portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation

CRITIQUE OF Sander Hicks' INTERVIEW on his 911 'whistleblower anthology', The Big Wedding

Thanks Mr. Hicks, for the interview. Thanks--because, I am now really wary about you.

And I hope others may be wary about you based on this critique of the interview. This is a lame interview, that puzzled me with subtext of offhanded "well this is what we agree on" attitude. That is not the case!

I spruced it up with brackets for a DOCUMENTED CRITIQUE of the positions that Hicks seems to espouse, which I show have no basis for his belief. MOST OF THE CRITIQUE IS ABOUT THE PERIOD 1989-2001 CONCERNING WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT PREVIOUS U.S. ATTEMPTS TO PLAN TO REMOVE OR TO PLAN TO KNOCK DOWN THE WTCs WITH INTERNAL DEMOLITIONS AND BLAME SOMEONE ELSE AS A FALSE FLAG OPERATION. I was really interested in the upcoming Hicks' book until I read his lame interview. It seems he doesn't even read or absorb the information from the people he claims are in his own 9-11 whistleblower anthology.
Sander Hicks, founder of Soft Skull Press, reporter @ INN World News, etc., with
Sander Hicks, founder of Soft Skull Press, reporter @ INN World News, etc., with
research assistance by Allan Duncan, have made the book
research assistance by Allan Duncan, have made the book
The Big Wedding:  9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up
The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up
INTRODUCTION

book at:  http://www.drenchkiss.com/whistleblowers.html

A preview of some of this material is up at the author's website,  http://sanderhicks.com/911extras.html

"They had a plan to go to war; and when 9/11 happened that's what they did, they went to war."---Former 9/11 Investigator/former Senator Max Cleland

Sander Hicks Interview by Mickey Z: "Hicks gained national notoriety when he published Jim Hatfield's controversial Dubya biography, "Fortunate Son." The scathing, well-documented expose of the Bush dynasty resulted in near financial ruin for Soft Skull, a brilliant film documentary ( http://www.hornsandhalos.com), and Hatfield's tragic suicide[--or murder?]....Hicks is a poet, playwright, publisher, a punk rock showman....In the interest of tossing Hicks' provocative and well-researched take into the mix, I asked him some questions about 9/11. The results are below."

Sander Hicks has reported on 9/11 issues since 9/2001 for Guerrilla News, Long Island Press and INN World Report, a TV news show on the Dish Network. Hicks is founder of Soft Skull Press, Inc and Vox Pop/Drench Kiss Media Corporation. He has spoken publicly about 9/11 alongside Scott Ritter, the UN arms inspector. He was recently interviewed by Janeane Garafalo about 9/11 on nation-wide radio network Air America, and addressed a massive audience at the historic Riverside Church, in New York, on the topic of the "9/11 Cover Up."

Co-Editor/Researcher Allan Duncan recently contributed a twenty page affidavit to the November 2003 racketeering lawsuit Marian Elleni Vs. George Bush, in which a 9/11 widow sued the White House for gross negligence in preventing 9/11 and the wrongful death of her husband.



INTERVIEW of Sander Hicks by Mickey Z. [with additional DOCUMENTED CRITIQUE of some of his positions that are untenable.]


Monday, December 06, 2004
'Reality Is a Construction...': Sander Hicks and the 9/11 Truth Movement

By Mickey Z.

On all sides of the political spectrum, limits exist. On the respectable (sic) Right, for example, it's fine to rant and rave about the sanctity of "unborn lives" but not acceptable to post pictures of abortion doctors on your website. The Left, contrary to popular belief, has limits of respectability (sic), too. For example, leftists can get hot and bothered over Bush not reacting to pre-9/11 warnings. However, those who go further and implicate the U.S. government in any way, shape, or form...well, they are banished to realm of "conspiracy theory."

"The seeming paranoia of conspiracy theorists is not necessarily the result of some underlying mental dysfunction or of stupidity," declares Jonathan Vankin, author of "Conspiracies, Cover-Ups, and Crimes." "The dysfunction is with American society, maybe even civilization as a whole. The structure of civilization itself [if you are a functionalist] requires mass adherence to faith [Seig Heil!] in the institutions that built civilization and make it run [on time, like the Italian trains!]. Conspiracies theorists question those authorities and, because they do, they skirt the fringes of society."

Actively skirting the fringes of society is Sander Hicks ( link to www.sanderhicks.com), and Hatfield's tragic suicide. Through it all, Hicks remained focused and ever-searching.

Hicks is a poet, playwright, publisher, a punk rock showman. For anyone looking to get a handle on him, consider this: He was the first publisher to give me a book deal. That might offer some insight into his style...or his sanity?

Besides starting up a new publishing company and bookstore in Brooklyn, Hicks has turned his focus to the "day everything changed" and the result is a book due out in 2005: "The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up" (  http://www.drenchkiss.com/whistleblowers.html ). In the interest of tossing Hicks' provocative and well-researched take into the mix, I asked him some questions about 9/11. The results are below.

MZ: Whether it's from a mainstream media outlet or respected left wing scholars, the reflexive reaction to those who question the official 9/11 story ranges from condescension to outright mockery. What led you to take a closer look at this story?

SH: With Jim Hatfield, I was publishing the Bush/bin Laden connection starting in 1999. I think his "Fortunate Son" bio was the most above ground that material had become until then, until it was forced back down. When 9/11 happened, for me it was in the wake of Jim's suicide. Less than two months earlier, Jim had thrown in the towel after two years of being prevented from making public a few simple, documented truths about Bush. So I was kind of in a natural position to become someone who looks at 9/11 with a lot of skepticism. It's a skepticism based not only on facts, but facts that have proven to be highly sensitive, sore spots on the Bush body politic.

MZ: What kind of reactions has your skepticism provoked?

SH: I've been lucky enough to work with editors at Long Island Press who really believed in this stuff, maybe because I was telling the 9/11 story in a specific, personal way, through the stories of 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani, or researcher Daniel Hopsicker. So I can't take the classic position of bitching about being totally ignored by mainstream media...hell, New York Press actually asked me to review the 9/11 Commission Report, and it was hell of a lot of fun tearing that thing down to its oily elements. I feel the work at INN World Report has been ignored by bigger television outlets but that's no surprise. I feel it's been kind of well appreciated on the Net, instead.

We're at a time now when this stuff is beginning to break above ground again. One thing I keep hearing in mainstream radio outlets that are beginning to put a toe in the water, is "well, there are a lot of theories out there and the more we hear about all of them, the less we'll know which is true." That is so backward. The process of inquiry and dialogue and choice and rationality itself necessarily means that the lousy, kooky theories will be discarded by the process. The truth will come out.

MZ: I'm glad you mentioned the "kooky" angle (although there's not much out there more "kooky" than trusting the government to objectively investigate itself). How can a skeptical observer differentiate between the research you're talking about and theories that involve remote-controlled planes and/or explosives pre-planted in the Pentagon or WTC? Let's say I'm just beginning to re-evaluate the 9/11 story [after being in a coma for four years while they piped CNN recordings of Bush speeches into my brain]...where do I begin?

SH: Well actually, first I have to say I'm not against speculating about explosives at the WTC. Even longtime peace activist John Judge told me in our interview ( http://sanderhicks.com/judge.html) that there well could have been explosives planted, it doesn't mean the Federal Government was complicit, though. Whoever pulled off 9/11 could have planted them. [Little false dichotomy potential there--watch it.] Explosives per se don't indict any party.

[HOLD IT! STOP THE INTERVIEW FOR A MOMENT. COMMENTS: That's a very odd statement. Say someone was caught planting explosives in a building, well, that's sort of like saying "That doesn't mean they were actually wanting to blow the building up." Well, let's dip back in time. You are dealing with recidivist U.S. criminals, Mr. Hicks. Hopefully this information will be passed to him.

POINT ONE: the secret research team

IN 1989, regarding the recent information coming out by Karl Schwartz about the plans to take down the WTCs legally (and expensively) which would cost around 5.6 billion dollars then: [Plans To Scrap WTC
Towers For $5.6 Bn In 1989!, From Karl W. B. Schwarz,  link to portland.indymedia.org


POINT TWO: FBI sponsored terror op in '93 to take down WTCs "cheaply" (for free! who wants to spend that 5.6 billion to do it!) with patsies to blame.

Jan. 1993, a mere few weeks into Clinton's first plurality win term--where less than 50% of an already small voting public wanted him--sort of like Bush! This was because of a split-right effect of Perot's campaign. This may have intentionally have been a strategy to shoe Clinton in, as well as punish Bush I's reelection attempt--because Perot was told to "stand down" from Bush on information he learned about Vietnam still holding live POWs--he was sent by Bush in the mid 1980s to see what he could find out. Second point about the split vote scam: after all, Perot was only running strongly when he thought he was going to lose (i.e., when it benefited Clinton). When it turned out in the polls that Perot looked like he might win, he backed out! (Hey, what's a Texas billionaire to do? Could he destroy an elitist group mindfu*k of the American people--that might get him into trouble! Perhaps it did! Clinton is just as much a Bush buddy--CIA drug running through Mena, Arkansas--as any Bush family member. For an historical quote on this collusion, as true American corporatist John D. Rockefeller said (likely after blowing up his own factories to blame his opponents in the oil industry), "Competition is a sin." They apply the monopoly desires and "principles" to politics as well. "Competition is a sin." Anyway, back to early Clinton: Jan. 1993, a handy dandy "terrorist" operation involved internal explosions in WTC1. This almost took down the exorbitantly expensive to remove building--for free! However, the people parked the van in the wrong place. I guess that's what the FBI gets when it relies on "hired help." What do I mean? Well, later it was revealed (NYT of all surreal places amongst others--revealed years later I think) that FBI was directly involved in providing some live explosives to the very people they were "investigating" (FBI alibi) in a so-called "sting." Very interesting "sting." Particularly when the agent on the scene was told to give these patsies both the ideas for particular sites to hit and the technical knowledge for making some bombs involved. In other words, the FBI was writing the list of priority "terrorist hits," suggesting "FBI-recommended locations," to hit--while for public consumption this was only a "sting." What that sounds like to me is that they were creating a subsidiary operation they could have to do the work----or some part of it--and take the blame in the all important cover story--and then voila, they could appear and arrest them simultaneously after providing them with the live bombs they let get into the building to destroy the towers. Very clean operation. However, since the towers failed to fall, those two quarter mile tall 5.6 billion dollar lemons still gave some people sour faces. So, they had to get more "professional" whether they liked it or not. They required more information to get it done right. After all it is assumed that with galvanic corrosion dangers that had already developed in the mere 20 years of the WTCs standing, time was of the essence. The WTCs were getting more and more unstable by the year. The Port Authority, a key suspect of course, wanted to avoid spending billions of its own money to take it down. By the way, one of the people the FBI blamed in 1993 was put in the odd position of returning rental cars/vans to the UHAUL places...after he presumably blew up the WTCs? That's what the FBI said. Hardly a criminal behavior of someone who was on the run. FBI targeted someone who was "mentally challenged" for this part to play it seems. So in summary, Mr. Hicks, the FBI was actually "training the terrorists" in 1993 to take down the buildings for free. There is a history then of certain FBI higher-ups (obviously conspiring with people who would benefit financially) as suspects to force the towers down for free. This is just the exact set up used in several years in the Murrah Building in 1995--where a distraction/pasty outside is linked with an actual internal demolitions arrangement to destroy a building for "counterterror legitimation". In short, I have yet to see a 9-11 book to deal with 1993 in any fair manner.


POINT THREE: US Gov't Geologist Phil Schneider evidence claims, WTC in 1993 hit by micro-nuke explosion in addition to the van bomb

Well, just like Murrah's plan in 1995, there were other internal explosions besides the van in the WTC in 1993--just waiting for the cover operation to work. Even these powerful "real" demolition charges failed miserably however. I guess that's what you get when you rely on people who were at best amateur demolitions people or patsy's who seemed to have "parked the van in the wrong place" according to the real expert demolitions people. So next, you bring in the actual professionals. Real American demolition expert professionals. Real American COVERT OPERATIONS demolitions professionals--people like Phil Schneider. They picked Phil because they wanted to be sure in this highly sensitive ongoing operation to remove the WTCs without any cost that the people picked to even relay any information to, about actual 1993 WTC bombs being much more than van bombs, would be forced to maintain such information in strictest silence. They wanted to get someone so high up in the top secret infrastructure of the U.S. that they would be unable to tell anyone--thus, presumable completely trustworthy with the information. So he is first hired as a mere "consultant" on "post terror investigations" in 1993 to guage his reactions first to learning about the real WTC terrorism of 1993 which had nothing to do with the van bomb though which ran parallel though independent to the van bomb. These investigations--at least the publicly acknowledged ones (there may be more secret ones--Phil didn't exactly say who hired him), though the public ones were done by TriData which is CONNECTED WITH FEMA. Who is Phil Schneider? Phil was an ex-US government geologist, NATO geologist, Rhyolite security clearance. Phil only reported or was answerable to three people he said: "directly to the President, to the head of the CIA, or a base commander." "Hey he seems secure enough: let's let him in on what actually happened in 1993." Schneider, after his resignation from the US gov't in 1995, began to talk about these confidences he was taken into regarding the actual 1993 WTC hit. He was hired "as an investigative consultant" at first to do an entirely secret report about the condition and the explosion damage of the WTC. He was given some photographs to work with. Now, Phil knew explosives. He claimed he was daily familiar in his job with the explosion signatures and particular characteristics of more than 90 different kinds of explosives. He even invented some himself for particular US gov't/NATO secret operations, tunnelling, and underground base creation. Demolitions were only his later US gov't geologist speciality where he designed charges and explosions based on his geological expertise at rock analysis to pulverize huge underground caverns in different kinds of rock for secret military bases. Before these types of jobs, he used to work for Bechtel [George Schultz connected--they are in Iraq soaking in war profits presently; Bechtel does lots of top secret projects] and worked for at least a dozen other military industrial complex operations in top secret "black technologies" mostly at Nevada's Groom Lake/G4 bases. The Phil in 1995 revealed what he saw in 1993 to the public. He was handed photographs that he claimed showed "only one possible type of explosion due to the damange shown--damage like steel extrusion or steel stretching up to six feet at the site of the blast" where steel was stripped and pulled out of the reinforced concrete and actually pulled like taffy. Phil, from his expertise, said "that could only be caused by one thing: a construction-type nuclear device. And those are only housed as Mathers Air Force Base." [These are radiologically clean except for short term--at most a week or so--intense alpha radiation. Most Geiger counters don't even bother looking for alpha. These 'micro-nukes' interestingly enough are a speciality of the Israelis at Diamona, their illegally unmonitored nuclear weapons program [Mordichai Vanunu blew the whistle on Diamona], helped along by the U.S.] Phil writes his WTC 'micronuke' report. He is asked, afterwards at last when they bring him into a large boardroom meeting, whether he "would be willing to injure Americans for us to serve your country's(TM) intersts?" In so many words. In other words they were priming Phil to do the WTC demolition right, since they had just hired him to learn all about the buildings construction and damages from 1993. He would be the perfect candidate. However, Phil balked: he attemped to walk out on them right then and there. They blocked him from the door he said. He threated to assault them, and they got out of the way. However, he was convinced later that he had to complete the existing deep underground military base project that he was working on at the time. He does so. However, when his father was dying, he asked to be "released" from the top secret base site to visit him. He was released. His father died soon after. However, Phil did not come back--to even claim his last paycheck. He began to write a book about everything he knew--writing from his Portland, Oregon apartment. He mailed back his security passes, ripped up. To gain credibility, as well as likely to protect himself should something arise, he had photocopied them. He began to show these photocopies--and tons of more information--to public audiences. Slowly at first. Then larger venues. He spoke publicly for about 9 months from 1995 to 1996. As the speeches went on he got more confident in his message, and a handful were videotaped and we still have them: his basic message was that the U.S. military is seriously out of control and it is out to destroy constitutional democracy. Inbetween these talks, he was repeatedly asked to "rejoin", though he refused. He says he is turning down his 1 million dollar a year guaranteed "retirement" package by talking because he is so concerned about what he knows they are doing. During his talks, the Murrah incident happened. He reported that from data he had seen, that there was no way that it was a truck bomb only; plus, he identified with his expertise in such things, that from the odd demolition signature, some type of scalar weapon had been utilized as well. Next, people simply wanted to assassinate him outright for speaking. Phil actually killed an FBI officer in a gun firefight. However, nothing happened because they didn't want the publicity. They attempted to kidnap his daughter. His ex-wife, who had custody of the daughter at the time, pulled a gun on the FBI agent. Nothing happens to her either. A local Sherrif who knew Phil even arrested an FBI officer stalking Phil. This FBI was either ready to kill Phil after breaking into his home or ready to take him away somewhere first. Still nothing happened. Phil says in late 1995 that he had survived well over a dozen assassination attemmpts, and that retired FBI officers who volunteered their services to Phil were even killed in gunfights protecting him. Still nothing happens: better to keep this hushed up. Phil was very likely killed in early Jan 1996. No one was allowed to see the body--not even his wife. Phil attempted to warn everyone what was going down--with very sensitive inside information. Some of that you can see here:  http://www.bielek.com Beware: your snowglobe world will be shattered on many levels, Mr. Hicks.]


POINT FOUR: take two, in 2001: internal demolitions once more, witnesses

You could bother to ask some real witnesses to internal demolitions that did take down the buildings. I'm hardly apologetic for ripping out the word 'theory' from the word conspiracy here because they don't belong together in the first place: that is just what happened. TWO EYEWITNESSES to prepatory subbasement demolitions of WTC1&2, coincide w/ WTC1&2 hits  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/304905.shtml



NOW! BACK TO THE INTERVIEW-----------------------------------



To answer your question more directly about how to determine what's worthwhile, and what's crap...well it's an important question. When you have a sensitive topic here, when so much political power is involved, there's going to be a series of false reports, disinformation put forth to obscure the real story, red herrings to throw off the dogs. It happened in the JFK assassination, and it's happening now.

My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it's one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak.

You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan's book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it's hurt our credibility over all. [ACTUALLY, to be fair, Meyssan only said "no Boeing" and corporate media dreamland pretended to hear "no plane."] You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day.

I've also seen media voices dismiss the entire topic of 9/11 questioning by sweeping it all into some kind of anti-Semitic whacko camp.

MZ: When writing about the attack on Pearl Harbor, I learned to never underestimate the collective power of arrogance and racism. Racists within the U.S. military and government never imagined that Japan could orchestrate such a successful offensive. Few Westerners took the Japanese seriously and FDR himself dismissed the Japanese as combat pilots because they were all presumed to be "near-sighted." [I'm REALLY SHOCKED that this supposed "researcher" seems to be unaware that FDR simply baited the Japanese into killing Americans for his own political goals. There's plenty on this. 9-11 as the "New Pearl Harbor" takes on its true meaning--of artificial mass psychosis and state terror to legitimate some type of fore-drawn policy then sold to the people.] It's easy to imagine that Clinton and/or Bush had more than an inkling that Osama and Co. were plotting something big. It's equally as palatable to assume that either administration would gladly exploit any attack on the homeland for their benefit and that of their corporate benefactors. What reasonably objective observer would be shocked to learn that both U.S. regimes never believed that a group of cave-swelling nomads could pull off anything approaching the success of 9/11?

SH: Racism is a big part of this country's history and its present modus operandi, at home and in the newly globalized world. But in the case of 9/11, we knew damn well that we weren't dealing with "cave-dwelling nomads." Al-Qaeda is a well-funded organization. They were an outgrowth of the CIA/Pakistani ISI relationship, funding the Mujahedeen. [This "realationship" still goes on, however, see, World Beware: The US as rogue state! BUSH personally MEETS FALSE FLAGGER SIDE OF 9-11,  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/301639.shtml . Frankly, this guy Sander Hicks is really starting to get my goat and turn me off to his book--what can it have of use if he seems this dense.] When the US pulled out after the end of the Cold War, Saudi money and Pakistani intelligence [which is CIA funded, Mr. Hicks] stepped in. In fact, I have a source in the Indian Army, Major General Vinood Saighal, who has published three books, in which he refers to "the Al Qaeda/Taliban/ISI combine". But wait, Pakistan's our ally, right? You don't get this perspective in the US.

Look closer at 9/11 and it seems likely Mohamed Atta was a double agent, playing both sides. [Wrong. He was just there for the show. He had nothing to do with it. False flagger issue. Atta's money was coming from the very people meeting top Bush and Congressional Administrators, Mr. Hicks you so called "9-11 researcher!"] Look at Daniel Hopsicker's work in Florida, that tracks Atta's moves in strip clubs and cocaine bars. How did Atta get in this country twice without a visa? The guy had juice. Or look at Professor Peter Dale Scott's excellent excoriation of the 9/11 Commission Report, called "How to Stop Terrorism." Al Qaeda chieftain Ali Mohamed was "almost certainly an out-of-control informant for the FBI." Scott backs this up with sources and the paper trail. Ali Mohamed is the guy who photographed the Kenyan embassy that Al Qaeda then bombed. He's an Al Qaeda mastermind, and like, Atta, is also Egyptian. [Mr. Hicks leaves out however that Atta, the Egyptian, was sponsored to go to Germany by THE U.S.A! in a "governmental exchange program", funded by the Rockfeller non-profit trusts. Even war crimial terrorist Kissinger is connected with this group: he travels to speak to them in Germany several years ago. Earth to Mr. Hicks. Come in Mr. Hicks. We are not receiving you.] I wonder which one of these guys was that "mole" that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was referring to when in Fall, 2001 he told newspapers Egyptian intelligence and Mubarak himself warned the US about 9/11.

So, I think the question is a little bit off, because you're suggesting this country (USA) may have been foiled by its own arrogance and its racist assumption that the terrorists couldn't have pulled this off, right? Well, what I'm saying is that the $400 billion a year war machine and the $40 billion a year intelligence machine had its paw prints all over these guys. They didn't underestimate them. They allowed these guys to get riled up for a cause, and then do something that would in the end, hurt that cause greatly. Because it would justify a US military expansion. [I am dumbfounded that he seems to imply the assumption that they actually "flew" those planes! When hardly any of them could even fly a Cesna. Mr. Hicks has a lot more serious information to absorb before he attempts to speak coherently in public, in my opinion.]

The real racist tragedy is when you have 9/11 people who know nothing about history or foreign policy or politics who advance theories that completely ignore smoking guns, like the CIA/ISI connection. Their theories tend to veer into the esoteric. Really imaginative territory, like the "In Plane Sight" video. [What's so "esoteric" about that?] I'm not sure who they blame, they seem to think that the attack originated deep inside the war machine itself. But Arab anger is real. [Another false dichotomy from Mr. Hicks. Sure there is Arab anger at American fascist interventionism with their democratic attempts in the Middle East. However, that fails to translate into a 2-hour NORAD standdown on 9-11 by General Myers, Rumsfeld, Bush, and others.] The real trick is to not only see it, but to understand it, and then to understand how it could have been manipulated. In the end, double agent Atta [he keeps saying that--without any evidence provided, just keep repeating, repeating, repeating...] swore allegiance to Bin Laden, and that's who he died for. [another unsourced attribution. Mr. Hicks is actively saying that Atta was on those planes, though without even saying it--when there is no evidence for that--unless Mr. Hicks is relying on planted fake passports "found" by NYPD in NYC after the towers came down! Mr. Hicks, your incredulity and naivete amazes me.] He cared very deeply about the Palestinian "homeland" as he called it. [Why does he repeat such unsubstantiated statements or make the jump that he did 9-11?] If he did have US intel connections, as the evidence shows, he was probably thinking [DON'T GET INTO THE "PROBABLY" GAME, Mr. Hicks. Stick to the information. And when you don't have it, stop making up a romance novel about assumed motivations you are without any way to verify] he could play both sides and then have it blow up in our face. What he didn't figure is his handlers were one step ahead of him.

MZ: How would you summarize your perspective on 9/11?

SH: Reality is a construction. [Like the CIA taught him? Who really is this guy?] We're told what to believe by the government and media. Most people play along, pay taxes, support the troops and the wars that are part and parcel of capitalism. But there are some who drop out and fall away from the death machine. God bless them.

MZ: For those who fall away from the death machine, what actions or steps can we take to do something about this? What can the average person do to help bring out the truth and how does that fit into the larger activist picture?

SH: Jeez, it's hard to answer that and not come off as a holier-than-thou Pharisee who's telling people what to do. For my own part, I was working on houses, for the past couple years. I was listening to Democracy Now every day in New Mexico (out in the mountains up north there you can get it on like 3 different channels). It got to a point where I felt like things had gotten too weird, I had to get back into independent media, in a whole new way, try to present an alternative to the alienation and paranoia by creating media and community empowerment systems that showed the world how much we all have in common. So that's what I'm doing, Vox Pop, the coffee-house/bookstore/publishing company. I'd like to order the world to come participate, but all I can do is open the door.

MZ: Can you offer some resources for readers to follow-up?

SH: These are the guys/gals I like: Daniel Hopsicker, Mike Ruppert, Robert Parry, Peter Dale Scott, Gary Webb, Lois Ann Battuello, Anthony Lappι, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney.

Sander Hicks can be reached at  sealove@sanderhicks.com (or by visiting the sites mentioned above).

Mickey Z. is the author of four books, most recently: "The Seven Deadly Spins: Exposing the Lies Behind War Propaganda" (Common Courage Press). He can be found on the Web at www.mickeyz.net.

 http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz12062004/


The Big Wedding:
9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up

by Sander Hicks
With Research Assistance by Allan Duncan.

9/11 was allowed to happen by Bush's architects of death.

Six months ago, this statement would be shrugged off as an irresponsible theory. Yet recent events have bolstered the allegation with hard facts: ExTreasury Secretary Paul O'Neil now states that the war on Iraq was planned from the first day of the Administration, just awaiting pretext. Ex-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke says that after 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld instantly wanted to attack Iraq, despite the lack of evidence of their involvement in 9/11. 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani is suing the Bush Administration for having foreknowledge. She asks why John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft in June of 2001, or why top Pentagon officials cancelled their commercial flights on September 10th.

Meanwhile, the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" is a collection of DC insiders and lawyers with business ties to the interests they are charged to investigate. Director Philip Zelikow served in the National Security Council with Condoleezza Rice and had to call himself as a witness before his own Commission.

Editor Sander Hicks was among first to publish an in-depth article on this subject in a mainstream newspaper. With the recent release of his two-part series on the "9/11 Truth Movement" in the Long Island Press (120,000 circulation), he has combined a newspaper journalist's skepticism with a 9/11 researcher's passion for discovery.

With the same rigor as Hicks' article, Sander Hicks's 9/11 Whistleblowers demonstrates how the courage of independent researchers and principled low-level intelligence officers can produce a look at the truth that the "official investigation" can not bear to gaze upon.

For example, The Big Wedding puts into print the results of Daniel Hopsicker's two years of research in Florida digging into the background of Huffman Aviation, the company that trained two 9/11 pilots. Hopsicker proves that Wally Hilliard, who owned Huffman, has ties to CIA, DEA, Reverend Jerry Falwell, Jeb Bush, and Clinton Financier Truman Arnold. Hilliard's plane was busted with 43 pounds of heroin in Orlando the same month that he brought Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi to Florida. Hilliard, according to Hopsicker, had a "Green Light" from the DEA.

The Big Wedding is a vibrant alternative to the whitewash that is the National Commission's official report, released recently.




Photo: former President Bush meeting recently
with top Saudis, on behalf of the Carlyle Group

THE BIG WEDDING
Includes Incisive Original Interviews and Commentary with the Major Figures of 9/11

A preview of some of this material is up at the author's website, sanderhicks.com

Other features include interviews with:

• 9/11 Whistleblower and exFBI informant, Randy Glass [see news release.]

• 9/11 National Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste

• 9/11 Citizens Watch's John Judge

• 9/11 Victim's Compensation Fund Manager (and cover-up artist) Kenneth Feinberg

• 9/11 Widow Ellen Mariani (Currently suing the Bush White House)

• Former PA Assistant Attorney General Phil Berg



The Big Wedding Analyzes:

• FBI suppression of the Special Agents tracking Al-Qaeda suspects: Colleen Rowley, Robert Wright, and Ken Williams. Also, we'll look at the lawsuit filed on their behalf by David Schippers.

• History of Relationship between CIA, Pakistani's ISI, Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives in Central Asia.

• How the Bush and Bin Laden family have been in business together since 1978. We'll look at recent details divulged to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by Bill White regarding his first-hand knowledge of the James Bath/Bush/bin Laden connection in Texas. White claimed Bush is clearly "compromised" and "subject to blackmail" because of this business history.

• Why 29 pages of the U.S. Congressional 9/11 Committee Report on Saudi/US connections were personally censored at Bush's request.

• Why the voice recorders and black boxes from Flight 11 and Flight 175 have not been examined publicly, yet the passport of one of the hijackers miraculously survived and was used to make the official case on the identity of the hijackers.

• Why Jeb Bush, the President's Brother and Governor of Florida, seized the terrorist pilots' records at Hoffman Aviation School, ordered them onto a government cargo plane, and had them flown out of the country.

Sander Hicks has reported on 9/11 issues since 9/2001 for Guerrilla News, Long Island Press and INN World Report, a TV news show on the Dish Network. Hicks is founder of Soft Skull Press, Inc and Vox Pop/Drench Kiss Media Corporation. He has spoken publicly about 9/11 alongside Scott Ritter, the UN arms inspector. He was recently interviewed by Janeane Garafalo about 9/11 on nation-wide radio network Air America, and addressed a massive audience at the historic Riverside Church, in New York, on the topic of the "9/11 Cover Up."

Co-Editor/Researcher Allan Duncan recently contributed a twenty page affidavit to the November 2003 racketeering lawsuit Marian Elleni Vs. George Bush, in which a 9/11 widow sued the White House for gross negligence in preventing 9/11 and the wrongful death of her husband.

Drenchkiss.com: Allan Duncan's New 9/11 Investigation Blog >>

Let this Man Send you Truth about 9/11!
Request a Subscription
to Allan Duncan's E-list
 aduncan@drenchkiss.com





MORE COMMENT: Hicks seems to be motivated to find the truth, though he keeps making all these unsubstantiated allegations, "step two" statements about things when "step one" is never really vocalized as potentialy very very misleading. His interview I found childlike in its naivete. Here's hoping his book is more thorough than this flimsy apologetic interview which basically supports several unsubstanaited aspects of the 9/11 Commission itself!

Thanks Mr. Hicks, for the interview. I am now really wary about you. And I hope others may be worried about you as well based on this critique of the interview.

Explosives... 13.Dec.2004 18:41

Tony Blair's dog

used in the WTC destruction were the safety explosives all high-rises
must have in the center of a big city like NY.

yes, though definitely something much more 14.Dec.2004 01:07

researcher

Yes, if you could elaborate on that I would appreciate it.

However, definitely something much more,

[1] given the witness to underground explosions mentioned above in WTC1 and WTC2

[2] not to mention the concussion grenade effects (you can find the video of this in the Naudet film) in the lobby according to firemen--without any fire!

[3] closest firemen--trained especially to handle explosives dangers at the WTC--were called off on a false alarm right before the first plane hit at 8:46 a.m.; this means there are definitely more than the so-called 'hijackers' are involved, and they would have had to have some sort of ongoing communication/knowledge about the soon arriving planes to know when to place the false call. This was about the time an explosion rocked the 25th floor, destroying an FBI office, collapsing wreckage through the floor trapping people below. Fireman's statement I read on this. This explosion on a lower floor was was before the first plane hit.

[4] not to mention that the scrap was hardly anthing larger than "half a phone pad, according to a fireman's interview video.

[5] that "odd" little fire all by itself, destroying another single office all way by itself--odd because there is no way that the plane could do this. So it was set, or detonated. Picture below. Anyone know which office in the picture below they wanted to make sure had all records destroyed?

[6] and the short sharp spike that seismographers [according to the report/interview in American Free Press] said was characteristic of a nuclear explosion. It occurred before the building collapsed.
separate from plane hit,upper right,
separate from plane hit,upper right, "odd" hot fire isolated on one office space
2 sec. video, pronounced
2 sec. video, pronounced "demolition squib" shooting WAY past dust cloud

Well... 14.Dec.2004 03:23

Tony Blair's dog

not much to elaborate on really.

As you state, there were other explosions set off than the ones used
for bringing the buildings down.

The other explosives were most likely used, just like you say, to make sure
that certain evidence against various companies and persons was destroyed
without risking them to be found after the demolition of the buildings.

The FBI office you mention had some extremely grave evidence against
some other "companies"/people in the WTC complex and elsewhere.
So making sure that all those offices were destroyed beyond recognition
was I guess a top priority for some of the people behind 9/11.

The pulling of the buildings themselves had to wait until it was sure that
all of the said offices and areas had been surely destroyed.

People tend to forget that the WTC housed many offices connected
to the American Stock Exchange.

From the online article "Nasdaq official says stock exchange was prepared":

"You need to understand: It looks to us from watching those videos that those planes went into the [World Trade Center] where Instinet [Group Inc.], Canter Fitzgerald and 15 brokerage firms that are Nasdaq market makers are located," Berkeley said.

"Four thousand registered [traders] give their address as the World Trade Center," he continued. "They pretty clearly targeted the financial marketplace."

 http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/ebusiness/story/0,10801,63728,00.html


Many scumbags gained directly from 9/11.

thanks for stating the obvious, it helps out 26.Dec.2004 12:05

researcher

"The pulling of the buildings themselves had to wait until it was sure that
all of the said offices and areas had been surely destroyed. "


Yes, this would seem to be an obvious motivation for stages of demolitions only after prepatory explosions. Intersting observation! Thanks.

Similarly to the 25th floor prepatory explosion--anyone know what that upper level fire in WTC1, pictured above, was getting out of the way before the whole building was detonated? Who's single office is being tidily engulfed in bright orange flame?