There are many problems with the official account of the September 11 mass murder, but in recent years campaigners have focused on the unpredicted collapse of three buildings in New York, all symmetrical, all at near freefall speeds. The third building to collapse, 47 storey World trade Centre Building 7 actually hit freefall at one stage. This, says Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911), contradicts the official story of a fire induced collapse.
Thirteen years and several wars after the event, the 911 truth movement just won’t go away. The New York city administration is looking decidedly shifty in its attempts to stifle demands for a new inquiry into the building collapses. Even if they manage to block a proposed referendum, city officials will still be challenged by a massive AE911 billboard just round the corner from the New York Times.
There are other holes in the official story which have received less attention, but this could change. We are asked to accept that alleged Pentagon 911 attack pilot Hani Hanjour on flight 77 developed in the space of just a few weeks from a dangerous incompetent on a small plane into a pilot so good that he could make a heavy commercial airliner behave like fighter in a pinpoint high speed ground level attack confirmed by Pentagon surveillance cameras.
Then there is the paper trail which takes a new twist with a book just published by Clarity Press. Author Graeme MacQueen is a cofounder of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University, Ontario. The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy is endorsed as a must read for all thinking Americans by Denis Halliday, one time Assistant Secretary-General of the UN.
As Michael Ruppert, an early 911 sceptic and ex police detective, would tersely explain, when it comes to physical issues you can pay expert witnesses to say anything, driving jurors into indecision as they try to distinguish one expert from another. A conclusive paper trail on the other hand can be the governmental equivalent of a signed confession.
Even without MacQueen’s new book the individuals running and supervising the CIA counter terrorist section at the time have quite a lot to worry about.
In the mainstream media a reluctant consensus has formed: the 911 hijackers were supported by very senior figures in the Saudi government. This is bad for the Bush/Cheney administration which had close links to people like playboy Saudi diplomat Prince Bandar, but the CIA men can say they are guilty of nothing more than trusting a US ally and friend of the President.
However there are more revelations out there. Two impeccable insider witnesses have stated that a central tenet of the official 911 story – the claim that the CIA knew nothing about the 911 hijackers – is false.
Richard Clarke, anti-terror boss at the Bush White House at the time, is probably the best placed person on the planet to know the truth about what the CIA was up to in the run up to 911. Ali Soufan a top FBI expert on Al Qaeda at the time concurs with Clarke: the CIA were aware of several alleged 911 hijackers in the months before the attacks but they took a “decision” (Clarke) to shield them from the FBI, blocking multiple inquiries from as many as three field offices. What’s more the Agency never informed their line manager Richard Clarke.
Researcher Kevin Fenton has meticulously trailed through Congressional and departmental Inspector General reports and produced the memos, emails, and statements to investigators which confirm Richard Clarke’s claims. Some cynics say that this is why Richard Clarke has spilt the beans, but spill the beans he has, for whatever motive.
911 was not the only terror attack on America in September 2001. Dust containing millions of spores of weapons grade anthrax were posted to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. Unable to read their constituents mail, Congress was crippled. Other letters with real or fake anthrax added to the panic. There was little doubt in Washington that this was phase two of the 911 attacks. Who else would want to silence two key lawmakers and virtually close down the US Congress?
MacQueen sets the 911 attacks issue in an interesting political context. Prior to 911 the Bush White House faced a legal imperative: to find some “extraordinary events” that jeopardised the US’s “supreme interests”, the only way to abrogate the ABM treaty, an intention Bush had announced in May 2001. 911 neatly took care of that. But there was still a pressing need to get the USA PATRIOT act through Congress before the public woke up to the implications for the rule of law, especially as Bush had given his orders for illegal mass surveillance before the Act was passed.
The anthrax scare could hardly have come at a better time for the White House, raising a new wave of fear and putting Dashle and Leahy, critics of the legislation as proposed, on the back foot. Peaks in the anthrax panic coincided with the struggle to get the PATRIOT Act passed.
The media were commanded by people like Judith Miller of the New York Times and James Woolsey ex CIA Director who argued that the anthrax panic was not only 911 part two but the smoking gun to prove that Saddam Hussein was behind 911.
The logic seemed impeccable. The anthrax attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda. Therefore, as they did not have the technical capability, here was the proof that Saddam Hussein was behind 911. Anonymous briefers claiming inside knowledge reinforced the message. ABC News claimed they had four separate sources.
But the facts did not fit the story. The biotechnology world blew the whistle. Examination of the exact strain used, the Ames strain, showed that the anthrax attacks could only come from a group within the US military industrial complex. That, along with the implausible messages from Islamic terrorists that accompanied the letters, showed that this was an inside job aimed at blaming Muslims. Whoever sent the anthrax letters had made a mistake.
The FBI responded with a new theory: a lone wolf employee had somehow got hold of the military grade anthrax. But the anthrax plotters seem to have made another mistake, and this is where we return to the 911 attacks.
A series of apparent links had emerged connecting the alleged 911 hijackers to the anthrax letters. For instance, as well as having a personal link to photo editor Robert Stevens, the first victim of the attacks, alleged hijacker Mohammed Atta reportedly threw an unforgettable temper tantrum at one government office when he demanded loans to buy a crop duster, ideal for distributing anthrax.
Once the impossibility of genuine links is taken into account the apparent links remain unexplained. If they were not an amazing coincidence they must have been created in advance by the anthrax plotters to frame the alleged hijackers ahead of the event. MacQueen argues in great detail that the links go well beyond the level of mere coincidence.
We know from the Clarke/Soufan/Fenton paper trail that a group in the CIA was protecting the hijackers from scrutiny by the FBI while the anthrax plotters were framing them for the anthrax attacks. The question looms: since the alleged hijackers did not have the flying skills needed for 911, and given the reports, never put to rest that some were alive after the event, were they framed for that too?
MacQueen’s thesis is strengthened by the question of foreknowledge in the weeks leading up to the anthrax attacks. For a now forgotten fortnight before the attacks the neocons were hyping anthrax with the gusto they would later show over Iraq’s imaginary nukes.
Stephen Hatfill, the FBI’s first candidate for the role of lone wolf, fought back and received some USD 4M in compensation. But the second, replacement candidate was not as lucky. Bruce Ivens is now dead, apparently driven to suicide by the FBI.
Ivens colleagues do not accept the official story. It would simply not be possible, they say, for Ivens or any lone wolf to obtain and weaponise the anthrax into the deadly state of the art powder that was mailed to Bush and Cheney’s two key enemies in Congress, Daschle and Leahy, holding up approval of the PATRIOT Act.
For anyone seriously trying to get to the bottom of the 911 attacks this is a must read book, and fortunately MacQueen does not demand you read many hundreds of pages. He is crisp and to the point and there will be something new for everybody.
Perhaps the most intriguing is the description of Dark Winter an anti-terror exercise that took place in June 2001, shortly after Bush announced that Cheney was now in charge of all domestic counter terror preparations. Dark Winter mirrored the real anthrax attacks in several respects. James Wolsey and Judith Miller were not only cheerleading in public for the Saddam anthrax link. They were insiders themselves. Both had been participants in Dark Winter.
The sinister presence of Cheney at every stage of the 911 and the Iraq saga, and what we now know from Richard Clarke about the activities of the CIA in the run up to the attacks raises the issue that one time detective Michael Ruppert would call modus operandi. Individuals often have a characteristic method from crime to crime.
The exhaustive media reports around the Iraq fiasco have established one thing clearly. Cheney’s modus operandi was to recruit a small cabal within the CIA to do his bidding, producing the fake evidence needed to convince Congress of the “need” to invade.
The 911 saga has ominous parallels. A cabal in the CIA apparently under Cheney’s orders was protecting the hijackers from arrest and perhaps framing them too. Even more extraordinarily, evidence has emerged of a still largely secret anti-hijack exercise, presumably under Cheney’s ultimate command, running at the same time as the “real” 911 attacks.
For now the mainstream media mostly still refuses to permit any serious 911 questions at all. But given what has come out already campaigners are confident that a real investigation, or even a handful more whistleblowers, could get to the bottom of the story. Thirteen years later, the 911 truth movement is not going to go away.
By Elizabeth Woodworth
Global Research, September 05, 2014
“9/11 Truth” and the Failure of the Academic Community to Explore the Events of September 11, 2001
Academia’s Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11 – Documentary
(Produced and directed by Adnan Zuberi1)
As the academic year begins, and the 13th anniversary of 9/11 draws near, it seems timely to review this eye-opening documentary about the failure of academia to explore the evidence about the events of September 11. Indeed, there are literally dozens of peer-reviewed science articles challenging the American government narrative about 9/11 that academics simply do not talk about. These articles stand published in the science literature – for the most part unreported, unexamined, and unrefuted.
ReThink911 Billboard to Go Digital in NYC! Huge Two-Sided Video Billboard in Times Square One Block from the New York Times
We have some good news and some bad news to share about our 13th Anniversary ReThink911 billboard, but don’t worry! We think the good news far outweighs the bad.
The bad news — unfortunately, we cannot go forward with the billboard directly in front of the New York Times Building. The group currently occupying it has a year-long contract. While they had agreed with the billboard company to take a break for the month of September so that we could have the space, the agreement allowed them to change their mind until the last minute, and unfortunately they exercised that option.
The good news — (and we think it’s really good!) – is that we found an even more stunning billboard just one block away at the corner of 42nd Street and 8th Avenue. Not only does this billboard draw maximum attention by facing in two directions while towering over one of the busiest intersections in Manhattan; but it’s also digital, which allows us to show practically life-size video footage of WTC 7’s symmetrical destruction. And that’s exactly what we plan to do!
For 15 seconds out of every two minutes, people walking by will see WTC 7’s free-fall descent — the vast majority of them for the first time — on two massive 45’ by 45’ screens. Altogether, we’ll reach 100,000 people each day, amounting to 3 million viewings from September 8th to October 5th! The message will be simple and powerful, encouraging viewers to trust their instincts about WTC 7’s smooth, symmetrical downward motion — and follow up at ReThink911.org
Even though we will no longer be speaking directly to the folks at the New York Times, most Times employees will see the ad on a daily basis, thus making it impossible for them to ignore the truth about what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The upside, of course, is that millions of people will be treated to a high-impact viewing experience of the truth about the third skyscraper destroyed on 9/11.
Once again, we would like to thank everyone who contributed toward the 13th Anniversary ReThink911 Billboard. We are disappointed, of course, that circumstances beyond our control did not allow us to follow through on the original plan. We hope, nonetheless, that you are as pleased as we are about the opportunity to show WTC 7 on enormous screens right in the heart of midtown Manhattan.
Stay tuned for the unveiling of the ad later this week!
By James F. Tracy
Global Research, September 01, 2014
In the wake of World War I, erstwhile propagandist and political scientist Harold Lasswell famously defined propaganda as “the management of collective attitudes” and the “control over opinion” through “the manipulation of significant symbols.” The extent to which this tradition is enthusiastically upheld in the West and the United States in particular is remarkable.
The American public is consistently propagandized by its government and corporate news media on the most vital of contemporary issues and events.
Deception on such a scale would be of little consequence if the US were not the most powerful economic and military force on earth.
A case in point is the hysteria Western news media are attempting to create concerning the threat posed by the mercenary-terrorist army now being promoted as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, or “ISIS.”
As was the case with the US intelligence asset and bogey publicized as “Al Qaeda,” and Al Qaeda’s Syrian adjunct, “Al Nusra,” such entities are—apparently by design—inadequately investigated and defined by major news media. Absent meaningful historical context they usefully serve as another raison d’ểtre for America’s terminal “War on Terror.”
A seemingly obvious feature of such terrorist forces left unexamined by corporate media is that they are observably comprised of the same or comparable personnel unleashed elsewhere throughout the Middle East as part of a strategy proposed during the George W. Bush administration in 2007.
Last week, a US military lawyer on the defense team for self-proclaimed 9/11-attacks mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed resigned from the Army in protest of the “show trial” conducted by the US at Guantanamo Bay.
Maj. Jason Wright resigned on Aug. 26, according to NPR. He accused the US government of “abhorrent leadership” on human rights and due process at the military detention center at Guantanamo, where Mohammed and other defendants are being prosecuted for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Wright joined the military in 2005, serving 15 months in Iraq. He then worked as a Judge Advocate. He served on Mohammed’s defense team for three years. His resignation came after he refused an Army order to leave the defense team so he could complete a graduate course for his promotion from Captain to Major, saying it would have been unethical to follow the order.
TIME / LOCATION: Wednesday 27th August, 7.30pm, at the Mt Eden War Memorial Hall, Auckland, New Zealand
SUMMARY: Nicky Hager talks about his new book “Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand’s political environment”, focusing on the techniques used such as negative politics, the two track policy, fear of reputation attacks, and the tactic of influencing the left-wing electorate not to vote. Nicky also touches on solutions.
DURATION: 25:47 (NB this link starts at 13:00 when Nicky Hager starts speaking, after intro by Sir Edmund Thomas. NB a question and answers session follows but has not been included here)
Kia ora kato. Good evening. I’ve never had a welcome like that before. Today is the first day that I have talked – like not through media. Talked in public to people and thank you very much for coming. I’m going to talk about reaction to the book. I’m going to talk about some of what’s in it, for the people that haven’t read it. I’m going to talk about what I think needs to be done about it. And then, most important, most interesting, I’m happy to front up and answer any questions or challenges, or anything that anyone wants to ask about the book. And we’ll try to spend plenty of good time on that.
So this is my 6th book that I’ve written, and they have all done reasonably well. But there has never been a book that has had a reaction like this before, and I don’t think that’s about my writing style. I think that’s something about the content of this, that has struck a nerve in New Zealand’s political being; that its actually resonated with something that was going on for people who are living and thinking about politics in New Zealand. That’s what I want to talk about today.
It could seem, if you haven’t read the book. It might seem, if you’ve heard about it through news media, as if the book is a kind of compendium of nastiness and dirty things and deception. But as far as I’m concerned, its really a book about ethics. Its about who we want to be in this country and the choices that political people need to make. And so that’s why in a little while, I’m going to talk about the things which I think are how we deal with the stuff which is in the book, rather than just wallowing around in the nastiness of it.
The thing is that what I wrote about, mostly wasn’t new news. I think that the important part of it, I think there are people all over the country – I know there are people all of the country who have been feeling attacked or frightened or intimidated or got at by the scale of attack politics that have been going on. I personally know people in science and academia and other areas who have been threatened and pressured through their jobs not to speak out in the public interest.
So that we’ve the political environment in recent years where the people who you’d most like to be speaking [word/s not understood by transcriber] have often felt constrained or frightened of doing that – vulnerable when they do that. At the same time the political parties have been experiencing, the opposition political parties, have been experiencing repeated minor scandals, smears, attacks, seemingly coming from no-where. Controversies, many of which, from my research and the papers I’ve found, have been orchestrated in the benign and easy way, using the same tricks over and over again, by this attack machine which has been set up over the last 8 years within the National Party.
So I think lots of people have already been feeling that, and have been uncomfortable with it. And that’s one of the reasons why there has been such a strong reaction to the book. And I think the other thing people have been feeling is something that there wasn’t a name for, but its what the U.S. Republican Party calls a 2 track approach to public – wooing public opinion or winning opinion. And before I go over some details in the book, I want to talk about the 2 track approach because its kind of – is, in a way its a central idea of the book. And I think its a central idea of about how politics isn’t working in New Zealand. I should say where this idea came from [to Nicky Hager].
When I finished my book “The Hollow Men” which I worked on much longer than the current one I’m proud of, I got an email from one of the people that is in the book – He was in – He had been involved in the meeting with the Exclusive Brethren in Hawkes Bay when Don Brash was there, and wrote to me about it. Then New Zealand – I know his uncle – of course where all related, and he said – my mate said to me “could you get hold of one of my nephews. He’s in your book he wants to talk about it with you” .
And it was a man called Simon Lusk. And he wanted to tell me – he was actually interested in the book and the ideas in it. He wanted to tell me his views and his findings on negative politics, which he has been finding from studying the American politics, Republican Party. And so this is – some of you will know this from the book but its central to it which is why I want to say it for any other people – for people here that have not read it.
And that is that this is the idea that “negative politics” is a very powerful kind of politics – you can trip up, you can smear, you can damage your opponents, and the United States is the place where this has been practised the most, developed the most – in their political system. But the problem with negative politics is that it can backlash on the candidate that’s doing it. You can look bad – you can look like a person that does really horrible things dirty politics – in doing it. And so what a 2 track policy was – was that divide and develop within U.S. Republican politics – was that the leaders or the leader would be held above the dirty politics – the smears, the personal attacks, the nastiness and be [unintelligible to transcriber] and relaxed, while they would contract out at arms length to people who were producing the negative attack ad’s [advertising] and digging out the dirt, and the smears and so on.
Now I believe that is more or less the story that has gone on in New Zealand, and I think it has created a sense of confusion about the political system because people have been experiencing in the last 6 years a government that has done quite a few policies which polls would say the majority of people don’t support, and at the same time there has been this heightened level of personal attack and negative politics going on and yet the National Party stands up and it continues to ride high in the polls because people think that the leader is has adopted the persona of being friendly and relaxed and nothing really touching him, and rising above negative politics.
And I think that’s been a great confusion in the country about what is even happening in politics because there wasn’t a proper explanation of how things were working.
And when I walk down the street which I – over the last few weeks I walk down the street and literally cant get more that 20 metres before the next person stops to talk to me about the book. Something about it means that these ideas and worries which have been around it, and vague awareness which has crystallized – its got through to people. And its the reason why their feeling the way the are.
I want to run through some of the ideas of the book – reasonably quickly so we have time for questions. First of is the role of blogs. Some blogs – the blogs have petition – the potential to have fine thinking and to go places where – you know – to do new and wonderful things. But the same Republican Party literature which I was using as my source in the book – Blogs have another role and they has stated quite explicitly in their materials – Blogs are a way to run campaigns for a political party which is slightly separate from the party and can do the dirty work that the party doesn’t get held responsible for but still attacks its opponents.
In the U.S. literature what it says is – Blogs can be used – blogs aren’t constrained like the news media is by having to be accurate or having to be fair. Or even having any more than a rumour which is what their going to use to attack their opponents. And that is seen as the power of Political blog which was linked to a political party. It could do the dirty work – you are never held accountable if your the leader or the leadership of that party if anything went [wrong and exposed deceitful slander]. Because it is this new unregulated zone which looked like, which mimicked and pretended to be kind of news media, or new media, but was actually and outlet for the party to do its dirty work. So that’s the first concept – there are fantastic blogs, and there are disgusting blogs. And only 10 years or something into the internet age we still haven’t learned the difference properly, and we have to learn the difference language of it , so we can tell the difference. So we can decide which one we want and which ones we push justifiably to the margins.
The next thing which is a key thing in the book is that in New Zealand the politics in the last while – its looked more and more things consist of little scandals. Scandals which they’re nothing much to do with the future of the country or with the policies that matter, but constantly seeing politics as being tripped up, insulted, bad news coming out about them , and this is about the linkage between the Prime Ministers Department, and the Blogs, the Beehive, and the Blogs and the News Media. Where stories have been pouring out continuously about [?free courtney world time?], the Internet Party is going to be announced, bad news comes out.
They have their launch, bad news comes out. There’s a kind of nice co-ordinated system. Same with the Labour Party, tripping them up at every turn. Which is fine, if your like in the Mouldoon days and you stand up as the leader and you stab people in the front. At least people can judge you for what you did. The problem with this system is that its sneaky – its underhand – no one knows whose hand is at work in scandal after smear after personal attack. So that’s the second phenomena, is that we have been experiencing without analysing more constant little attacks and scandals and trip ups and “got ya’s” than is usual in our politics and its taken over and we don’t want to start to think that’s what politics consists of. And that’s what there are parts of the book about.
Most of you know these these bits but the ones that are highlighted in the news when the book came out was a picture of the man who works in the office 2 doors down the corridor from John Keys office on the 9th floor of the Beehive who is inside the Labour Party computers downloading material, digging around looking for dirt and then when he’s downloaded the dirt – to-ing and frowing with Cameron Slater deciding which bits that Cameron Slater will use to attack, and which bits will hurt the most. Now we should never use the gate word in New Zealand because it has been used so often – you know – its a crime. But digging inside your political opponents [?organ?] invasion and taking out information and using it in targeted political attacks is very [short statement not understood] is what I’m saying.
This is off the scale of what we are used to in this country. And I know that the Prime Minister has still not in any way advanced or taken responsibility for it. But then we move onto a new stage of this which I did not expect to find and I don’t think anyone was particularly expecting and that is that the same machine that has been set up for attacking people who stuck their heads up in politics and political parties, which were the opponents of the National Party is being used for commercial clients as well . And this is an insidious thing that has being going on.
There have been whole political issues, and whole controversies which have been run with the use of the “Whale Oil” blog and it echoed in its [?sister blog KiwiBlog?] with stuff written by unseen people and paid for by large New Zealand corporates who should be deeply embarrassed for having done something so scummy. And that’s an issue which will not be resolved by between now and the election. In fact I would suggest that over the next few years we should be picking and talking about those politics because its extremely disreputable and it will take a while to hold people for it to account and to produce change about that. There’s also – jumping through the last things – there’s also the chapters about phoney political campaigns which is really about the news media and all the rest of us not being so susceptible to the next person who jumps up and says I’m an independent group whose campaigning for – you know – against MMP or whatever, when in fact its the same few National Party activists running campaigns to suit their party.
And then the final area of course which is kind of the grubbiest of all and is very serious – its the use of personal sexual kind of scandals which we have already seen in the Len Brown case, organized by the Auckland National party, but there were many other examples and actually there not just a means of attacking people, but what became clear was Cameron Slater and talking about it was a way of getting control over people because they were in fear.
And while I travelled in the last 2 weeks talking to people about the book and doing a lot of media interviews, I’ve been taken aside by various journalists – senior and otherwise – this is an important story and it will not ju – its only because I’ve I’ve seen journalists – who have said to me “um Nicky, was there anything about me in that thing?”, which is funny. But its not funny. Its actually terrible because all over the country all of us, everyone has got things that they are embarrassed about – everything does things that are stupid and not proud of. Lets not be high and mighty about it. And if you think that there is an industry out there – a maliciously directed industry of people digging it up and saving it to use against you – this is a very very destructive influence to have happen in a little society like ours. And I can say in a short time I can say in have met quite a few people who have been nervous about that phenomenon. Its really really grubby.
[27:53 Learning to understand the psychology of people employing 2 track negative politics, and the tactic of actively influencing left-wing opposition not to vote.]
So I want to say one final thing about the principles which I think you will understand. but we need to get new ideas in our head for understanding these kind of people. And the thing that I – at the end – when I finish the whole meeting – it struck me – the tactics I had been writing about – when you win over people. Who are naturally your supporters. How do you kind of trick people to support you when actually they might be voting against your own interests? But what I saw in this book, and actually heard from the people concerned and saw in the literature that they believe in and quote, was a new kind of way of doing politics. And that’s not the kind of political campaigners or political management people who are trying to win voters over to their party, this is the politics of trying to stop people from voting. Of people giving up and pushing people out of politics and I think that is actually the uniting theme of what this book is about.
The book is about all the people that have been silenced or scared or bullied into being less vocal members of our society and its also about the people who have been encouraged to see politics as a dirty grubby selfish game – where all to politicians are as bad as each other, and the whole thing is useless, just turn up your music and don’t take any notice, and don’t vote, which is a really dangerous and terrible thing, and its also horribly expedient thing, because they know whose going to stop voting first and its not their people – they think. So these are serious policies for us. We don’t understand what their thinking and where they are coming from – we don’t know what the answers are.
I want to talk about now – just a min [a couple of words not understood]. I just want to say something about the issue of privacy, because I have been quite reasonably – I think also quite – you know – I’m just trying to find an argument to divert of the issue. I have been challenged about why me – who often talks about privacy, and peoples right to privacy – think its all right to take leaked information? Good question. Reasonable challenge. First thing I’d say is that leaking – just understanding what a leak is. A leak is a safety valve in society. A leak means which is unauthorized, illegal or is regarded a wrong – its not the normal process. You don’t get leaks under the official information act.
Leaking is what you do when something important is going on that is not going to be found out about otherwise. So I believe in leaks, but I believe in they have to have a very good reason. Ed’s talked about that. But there’s privacy in it, so when someone leaks me – when someone comes to me, and lets me use this pile of information about the weird world of Cameron Slater and all his associates – I feel a very strong obligation to just compartmentalize my mind and not use most of that – and what I’m saying is, I believe that even in the act of dealing with a leak like this, privacy is just as important. I went to huge lengths to take peoples names out, cut out the dirty bits, to use little bits of quotes and other bits, so I didn’t humiliate people – not causing problems with their families and the rest of It. And I think that – I just want to say this because I don’t want to this thing – to have been a hypocrite, by my stand in one area, and my stand in another. [audience applause]
And I want to illustrate this by making reference to a mistake that happened which is that I was challenged to release some of the information in the book by our – the Prime Minister – saying that I had made it up, and I would have to front up or people wouldn’t believe me. So I spoke to my source, who is a decent and ethical person, and said “would you release some of the documents that you gave to me – that I used for the book. And in one of those cases he released information without taking out the personal information – which really hurt and upset somebody – whose name I wont repeat here to increase the crime. But I just want to say I’m sorry and that man had every right and reason to be angry and upset, and we just all have to be more careful, because privacy matters hugely in society – for peoples rights and I’m sorry that happened.
The final thing I want to talk about which is maybe the most important part, is what can be done? I start from the point of view that I don’t believe for a moment that politics is inevitably awful and shabby and bad and selfish and all those things – that we sometimes hear. But it will be if we leave it to people that featured in my book. What can we do? The first thing is to accept the inevitability, you cant stop politicians being tricky or telling lies. You cant stop PR [public relations] people trying to manipulate things. You cant stop – you cant legislate against dirty tricks basically in most ways.
So what you have to do if you don’t what the kind of stuff which I document in the book, is to build up societies defences. And empower other people to participate in politics so its different. Its not a wussy answer – this is the strongest answer there is. This is why in the final part of the book, in the Afterward, I list all the things that I think will improve the public interest and strong democratic kind of politics in this country. And these issues wont be sorted out between now and the next election, but they are actually much more important than the next election. These are things that I urge you to read and think about and help to bring into being in the next coming years. Otherwise we leave the field to the nastiest and the most unscrupulous to determine how the politics are done in the country. The second thing is [audience applauses].
The second thing I want to say is everyone can help. If I write a book and It causes a stir in the news media and then the stir dies down, then frankly that was just like another bit of political entertainment, as the years roll by. And I want to talk about what everyone can do. I believe that involvement in politics – that even when there are people who have been unscrupulous in politics, politics is the sum of the actions of everyone involved. And the more people that try to do good things, the better it is for the whole country. So what do we do? So first of all please try to help up our news media and resources and transparency and those defences that we can have.
But the next thing I would say is don’t imitate the attack bloggers. If you have a left wing blog, don’t make it like a right wing [negative politics attacking tactics] blog. Don’t think that because they have been effective, that its the way to do politics. In fact look at what their doing and reject it, is what I would argue. Strongly. [Audience applause]. But what I’m saying [is] the answer to dirty politics is for every person that possibly can to act in the way that they think that politics should be. I also want to say that I believe in books.
I actually think there is a difference between books and news media. There’s something about people reading from one end of the book to the other which can actually change things. And so I’m asking you quite specifically if you think that the book was worth while, tell people about it. Lend them a copy. Encourage about there. Because books – I know from my experience from years of writing them – that books have an effect far beyond the relatively small numbers that get printed. Please help that process. This is the fastest selling book my publishers have every had. Its going to go a long way – I’d like it to go further.
And of course the final thing is, understand this is for individuals. Understand what the politics are that we are fighting. We’re fighting the politics of encouraging people not to participate. And the answer to that is to participate. Participate in writing, and in thinking and talking and being involved in elections. That’s actually the antidote, that’s the answer. That’s the flip-side of what we are talking about. Participation. Participation in the national party. I don’t mind participation in the labour party. I don’t mind participation in the other parties. Participation is the answer to the politics we are talking about. And if you don’t belong to anything that at least [, its] the least you can do. And its not very little. Its not just small. Its, have a big party at your place on election day and invite all your strange relatives who say they cant be bothered voting, and by inviting everybody and taking them all down to the polling booth, and you’ll be feeling good about it and you’ll be going to greater things. [Audience applause].
And forget Cameron Slater. Cameron Slater has been used and he is a tool in these politics, but the story is not really about him. I want to name the 2 enemies which I see of clean and good politics in this country. And one of them is cynicism, and the other one is pessimism. Cynicism is where we believe and say everyone does it, all politicians are the same – they are [all] self serving, they’ve got their snouts in the trough and the rest of it. I don’t believe that. I just don’t think its true. The other thing. Pessimism, is feeling that its all hopeless and everything gets worse. Which is what it looks like when
you look at all the bad things that happen in society, and forget to look at all the good ones. I don’t feel cynical. I think that most people have really good values can care about these things. That’s why I can write a book like this and it resonates so strongly and I don’t feel pessimistic. Because my whole life has shown me that things re better when we bother to speak up about what we believe in. [Audience applause] And the main thing I want to say is – I said it at the beginning – I’ve just about finished on this. The main thing I want to say is – what I said at the beginning is I don’t want – I did not want to write a book about sleaze and slim. I believe its a book about ethics. And what a book about ethics means is that if you read it, and if we talk about the issues and we look at expediency verses principle and how do we treat each other – what its worth to be fair verses what its like to be pragmatic and playing dirty tricks and things we can decide what values we wants to build up our society on. And what I’m really saying is – what I would hope when people read this – is that they look at it and they see the choices in there and the choose what side they want to be on. The good politics or the dirty politics. And what we are going to do about it, to change it. Thank-you
[38:47 applause and standing ovation. NB that a question and answers session followed this talk by Nick, but as of 31st Aug the video is not yet available so no transcript has been made]
Negative Politics (definition).: A tactic developed by the U.S. Republican party, which focuses on damaging the reputation of political opponents by use of conventional and non-conventional news media. The attack is not done with the intention of protecting society from crime. Rather, negative politics is done with the goal that by using such attacks to lower the reputation of an opposing person or party, this will result in ones own political party or candidate appearing to be more popular by comparison in the eyes of the public.
Two Track Policy (definition): A two track negative politics policy means that a division is made within a group between 1) the leader/s who promote the themselves and their party in an inspiring positive light, and 2) those that focus on the negative politics of damaging the reputation of their opponents. The division is made so that if people detect and react adversely to the slander of negative politics, then the separation between the 2 “tracks” will protect the leader/s from any risk of backlash.
Bill Binney, a former highly placed intelligence official at the US National Security Agency (NSA), who, after more than 30 years of service, resigned in 2001 and became a whistleblower, believes a new investigation must be conducted into the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City.
Binney recently signed the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s petition, stating, “There is clearly evidence that needs to be considered in a review of what happened in 9/11. We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened,” the Washington’s blog reported on Sunday.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a US non-profit organization of architects, engineers, and a demolition expert who dispute the results of government investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report.
Founded in 2006, the group demands that Congress pursue “a truly independent investigation” into the September 11 attacks as they believe government agency investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center have not addressed the “massive evidence for explosive demolition.”
Binney was the original NSA whistleblower and one of two NSA veterans whose example inspired Edward Snowden.
On the heels of, and inspired by, the successful pilot project “9/11 Truth: Good for America,” activists all across the country and around the world will be continuing the popular and positive outreach of that campaign next month.
■Sept 11 Oakland, CA
(Grand Lake Theater — SF911Ttruth)
The effort to expose the truth about 9/11, specifically the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers, has been building gradually over the past 13 years. Momentum has surged over the past 12 months in particular. Our work at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the efforts of the ReThink911 campaign, and the contributions of many outstanding scholars, researchers, and dedicated activists have combined to make a remarkable impact.
You can do that by either coming to New York City for the 13th anniversary events or by taking part in activities in your own area. For all who can travel to New York, there will be events going on from Thursday 9/11/14 through Saturday 9/13/14.
Thursday — 9/11/14
Our outreach efforts will be held at Ground Zero near the 9/11 Memorial & Museum, where we’ll inform the public about what they won’t find there by handing out the alternative guide to the museum.
■11 AM: AE911Truth Press Conference
■ 2 PM: The NYC premiere of “The Anatomy of a Great Deception” — Theater 80, East Village
Friday — 9/12/14
■10 AM: Outreach at 9/11 Memorial Park, corner of Liberty St. & Greenwich St.
■ 3 PM: Outreach actions at the NY Times ReThink911 Billboard
■ 7 PM: 9/11 Truth Café – live music and socializing at 6th Street Community Center, 638 East 6th Street, between Avenues B & C in the East Village
Saturday — 9/13/14
■2 PM: Symposium — “The 9/11 Awakening Goes Mainstream.” Speakers include: 9/11 survivor Ricki D.; attorney William Pepper; firefighter Rudy Dent; architects Bill Brinnier and Richard Gage; family members Bob McIlvaine, Vance Green, and Catherine Montano.
For those who cannot be in New York with us, we urge you to host your own screening of The Anatomy of a Great Deception – the “ultimate red pill.” As you can see, the 13th anniversary events will be action-packed. Please spread the word — and stand by for more details!
As the United States government ponders its response to the global jihad, especially with the likes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now tearing through Iraq, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) squeezing the life out of Yemen, Al Shabaab terrorizing both Somalia and Kenya, Boko Haram is Nigeria, Al Nusra Front leading the charge in Syria and other Islamist groups, the news media are focusing attention on what’s commonly referred to as the 9/11 Truth Movement.
During the days following the devastating destruction and death that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, there were a number of Americans who questioned the media’s coverage of what actually happened to the World Trade Center and the U.S. Pentagon.
While in the midst the President George W. Bush administration there were several media outlets that gave credence to the voices from the 9/11 Truth Movement — of Truthers, for short — but when President Barack Obama took office, those same news media voices were no longer interested in pursuing the story and theories put forward by the so-called Truthers.
However, on April 3, 2014 the well-respected and relatively unbiased C-Span cable television show “Washington Journal” invited the usually bombastic Democratic congressman, Representative Jim McDermott who appeared to have opened up the 9/11 controversy once again.