I wonder how many people have never seen this. - Jon

Source: harpers.org

By Benjamin DeMott
October 2004

No book in memory has stirred greater anticipatory frenzy than The 9/11 Commission Report—or more universal acclaim at its appearance in July. Before it was out, news and interview shows were welcoming the Commissioners whose labor had produced it. CNN ran film footage of copies tumbling off printer-plant conveyor belts. Stores reported overnight sellouts of their orders. Officialdom, Republicans and Democrats, spoke of the work as magisterial. David Brooks hailed its “moral aura” on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The President himself—at one time he not only had declined an invitation to answer the Commission’s questions but had opposed the Commission’s creation—praised the work as “very constructive,” and he and the Vice President commenced citing it in speeches; so did John Kerry. By mid-August, 630,000 copies, priced to move at $10, had been sold.
Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t let anyone silence you simply by calling you a name like “Conspiracy Theorist.”

You can guarantee it.

In case you couldn’t tell, I picked this song for two reasons. It’s really long. Both books are “thick as a brick,” and about as useful as one. Ha Ha. Thank you to Michael Wolsey and Justin Martell for helping me to make this video. You may have to pause on occasion. With regards to the cover-up of 9/11, there is so much information. I had to reluctantly remove a lot of clips. Almost enough to make another movie. Thanks to www.historycommons.org. Please spread this video far and wide, and vote it up at youtube. Thank you.

In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of the 9/11 attacks.

A long time ago, I corresponded with Larry Johnson in the hopes of getting him on “our” side. You can read that correspondence here. - Jon

Source: timesonline.co.uk

Sarah Baxter
12/23/2007

THE CIA chief who ordered the destruction of secret videotapes recording the harsh interrogation of two top Al-Qaeda suspects has indicated he may seek immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying before the House intelligence committee.

Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA’s clandestine service, is determined not to become the fall guy in the controversy over the CIA’s use of torture, according to intelligence sources.

It has emerged that at least four White House staff were approached for advice about the tapes, including David Addington, a senior aide to Dick Cheney, the vice-president, but none has admitted to recommending their destruction.

Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, said it was impossible for Rodriguez to have acted on his own: “If everybody was against the decision, why in the world would Jose Rodriguez – one of the most cautious men I have ever met – have gone ahead and destroyed them?”
Read the rest of this entry »

Yet again, we experience Deja Vu’ with this Administration blocking efforts to investigate something with regard to 9/11. I’m reminded of Able Danger. I’m reminded of Sibel Edmonds. I’m reminded of THE ATTACKS THEMSELVES. - Jon

Source: news.yahoo.com

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Sat Dec 15, 6:25 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The controversy over destroyed CIA interrogation tapes is shaping up as a turf battle involving the courts, Congress and the White House, with the Bush administration telling its constitutional coequals to stay out of the investigation.

The Justice Department says it needs time and the freedom to probe the destruction of hundreds of hours of recordings of two suspected terrorists. After Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused congressional demands for information Friday, the Justice Department filed late-night court documents urging a federal judge not to begin his own inquiry.
Read the rest of this entry »

Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont)

By Jon Gold
11/18/2007

“The two questions that the congress will not ask, because republicans wont allow it, is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama Bin Laden cornered why didnt they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions these questions would have been asked years ago.”

That was said on 9/29/2006 by Senator Patrick Leahy on the Amy Goodman show.

The 2006 Elections came and went, and the Democrats won the majority in both the House and Senate.

In January of 2007, vt911.org “working through the fall and early winter gathered more than 1,350 signatures — 5 percent of the city’s registered voters — to put an advisory question about 9/11 on the city’s Town Meeting Day ballot.” The question on the ballot would have asked for “a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation that fully addresses the many questions surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001.”

Before the vote was even decided on, Senator Patrick Leahy decided that he wouldn’t support it regardless of the outcome saying that he “respects the work and the findings of the 9/11 Commission. Their report was highly critical of the failures and miscues they discovered, and they recommended a wide range of reforms. Since then, some have come up with their own theories, and that’s always the case after major events like this. The 9/11 Commission’s report remains the most credible, the most thorough and the most constructive investigation that has been undertaken about those attacks.”

I’m sorry to say that the vote was lost. Nice effort though.

On November 3, 2007, at the “9/11: Families, First Responders, & Experts Speak Out Symposium”, Patty Casazza revealed that “whistle-blowers” approached the “Jersey Girls” during the 9/11 Commission Hearings in the hopes that they would get the 9/11 Commission to subpoena them. Reason being, they saw what was happening to Sibel Edmonds, and were afraid to come forward. She claims that the information these people possess show that this Government knew the day, the type of attack, and the targets. She also claims the 9/11 Commission promised that each “whistle-blower” would be mentioned in the 9/11 Report. They were not. So much for “the most thorough and the most constructive investigation that has been undertaken about those attacks.”

As was mentioned, the Democrats won the majority in both the House and the Senate. On 9/29/2006, Senator Patrick Leahy’s excuse as to why no questions about 9/11 would be tolerated was “because republicans wont allow it.”

My question to Senator Patrick Leahy is…

Who won’t allow it now?

Jon Gold
8/24/2007

The 9/11 Commission’s mandate is/was as follows:

The Commission’s mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.

Specifically, Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 requires the Commission to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.

Here is a partial list of things omitted from the 9/11 Report:

• Sibel Edmonds’ testimony
• John M. Cole’s testimony
• Bogdan Dzakovic’s testimony
• Behrooz Sarshar’s testimony
• Melvin A. Goodman’s testimony
• Gilbert Graham’s testimony
• Coleen Rawley’s testimony
• Robert Wright’s testimony

As I said, that’s just a “partial list” of things omitted from the 9/11 Report. There is A LOT This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the 9/11 Commission failed its’ mandate to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the 9/11 attacks. This is reason enough alone to reopen the investigation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Also, it has recently been discovered that “the CIA has edited entries on many issues relating to the United States Government, including presidential biographies and descriptions of military operations.” - Jon

Source: news.com.au

August 24, 2007 12:55am

THE Prime Minister’s staff have been editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the Government.

Staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made 126 edits on subjects ranging from the children overboard affair to the Treasurer Peter Costello, Fairfax reports.

A new website - Wikiscanner - traces the digital fingerprints of those who make changes to entries in the online encyclopedia.

The website points to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as the source of the edits.

Wikiscanner also identifies Department of Defence employees as the most prolific Wikipedia contributors in Australia.

Wikipedia is promoted as the “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”.

The Department of Defence yesterday said it would ban defence staff from accessing the encyclopedia.

Defence computers were found to have made more than 5000 edits to Wikipedia entries, including articles to the “9/11 truth movement”, the Australian Defence Force Academy and the Vietnam War-era Pentagon papers.