9/11 blasts still echo in tangled files

A report based upon released police files gives details of what cops saw and felt inside and oustide the towers. Please read it at
http://911science.blogspot.com

BTW, the police records detailing the many explosions in the twin towers were made available to the New York Times, CNN and national media in general. But, somehow they missed what was right in front of their noses in black and white. Somehow there wasn't anybody noticing.

UPDATE June 4 02: Sunday's lead in the Tennessean said something close to: "Plot's fatal flaw: jet fuel."

The head was referring to the fact that the miserable little conspiracy to ignite stored jet fuel at John F. Kennedy airport on Long Island would not have yielded a 9/11-scale catastrophe, as the reputed plotters had hoped. An FBI agent told the press that ignited jet fuel could not have yielded enough explosive power to obtain such catastrophic results as envisioned.

One may suppose that the plotters were misled by the widespread impression, fostered by media misinformation and propaganda, that jet fuel was sufficient to bring down the twin towers. It should be noted that jet fuel is designed to burn at a temperature that won't melt fuel tanks and also not to burn too rapidly. So, while it is excellent stuff for motivating planes, it isn't a terribly efficient explosive.

For more on the jet fuel issue, please see
Thumbnail of NIST's 9/11 theory
http://kryptograff.blogspot.com

Murdoch's cavemen versus science

"The Assault on Reason" is the title of Al Gore's analysis of the media's role in a political climate that seems to increasingly pander to the irrational side of human nature.

A good example of that is the journalists and commentators working for Fox News and other Murdoch media who publicly excoriate experts as "nutty", "loopy" and "wingnuts" if they question official claims about 9/11.

Many of the people making these claims are university professors, and a number of them are mathematicians and physicists. Yet their detractors in the Murdoch newsrooms don't know the difference between the Pythagorean theorem and a regression line. Ask them who David Hilbert was, and they'll say "David who?"

Bring up the topic of mathematics or physics and every one of them will say, "Oh, I don't know anything about math."

Ask them to calculate the minimum time it takes for a stone to drop from 400 meters up, and they'll respond, "I'm a journalist, not a numbers guy."

Yet, they feel they have the right to belittle and humiliate people who are competent to do the math and the physics.

Bush media ally in red scare

George Bush's best media pal, Rupert Murdoch, is on the defensive in a burgeoning controversy over communist influence in his media decisions.

The Financial Times reports that Murdoch, head of News Group, which owns Fox News, told the press that he was innocent of ordering his editors to do things that pleased China's communist rulers in furtherance of his business ambitions.

Journalists at the Wall Street Journal's Beijing bureau warned in a May 10 letter to the Journal's owners that Murdoch was a notorious communism appeaser, and others have cited various instances of what they see as Murdoch's subversion of news in favor of communist censorship.

Many on the Journal's staff are urging the owning Bancroft family to reject Murdoch's bid for Dow Jones, which owns the Journal.

A Murdoch takeover of Dow Jones would give Chinese communists powerful influence over U.S. economic interests, some fear. Financial news and data companies, such as Dow Jones, Reuters and Bloomberg, are major components of the nervous systems of the U.S. and global economies.

Some worry that a communist-friendly Journal would tone down and bury stories on the U.S.-China trade gap and currency issue or on Chinese nuclear espionage against America.

The communism uproar around Murdoch is ironic in that his media, in whatever country, portray themselves as superpatriotic and hurl charges of disloyalty against critics. Murdoch's media troops, aside from reportedly shielding reds from too much unfavorable news, also engage in scathing attacks on those who charge that 9/11 was an inside job.

Murdoch's Fox News has been cited as a principle reason that so many Americans were deceived by White House innuendos linking Saddam to 9/11.

See the Znewz1 report: Fox News: Trumpet of Israel's hard right
http://www.angelfire.com/az3/nfold/rupert.html

or Google "Fox News: trumpet"

for background concerning Murdoch's China dealings.

Gore sees Bush as 9/11 fiend

In his latest book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore casts a harsh spotlight over what he sees as George Bush's treacherous behavior during the 9/11 crisis.

Gore quotes Richard Clark, then the White House terrorism chief, as saying that on Sept. 12 Bush was pressuring him to pin the blame for the attacks on Iraq, despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence system knew this to be a false charge.

Gore then says that Bush quickly started tying Saddam to the attacks via sound-bite innuendo, demonstrating that Bush knew he was using callous deception in order to exploit the tragedy for his crazed purposes.

The former vice president decries the de facto censorship concerning 9/11 and other major issues, blaming power-hungry monopolists in control of a debased media system. This system suits lowball Bush propaganda tactics, says Gore.

A reader is left to wonder why Bush was more interested in establishing a fairy tale about who was responsible than about being absolutely sure who carried out the attacks. Gore is suggesting that Bush didn't really care who was behind the attacks.

So is Gore hinting that Bush's suspicious behavior during the 9/11 crisis implies something really sinister? Gore doesn't go that far, and yet he is plain about his estimate of Bush's potential for evil.

Gore's commentary differs from George Tenet's recollections of the period soon after the attacks, in which the ex-CIA chief claimed that Bush wasn't yet hopped up about Iraq. However, Bush's attitude seems plausible in light of Tenet's claim that then Pentagon adviser Richard Perle left a White House huddle very soon after the attacks and was ready to blame Iraq.

Giuliani: trade center 'implosion' was bizarre

Rudolph Giuliani says the collapses of the twin World Trade Center towers struck him as strange.

Asked during a CSPAN broadcast whether he expected the towers to fall, the former longterm mayor and former federal prosecutor replied:

"Yeah, but not the way they did. It occurred to us that they might ultimately collapse over -- the way buildings usually collapse, which is in stages.

"It looked like at some point the top of the building would come off, and then maybe the middle of the building, and then maybe there'd be a shell left -- the way Number 7 came down at 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon over a period of time.

"But the idea that it would implode, the implosion that took place, I actually did not realize that until much later."

Giuliani said he was inside the police command post when the towers fell.
Later he saw a televised broadcast of a collapsing tower.

"It was a shock to see it just implode like that," the GOP presidential candidate said on April 19, weeks before he accused rival Ron Paul of seeking to blame American policy for the attacks. Paul has recently said that he believes a 9/11 coverup of incompetence took place but asserts that there is no evidence of U.S. government complicity in the attacks.

Giuliani's comments may be found on YouTube.

Giuliani's reference to a supposed slow, graduated fall of the 47-story building 7 conflicts with video footage available on the internet, which shows a very rapid and complete fall. However, internet video footage is not always reliable, because of data compression problems and possibly because of tampering.

Seismographs recorded 18 seconds of shaking during WTC7's collapse, as opposed to 8 and 10 seconds for each twin tower.

[Crockett Grabbe, an Iowa physics professor, corrected a reporting error of mine. See his comment below.]

The political ramifications of 9/11 suspicion are heating up, with the Rocky Mountain News' editorialist claiming that the 9/11 truth movement is a plot by Marxist professors. The paper is following in the footsteps of Fox News commentators who have been trying to equate suspicion of the government with lack of patriotism and leftism.

The News lashed out at Howard Zinn, a radical professor who has said that 9/11 skeptic David Ray Griffin's observations deserve further investigation, charging that it was people like Zinn who were responsible for the results of a recent poll that showed that a third of Democrats believed George Bush knew about the attacks in advance.

In fact, there has been a strong current in the far left opposing taking 9/11 skepticism seriously. Radical writer Noam Chomsky has urged the left to avoid the issue, Alexander Cockburn's leftwing magazine Counterpunch has run articles trying to substantiate the official claims and the progressive magazine The Nation ran a cover story with a headline that equated 9/11 skepticism with paranoia.

Though 9/11 skepticism may be unwelcome to some presumed public opinion molders, the topic appears to be emerging as a potent political issue in the presidential primary campaigning.

The "inside job" wrangle has at least one precedent in U.S. history: the controversy over Soviet penetration of the U.S. government during and after World War II. Released CIA and KGB files essentially confirm that extensive higth-level Soviet penetration of the government occurred, one of the results being far-too-rapid Soviet development of the atomic bomb.

More recently, China's development of a lighter-weight nuclear weapon was attributed to an inside job in the weapons laboratories, though a scientist "suspect" has never been charged in that matter. In fact, after 9/11, CIA and FBI resources for countering communist inside jobs were redirected toward Islamic radicalism. "The heat was off" communist networks in the U.S. government.

Cop recalls trade center explosions

Before World Trade Center 1 collapsed, a series of explosions ripped through the upper floors, according to a policeman who was at the scene on 9/11.

After WTC2 fell, says a Port Authority police memorandum dated Dec. 9, "periodically you would hear a loud boom from the top" of the north tower. The memo, signed by Officer Middleton, said that following a loud boom from upper floors was a series of smaller explosions which "appeared to go completely around the building" at upper floors.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology dealt with these smaller explosions by suggesting -- without vouching for the suggestion -- that falling debris from within the building had ejected belches of dust.

However, Middleton's account seems to indicate that the lesser explosions were loud enough to be heard from about 90 floors below.

Needed: subversive scientists

Yes, it's clear that the invisible government is moving heaven and earth to isolate academics and experts who are too accurate about 9/11.

Scientists, being human, rightly fear the "UFO effect," whereby even breathing certain words aloud is enough to cast a pall over a career. But, there must be a way to bypass those who engineer the taboos. Here's an idea:

Are you a concerned scientist frustrated by the silence of most experts over the preposterous claims of public officials concerning 9/11? Why not adopt a nom de plume and blog about what's wrong with government claims? It's the next best thing to going public.

Clearly your fellow scientists and engineers will tend to recognize your credentials simply from the blog content.

Now it's true the feds will be able to chase down your terminal and, unless you use special security measures, dope out your identity. But, they won't be able to share that info with your employer (at least, until they get really desperate).

You can send around an email to colleagues and peers giving a rough summary of your credentials and explaining the need for a pen name.

Sure, you'll get a lot of interference, harassment and negativity and feedback will be limited to a few token comments. But, if you're going to fight, then fight.

Carter denounces Bush
Jimmy Carter says Bush II has been the worst prez ever for American interests. Included on Carter's list of peeves is the policy of conveying federal billions to faith-based initiatives. No other president has ever so baldly blurred the difference between church and state, says Carter, who calls himself a traditional Southern Baptist.

Carter's blast can be seen as the unleashing of pent-up rage at what's been going on in America, I suggest. I think things are going to get a lot rougher as Democrats realize they can do something.

The invisible government is going to have a heck of a time trying to tame all these nostril-flared broncs and settle everything back to conspiracy, murder and intrigue as usual.

Behind the White House meltdown

Paul Wolfowitz, top mastermind of the Iraq war, is about to become yesterday's news. Alberto Gonzales might be able to hang by his fingertips a bit longer, but even if he stays (which ain't likely), his credibility and leadership are in shambles.

And there has been a mass exodus of the upper middle ranks of political appointees, it has been reported.

A group of House Republicans last week read Bush the riot act over the Iraq mess and expressed strong trepidation about the future of the GOP.

Something is fueling the fires leading to this meltdown. Of course, the Iraq fiasco is one of the logs on the bonfire. Yet, there is something else: Americans aren't merely dissatisfied with the war effort, they are baffled and many are enraged.

Why? Because the Fox/White House propaganda technique no longer is working all that well. More and more people know that they were sold a bill of goods by a group of neocons and their allies intent on war.

And, there is increasing awareness that there was something decidely fishy about the 9/11 attacks. Sure, corporate media and hacks of both major parties tend to ignore or scorn that point. Yet, all sorts of Americans, including many a public official, many a journalist, have a strong sense of what happened. These are fightin' mad people whose voices have been muzzled.

What do you think is likely to happen when you get a whole bunch of gagged but incensed people? Not allowed to hit with brass knuckles? OK, they'll pick up baseball bats. Not allowed to get down to the nitty gritty about 9/11? Then other issues will just have to do-- such as the abuse of power that stemmed from the 9/11 power-grab.

Hillary's 9/11 gambit

Billary knows that 9/11 treason is a top issue among Democrats, with one in three willing to state publicly a belief that 9/11 was a gigantic stab in the back.

Remember, we're in primary season and as the highly seasoned Clintons know, a wedge issue can make the difference between winner and losers in state primaries.

On the other hand, it is plain as the nose on your face that the corporate media do not like this wedge issue and are trying to ignore or delegitimize it. A certain contingent of Israelophiles seems to think that too much emphasis on whodunit is bad for Israel. And that contingent makes sure Democrats sense that position.

Hillary of course feels a need to pander to what is perceived as Jewish block voting -- though that phenomenon is no longer as airtight as in the past -- as can be seen by her statement that Iran is becoming a menace to both the United States and Israel.

But on the other hand playing too dumb on 9/11 is liable to shave off a significant portion of votes, with a come-from-behind Kucinich grabbing many of the votes of the 9/11 truth element. He has said he plans to hold hearings on a couple of specific holes in the government 9/11 account -- but which holes, I don't know.

Hence, here comes Billary: we're doing something about 9/11 cover-up... except that it's the easy thing to investigate: bureaucratic mishandling of the issue of the toxic cloud over Manhattan.

Of course, if Clinton and co-prober Rep. Jerry Nadler could somehow show that the coverup of the poison-gas effect was part of a larger intelligence system plot, perhaps we'd see some real change. Fat chance.

Of course the 9/11 treason issue is ensnarled in Iraq war politics. Despite the Senate's rebuff of a Democratic measure to limit war funding, anything can happen in this matter. Bush felt the need to appoint a "war czar" (many generals ducked the White House call) to try to save his administration. But, again, no telling what might happen. Everything is fluid. Impeachment of Bush and Cheney are not off the table yet. Republicans will back such a move if one more thing goes wrong, for sure. It's the Dems who oppose impeachment... But, anything goes...

BTW, some senators balked at the Dem war fund cutoff on grounds that support would have been "irresponsible." However, what do you call playing dumb about 9/11 treason? Responsible?

Wolfowitz is getting the bounce from the World Bank. A woman brought him down, they say. Yet there is another potential factor in the desire to dissociate from him: his role as a Pentagon hawk who has to be among the top suspects in the coverup of 9/11 treachery, and possibly in the advance plotting.

NOTE on previous post: So what do you think, few read this blog and of those who do, either none feel censored or if a few do, they don't feel like responding to my query? Or do you think that positive replies are blocked?

I happen to know excerpts from this blog often are posted by others, only to be quickly blocked by search engines. I am not the only person complaining of this problem. For example, the Israeli politician who writes the Samsonblinded blog has also complained of international net censorship imposed because of the writer's beliefs (which I neither oppose nor endorse).

Do you think you've been censored?

Have you experienced electronic interference activities, or other actions, that have the effect of censorship?

Please either post a comment or send me an email at the address above or one of my other addresses that you manage to locate. Be sure to note who benefits from the censorship.

"Paranoid" is an an easy put-down for such suspicions. However, I would point out that hacking of web sites and email for political reasons is in principle no different from the hacking of Diebold's no-paper-trail voting machines for political reasons.

Some may recall the televised Irancontra hearings. At first, the videotapes were supposed to be available for replay. That idea was quickly scotched. So the full hearings were broadcast by PBS, as I recall. However, whenever the testimony veered too close to the CIA and got really interesting, somebody "tripped" over a wire and cut off the audio or the broadcast was suddenly interrupted for a station break. This happened repeatedly.

Then, one day the witnesses discussed the details of the Israeli government's role in the affair, including the provision of landing sites and so forth. Next day, not one word about Israel appeared in any New York area newspaper.

So, we have examples of interference from two sources: the CIA and Israelophiles. It might be easy to blow me off as paranoid or anti-Semitic, but what happened is what happened.

Now let's be aware that the government could easily feel justified in running interference against me on grounds of national security. It could be said that the concern isn't protecting 9/11 traitors but the concern is to make it hard for me to help terrorists. That's not a stretch. After all, I did post on my other blog, http://kryptograff.blogspot.com, an easily-followed recipe for strong encryption.
Now, there's nothing illegal about that. But the Pentagon may say, yes, but it's sensitive information that we don't want generally disseminated.

From my experience observing black ops, I have noticed that the "machine" keeps working, even when the point of the operation no longer holds. (Welcome to the Army; in fact, welcome to Iraq.)

So once one has drawn the attention of these folks, a disruption operation may be mounted and simply continued on and on, evidently out of bureaucratic inertia and maybe because of some Captain Queeg syndrome on the part of lower-level ops people.

The media are controlled

Let's face it: the lid is on the media.

No matter how much we wish that stories exposing 9/11 treason would be published, in general that's not happening.

In fact, even small media like 911blogger aren't able to convey everything. Blockades are up.

Most of the posts on 9/11blogger are no threat to the conspirators. They are interesting, but unlikely to cause a collapse of the control clique. But even stuff that's a real threat isn't picked up by "the press."

That is, it's still a tough slog.

My point in writing this post is to caution others about being too trusting of certain 911truth sites. Even supposing those who run them are well intentioned, there is nothing to prevent a ruthless group in the intelligence system from causing major problems in these sites.

I don't mean to say, give up. No. Never surrender. But, be not only pure-hearted, be wise also.

The 9/11 truth squad idea is a good one. It will be necessary to spread the videos of candidate confrontations around the net.

Also, let's do what we can to encourage "minor" candidates who espouse the cause of 9/11 truth and justice.

Times are a-changing...

Palm Beach Post: U.S. hides 9/11 data

Five and a half years after the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department is still fighting to keep much information about the purported hijackers secret, according to the Palm Beach Post.

After a protracted legal wrangle, the Justice Department released 105 pages of FBI data to the newspaper -- but nearly all of that information had already been released via a congressional inquiry in 2003, the 9/11 commission in 2004 and the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, according to Eliot Kleinberg, writing for Saturday's editions.

The Cox newspaper has two appeals pending of Justice Department denials of Freedom of Information Act requests for FBI files concerning the 19 alleged hijackers, 15 of whom purportedly lived in South Florida, some reportedly training at flight schools there.

Among the scanty new details, the Post said, was a report that Waleed Alshehri and alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta each withdrew $100 from the same West Palm Beach ATM, Alshehri on June 8 and Atta on July 19. [I'm wondering if even that is new; I seem to recall something like that in the 9/11 commission report.]

NOTE: In the version of this blog that comes up on my screen, the link and comment icons are missing. Cute, huh?

NOTE 2: THIS JUST IN: A number of U.S. senators are demanding that the CIA stop hiding 9/11 data. A CIA inspector general's report on 9/11 has been suppressed, possibly because a number of high-level spooks were chastised.

Censored about 9/11 censorship

Around 1030 am CDT, I posted a blog query about censorship on 911blogger.com and-- guess what?--it hasn't appeared as of 620 pm CDT.

Additionally, a recent post of mine went missing and other posts could not be retrieved, despite showing up on the 911blogger search engine -- which is run by Google.

I had tried to ask others their experience with 9/11 censorship and noted that Yahoo and Google news and blog alerts had become increasingly useless, indicating heightened filtering of news.

Sure the censors can hide behind the notion that somebody at 911blogger made the decisions for technical, political or even personal reasons. But, who really benefits?
Government censors.

This also implies that 911blogger is being controlled by the feds, either willingly or unwillingly.

Well, what else can we expect? There is a big bunch of killers who can't afford for the public to become convinced that treason occurred.

Personally, I see this latest block as one of a myriad of things that have occurred to me indicating an intense desire by the control clique to keep me roped off. Recently, an ad of mine was deleted from Craigslist shortly after being posted, though there was nothing wrong with it.

Experience tells me that some kind of flimflam will next occur to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about and that all is well. Then, a short time later, the interference will occur again, though in slightly changed form.

Make a noose for killers out of purse-strings

John Edwards, following the lead of presidential rival Dennis Kucinich, is urging Americans to push Congress to cut war funding now.

Assuming that Congress knows damn well who pulled off 9/11 and used it to try to impose tyranny, we should also urge Congress to pull funds from those elements of the government that caused 9/11 and are fighting to cover it up.

Of course, they'll cry boo-hoo that the "war on terror" will go badly without their services. But, maybe it will go well. U.S. attorneys would be in a better position to prosecute traitors if those traitors weren't protected by clandestine armies.

9/11 propaganda shift at Fox?

Alan Colmes did something very peculiar recently. Despite a hail of vituperation and unfair tactics against a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, Colmes seemed to concede that World Trade Center 7 and other buildings were brought down in a controlled fashion for safety reasons.

Go to YouTube and search Colmes, Tarpley

Colmes, on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, played the video showing John Kerry saying that he believes WTC7 was brought down in a controlled fashion for reasons of safety. Colmes then went on to browbeat 9/11 conspiracy author Webster Tarpley and to accuse "wingnuts" of misprepresenting Kerry's words to mean that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

Murdoch's house liberal then argued that the fact that some buildings were demolished for safety reasons did not imply a conspiracy.

Well I don't know whether Colmes was pulling a fast one to get Kerry's statement past Murdoch, or whether a new propaganda line is emerging, whereby the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7 is conceded.

No doubt Colmes was countering some others at Fox News who had used the Kerry clip to suggest that "the crazies love him." Colmes was evidently trying to shield Kerry from being smeared as a "crazy." Still, despite all the spin, Kerry's words were broadcast.

I'm not sure whether Colmes knew or cared about the fact that the NIST has been saying publicly that it has found no evidence of controlled demolition of WTC7, even though its contract investigators have been granted permission to test the controlled demolition hypothesis.

But one wonders why Colmes doesn't ask why the NIST is wasting money on a still-incomplete probe of WTC7's collapse if people in government -- and, it seems, the press -- already know that demolition was done "for safety reasons."

The NIST is now in a pinch. If it has been pretending not to know that explosives were used for WTC7, why should anyone trust its conclusions about the twin towers?

Some claim that Kerry misspoke and that he was talking about WTC6, about which there is little controversy. Even if true, we can see that Colmes and others at Fox made virtually no effort to check the facts. It's all about spin.

Worthless Google 9/11 alerts
Google's 9/11 blog alerts have resumed, but the service has become transparently thin. There should be hundreds of posts, or at least scores, daily, but only two or three a day are arriving. They are largely uninformative.

Sure, maybe invisible standards have been changed. But why? Why is it necessary to make a useful service worthless?

Likewise, Google's 9/11 news alerts are bizarrely pared. Services that routinely were picked before are now bypassed. Again, news that's really bad for the conspirators rarely shows up. Normally, I find it by other means.

I suppose that those controlling this system believe that they will be exempt from prosecution as enemy combatants. But, one never should say never...

GOP to Bush: the party is pooped

The White House wishes to portray Tuesday's session with House Republicans as limited support for Bush's Iraq efforts.

The Republican moderates told him that if things didn't shape up by fall, the party would bolt him. They told him he was death to the party, that constituents were totally fed up and ticked off.

They told him they'd support some sort of Iraq war fund bill for now but, if the mideast situation didn't shape up fast, even that support would end. They certainly conveyed the thought to him that he had better beware too hasty a use of the veto pen.

They may have been terribly polite, but clearly the Republicans all would have been very happy had Bush and Cheney agreed to resign by sundown tomorrow.

Bush is facing a rough road now. If he's too veto-happy, there will be a showdown between the White House and the Democrats over who is pulling the rug out from under our troops. This then may well leave the Dems with little option but to move to impeach, though such an action would throw a monkey-wrench into Democratic presidential ambitions. However, the argument will be made that sometimes the good of the country really should come before personal ambition.

If the Democrats move to impeach, there is a strong likelihood of considerable GOP support.

Of course, newspapers aren't running "Resign now" editorials because either they are quietly betting on Clinton, Edwards or Obama, or they, like Murdoch, are fighting a rearguard action for the neocons.

Yet a recent poll has disclosed that nearly 60 percent of Americans favor Congress immediately cutting off war funds.

Murdoch implicates Israel in 9/11

There are quite a few telltale signs that the Israeli government had a covert hand in 9/11, but it's not so easy to conclude that this must be so. After all, any group clever enough to orchestrate such a fraud would be sure to scatter a bunch of false leads around.

However, the rising hysteria of Murdoch's crew to try to shame, browbeat and isolate people who see 9/11 as an inside job makes one wonder. Here is Murdoch, whose media have for years run interference for Israeli militants, also running interference for the 9/11 murderers by trying to shout down irrefutable facts proving an inside job -- by avoiding the facts and engaging in personal attacks against the man or woman. How does that look?

It looks as though Murdoch, a naturalized citizen, is working with his business colleague Baron Rothschild, the noted Zionist, to protect what are seen as Israeli interests.

True, no telling what Murdoch is really up to. But, his tactics certainly bring the neocon cause into disrepute and, by extension, cast a cloud over Israel's government.

Also, the Murdoch media's move to whip up diehard Bushites concerning the evil 9/11 truth backers serves Pentagon censors well. Now the Pentagon can use its ability to control "bad" computer sites and limit dissemination of 9/11 news while giving the impression that it's the whipped-up anti-9/11 crazies who are responsible. Cute, huh?

BTW, Murdoch hitman O'Reilly is blaming Soros for wickedly funding 9/11 truth activists. Gee, wish I could get some of that money. I have never received a dime for my work on 9/11 matters and, from what I can tell, there is a group which maneuvers behind the scenes to make sure I have nothing.

Really, O'Reilly is simply using a smear tactic to try to discredit the burgeoning 9/11 truth movement, which is largely a true American grassroots phenomenon. But, even if Soros did indeed channel money to some 9/11 truth groups, why shouldn't he?

The Murdoch press is also routinely accusing ultra-leftists of pushing for 9/11 truth and justice. However, 9/11 truth people have had to fight like the dickens against what appears to be a conspiracy in the left to ignore 9/11 truth.

Gee, with all those Wall Street Journal staffers signing an anti-Murdoch petition, do you think that maybe, just maybe, the paper, under its new editor, might start exposing some ugly facts concerning 9/11 coverups? I suppose that IS too much to ask.

Tenet's jibe at Rockefeller
In his memoir, Tenet pointedly notes that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, told the public that there was "unmistakable" evidence that Saddam posed a threat with weapons of mass destruction even though the secret National Intelligence Estimate said that the likelihood was very low that Saddam would use such weapons, other than if he were in desperate straits, such as a U.S. invasion.

Elsewhere, Tenet mentions that, in connection with Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame matter, he learned that Bush had quietly declassified part of the National Intelligence Estimate -- without saying what this information was. He plays totally dumb on the fact that Bush had declassified Plame's identity, supposedly, without telling him. Boy, that's loyalty!

So I can't help but wonder what faction he's allied with here. A faction that wants to protect Bush from impeachment maybe. It must be a pretty powerful clique, willing to put the onus on the neocons and Rockefeller, too.

No, I don't think Tenet could have published such a memoir without having some sort of a clique he thought he could rely on.

Two versions of 911blogger?
I just checked 911blogger for my posts and encountered an error message. And upon reviewing the blog, found that my post on Naomi Wolf was missing. I then went to the site by another route, and found it there alive and well.

Naturally, I can't help but wonder whether there is a government-sponsored game going on to limit distribution of some 911blogger submissions.

Noted feminist links Reichstag fire, 9/11

Have you seen feminist writer Naomi Wolf's piece on how to rip off democracy in 10 easy steps?

Wolf, a onetime aide to Bill Clinton's campaign, might have been writing for the Sons of Liberty or the Minutemen of King George's era. The Guardian first published her piece on April 24 and the Huffington Post blog reprinted it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064517,00.html.

As she points out, the Bush administration has taken every one of the steps that history shows constitute the prescription for tyranny.

Interestingly, Wolf draws a parallel between the Reichstag fire, which was an inside job "terrorist attack" used to implement Nazi controls, and the attacks of 9/11.

Wolf, who grew up in a liberal Jewish household, had a mystical experience with Jesus several years ago, but says that that experience only reinforced her commitment to the cause of women.

Edwards goes blank on WTC7
Tucson 9/11 Truth posted a video showing an exchange between a 9/11 truther and presidential candidate John Edwards. See it at 9/11blogger or Youtube.

Edwards didn't have a clue what "World Trade Center 7" meant until someone explained that it was the third trade center building that collapsed on 9/11.

The questioner is to be commended for bringing up the issue of WTC7 and noting that nothing much has been done on the matter. But, a somewhat uncomfortable Edwards could only say that his staff would get back to the questioner with an answer.

The problem was that the question was not precise enough and left plenty of waffle room, though it did bring out that a man who would be president is alarmingly ignorant of the basics of 9/11 and the big holes in the government story.

Had Tucson's 9/11 Truth Squad drafted two or three specific questions in advance, the result might have been less nebulous and more interesting. Even so, the confrontation is important and likely to have big consequences in the presidential maneuvering.

Though I generally -- but not invariably -- disdain media polls, I suppose we might mention that a recent poll shows that more than one in three Democrats was willing to say out loud that it appeared that 9/11 was an inside job. Hence, feigning ignorance or being ignorant on this subject seems like a bad move for a Democratic candidate during the primary phase, when wedge issues can make the difference.

Even GOP candidates must beware. Because later, Democrats will be voting in the "poll that counts" and rash rebuffs of 9/11 truth concerns might easily be played back during the general campaign.

Try something like this
There are numerous sharp questions that might be asked about specifics.

But here's a general question that forces a candidate to reveal his or her position and which may help stimulate debate:

Question: How would you rate the chance that 9/11 was an inside job? Zero-to-low, fair, or strong chance?

And, if needed, here's a follow-up:
Question: You say the chance was low, but how would you rate the chance that there is still a major cover-up of odd things that might be creating the impression of an inside job? For example, John Kerry has said World Trade Center 7 was demolished in a controlled fashion for safety reasons. But the official denial or silence on this point might be fueling speculation.

You gotta believe!

Two things that need doing, urgently:

*9/11 truth squads should engage every presidential candidate. Good, to-the-point questions should be carefully phrased in advance and then posed to a candidate with the videocam running. The response should be posted on the net, of course.
Also, a short but concise set of 9/11 questions should be submitted to each candidate's staff and the answers, if any, posted.

*A circular letter should be drafted by several scientists who are well-known in their fields to the effect that the undersigned believe that government explanations regarding the events of 9/11 lack scientific credibility. The letter might also call for an international commission to investigate 9/11 that accepts no government funds.

Of course we cannot expect the two best-known activist groups of scientists to initiate any action concerning 9/11 coverup. Neither the Union of Concerned Scientists nor the American Federation of Scientists have lifted a finger in this matter. They will have to be brushed aside as vestiges of a bygone "Old Left" era.

The letter should avoid any particular conspiracy theory and focus on the fact of the major holes in the government account and the point that the government storyline does not meet minimal scientific standards. In that light, care should be taken, at least in the initial stages, of coalition-building.

Let us recall the fact that a large number of academic experts signed a circular sharply questioning the outcome of the 2004 presidential election and the "explanation" of the sharp statistical anomalies provided by the media-hired exit pollsters. The mainline media did not cover this group to any extent, though one or two activists landed a good interview here and there.

Yet, the word got out via the net and Congress is even now trying to require a means of auditing elections. That is, the activists bypassed the Maginot Line of the establishment press and, as a result, polling place fiddling was much more difficult to do in the recent midterms that put the Democrats in power. (Still, such fiddling may have limited the success of the Democrats.)

So, the point is, push for 9/11 truth AND justice! Believe right can prevail.

Psyop alert
A professional government psywar op is going on right now, whereby various ploys are being used to try to imply that active measures to hack and censor 9/11 news, books and blogs are the work of fanatical GOP partisans rather than the work of the Pentagon units that carried out 9/11 and are struggling to maintain control.

Perle's denial is shaky

Perle told CNN Friday that Tenet was simply trying to shift the blame for 9/11 missteps to him but denied telling Tenet on Sept. 12 that Iraq would have to pay for the attacks. Perle denied having ever claimed that Iraq was responsible for the attacks.

However, someone sent me a transcript of a public statement the weekend after 9/11, in which Perle says that secret evidence, which perhaps might not meet a judicial standard, strongly indicated that Saddam had been conniving with al Qaeda and was involved in the attacks.

So Tenet's recollection may be off, but the substance of his representation of Perle's position is correct.

Google alerts 'restored'
The 9/11 alerts have been restored, but as I said previously, someone is finding ways to leave a lot out, it appears. More so than in the past.

Also, based on past experience, the alerts may capriciously stop again.

As reported previously, no White House email alerts went to any of my email addresses, despite efforts to get them sent. Then, when Card left the White House, they started up again, lasted for a month or two and then fell silent again. Perhaps I was nixed from the list because I rarely opened them. But that doesn't seem a very good reason. Most places wait till you unsubscribe before unsubscribing you.

Stupid 9/11 polls
As the 9/11 truth and justice movement gains adherents, we have polls of U.S. public opinion concerning what they believe. The latest avers that 35% of Democrats think Bush knew about 9/11 in advance while Republicans reject 9/11 conspiracy theories 7 to 1.

Such polls, though seemingly justified as presidential campaigning gears up, are stupid because the media think that it is OK to sample opinion for what the public believes without doing any investigative reporting that might inform the public and give it a firmer basis of belief. It's almost as if some polls represent a rearguard action by the opinion molders saying, well, we can still marginalize "conspiracy theorists" or, short of that, turn 9/11 truth into a "mere partisan game.

Perhaps a more interesting result came from the mad shoebomber (the Padilla) trial in Florida. There the judge asked prospective jurors whether they believed the government and the press were telling the truth about the 9/11 attacks. She expressed surprise at how many people were skeptical.

Another reason this is interesting is that the story got past the AP's state desk and went national. AP coverage of anything challenging the official line has been pretty much nonexistent. So many wire editors play it safe and don't run anything not highlighted in the AP news budget.

The antiwar lobby's missing WMD
The antiwar lobby, which did so much to push through the now-vetoed troop pullout deadline, is worried that Reid, Pelosi et al will capitulate to the White House on war funding, says today's NY Times.

I'd like to point out that, for the most part, the antiwar lobby has followed a leftist political decision to duck the issue of treason on 9/11. Yet this is a most important issue: Bush lacks the moral authority to wage war because of the fact that he is protecting a group of criminals who made 9/11 happen and then, by degrees, gained control of the mass media sufficiently to stanch the hemorrhage of news pointing to official complicity.

Sure, the antiwar leaders fears being smeared as conspiracy theorists, which is kind of silly in that they have no problem talking about all sorts of OTHER matters as if they are Bush administration conspiracies.

Yet, if the antiwar lobby is serious about halting the war, the weapon of mass political destruction should be fired: It's time to pressure the Democratic leadership concerning very serious holes in the official storyline.

Just do it.

Keller hires a dangerous man
Will Clark Hoyt have the power he once had as a top Knight Ridder editor who early on challenged the White House's Iraq war claims? Keller has named the 64-year-old to a two-year term as New York Times public editor.

Though he won't be directing news coverage, Hoyt may well have substantial influence. Just the act of hiring him sends a message to Times staff to get on the ball and start doing some old-fashioned hard-nosed questioning and digging.

Of course, it must be admitted that as a top establishment press editor, Hoyt WAS under control -- but just barely. Despite many brickbats from empty-headed "patriots," the Knight Ridder coverage established a record that would later haunt Bush and Cheney.

Of course, one must wonder whether the conservative investor who pushed through the cannibalization of Knight Ridder was ticked off at Hoyt for not playing the game.

Certainly Knight Ridder was as boxed in as the rest of the for-profit media about probing the realities of 9/11 versus the official myths. Whether Hoyt's hiring will have an impact that way remains to be seen.

Google 9/11 alerts halt

I receive a daily alert from Google for 9/11 news and blog posts. As of May 2, none have been received. Other Google alerts halted the next day.
The Yahoo 9/11 news alerts are still arriving, though we'll know more tomorrow.
The Google alerts had become skimpier and skimpier anyway.
Posts from this blog never made it to the general 9/11 blog alert system (at least not that I saw).
Also, I have run across a number of very embarrassing -- for the feds -- news items that never made it to Google alert status. Also, I can't help thinking that some sources were pruned from the Google system once it was realized that I might be published by those sources.
That is, Google will publish my blog, but otherwise it takes active measures to limit my stuff and either takes or permits active measures to filter what I can see.
This isn't the first time alerts have halted.
In the weeks before 9/11, all Yahoo alerts concerning terrorism, the CIA and national security were blocked. Just froze up. And Yahoo alerts didn't begin again until I said on a journalism listserv that I assumed its alert service was fini. After a hiatus of several years, inexplicably, the alerts started showing up again about a year ago, I'd say.

Osama didn't mind whether brother died on 9/11...

Osama bin Laden was "estranged" from his brother. So thus Osama really didn't mind whether his brother was within the target zone of the al Qaeda hijackers.

That seems to be the suggestion of ex-CIA chief George Tenet in his new book, At the Center of the Storm, which is evasive and fishy enough to be worthy of a top spook.

Tenet notes that when Flight 77 struck the Pentagon [I'm using the government's silly storyline here], Shafiq bin Laden was representing his billionaire family interests at the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, just a few blocks from the White House.

Didn't the feds tell us that an intended target of Flight 93 was the White House or the Capitol building (likewise not too far down the Washington mall from the conference)?

Well, sure some brothers ARE spiteful enough not to find a way to give a brother a heads-up to stay away from D.C. and New York on Sept. 11. BUT, Osama had good relations with his mom, whom he chit-chatted with on his cell phone shortly before 9/11, the government claims. Had Shafiq been killed or injured in the attacks, what would his mother have thought of Osama? In fact, what would his al Qaeda comrades thought of him?

Maybe Osama was enough of a probabilist to figure that the chance of his brother being struck was fairly low. Yet, surely Osama would have realized the possibility of death or harm from secondary effects, such as getting crushed by a panicked crowd.

Well, before Shafiq could be questioned publicly, he was spirited out of the country on White House orders.

Tenet vouches for the 9/11 yarn told by the 9/11 commission, but seems to be trying to put the lion's share of the blame for the Iraq war on a few now-well-known neocons, specifically Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Scotter Libby.
He says that initially Bush and his top aides had little enthusiasm for striking Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.

So, if the poop does hit the fan with respect to 9/11, Tenet will be able to say it was some neocons in the Pentagon that outplotted the CIA.

Let's think back to June 2002. That's when public disclosures put the CIA and the entire security apparatus in great danger of being torn apart limb from limb. Soon thereafter, Bush made a big show of "doing something" about security with his "homeland security" reorganization plan.

But, that wasn't quite enough and as Bush mulled with advisers during the hot Texas August in Crawford, we began to hear intimations that war with Iraq was brewing. Once September rolled around, it had become inevitable, with the war tom-toms going full blast. Nothing like a war to save the system, as occurred following the JFK murder.

As Tenet says, "everything changed" after 9/11 and so the official policy of regime change in Iraq was now translatable into a war of offense.

So then, what was the real motive for 9/11? Very likely "the group" feared losing power under a weak (before 9/11) president and favored a powerplay to control the nation with a greatly-strengthened Pentagon as its base.

Surely some neocons found such a scenario appetizing. But there are others, whom Tenet is shielding (including to a great extent, Bush). For example, a shadowy element of the hard left is running interference for the 9/11 murderers. What group do you suppose that might be, given the history of the 20th century and the maneuvers to rob democracies of liberty?

Psst... we're going to blame Iraq for 9/11

I haven't read ex-CIA chief Tenet's new book, though perhaps I will at least scan it.

The LA Times quotes Tenet as saying that the day after 9/11 he ran into Richard Perle coming out of the White House and that the neocon insider snapped that Iraq would have to pay for the attacks.

Tenet says he wonders what Perle, an unsalaried adviser to the Pentagon with important media connections, was doing at the White House but that he never received an answer.

"One of the great mysteries to me is exactly when the war on Iraq became inevitable," Tenet wrote.

This comes in light of another recent report that a big U.S. airbase was quietly built in Qatar in preparation for an air war against Iraq -- well before 9/11.

And Newsweek quoted ex-9/11 panel executive director Zelikow doing his best to undermine Tenet's credibility. Zelikow surely had a strong hand in the craftily written 9/11 coverup report.