In an effort that has stretched nearly a decade, some families of 9/11 victims have fought to have the remains of their relatives identified and put to rest.

In 2002, they organized as the WTC Families for Proper Burial Inc. They sued the city in 2005, then appealed after they lost in 2008.

On Wednesday, in a spirited hearing interrupted occasionally by gasps, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit listened to arguments on behalf of the 17 plaintiffs in what is quite likely their final legal chance. The families seek to have nearly one million tons of material from Fresh Kills on Staten Island, where debris from the World Trade Center collapse was taken, moved to a nearby site so it can be sifted and put in a cemetery.

“It comes down to this: Are we prepared to leave hundreds of body parts and human remains on top of a garbage dump?” said Norman Siegel, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, arguing that to do less would deprive relatives of their constitutional rights.

The group of plaintiffs, which says it has support from 1,000 other relatives, was challenging a July 2008 decision by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court, who found that city workers had done everything in their power to find remains.

But as it did last year, the city argues that the plaintiffs have no claims to the remains because they cannot prove they belong to their relatives, which also makes them ineligible to bring a complaint on behalf of non-family members. The removal would also be too costly, the city says.

In the hearing’s sharpest exchange, when Judge Anthony O. Calabrese Jr. asked what it would take to prove someone’s identity, James E. Tyrrell, a lawyer representing the city, said, “You have to be able to particularize and say it’s your body part.”

“All that’s left here is a bunch of undifferentiated dust,” Mr. Tyrrell added, eliciting gasps and muttered “no’s” from a crowd whose members wore laminated photos of deceased relatives around their necks.

But Diane Horning of Scotch Plains, N.J., whose son Matthew worked on the 95th floor of the north tower, said she found many trade center-related items at the landfill on dozens of trips there. She produced some of them outside the courtroom.

A corroded key, marked with the words “World Trade Center,” came from a gulley formed after a rainstorm, she said. In a plastic bag, there were two sizeable bone fragments that Ms. Horning said came from Fresh Kills, though she had never had them tested for DNA to see if they belonged to victims of 9/11.

With methane gas bubbling up from the soil there, “it’s a disrespectful, dishonorable place,” said Ms. Horning, the president of the group.

During the hearing, which was also presided over by Judge José A. Cabranes and Judge Barrington D. Parker, Mr. Siegel accused the city of reneging on its promise to set aside victims’ remains, a change in policy that he said happened in July 2002.

“They commingled it, and then they dumped it,” Mr. Siegel said of the remains’ being mixed with household trash, adding that a Fresh Kills worker had witnessed city employees use that mixture to fill potholes.

The reference brought a shake of the head from Valerie Speller, who was there to honor her brother John Candela, who worked in the north tower.

“I think the whole thing’s pretty deplorable,” Ms. Speller said after the hearing. “I don’t think there was any human compassion from the city.”

Original article here.

The Denver Post would be well served to consider the fate of printed propaganda as it relates to the demise of the now defunct Rocky Mountain News.  KBDI has really rattled a lot of cages to be so resolutely attacked by the Denver post here, and now in this bitter and lopsided hit piece by well known Denver columnist Vincent Caroll.   Let Mr. Caroll and the Denver Post hear from you in the most articulate and polite way possible.  -Michael

Carroll: Public TV and the Truthers
by Vincent Caroll
The Denver Post
9-26-09

On the same day the FBI arrested Najibullah Zazi on what would turn out to be damningly detailed evidence of alleged terrorist intentand just three days after the ever-prescient Gary Hart proclaimed, “I don’t think he sounds like a terrorist” — KBDI-Channel 12 aired a couple of 9/11 Truther documentaries as part of a fund-raising drive.

The coincidence last Saturday was both ironic and nauseating. At the very moment when authorities were unearthing what could be the most sinister case of domestic terrorist activity since 9/11, with alleged links to the group that took down the World Trade Center, a local public television station blithely devoted much of its schedule to propaganda claiming al-Qaeda did no such thing.

Not that station management minds. “We’re not trying to capitalize on anyone’s tragedy,” said Shari Bernson, Channel 12’s membership director. “We’ve just got to get more diversity [in programming] out there.”

Besides, she told me, the films ” 9/11: Blueprint for Truth” and ” 9/11: Press for Truth” (along with the equally egregious “America: From Freedom to Fascism”) have been a boon for the station, helping it enjoy “a good year” in fundraising. Indeed, Channel 12, which also aired the shows in August, will probably broadcast them again — although perhaps not until spring.

Meanwhile, Bernson added, Channel 12 remains “the only public station that I know of” that has shown them.

No wonder. ” 9/11: Blueprint for Truth,” featuring Bay Area architect Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, peddles the familiar Truther theme that the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the result of controlled demolitions that would have taken months to prepare. Yet in the two-hour version I watched online, Gage laughably insists that he and his colleagues “are not conspiracy theorists.”

“We’re not saying your government did this to you,” Gage explains. “Somebody was responsible for this. Somebody, somewhere on the inside was responsible.”

The “inside”? That sure sounds like government in this context.

Just in case viewers are too dense to figure out the probable culprits, Gage helpfully provides plenty of clues. Remember, he says, 9/11 “served as the pretext for the invasion of two countries in which already more than a million people have perished. Also as the pretext for the loss of many of our cherished liberties here at home in the United States through recent legislation such as the Patriot Act . . . .”

“Is it likely,” he wonders at one point, “that al-Qaeda could have had access to” Building 7, with its sensitive government offices, since it must have been as secure as anything “outside the Pentagon?”

He’s got us there, doesn’t he? Perhaps President Bush himself, along with a crack team of demolition experts from the CIA, personally packed Building 7 and the Twin Towers with explosives in the run-up to 9/11, while Dick Cheney and his Halliburton cronies organized the al-Qaeda dupes who would hijack the planes.

Sounds plausible to me.

And how has the grand conspiracy, which the film suggests includes the major media, been kept under wraps all these years? Why has no one in this vast web of deceit developed pangs of conscience or second thoughts, or called in a film crew for a death-bed confession?

Anticipating such questions, Gage claims “the Manhattan project had thousands of people and was kept quite a secret for a very long time.” By “very long time,” he must mean the brief period before spies like Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass and Theodore Hall began passing classified material to the Soviets.

Channel 12 is a local asset with lots of good programs, and Bernson is no doubt sincere that “we weren’t sitting around trying to figure how to upset the community” when the decision was made to air these films. It’s not even clear the community is upset, given the apparently modest volume of complaints that Bernson reports and the success in fundraising.

Before you know it, even Zazi’s story will no doubt be woven into the fevered folklore that sees a cabal of omnipotent insiders toying with us all. In its own way, that’s almost as scary as what that airport shuttle driver and his friends allegedly intended to do.

Original hit piece here.

E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com

The Ombudsman Column
PBS, Yes and No
By Michael Getler
September 25, 2009

What follows is more of a grab bag rather than an ombudsman’s mailbag.

Included are a couple of unusual but not widely known episodes that unfolded last week that I thought might be of interest more broadly to PBS viewers. They can be seen to have at least some association with PBS in the way they were presented or appeared to the public. Yet PBS, as an enterprise, didn’t have anything to do with them.

These things happen because PBS is a strange beast within the world of media. Its hundreds of member stations are all independent and can broadcast what they want, and some of the superstars associated with PBS programs are also forces unto themselves with lots of other interests and outlets. Yet these stations and these superstars are widely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as joined at the hip to PBS in the mind of many viewers.

So these episodes — one involving a member station in Denver and the other involving talk show host Tavis Smiley — struck me as interesting and worthy of sharing beyond the normal back and forth with viewers over the widely viewed and well-known PBS programs that are broadcast nationally and that we all associate with public television.
The Conspiracy Pledge

The first episode involves PBS member station KBDI in Denver, Colo. Earlier this summer and again in mid-August and last weekend, the station ran a series of independent documentary films labeled: “America: Freedom to Fascism,” “9/11: Press for Truth,” and “9/11: Blueprint for Truth.” These films ran as part of a pledge drive by the station to raise funds. These are controversial films that feed conspiracy theories and theorists about the origins and results of the 9/11 attacks. The “Blueprint” film, for example, “offers evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rises were destroyed not by fire and damage, per the official story, but by explosive-controlled demolitions on September 11, 2001,” according to the official blurb describing the film.

Read the rest of this entry »

National Geographic Does 9/11:   Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie
by Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9; August 27, 2009

By now it’s quite predictable: every year as the anniversary of the attack approaches, some of the most established mainstream media brands are pressed into service to sell the official story of 9/11.

The 2009 iteration of this spectacle is notable for the contrast between the designated brand and the obligatory message. That brand, best known for its high-brow photojournalistic National Geographic Magazine, has existed since 1889, complete with a non-profit Society dedicated to education in geography, archaeology, history, world cultures, and natural science. One can’t help but wonder how National Geographic’s many benefactors would feel if they understood how the brand was being used to prop up the “War on Terror” with its Popular-Mechanics-style attack piece to be aired on August 31, 2009.

A web feature on the website of the National Geographic Channel provides a preview of the show and a window into the methods and goals of the show’s producers. Those methods are so heavy-handed that the critical reader can’t help but see that those goals are something very different from educating. As an exercise, the reader might want to read the
one-page feature first, and then compare notes with my analysis of it below.

National Geographic Then and Now

The 2009 documentary isn’t the first time the National Geographic brand has been used to rubber-stamp the official account of the attack. On September 17, 2001 an article in National Geographic News attempted to explain the “collapses” with such memetic devices mouthed by “experts” as “the raging inferno” (likened to a fraction of the Hiroshima A-bomb) turning the steel to “Play-doh” and precipitating a “domino collapse” in which “the buildings’ majesty was their own undoing”.

As unscientific as these purported explanations are, with their transparent appeals to authority and metaphor, one might excuse them as the attempt of a journalist to make sense of the horrific events at a time when rational analysis was eclipsed by shock.
Clearly, something very different is at work in the 2009 effort, a fact that is apparent even in its lurid graphical production reminiscent of the BBC’s Conspiracy FIles.

Read Jim’s complete review here.

Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel
by Kevin Ryan
August 22, 2009

Six days after September 11th, National Geographic Today (NGT) published one of the very first descriptions of the official myth for what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.[1] This article exaggerated the little known facts about the fires in the towers, equated gas temperatures with steel temperatures, and detailed the long-surviving but incorrect Pancake Theory of “collapse.” Since that time, millions of people have been killed or injured in the 9/11 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that originated from the official myth about 9/11.[2,3] Fortunately, this week it was announced that the NGT’s parent, the National Geographic Channel (NG Channel), is scheduled to broadcast a new television special covering the science behind the events of 9/11. We can only assume that this new show is meant to correct the record and apologize for the company’s false statements that contributed to the ongoing wars.

Some of the false statements made in that NGT article had to do with an early version of the Pancake Theory for destruction of the buildings. One claim was : “As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes.” Another statement was more authoritative, saying: “Once the structural support of the upper floors is removed, a few falling floors can bring down an entire building.” The Pancake Theory did not make sense to many people but was tested by my former employer, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), in August 2004. The tests showed that the floors in the WTC buildings could not have pancaked, even when exposed to higher temperatures for longer periods of time than was actually the case. Two years later, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally made clear that its “findings do not support the ‘pancake theory’ of collapse.”[4]

To date, there have been no apologies from any of the media sources that, oftentimes arrogantly, promoted the Pancake Theory as a means to prevent further questioning of the WTC events. But we all know that “National Geographic” is different, right? Actually, some people are unaware that the NG Channel is majority controlled (67%) by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.[5] The National Geographic Society, publisher of the well-known magazine, was a minority partner in creation of the NG Channel, but does not have editorial control over what is produced there. Instead, the News Corporation controls the programming much like it controls Fox News.

In the early article promoting the WTC myth, NGT described how “Jet fuel fires burn unusually hot, and engineers believe the fire may have led to temperatures as high as 1,600 degrees Celsius (2,900 degrees Fahrenheit).” But the truth is that the jet fuel fires at the WTC, which lasted a total of 79 seconds by one expert estimate, and lasted only a few minutes according to NIST, would have been cooler than the later fires fed by office furnishings alone.[6] It has since been admitted by NIST that gas temperatures reached only “as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius.”[7]

Read the rest of this entry »

Exclusive Interview with FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
August 21, 2009

On April 23, 2007, I sat down in Washington, D.C. with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds for an extensive interview, which was published in the Armenian Weekly and on ZNet and widely circulated. On Aug. 18, 2009, I conducted a follow-up phone interview with Edmonds, who was visiting New Zealand. The interview is an overview of what has transpired in her case since 2007, with emphasis on her deposition in the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case in Ohio earlier this month.

Edmonds, an FBI language specialist, was fired from her job with the FBI’s Washington Field Office in March 2002. Her crime was reporting security breaches, cover-ups, blocking of intelligence, and the bribery of U.S. individuals including high-ranking officials. The “state secrets privilege” has often been invoked to block court proceedings on her case, and the U.S. Congress has even been gagged to prevent further discussion.Edmonds uncovered, for example, a covert relationship between Turkish groups and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who reportedly received tens of thousands of dollars in bribes in return for withdrawing the Armenian Genocide Resolution from the House floor in 2000.

Born in Iran in 1970, Edmonds received her BA in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University, and her MA in public policy and international commerce from George Mason University. She is the founder and director of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) and in 2006 received the PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award. She speaks Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani.

Below is the full transcript of the follow-up interview.

***

Khatchig Mouradian—I asked you in 2007 what had changed during the five years since 2002, when you first contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal the story on Turkish bribery of high-level U.S. officials. You said, “There has been no hearing and nobody has been held accountable. We are basically where we started…” Two more years have passed, we have a new president, and I have to ask the same question again. Has there been any change?

Sibel Edmonds—Nothing has changed. As far as the Congress is concerned, the Democrats have been the majority since November 2006 and I have had zero interest from Congress on having hearings—any hearings—on this issue, whether it’s the states secrets privilege portion of it or the involved corruption cases. The current majority has been at least as bad as the previous one. At least the Republicans were gutsy enough to come and say, We’re not going to touch this. But the new majority is not saying anything!

Read the rest of this entry »

KBDI pushes limits on controversial pledge tie-ins
by Joanne Ostrow
The Denver Post

KBDI-Channel 12 has a reputation for broadcasting bold, distinctive documentaries. Just where to draw the line between bold/distinctive and kooky/irresponsible is a matter of opinion.

Last weekend, during a pledge drive, Channel 12 aired controversial documentaries promoting conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and claiming taxes are unlawful. Answering the phones during the pledge drive were conspiracy believers who reportedly encouraged callers to believe.

The station received complaints over “America: Freedom to Fascism” along with ” 9/11: Press for Truth” and ” 9/11: Blueprint for Truth.” It also fielded requests for more.

The claims made in “Freedom to Fascism,” namely that the country is evolving into a police state ruled by a powerful elite that has tricked Americans into paying taxes, have been refuted by facts, notably in a lengthy New York Times piece last month.

I’m with the viewer who cancelled his KBDI membership and wrote, “What’s next on the KBDI hit list, films about President Obama being a citizen of Kenya or about how health-care reform wants to kill your grandmother?”

It’s nothing new for KBDI to staff the phone banks during pledge drives with supporters of whatever is on the air. Conservationists have been recruited to answer phones during nature broadcasts. Still, the arrangement raises questions about whether the station is making deals with interest groups to carry programming in exchange for pledge support.

A KBDI spokeswoman said, “Phone bank people are instructed not to get into debates whatever the issue. We can find people to staff our phone banks without making deals.”

Shari Bernson, Channel 12’s membership director, selects documentaries for airing. Her goal, she said, is to provide a forum for expression of different points of view and to air things the other stations won’t. “It hasn’t been easy with this content,” she said.

” 9/11: Pressed for Truth” was one of KBDI’s top five fundraisers in the past year. The station plans encores of the 9/11 docs in September.

“I am not a 9/11 truther,” Bernson volunteered. But her research found 43 percent of Americans have questions about what actually happened on 9/11. As far as fundraising goes, “Our mission is airing programming outside the mainstream.”

The station knows controversy fuels fundraising. Fully 32 percent of the station’s budget comes from pledges.

Original article here.

Decoding Scheuer’s Call for Osama to Kill More Americans
“War on Terror” advocates want civilians to die to justify “War on Terror”
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
6 July, 2009

CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s recent call for bin Laden to kill more Americans would be shocking if we hadn’t already heard it dozens of times before from other “War on Terror” advocates. “It’s an absurd situation,” Scheuer told FOX News personality Glenn Beck on his program last week. “Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.”

The comments have provoked much shock and outrage among pundits and websites like Jon Stewart and NewsHounds who may have considered him to be on their side. After all, he seemed to be a vociferous and effective critic of the neocons, having authored books like Imperial Hubris and having supported Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential debates by asserting that 9/11 was merely blowback for American interventionism in the Middle East. With his latest comments, Scheuer is now relegated to the ignoble company of neocon shills like Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who dreamed of another terrorist attack back in 2007 to rally people around the flag (and, presumably, George W. Bush) once again; Donald Rumsfeld, who complained in 2006 that the Bush regime was a victim of its own success in the “War on Terror” and that another terrorist attack was needed to remind people that the war was still necessary; and indeed the entire neocon establishment, who in their 2000 white paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses called for “a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor” to mobilize the public to get behind their goal of projecting American military influence around the globe for another century. Despite his surprisingly unhelpful attempt to clarify his remarks, Scheuer is now—like all of those who have said that terrorism is needed to bring about political support for their idea—a terrorist himself by very definition.

Read the rest of this entry »

Glenn Beck Agrees: “The only chance we have as a country right now is” for bin Laden to “detonate a major weapon” in U.S.

“Glenn Beck nods and agrees with his guest Michael Scheuer that the only way to “save” the US (from illegal immigrants, of course) is for Osama bin Laden to succeed in detonating a weapon on American soil. Scheuer and Beck hit all the conservative buttons, from Mexicans to the mainstream media and the worst of all, Europeans. From the June 30th, 2009 Glenn Beck on Fox News.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJVhNH99c

“Last night Glenn Beck’s guest was ex-CIA person Michael Scheuer, who stated that the only hope for the country was for Osama Bin Laden to “deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Seriously.”
http://gawker.com/5305274/what-this-country-needs-is-a-good-terrorist-at…

YouTube viddy cribbed from: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906300039

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2009
Rob Kall interviews Sibel Edmonds
Rob Kall of Op-Ed News interviewed Sibel on Wednesday.

The following is a partial transcript. All errors, edits and omissions are mine.

Sibel Edmonds:
[SNIP]
We (NSWBC) stopped our activities for a while, and we are restarting them again, and I just launched my blog, www.123realchange.blogspot.com, and the first series that I’m posting there is on the mainstream media, and in the next few days, you’re going to see more than 300 whistleblowers who are going to post their comments at the blog too, about their experiences with various people in the mainstream media.

So that’s going to be the main discussion, because currently we review the mainstream media as the culprit, because if they were to do their jobs, they would put pressure on the people in the congress, because these people want to get re-elected, and therefore that pressure would act as a catalyst to get these things that we, the people, have been asking for – the real hearings and accountability. But without the mainstream media putting that pressure, going after them, well, they don’t have anything really to fear. You know, you have to have carrots, you have to have sticks, but there have been no sticks for these people. They get away with everything.

And even when we have some coverage, it only lasts for a couple of days, you don’t get what you saw, let’s say, with Watergate. You have to keep at it, and the mainstream media is not doing this. And the best example of this is the Harman case, it just popped out, and then in a couple of days it disappeared, and it has been buried.

Read the rest of this entry »

Intellectual Dishonesty In The Age Of Universal Deceit:
a message to the corporate media and our elected officials.
By Daniel Sunjata – May 4, 2009 – www.911blogger.com

“The inert masses are mentally and spiritually ill equipped to deal with reality, so they block it out of their minds – aided of course, by the corporate media and the propaganda apparatus of the government itself. This is why fantasy is frequently substituted for reality, plutocracy is mistaken for democracy, and the majority of the people do not know the difference. Millions of good people thus refuse to allow into their psyche the suffering and misery that U.S. policies have produced and exported to the world, even as that reality is closing in upon them.” – Charles Sullivan

“They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality…and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.” – George Orwell, 1984

“Article XXXIV OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001” – From the 35 articles of impeachment introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on 06/09/08 in H.Res. 1258 by Congressman Dennis Kucinich

The list is not a short one. It includes professors, architects, aerospace and aviation professionals, structural/mechanical/& aeronautical engineers, demolition experts, firefighters and other first responders, scientists, theologians, senior members of both the military and intelligence communities, Republican administration appointees, state department veterans, and other government officials from the United States and abroad; credible experts of impeccable pedigree with impressive track records from relevant fields of expertise, whose coolly rational intellects are not easily given to an unfounded belief in outlandish, unsubstantiated, or unverifiable claims. Individuals such as these are numbered among the ranks of skeptics and critics of the official theory of conspiracy regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some pose questions, others draw conclusions, still others (like Congressman Kucinich) go so far as to level accusations and to substantiate them with evidence.

Read the rest of this entry »

by John Michael Talboo
March 24, 2009
Debunking the Debunkers – 911Debunkers.blogspot.com

John-Michael Talboo (JMT)-Q:

GateCreepers.com is a collection of original articles devoted to debunking myths on conspiracy theories, exposing propaganda techniques of the mainstream media and government, exploring concepts such as the hive mind, and other such topics which dumb down the population and keep us in servitude. The site is also devoted to debunking the debunkers of several specific topics including 9/11 and the JFK assassination, our brother from another mother so to speak!

I have found that when debating people on the subject of government complicity in 9/11 they very often seem to be referring to one of the 48 myths about conspiracy theories discussed in your article, Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories, almost as if it was their playbook. This of course makes it a very good debating tool, as you can just say, well thanks for bringing up debunked myth #16 about conspiracy theories, next. An example of this can be found in the comments of a short post I put together for this blog in which I questioned whether Noam Chomsky had indeed dispelled 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic. I would hazard a guess that type of result brings a smile to your writing team.

Did that article, or the site in general come about due to seeing these tired, often media propagated, talking points being parroted during personal debates? If not, how did it come about?

GateCreepers:

Yes, the very fact that people are referring to those myths as if it were their playbook is the main reason why we wrote this article. We found that writers of hit pieces kept using the same arguments over and over again in an almost formulaic way. This is probably not a coincidence either, as one of the declassified documents we found on Namebase and reproduced for our readers’ benefit was a CIA memo that gave many of those said talking points in response to skepticism of the Warren Commission report. We came across those talking points in media hit pieces, but forum debates inspired us even more to do this as we experienced first hand the frustration of having those hackneyed points repeated to us.

We found particularly tiresome how many of those debunkers claim an intellectual high ground based on skepticism and critical thought. The fact that those points are still repeated uncritically today by self-appointed ‘debunkers’ shows how little substance there is behind their claims, and we find it particularly odd how those people never focus their skepticism on government lies. In a way, we consider our Myths article as well as our website as an intellectual case for conspiracism in general and as filling this void of skepticism towards the government.

Finally, we admire the works of Alex Jones and many other truth activists who are unfairly ridiculed by the media, and we consider this our tribute to their efforts. We felt that the clarity and resounding truth of their arguments needed to be generalised to challenge the broader philosophical points of the debate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Delta Force officer: US officials stopped plans to kill bin Laden
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Monday October 6, 2008
The Raw Story

After September 11, 2001, a team of elite Delta Force commandos was sent into Afghanistan with an assignment to find and kill Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora — but that mission failed.

The commander of the Delta Force team has now written a book which tells what he says is the true story of what went wrong. He appeared anonymously on CBS’s 60 Minutes on Sunday to summarize that story.

Bin Laden was known to be holed up at Tora Bora on a ridge with an elevation of 14,000 feet. The Delta Force team’s initial plan was to come at him from the direction he’d least expect, climbing over the mountains at his back, but that plan wasn’t approved by the higher-ups. Their second idea, to drop hundreds of landmines along the mountain passes to Pakistan to impede bin Laden’s retreat and then bring in helicopters, was also turned down.

“How often does Delta come up with a tactical plan that’s disapproved by higher headquarters?” CBS’s Scott Pelley asked the commando leader.

“In my experience, in my five years at Delta, never before,” he replied.

The only remaining option was a frontal assault by 50 US Delta Force members plus their Afghan guides — and the Afghan warlord accompanying the commandos frankly told them, “I don’t think you guys can handle it.” A few million dollars from the CIA quickly secured his cooperation, but only to a degree.

The Delta Force leader told CBS that the Afghan fighters went home every night, abandoning whatever territory had been gained that day. “It was almost like it was an agreement, an understanding between the two forces fighting each other,” he stated When the CIA did come up with an exact location on bin Laden, it was nighttime, and the Afghan support was nowhere to be found.

“It wasn’t worth the risk at that particular moment to go up there and play cowboy,” the leader told CBS. “It was better to be cautious, refit, go up there with the entire force the next day and play the battle out as we had planned.” But when he attempted to move on bin Laden the next day, his Afghan allies balked, saying they had negotiated a cease fire with al Qaeda, and even drew their weapons on the Delta force team to prevent it from acting alone.

Read the rest of this story which includes a video from 60 minutes.

This week Visibility 9-11 welcomes Mark Watterson, author of the new book Don’t Weep for Me America; How Democracy in America Became the Prince. Mark Watterson masterfully brings together the information required to really understand what is going on in America today. Watterson explains in great detail how our government has transformed into a rogue state willing to commit false flag terrorist events against its own citizens.

This is the best book I have ever read which will help the reader connect the dots between major events in our history. Citing numerous examples, Watterson paints a dim picture of a tainted history which has been re-written for public consumption by those who own the media in America. Don’t Weep for Me America, despite being packed with a lot of information, is written in a very readable and logical manner with a passionate, yet very personable style. Readers will be led through a series of important underlying themes which include and introduction the the monumental work, 1984 by George Orwell, the allegory of Plato’s Cave, Alexis de Tocqueville and his book, Democracy in America, and Niccolo Machiavelli, who in 1513 penned the book The Prince.

This book comes highly recommended by Visibility 9-11 and will be a valuable tool, both in the terms of the knowledge you will gain by reading it and as a tool to wake friends and loved ones up about what is really going on in America. Don’t Weep for Me America is the Red Pill and will wake people up. No one who reads this work will ever see the world the same again.

Intermission music by Anne Waldman.
Ending music by The Dixie Chicks.
Direct Download click here.

Talk Show Host Calls for Murder
from 911truth.org

Action Alert from FAIR.org — Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Talk Show Host Calls for Murder
Michael Reagan says activist should be killed for treason

6/24/08

Nationally syndicated conservative radio host Michael Reagan called for the murder of a political activist on June 10. Reagan, a frequent guest on cable news shows and the son of President Ronald Reagan, singled out 9/11 activist Mark Dice by name and called several times for his assassination.

(Click here to listen to a 3 minute audio clip.)

Reagan had learned that political activists had reportedly been sending letters and DVDs to troops in Iraq, advancing the theory that the U.S. government had carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. For promoting this unpopular view, the talkshow host advocated that these activists should be killed as “traitors”:

We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.

Even more troubling was the call for violence against a specific individual: “How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”

Reagan subsequently had Dice on his show (6/16/08) as a guest and stated, “I’m sorry for what I said.” As an explanation, Reagan offered, “Sometimes radio hosts we get fired up and angry and we say things that are actually stupid, and we make mistakes.”

Reagan’s “mistakes,” unfortunately, have repeatedly involved advocating murder to his audience. On August 15, 2006, Reagan called for violently killing babies who were reportedly being named for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah:

Naming their children ‘Hezbollah.’You know what I’d get ‘em for a first birthday? I’d put a grenade up their butts and light it. Happy birthday, baby. Bye bye.

In response to a caller who pointed out that children are not responsible for the names they are given, Reagan repeatedly asserted, “So what’s wrong with killing the mothers and the babies?”

Read the rest of this entry »