucratic unco-ordination. Evidence of the in fact systematic nature of this obstruction, and the fact that those in charge within the FBI were themselves being actively blocked, is sometimes quite dramatic.

For example, in July 2001, the head of the FBI's investigations into Al-Qaeda, John O'Neill, quit, saying the investigation was being blocked by the US State Department and oil interests therein. (He then became head of security at the World Trade Centre on September 10th, and was killed on September 11th.)
 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/1119/wor8.htm  http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0201/ridgeway.php  http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/1119/wor8.htm  http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0201/ridgeway.php  link to globalresearch.ca (O'Neill is one of the few victims of September 11 whose New York Times tribute includes a smear.)

Compared to this, people might not be too concerned by the fact that in November, still living FBI sources told BBC Newsnight that, before September 11, their attempts to investigate Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were being actively blocked by the U.S. State Department and that this interference had worsened after Bush's election. Or that in the days after September 11, Bin Laden family members under FBI investigation for suspected terrorist connections were flown out of the U.S. with government approval. (BBC Newsnight Nov.6)
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm


4. Delaying the air defence

We know that the threat of hijackings was known last summer. Despite Bush's evasions, we also know that not only had the possibility that hijacked planes might be used as weapons been considered, the world's intelligence "community" was aware of a concrete, imminent threat of Al-Qaeda doing exactly this last summer.
For example, in July 2001, anti-aircraft missiles were set up at Genoa international airport specifically to protect Bush from just such an attack at the G8 summit there. The world's intelligence community was on the alert for Bin Laden doing precisely this kind of attack. See e.g. the L.A. Times of September 27 - "U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday. Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport."
 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-092701genoa.story

However, not only were America's air defences not prepared for this possibility, on September 11 they didn't even follow normal procedures for normal hijackings.
When a plane is hijacked (or is suspected of being hijacked, or even just deviates from its designated flight path) it is normal procedure to scramble fighters. This is not a freak occurence, and it does not require any special presidential orders. It is normal procedure, and the FAA and NORAD ( the military body in charge of securing US airspace) know exactly what to do when it happens.
Yet it took them 26 minutes from when they say they knew about the first hijacking (08.20) to when they say they ordered planes to scramble(08.46), when the first tower was struck. They didn't give the order to scramble planes to protect Washington, they say, until 09.24. The transponder for this flight (flight 77) had been switched off at 08.55. Two of the hijacked planes had crashed into New York ( one live on TV) and one had turned round and was heading for Washington, and nobody ordered Washington protected until 09.24.
When they did, they scrambled fighters from Langley air force base, 130 miles from Washington, instead of Andrew's air force base, which is assigned to protect Washington, being only 10 miles away.
Trying to conjure away the strange delay, US vice-president Dick Cheney suggested that the decision on whether or not to shoot down the hijacked planes had to be taken before fighters could be scrambled. On Sept 16 he publically stated "the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft ... It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate." But the decision whether or not to shoot down a hijacked plane does not have to be taken before fighters are scrambled, and in fact this would be absurd. In a hijacking, forces are sent to the scene as quickly as possible, and the difficult decisions are left until they have to be made. To do it the other way round is preposterous. Cheney suggested that normal hijacking response procedures were delayed while those responsible agonised over a decision which did not have to be made yet, and which in fact should not be made until fighters are on the scene and have exhausted the other possibilities (such as threatening the hijackers into changing course). I apologise for the rather tedious nature of this section.
 link to emperors-clothes.com


5. Home is the hijacker, home from the flight school

"Everywhere the mad are more numerous than before, but what is infinitely more useful is that they can be talked about madly. And it is not some kind of reign of terror which forces such explanations on the media. On the contrary, it is the peaceful existence of such explanations which should cause terror." - Guy Debord

The list of hijackers issued by the F.B.I. gives particularly fine expression to the new rules of police investigation in our new terroristic environment. This list was first issued on September 14 and then again on September 27, this time with photographs and aliases. By then, however, some of those named on the list had already apparently turned up alive. For example, Waleed Al Shehri, who turned up in Morocco a week after the first list had been published. He appears to be the same man named by the FBI, certainly according to the BBC, who say that not only the name, but the date of birth and photograph are his - plus the still alive Al Shehri attended the same flight school in Daytona beach which the presumably dead hijacker was supposed to have attended. This flight school, having issued a press release deploring their former student's actions, later issued a correction, having been told by the FBI that Al Shehri had been cleared after being interviewed by US officials in Morocco.
 http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01.htm  http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm  http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01.htm  http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm  link to www.suntimes.com

This, and other reportedly still living hijackers, did not concern the F.B.I. as much as might be expected. This organisation's head, a Robert Mueller, simply issued a statement with the second list reassuring journalists that some of the names on it may well be false. Like the list, he did not consider it useful to say which names were known to be false, which were uncertain and which, if any, were known to be true. Nor, of course, was it simply names that appeared to be false (although Mueller seems to have successfully given this impression, and journalists of course not to have sought anything more than an impression). So, issuing a call for information from the public, in the midst of a crisis, to try and uncover an internal terrorist network of quite devastating capacities, the F.B.I. releases a misleading, consciously and avoidably ambiguous list of suspects. This was definitely not, as some will try to believe, the result of a moment of incompetence, since it has still never been corrected or clarified (and I am writing this in May 2002).
In fact, the confusion surrounding the identities of the hijackers has only increased with time, with most journalists (without ever clarifying any of the cases of "mistaken identity" which they had previously acknowledged) now talking as if the FBI list was in fact entirely accurate all along, without the FBI having to officially change their original position - that the list may be wrong.
This, in other words, is the very model of police information in our modern conditions: the preferred official facts are released on the understanding that they are not reliable. Evidence that contradicts them can thus be accommodated without embarassment. After a while, if this dubious information nevertheless survives and establishes itself as intended (in conditions which the media naturally ensures are as hospitable as possible), it can soon be repeated as fact, without anyone in power ever having to commit themselves to saying that it is.
 http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/nation/0927hijackerlist.html  http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/nation/0927hijackerlist.html  link to abcnews.go.com

One fact that is publically available, but never publically referred to, is that none of the hijackers supposed names or aliases appear in any of the passenger lists for the hijacked planes issued by the airlines. It is impossible to be sure exactly what this means. I have assumed that the planes were at least really hijacked, and that this and what followed were simply allowed to happen. The fact that the identity, and even the presence on the planes, of the hijackers needs to be so thoroughly confused no doubt has a reason, even if it amounts to nothing more than excessive caution on the part of those who protected them.
 http://www.amrcorp.com/news/september01/passlist.htm  http://www.amrcorp.com/news/september01/passlist.htm  link to www.amrcorp.com


6. Bin Laden's protection, and rewards

The first attack on the World Trade Center occured in 1993. It later emerged that the FBI had an informer inside the group that carried out this bombing, which killed 6 people and injured over a thousand. This informer revealed, through tapes he had made of conversations with his FBI handlers, that the FBI had known of the bombing in advance but had decided not to stop it.
(New York Times 28 October 1993)  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html

Bin Laden was named by the US as a co-conspirator in this first World Trade Center attack. Yet in March 1996 the US turned down an offer from Sudan to extradite him, saying they did not have enough evidence to try him, according to a Washington Post report. They also rejected a plan to kill him, on the grounds, apparently, that "Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American, and it was inconceivable that Mr. Clinton would sign the "lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances". The idea that the US government would shrink from assassinating a really serious enemy is an odd one in itself, leaving aside that they had already named Bin Laden as behind the World Trade Center attack, and their even then quite well-established tendency to bomb entire countries-full of people on the flimsiest of pretexts. (Indeed 2 years later Clinton bombed a medicine factory in Sudan in a Monica Lewinsky related example, killing quite a few really innocent people.)
(Washington Post October 4, 2001; LA Times Dec 5, 2001)  http://www.geocities.com/anitaalittle/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html

French Intelligence sources, for their part, have been good enough to brief French newspaper 'Le Figaro' that Bin Laden was in hospital in Dubai from 4th -14th July 2001 and was visited there by the local CIA head of station. The head of the hospital has denied this, and of course it may be untrue. Urologist Dr. Terry Calloway, who was named as having treated Bin Laden, remains unavailable for comment as of mid May 2002.(Le Figaro Oct.31, 2001)
 http://www.lefigaro.fr/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=FutureTense/Apps/Xcelerate/View&c=figArticle&cid=FIGJMSRVETC&live=true&Site=true&gCurChannel=ZZZJTGN6J7C&gCurRubrique=ZZZ4GPM6J7C&gCurSubRubrique=  http://www.lefigaro.fr/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=FutureTense/Apps/Xcelerate/View&c=figArticle&cid=FIGJMSRVETC&live=true&Site=true&gCurChannel=ZZZJTGN6J7C&gCurRubrique=ZZZ4GPM6J7C&gCurSubRubrique=  link to www.scoop.co.nz

And America's CBS news has reported that Bin Laden arrived in a Pakistan military hospital on September 10th.(CBS Evening News, 28 January 2002)
Pakistan, which set up the Taliban government, has been the U.S.'s main ally in the region for decades and Pakistan's intelligence service, the I.S.I., is a long established tool of the C.I.A. Naturally the I.S.I. have their own local interests, but these do not include starting a war with America. Yet the head of the I.S.I., Lt. General Mahmud Ahmad, lost his job in October 2001 after the Indian government revealed he had authorised a transfer of $100,000 to suspected hijack ringleader Mohammed Atta. (The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001)
On September 11, General Mahmud was in Washington meeting his American counterparts. The U.S. government has made no request to arrest or question General Mahmud.
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml  link to www.timesofindia.com www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/michele.html

It is easy enough to understand, both in theory and through historical examples (from the Reichstag fire, to the Red Brigades, to Hamas) how the actions of terrorists can often be useful to the state, or particular forces within the state, that the terrorists claim to oppose. The terrorists in turn often find their own power "at home" enhanced by counter-terrorist actions (and they seem to be at home everywhere). It would be naive to imagine that such mutual benefits, where they occur, remain too long outside the consciousness of the leaders of either party. But all the same, it can be slightly surprising to find out how brazenly such Machiavellian theorising can be confirmed in the practical details.
For example, after Bin Laden's June 1996 truck bomb on a U.S. military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (sometimes referred to as the Khobar Towers attack), which killed 19 Americans and injured hundreds, the US built new, bigger, and "more secure" military bases in Saudi Arabia -and gave Bin Laden's family company the contract to build them. (Wall Street Journal Sept.27, 2001)
 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm


7. The Russian parallel

Vladimir Putin, head of the FSB (i.e. the KGB) was appointed Russian prime minister on August 9th of that year. On 25th August, Moscow journalist Alexander Zhilin wrote that a plan with the codename "Storm in Moscow" was being hatched in the Kremlin involving terrorist attacks against the Moscow population. On August 31, the first bomb blew apart a Moscow shopping centre. Throughout September 1999 a series of bombings targeted civilian apartment buildings, killing hundreds of people. An Islamic terrorist group was blamed (one which no-one had heard of before - the Russian secret services, so complacent, having not even bothered to create it). This allowed Putin to reignite the war in Chechnya, and to grab power at home, becoming President the following year, and quietly suffocating Russia's already pathetic democracy. The western media felt able to suggest the obvious - that Russian intelligence were behind the bombings. It is because there are such striking similarities with the subsequent American developments that Russia's model equivalent has had to be magically forgotten.
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_449000/449325.stm


8. Operation Northwoods

Indeed it has apparently been discovered that a plan for a terrorist attack against American targets had been drawn up by the military there as early as 1962, to provide a pretext for invading Cuba.
 link to abcnews.go.com


Check  http://hello.to/troubles
for more on this (its being updated soon)

And check Debord's "Comments on the Society of the Spectacle"-
 http://www.notbored.org/commentaires.html

* * * CIA releases video detailing 99% about the murder of JFK * * * 26.Apr.2005 06:29

Matt Simmons

This video was released by the CIA, in one of its sites dressed as debunkers, infowars.com / prisonplanet.tv. 
This is the film you would expect from the CIA, after the 9/11 Pentagon operation.
I'm only surprised it took so long. It reveals some material that the CIA had not made publicly available before, along with the required amount of disinformation. 
Resume: example of how far can the BIG LIE technique "tell as much truth as required (99%)as long as the public swallows the core lie (1%)". 
Just one example: trying to clear LBJ
JFK II - Be aware, it's 171 mb.
 http://www.mindtoysrus.com/downloads/jfkbush.wmv

 http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=126726