All 32 entries tagged 911

Paper in Open Chemical Physics Journal: Evidence of explosive demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11

Evidence that the World Trade Center Twin Towers were destroyed by explosive demolition has been published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Interview with 2 contributors:

http://visibility911_drjones0309.mp3

: 04 Apr 2009 15:52 |  Tags: 911 Chemical Investigation Journal News Peer-Reviewed Physics Politics Video |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

David Davis' Reply

Follow-up to Letter to David Davis MP from Jack's blog

Dear Mr Morgan,



I have had a think about the e-mail you sent me.  Whilst the subject is
undoubtedly extremely important, I do think it is just a bit too wide
for me to incorporate into my campaign.



Yours sincerely,



David Davis 

: 15 Oct 2008 12:54 |  Tags: 77 911 Ahmed David Davis Inquiry Investigation Meacher Michael Nafeez Politics |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Letter to David Davis MP

Dear Mr. Davis,

We spoke after the Observer debate “Is Liberty in Peril?” During the Q&A I asked the panel whether they would support a new international criminal investigation into the 9/11 attacks considering that;

1. The alleged lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta was wired $100,000 on the orders of General Mahmoud Ahmed, head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

2. Many alleged hijackers were hosted at institutions run by the US military:

Ahmed al-Nami, Ahmed al-Ghamdi and Saeed al-Ghamdi stayed at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. The latter also attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. Abdul Aziz Alomari attended Brookes Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Also, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who had the most obvious ties to extreme militant Islamic groups, rented an apartment from, and lived with, an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, from September until December 2000.

When we spoke you expressed uncertainty over a new investigation into 9/11 but confirmed that you support an inquiry into the July 7th 2005 bombings in London. It will be crucial, should you campaign loudly for this cause, that you focus on the following issue:

Haroon Rashid Aswat, the man identified by US counter-terrorism officials as the mastermind of 7/7, having had regular phone contact with the alleged bombers, and having visited their home towns as well as selecting the targets in London, turns out to have been working for British intelligence. John Loftus, president of the International Intelligence Summit and a former Justice Department federal prosecutor, has noted that while British police have ostensibly been chasing after Aswat, another “wing of the British government, MI6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him”. Following 7/7, Aswat was arrested in Pakistan but was released within 24 hours. He then made it to Zambia, where he was deported on 7 August 2005 and arrested by British police on a US warrant. But while he has been extradited to the US on charges of setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon in 1999 (Loftus claims that the Justice Department ordered authorities not to touch Aswat at the time this was originally discovered), the Associated Press reported that Scotland Yard “were not interested in speaking to Aswat about the London attacks”.

Mr. Davis, we must address the systematic appeasement and outright protection of known terrorists in any debate about our civil liberties in this highly manipulated “War on Terror”. We are being asked to accept unprecedented state power in the face of massive civil disempowerment when existing laws and protocols created to apprehend terrorists are systematically and quite deliberately not being enforced.

I would really appreciate a committal response to my suggestion that you twin a campaign for an inquiry into 7/7 with one for a re-examination of 9/11 and the “War on Terror” it unleashed. I hope that unlike other politicians who have been contacted about this (e.g. William Hague) you do not simply cite the 2004 9/11 Commission Report as a definitive investigation. On page 172 of the report the following statement is made:

“To date the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.”

This is unconscionable. The Times of India, the Asia Times, India Today, The Wall Street Journal, Agence France Presse, The Australian, and the Federal News Service all reported Omar Sheikh’s $100,000 donation to Mohammad Atta at the behest of the ISI’s Mahmoud Ahmed. Michael Meacher MP commented on the nature of Atta’s funding in a Guardian article mainly focussing on the issues surrounding 7/7 that I have outlined, “Britain now faces its own blowback”. He cited Dennis Lormel, the head of the FBI financial crime section, as his source.

I recommend that you contact Michael Meacher for further discussion and clarification of the reasons why the war on terrorism is “bogus”, as he boldly put it in another article in 2003. I understand that Mr. Meacher has been in contact with Yukihisa Fujita of the Democratic Party of Japan to discuss ways of raising consciousness of the need for a new investigation into 9/11 amongst politicians across the globe and across the political spectrum.

If in doubt about the legitimacy of the concerns I have raised in this letter, I recommend you consult the well-sourced work of Nafeez Ahmed (whose book on the London Bombings I gather you already possess). And talk
with Mr. Meacher. I hope that a cross-party war on error can soon be waged in Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Morgan

: 30 Jul 2008 15:59 |  Tags: 77 911 Ahmed David Davis Inquiry Investigation Meacher Michael Nafeez |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

BBC Conspiracy Files Program on WTC Building 7: a review

Last Sunday evening I tuned in to BBC2’s new Conspiracy Files program, “The Third Tower”. This promised to solve the “final mystery” of 9/11: World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing symmetrically, at freefall pace, into its own footprint at 5.20 pm in the exact manner of a controlled demolition. Having flipped straight over from the Wimbledon men’s final, a bewildering display of physical ability, I found that the BBC program’s intellectual dishonesty, another kind of sport, was yet another assault on the senses.

The program was comparatively more generous in airing the concerns of the 9/11 Truth Movement than the previous BBC Conspiracy Files piece on 9/11 had been (which, amongst other things, conflated 9/11 “conspiracy theorism” unsubtly with anti-Semitism), giving time to representatives from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as physics professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University. But like its predecessor, Sunday night’s program exhibited such extreme levels of bias, misrepresentation, omission and factual inaccuracy that a tape copy ought to be shipped to every school in the country for dissection in AS level Critical Thinking classes.

Bias

If it wasn’t already obvious from BBC’s first Conspiracy Files program about 9/11, then the Conspiracy Files website, blog posts from the producer Mike Rudin and BBC news stories confirmed the bias this new program would have against so-called “conspiracy theorists”, i.e. anyone who doesn’t agree that Building 7 is the “final mystery” of 9/11 and who thinks that this mystery has not been resolved by the government or the Popular Mechanics team who wrote 9/11 Lies (and were the principals voice of authority in both the BBC and History Channel hit pieces on 9/11 “conspiracy theories”).

One Conspiracy Files webpage presents us with a ridiculous, pseudo-scientific conspiracy test devised by psychologist Dr Patrick Leman “to see how conspiratorial you are.”

There was a particular incident between the first 9/11 program and “The Third Tower” that seems to have contributed to a worsening of relations between the BBC and “conspiracy theorists”. The discovery early last year of BBC World footage in which their reporter announces the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurs (she is even standing in front of the New York skyline with the building in view behind her) caused a defensive and muddleheaded response from the head of news, Richard Porter. Porter took to heart the minority of accusations that BBC were “part of a conspiracy” and didn’t grasp the importance of the question of what source claimed WTC7 had already collapsed. This persecution complex arising from a lack of appreciation for the relevance and gravity of the issue seems to have further galvanised the BBC into a defensive position away from “conspiracy theorists”, making it difficult to rely on them to approach legitimate questions in a balanced way.

“We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.”

At the time of these revelations Porter dismissed the idea that the BBC received press releases in advance of events happening as a wild theory. But in the program on Sunday he produces an email confirming that the news service Reuters had indeed issued a press release. The new BBC program thankfully emphasises that no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fire and damage, let alone asymmetrical and sporadic fire and damage, but the BBC’s bias and wariness against “conspiracy theorists”, who they now see as their persecutors, caused them to simplify the issue into “these nutters accuse us of being handed scripts from the government!” In reality the premonitory Reuters report starkly demonstrates the effect of a concerted top-down generation of chatter that WTC7 would definitely be coming down. Of course, the collapse of the twin towers that morning – supposedly the first ever steel-framed buildings to have fully collapsed with no controlled demolition involved – made the imminent collapse of a third skyscraper psychologically more plausible.

What makes the BBC biased and unreliable is that rather than expressing their support of the official version of events after a rigorous, honest exploration and criticism of the relevant evidence, their method is demonstrably favourable to official theories by means of careful selection, omission and misrepresentation of facts, footage and personalities.

Misrepresentation

1. The film Loose Change: Final Cut is introduced as a big-screen blockbuster. The narrator notes slyly, “conspiracies have become big business”. Anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement will be painfully aware of how false this assessment is. I have been to one of the 10 or so screenings that there were in the UK, in a Notting Hill Picture House cinema. There were less than 10 people in attendance. The film screening shown in the program is an independently organised event, as Loose Change has not enjoyed a major distribution deal. At one stage it looked like it might be backed by billionaire, Mark Cuban, but this would have involved handing over editorial rights. The film-makers’ refusal to do this surely shows that they place the integrity of their message over money. On the 5th anniversary of 9/11 they handed out several thousand free t-shirts and free DVDs at their vigil and protest at the WTC site. They do not own mansions but live together in a trailer in rural upstate New York.

The young men who created Loose Change can be criticised on many accounts, both in terms of the content of working edits of their film and their untrained media approach (e.g. the clip of Dylan Avery swearing in Sunday night’s program). But implying that they are motivated by money is a clearly biased and unfounded swipe. Meanwhile, the program doesn’t go into the details of arguments concerning the massive amounts of money made as a direct result of 9/11. To take one example, the program mentions that Larry Silverstein insured the twin towers 2 months before the attacks (they probably should have spelt out that this is when he acquired them, and that this was the first time they had been handed over from public Port Authority property to private property) but doesn’t show how much profit he made from the insurance payouts. Silverstein Properties, who had already leased, developed and insured WTC Building 7 in 1980 (BBC cites this as a reason not to suspect Silverstein), in partnership with Westfield America, acquired a 99 year lease for WTC One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center seven weeks before 9/11. The price was $3.2 billion – Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money. Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance payouts for the destruction of the World Trade Center, having fallen short of acquiring the $7.2 billion he was pursuing. He had insisted that the two plane crashes represented two separate “occurrences”, as worded in the insurance plan, and therefore constituted grounds for claiming double the insurance payouts already offered. He escaped death on September 11th 2001 because he had a doctor’s appointment.

2. Whilst on the topic of Silverstein, the second misrepresentation to note is the tight edit of Silverstein’s “pull it” statement, taken from the PBS documentary “America Rebuilds”, aired in 2002. Many people have taken Silverstein’s comment as a forced/muddled explanation that Building 7 was brought down deliberately, but it is difficult to know exactly what the statement means, as in the original documentary we don’t hear what question is posed to Silverstein. [media]http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=5383965[/media]

“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. So they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

The BBC edited this clip so that it cuts just before “and then we watching the building collapse”. As an agnostic (among many) on the meaning and relevance of Silverstein’s comment, I ask how we can possibly come to a fair and well-considered conclusion on the issue when the BBC kills the debate by narrowing the context of “pull it”, deliberately cutting out “and then we watched the building collapse”. They also don’t make the point that “pull” is often used in demolition language – particularly in reference to the cruder method of literally pulling buildings down with external machinery rather than installing explosives – an impression that Silverstein may have wanted to give in a preliminary cover story. On top of this, when the BBC conclude that Silverstein was referring to a decision to “pull” the firemen out of the building (this is what a Silverstein representative explained in a press release a while after the PBS program), they ignore the fact that fires were not fought at all in Building 7 that afternoon, as noted by FEMA’s Building Performance Study: “Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.” Then they show no recognition of the fact that their own interview with the Fire Chief, Daniel Nigro, indicates that Silverstein’s “pull it” conversation was fabricated. “We don’t need to ask permission from the owner, no. When we’re in charge of the building, we’re in charge and that decision would be the fire chief and his alone.” Why no follow-up interview with Silverstein? He has recently refused to make a comment when prompted by activists, so why won’t the BBC use their investigative muscle?

3. The BBC repeatedly infer that a large portion of the 9/11 Truth Movement believe the New York Fire Department were complicit in a conspiracy to demolish WTC7. This is nonsense. As with the BBC and their premonitory report of WTC7’s collapse 20 minutes in advance, the firemen were compartmentalised and fed alarming as well as fuzzy information from the top-down. After the events of the morning, anxiety about a third skyscraper collapse was massaged into certainty by the information that trickled down. In the cases where firemen express knowledge that Building 7 was going to “blow up”, as I will show in the “omission” section, this does not represent complicity. The notion was presumably that WTC7 was being brought down deliberately in a makeshift demolition, not one that had been pre-arranged (this is perhaps what Silverstein originally attempted to infer with the “pull it” story). As an anchor on CBS affiliate news station WUSA 9 commented after the collapse “We don’t even know whether this was something that was engineered for safety reasons or it just happened as a consequence of the two collisions this morning.”

4. The BBC’s interview with Barry Jennings, the man who became trapped in WTC7 that morning and experienced explosions, and the way they use it, chafes against his original account given in an earlier interview conducted by the makers of Loose Change. Jennings requested that this interview be excluded from Final Cut after he was allegedly threatened with losing his job, only a couple of years away from retirement (he is presumably employed by the federal government, given that he was working at the Office for Emergency Management in WTC7 before 9/11,). Because Jennings has now given an interview to BBC, the full original Loose Change interview has been released on the internet:

In this interview Jennings states clearly that the explosions he experienced in WTC7 occurred before either of the twin towers had collapsed. Yet the BBC frames Jennings’ testimony of explosions with footage of the South and North towers collapsing. A triumphant rhetorical question is then raised by the narrator: “early evidence of explosives or just debris from a falling skyscraper?” This is a totally unacceptable misrepresentation.

Later in the program, Jennings backs away from his original testimony that he was stepping over people in the WTC7 lobby (the firefighter accompanying him warning “don’t look down), as well as backing away from his originally incredulous response to the official explanation for WTC7’s collapse. The original Loose Change interview really speaks for itself. A condensed version is here, for the impatient.

Omission

Before the program aired I knew it was guaranteed that certain issues, footage, and potential interviewees would not be included.

One piece of footage I absolutely knew wouldn’t be aired is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

In the CNN clip we see firefighters retreating from Building 7, with one saying “It’s blowin’ boy.” ... “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” ... “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” ... “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

I was partially wrong to predict that this wouldn’t crop up at all. In the opening montage of the program, the following segment is included: “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon”. This is almost worse because it shows that the BBC team found this clip and watched it – and decided not to include the stuff about WTC7 being expected to “blow up”.

Another is this – an interview with one of the first responders on 9/11, Kevin McPadden, taken from a new documentary “The Elephant in the Room” by Dean Puckett:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho

McPadden describes hearing a demolition countdown over the radio of a Red Cross representative as well as experiencing ground-shaking explosions at the onset of WTC7’s collapse. The BBC could have arranged an interview with him.

Or how about interviewing Craig Bartmer, another first responder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uso9sCOakEQ

Or Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpdjPnewwDQ

The BBC instead select a single fireman, Lieutenant Frank Papalia, who complains that people who talk about WTC7’s demolition were not there that day and “have no respect for all the friends I lost…it’s like a slap in their face”. By careful selection and omission of key testimony and comment, the BBC monopolise the realm of first-hand experience to suit their bias and in the process stigmatise the 9/11 Truth Movement as an enemy of those affected most immediately by the attacks. Like the first Conspiracy Files program on 9/11, there is no mention of the fact that the movement is largely driven by victims’ families. 70% of their questions were never addressed by the 9/11 Commission. Bill Doyle, the head of the largest group of victims’ families in the USA, has stated that over half of the people he represents, as well as himself, believe 9/11 was an inside job. 9/11 Truth groups under the banner of We Are Change regularly campaign and fundraise for the plight of first responders and firemen who are now dying from respiratory diseases and cancers, having breathed the aerosolised concrete, glass, asbestos etc. at the WTC site. The same government that knowingly lied about the air being safe to breathe at the time so that Wall Street could reopen is now refusing to pay for treatment for these people.

Aside from their biased selection of one person who was there on 9/11 who supports the official version of events, out of so many others, the BBC also demonstrate biased selection in their choice of demolition expert to interview: Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Incorporated. They acknowledge that one demolition expert Danny Jowenko, was presented with footage of WTC7’s collapse and concluded that it was controlled demolition (they could have mentioned that he was also shown blueprints of the building) but they do not do a follow-up interview. Instead they say that “other demolition experts don’t agree”. Notice the plural. But only Mark Loizeaux is interviewed, somebody who is not likely to give an unbiased account, considering the fact that he is financially supported by government contracts (including the one to clean up the WTC site after 9/11).

Another major omission is represented by the lack of mention of the harassment and death threats received by 9/11 Truth advocates, in view of the fact that the BBC focuses on harassment suffered by Mark Loizeaux of CDI and Jane Standley of the BBC. If they are going to include the issue of harassment in the program, which is a serious matter whomever it affects, shouldn’t they have mentioned that the wife of the architect they interviewed, Richard Gage, has left him because of the frequency and severity of death threats they suffer as a result of his vocalisation of the evidence for controlled demolition of WTC1, 2 and 7? Or that Luke Rudowski, a young activist who appears briefly near the end, received particularly gruesome death threats over the phone after he protested outside the new Building 7, where Silverstein’s security tried to set Rudowski up as a terrorist?

Inaccuracy and incompetence

1. Even with the help of misrepresentation and omission to steer their government-sympathising narrative through the factual fog of “conspiracy theories”, BBC’s “The Third Tower” stumbles all over the place. At one point they cover Steven Jones’ analysis of dust samples, some of which were preserved on the day of 9/11, one within 20 minutes of the twin towers’ collapsing, letting him explain that this showed the presence of iron micro-spheres, proving that molten iron was produced and indicating the use of thermite, an incendiary used by the military and of which explosive sol-gels can be manufactured. Next they introduce NASA thermal images taken 5 days after 9/11, showing extremely hot temperatures under each WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 site, the latter being 727°C, along with reports of molten metal in the rubble. The narrator then offers “another explanation for the iron spheres. They could have come from cutting torches used after 9/11 to clear the site.” Only a minute before this the narrator told us that many of Jones’ dust samples was taken on the day of 9/11 when obviously no cutting torches were being used. The rescuing line “or any building work before (9/11)” is farcical. What building work? When? Enough to produce such a large quantity of molten iron that droplets were infused in the WTC dust? The narrator doesn’t even bother to follow up the next line about the presence of aluminium in Jones’ analyses (matching the signature of a thermite reaction) with any counter-explanation and the film cuts to Mark Loizeaux once more, who dismisses the idea of using thermite in the demolition of buildings.

2. I could provide more examples of how the program fails to formulate reasonable arguments against the evidence for controlled demolition, particularly when it comes to the free-fall speed of WTC7’s collapse into the path of greatest resistance (requiring the simultaneous failure of all support columns, supposedly from scattered fires and asymmetrical damage). But I will finish with an amusing – if less significant – example of how the producers of this program didn’t have their best thinking caps on. In their dramatisation of Barry Jennings’ experiences in WTC7 that morning, they accompany Jennings’ testimony that he received a call from one of his higher-ups, asking him where he was, with images of the actor playing Jennings answering the landline in the office. Duh. Are these BBC people really fit for the job?

Will the “Third Tower” unintentionally help the Truth Movement?

Although the BBC program must be condemned rather than praised in view of the bias and intellectual/editorial dishonesty I have shown only some of, the fact that this program was made at all should be seen as a victory for the 9/11 Truth Movement. For an entire hour on national television Building 7 has been discussed. The glazed eyes that tend to meet the statement “three towers collapsed on 9/11” may become a thing of the past. The program did some positive things, emphasising the unprecedented nature of the WTC collapses, showing a side-by-side comparison between WTC7 and an acknowledged demolition, and mentioning that all the steel was shipped immediately overseas before it could be analysed (though it didn’t mention that this is a federal crime). Many viewers will recognise how dodgy it all is and will see through the spin. My hope is that lots of engineers and physicists tuned in and will follow it up with some of their own research.

: 13 Jul 2008 00:51 |  Tags: 911 BBC Conspiracy Files Politics Video Wtc7 |  Comments (9) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Neo–Con General Calls For Terror Attacks In Iran

Follow-up to Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo–Con Agenda from Jack's blog

: 16 May 2008 17:55 |  Tags: 911 Iran Jundullah Mcinerney Mek Neocons Politics Rumsfeld Video |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo–Con Agenda

Former Defense Secretary's conversation with military analysts on political problems - "The correction For that, I suppose, is an attack"

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, May 16, 2008

: 16 May 2008 15:57 |  Tags: 911 Neocons Politics Rumsfeld |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Deseret News: 9/11 theorist not curtailing his research

Writing about web page http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html

A positive mainstream article (!) on Steven Jones' research into the 3 building collapses on 9/11 indicating the use of explosives, after he authored a paper published April 18 in a civil engineering journal.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html

: 04 May 2008 18:09 |  Tags: 911 Jones Nist Politics Research Steven World-Trade-Center |  Comments (4) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Arizona Senator: I Want To Find Out The Truth About 9/11

State Sen. Karen Johnson explains why she went public with questions on 9/11

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Related: Outspoken Arizona Senator Questions 9/11 Official Version Of Events

An Arizona state Senator who went public with questions over the official government version of events on 9/11 has provided further details of her position and why she chose to make her views known.

"I guess I define myself as a truth seeker, that is what I want, I want to find the truth." says Senator Karen Johnson, representative of Mesa’s District 18 for nearly two decades.

In an short interview (see video below), the Republican Senator explained that in the many in the Arizona legislature have privately told her they agree with her position but are too afraid or are unable to start asking the same questions themselves. Johnson echoed her previous statements when she told Capitol reporters "There are many of us that believe there's been a cover-up."

"There are so many unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and there never ever would have even been a Commission called for by Mr Bush and the Federal Government if it hadn't have been for the Jersey Girls." Johnson said, referring to the activist group of widowed mothers and wives from New Jersey and New York who have continued to question the events of 9/11.

"When Bush appointed Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head up that Commission, those Jersey Girls asked for a press conference with him. They went in there and started asking him about all his ties with the Bin Laden family... and he backed down." She continued.

Senator Johnson was attacked by the media for voicing her questions over 9/11 last week in the midst of a controversial debate concerning a 9/11 memorial in Arizona which contains phrases and thoughts of residents there.

The Arizona state Senate voted on legislation concerning what sort of remembrance phrases the 9/11 Memorial should include. The legislation would have extracted some locutions that were critical of the U.S. and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee had the measure passing narrowly - until it came to Johnson, whose vote against changing the memorial's phrases created a tie, killing the legislation for now.

As Johnson explains in the video, the monument was privately funded, placed on privately owned land with no State involvement. Therefore, in her opinion, the State should not claim authority over what appears on the monument, and should not claim to preside over people's opinions of the 9/11 attacks.

As shown in the video below, some of the phrases also hint at government prior knowledge of the attacks and the backing off of the intelligence agencies in the months prior to 9/11. Thanks to Karen Johnson these will remain on the monument for now.

"Who are we as a legislature to tell these private folks what they can and can't do with that monument?" Johnson commented.

Watch the Interview with Karen Johnson:

Sen. Johnson is renowned for her outspoken politics and devotion to the US constitution.

However, she will not continue in office after this year despite serving nearly two decades, because as she explains:

"I can't handle serving any longer with the folks that I sit with... The majority of them are more worried about passing a bill about talking on your cell phone as you go down the freeway than the fact that our country is falling down around us."

: 30 Apr 2008 13:02 |  Tags: 911 Arizona Politics Senator Video |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

UN Human Rights Official Wants Investigation Into US Government Role In 9/11

John Bolton: "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council."

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, April 10, 2008

An official in the newly formed UN Human Rights Council has called for a fresh investigation into the events of 9/11 in order to examine the possible role that neoconservatives may have played in the attacks.

The New York Sun picked up the story today, explaining that Richard Falk, a professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights was assigned to a new position within the council on March 26.

His role is to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

Two days prior to the announcement, Falk appeared on former University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett's radio show and spoke of how he is keen to see a fresh investigation into 9/11 in order to address inconsistencies in the official account of what happened.

Mr. Falk told Barrett, "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."

Falk previously penned the preface to Professor David Ray Griffin's groundbreaking 2004 book The New Pearl Harbor, in which the theologian catalogued scores of unexplained facets surrounding 9/11 and inconsistencies in the official government version of events.

Falk has also published a number of notable books and essays analyzing the legality of the Vietnam War and other military operations, including the Iraq invasion.

A year ago he played a prominent role in a Citizens' hearing on the legality of the Iraq War as a tribunal testifier. Of the Invasion he has previously written:

"inescapable that an objective observer would reach the conclusion that this Iraq war is a war of aggression, and as such, that it amounts to a Crime against Peace of the sort for which surviving German leaders were indicted, prosecuted and punished at the Nuremberg trials conducted shortly after the Second World War."

Falk's appointment to the Human Rights Council has also hit headlines due to the fact that he has previously slammed the Israeli occupation of Palestine and compared the Zionist government's treatment of Palestinian Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews in the holocaust.

The Israeli government announced Tuesday that it will deny Falk a visa to enter Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Despite this and the now customary attacks from the Anti-Defamation League, Falk has stood by his comments, telling the BBC: "If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison,"

The New York Sun reports that former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton commented on Falk's recent appointment to the Human Rights Council: "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council."

Bolton is clearly worried that like Falk, some of the officials within the council are legal experts that recognize war crimes when they see them and may actually attempt to do something about it.

Last month Japanese member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita told the Alex Jones Show that a potential new investigation of the 9/11 cover-up may be coordinated by individuals within the United Nations.

: 11 Apr 2008 10:55 |  Tags: 911 Investigation Politics Un |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Alleged Hijacker Booked On Post–9/11 Flights

Alleged Hijacker Booked On Post-9/11 Flights
Astounding FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report as CIA veteran Robert Baer calls for investigation to be re-opened

: 29 Feb 2008 11:45 |  Tags: 911 Al-Ghamdi Fbi Hamza War-On-Terror |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem