-Please note that bringing Kevin Bracken to San Francisco from Australia is a significant expense.  Please use the PayPal button below to make a valuable contribution to this historic event.
-Michael

Kevin Bracken, the Secretary of the Maritime Union Of Australian MUA Victoria Branch and President of the Australia Victorian Trades Council Hall which represents 400, 000 workers will be speaking (In a personal capacity) at LaborTech 2010 on  “Corporate Media, The Trade Unions, War And 9/11“.  Bracken is one of the leading trade unionists in the world who has publicly challenged the US official explanation of 9/11 and the political  use of “terrorism” by governments internationally to escalate the attacks on democratic rights and repression of the labor movement and working people around the world.
He will speak at the public evening session of LaborTech 2010 which will be held at the University of San Francisco at McLaron Hall 252 on Saturday December 10, 2010 at 7:30 PM.

LaborTech is a semiannual conference on how  unions and working people can use communication technology and develop a labor media strategy to break the information blockade about issues and struggles of labor and working people.

Press Release
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Colorado Public Television

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup
Saturday, December 4 at 7:00 pm on Channel 12.1

Huffington Post
11-24-10 03:18 PM

Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano revealed on Tuesday that he does not believe the government’s account of the 9/11 attacks. Napolitano, who hosts “Freedom Watch” on Fox Business and is frequently seen on Fox News as a legal analyst, told radio host Alex Jones — who is a prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorist —that the attacks “couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.”

The subject came about when Jones noted that Geraldo Rivera had recently raised questions about the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Napolitano’s Fox Business Show. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have centered on that building’s collapse, contending that it was blown up by government forces. Jones asked Napolitano what his opinion about the issue was.

Napolitano replied:

“It’s hard for me to believe that it came down by itself…I am gratified to see that people across the board are interested. I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.”

Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11
by Kevin Ryan
November 18, 2010
Foreign Policy Journal

Just after September 11^th 2001, many governments began investigations into possible insider trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day.  Such investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States, and others.  Although the investigators were clearly concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence did exist, none of the investigations resulted in a single indictment.  That’s because the people identified as having been involved in the suspicious trades were seen as unlikely to have been associated with those alleged to have committed the 9/11 crimes.

This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who created the official explanations for 9/11.  The reasoning goes like this: if we assume that we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the popular version of “al Qaeda”) and those who were involved in the trades did not appear to be connected to those assumed perpetrators, then insider trading did not occur.

That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us.  The Commission concluded that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI “uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.”  What they meant was that someone did profit through securities transactions but, based on the Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who profited were not associated with those who were guilty of conducting the attacks.  In a footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious trading on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.”[1]

With respect to insider trading, or what is more technically called informed trading, the Commission report was itself suspect for several reasons.  First, the informed trades relating to 9/11 covered far more than just airline company stock.  The stocks of financial and reinsurance companies, as well as other financial vehicles, were identified as being associated with suspicious trades.  Huge credit card transactions, completed just before the attacks, were also involved.  The Commission ultimately tried to frame all of this highly suspicious trading in terms of a series of misunderstandings.  However, the possibility that so many leading financial experts were so completely wrong is doubtful at best and, if true, would constitute another unbelievable scenario in the already highly improbable sequence of events represented by the official story of 9/11.

In the last few years, new evidence has come to light on these matters.  In 2006 and 2010, financial experts at a number of universities have established new evidence, through statistical analyses, that informed trades did occur with respect to the 9/11 attacks.  Additionally, in 2007, the 911 Commission released a memorandum summary of the FBI investigations on which its report was based.[2] A careful review of this memorandum indicates that some of the people who were briefly investigated by the FBI, and then acquitted without due diligence, had links to al Qaeda and to US intelligence agencies.  Although the elapsed time between the informed trades and these new confirmations might prevent legal action against the guilty, the facts of the matter can help lead us to the truth about 9/11.

Read the rest of this entry »

Introducing a project I have been wanting to do for a long time and excited that it’s finally being realized. Please check out our Visibility 9-11 Red Flags of September 11th. Over the coming weeks and months, we will be adding to this collection of “Red Flags” that we hope will be a resource for beginners to 9-11 Truth as well as a tool for 9-11 activists to use to wake up their friends and family. Short and sweet, the Visibility 9-11 Red Flags of September 11th aim at breaking the 9-11 crimes and cover-up down into highly documented, clear, concise, and easy to digest talking points. Thanks to the team and all who are helping this project come to fruition.

-Michael

by Frances Shure, Colorado 9-11 Visibility
Tuesday, 09 November 2010 19:04

It’s true! The Democratic Platform for the state of Colorado is the first major party in the US to for a new investigation into the official story of the events surrounding 9/11.

It started in 2004 when I, a complete novice in political processes, decided to participate in my precinct caucus in order to try to make a difference here in Colorado. The night before, I learned that the caucus is also a time to bring policy resolutions for consideration. Hurriedly, I wrote a resolution for a new, independent investigation into 9/11, figuring that here is an opportunity, at least, to educate a few more people. To my surprise, my precinct caucus neighbors voted for it!

The next step was to get it passed at the county level: the Denver County Assembly and Convention. To do this, I needed to get 10% of the attendees to sign a petition – another chance to educate more people! I needed 200 signatures, which I managed to get with the spontaneous help of a couple of other 9/11 truth activists. Now I could present this resolution to the Assembly, at the end of a long hard day, which wound up being attended by about 100 of the most serious participants.

Managing to transcend my considerable stage fright, and fearing I might be tarred and feathered, I read the full resolution aloud. The call for a vote came. To my shock, the resolution passed by 98%!

Discovering that the next step was the Colorado Platform Committee, I attended that meeting. Other dedicated activists were there as well, trying to figure out this mysterious process. (We could attend and comment, but not vote.) We were stunned to see that the Committee did not even have copies of the passed county platforms by which to determine what should be included at the state level. They were just going to decide unilaterally what they wanted on the state platform!

I firmly but politely confronted the chair of the committee about this. He replied testily, “We’re doing the best we can!” (I.e. sit down and shut up!) I replied back as testily, “No, you are not! Democracy has just flown out the window!”

Those more politically savvy than I informed me that the Democratic Party is controlled from the top down. What people want at the grassroots is not welcome, and when controversial resolutions are passed, they can be mysteriously removed at the state level. The State Platform Committee balks at including any resolutions not supported by the party’s presidential candidate –just the opposite of how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

Not to be deterred, in the months following, a few of the citizens who had been educated by our Colorado 9/11 Visibility speaking events joined the Colorado Democratic Platform Committee. In 2008, these people informed other committee members about the need for a new 9/11 investigation. In this same year, other Colorado citizens presented resolutions in their caucuses and county assemblies across the state. This time, they actually reached the Colorado Democratic Platform Committee, and, lo and behold, the following resolution was passed:

“We hereby declare that the investigations into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the illegal invasion of Iraq, Abramoff and other lobbyists, the hurricane Katrina response, and other major issues were inadequate and warrant review.”

Not at all unhappy with this, several of us proceeded to try for a stronger statement in 2010, beginning with the precinct level. At my precinct caucus, there was a backlash waiting, and I was unsuccessful. Other activists, however, were successful in getting their resolutions passed at precinct and county levels. To my utter surprise, the Colorado Platform Committee kept the previous resolution and added another to the 2010 Colorado Democratic Platform:

“Whereas many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.”.

Now understanding the controlling and top-down nature of the Democratic Party, I fully expect a backlash, and realize that the grassroots desire for a new investigation into 9/11 will likely never be considered by the Democratic National Committee (unlike the Green Party²). However, activists in any state with the caucus system³ can use this political process to at least educate our fellow citizens. It is a rare opportunity in which the audience is right there waiting for us to speak our truth!

The 2008 version of the resolution may be viewed at:
http://colorado911visibility.org/2008/09/11/colorado-resolution-to-establish-a-new-fully-independent-investigation-of-september-11th-2001/

The Resolution presented at Shure’s caucus in 2010 may be viewed at:
http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf

[1] There are two methods by which states choose their delegates and pass resolutions for the national conventions: the caucus and the primary. Caucuses are simply neighborhood meetings, open to all registered voters of the party, in which delegates and resolutions are chosen for the county conventions and assemblies. The states that have primaries do not have this grassroots advantage. They are open to all registered voters, and voting is done through a secret ballot as in general elections.

[2] In 2004, the National Green Party called for an independent commission, with full participation of surviving family members, to investigate the government’s handling of 9/11 and information leading up to the attacks. To date, this is the only national political party to support a new, independent investigation.

[3] States with the caucus system are Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Wyoming, Texas, and Utah.

November 7, 2010
Shoestring911′s Blog

The National Military Command Center (NMCC) is the most secure part of the Pentagon and, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, was “the focal point within [the] Department of Defense for providing assistance” to law enforcement efforts in response to aircraft hijackings in U.S. airspace, according to military instructions. [1] In response to the attacks on New York and Washington, the job of the NMCC, according to the 9/11 Commission, was “to gather the relevant parties and establish the chain of command between the National Command Authority–the president and the secretary of defense–and those who need to carry out their orders.” [2]

The NMCC therefore had a critical role to play that day. And yet evidence reveals that emergency actions conducted from the center were totally inadequate. Numerous obstructions occurred, including technical problems and outside agencies failing to provide the center with the information it required. Furthermore, a number of military leaders were particularly slow in reaching the NMCC, from where they could assist emergency response efforts, and only arrived there after the attacks ended and it was too late to make a difference.

The evidence currently available is insufficient to draw firm conclusions from. But the sheer number of factors that hindered the actions of those in the NMCC, combined with several oddities, raises the possibility that a deliberate and coordinated attempt was made by treasonous U.S. government and military insiders to sabotage the center’s ability to respond to the 9/11 attacks, at a time when its rapid actions were imperative.

THE U.S. MILITARY’S ‘WORLDWIDE NERVE CENTER’
The NMCC has been described as “a communications hub, a switchboard connecting the Pentagon, the civilian government, and the combatant commanders.” [3] It is a maze of offices, cubicles, and conference rooms in an area of the Pentagon where offices of the military’s Joint Staff and many top officials, including the secretary of defense, are located. The center is designed to operate in an emergency, and has its own electrical, heating, and air-conditioning systems. [4]

The NMCC’s primary task is to monitor worldwide events for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Its other main missions are providing a strategic watch component and providing a crisis response component. At the time of the 9/11 attacks, it was operated by five teams on a rotating basis, with each operations team typically having 17 to 20 personnel on duty and performing a variety of functions. [5]

OFFICERS LACKED URGENCY IN RESPONSE TO FIRST CRASH
The morning of September 11, 2001, the NMCC was receiving live feeds from numerous television stations, which its personnel were monitoring, and those in the NMCC learned of the first plane crashing into the World Trade Center from TV news reports. [6] This was reportedly the first time they learned anything of the crisis in the skies over America that morning. [7]

NMCC personnel supposedly didn’t realize that the crash was a terrorist attack. Operations officer Dan Mangino has recalled, “At first, we thought it was a terrible accident.” [8] Major Charles Chambers recalled, “My instinct was that the pilot had used the towers to point himself towards the area, lost consciousness, and autopilot had done the rest.” Therefore, at that time, “Our interest in the crash … was no different from anyone else’s in the country.” [9]

The operations team’s response was to continue monitoring media reports and make notifications up the chain of command, simply telling senior Pentagon officials that a plane had crashed into one of the WTC towers. [10]

Read the rest of this entry »

Two friends, lawyer Earl Staelin and journalist Chris Mohr, respectfully disagree on whether the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition or as a natural outcome of the jet crashes and the ensuing fires. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brought the controversy into the international spotlight again when he raised the issue at the United Nations recently. Interesting slide shows, videos, live experiments and demonstrations, engaging narratives and two people who actually like each other on opposite sides of a hotly contentious issue.

Question & Answer period to follow. Come early and enjoy snacks, drinks, or dinner.

Mercury Café
2199 California Street, Denver CO 80205
Friday, November 12, 2010
Time: 7:00-9:00 pm
Admission is Free

Contact Information
http://colorado911visibility.org
Tim Boyle: 720-200-9498
Mobile 720-530-9854

Fran Shure: 303-778-7511
Mobile 303-909-2053

Event Speakers

Earl Staelin is a lawyer in private practice who has researched the 9/11 Controlled Demolition theory for several years. He has put together a slide show and will be presenting evidence for the theory.

Chris Mohr has an English degree and studied journalism. He is the former editor of On The Air Magazine. He was initially skeptical but intrigued by the 9/11 controlled demolition theory but now believes the scientific evidence doesn’t support it.

Chris Mohr and Earl Staelin are available for interviews. Phone 303-986-2022