Apr 152014
 

Washington Drives The World To War

Paul Craig Roberts

The CIA director was sent to Kiev to launch a military suppression of the Russian separatists in the eastern and southern portions of Ukraine, former Russian territories for the most part that were foolishly attached to the Ukraine in the early years of Soviet rule.

Washington’s plan to grab Ukraine overlooked that the Russian and Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine were not likely to go along with their insertion into the EU and NATO while submitting to the persecution of Russian speaking peoples. Washington has lost Crimea, from which Washington intended to eject Russia from its Black Sea naval base. Instead of admitting that its plan for grabbing Ukraine has gone amiss, Washington is unable to admit a mistake and, therefore, is pushing the crisis to more dangerous levels.

If Ukraine dissolves into secession with the former Russian territories reverting to Russia, Washington will be embarrassed that the result of its coup in Kiev was to restore the Russian provinces of Ukraine to Russia. To avoid this embarrassment, Washington is pushing the crisis toward war.

The CIA director instructed Washington’s hand-picked stooge government in Kiev to apply to the United Nations for help in repelling “terrorists” who with alleged Russian help are allegedly attacking Ukraine. In Washington’s vocabulary, self-determination is a sign of Russian interference. As the UN is essentially a Washington-financed organization, Washington will get what it wants.

The Russian government has already made it completely clear some weeks ago that the use of violence against protesters in eastern and southern Ukraine would compel the Russian government to send in the Russian army to protect Russians, just as Russia had to do in South Ossetia when Washington instructed its Georgian puppet ruler to attack Russian peacekeeping troops and Russian residents of South Ossetia.

Read full article here

Apr 082014
 

Legal or Illegal? The 2001 US-British Attack on Afghanistan. Never Got the U.N. “Green Light”
By Ian Sinclair
Global Research, April 08, 2014
Morning Star

The Twitter equivalent of a bickering married couple, Times newspaper columnist David Aaronovitch and Huffington Post Political Editor Mehdi Hasan, recently alighted on a point of agreement during one of their regular Twitter exchanges.

The US/Nato invasion of Afghanistan was “UN-sanctioned,” they both said.

But are they right? With British forces formally handing over the military command of Helmand to US forces, it seems a good point to look at the legal status of the bombing and invasion in October 2001.

Written in 2010, the official House of Commons Library briefing paper on the subject provides interesting reading:

“The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN, but was widely (although not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter.”

The paper goes on to explain that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

The accepted exceptions to this are where the security council authorises military action or where it is in self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter.

As the paper alludes, the UN security council did not authorise the military attack on Afghanistan.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe the US and Britain’s citing of Article 51 is suspect too.

Writing a month into the invasion, Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at California’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a former president of the US National Lawyers Guild, described the US and

British attack as “a patently illegal use of armed force.”

The bombing was not a legitimate form of self-defence under Article 51 for two reasons, according to Cohn.

First, “the attacks in New York and Washington DC were criminal attacks, not ‘armed attacks’ by another state.” Indeed, as Frank Ledwidge argues in his new book Investment In Blood: The True

Cost Of Britain’s Afghan War, “the Taliban certainly were not aware of the 9/11 plot, and equally certainly would not have approved even if they had been.”

Cohn’s second criticism is that “there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the US after September 11, or the US would not have waited three weeks before initiating its bombing campaign.”

Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School, is in agreement on the latter point, arguing: “The right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.”

Even if one were to agree the West’s attack was legitimate under Article 51, the House of Commons Library paper notes proportionality is central to the use of force in self-defence.

“It may not be considered proportionate to produce the same amount of damage” as the initial attack, the paper notes.

Writing in November 2001, Brian Foley, professor of law at Florida Coastal School of Law, maintained “these attacks on Afghanistan most likely do not stand up as proportional to the threat of terrorism on US soil.”

Having undertaken a systematic study of press reports and eyewitness accounts, Professor Marc Herold from the University of Hampshire found more civilians were killed during “Operation Enduring Freedom” than died on September 11 2001.

Moreover, the House of Commons Library briefing paper inadvertently highlights the crux of the issue.

“The USA might conceivably have gained specific legal support from the security council for its action in Afghanistan, but in the end did not seek such a resolution.”

With much of the world standing in sympathy alongside the US, why didn’t the US try to get UN security council authorisation for its attack on Afghanistan?

“An immediate need after 9/11 was to recover imperial prestige swiftly and decisively,” argue Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls in their book Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords And The Propaganda Of Silence.

Speaking just after the bombing had started, the anti-Taliban Afghan resistance leader Abdul Haq concurred with this reason for the attack.

“The US is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world.”

The last thing a nation attempting to “recover imperial prestige” would want to be seen doing is asking the United Nations for permission to act — a sure sign of weakness to the watching world.

The likely illegality of the 2001 attack on Afghanistan remains one of the biggest secrets of the so-called “war on terror.”

No overt censorship is needed, just an intellectual culture and corporate-dominated journalism that has — often heated — discussion within a narrow set of factual and ideological boundaries.

But while it is perhaps right to be forgiving of those who lost their critical faculties during those days of high emotion immediately after September 11 2001, how should we judge the ignorance of two award-winning journalists repeating the official deception 13 years later?

Ian Sinclair is the author of The March That Shook Blair: An Oral History Of 15 February 2003, published by Peace News Press.

Apr 082014
 

The CIA in Kuwait: Parallels to a 9/11 Suspect
Posted on April 7, 2014 by Kevin Ryan

As discussed in my book, Another Nineteen, there are good reasons to believe that some 9/11 suspects were involved in previous deep state operations. For example, evidence suggests that Stratesec manager Barry McDaniel and Carlyle Group director Frank Carlucci might have participated in the Iran-Contra crimes. There are also interesting links between several 9/11 suspects and Ted Shackley, a leader of the “CIA within the CIA.” Shackley was close friends with Frank Carlucci and had a long, close relationship with Richard Armitage, whose State department provided express visas to the alleged hijackers. Additionally, Porter Goss, who led the initial cover-up of the 9/11 crimes, had worked with Shackley in several CIA operations.

Perhaps the most interesting historical link between Shackley and 9/11 is that Shackley’s activities in Kuwait paralleled those of Wirt Walker, the KuwAm Corporation director. KuwAm was the parent company of Stratesec, the security company for several 9/11 facilities. As I’ve written before, these companies appeared to be part of a private intelligence network.

Shackley had a long career in covert CIA operations and was the agency’s Associate Deputy Director of Operations from 1976 to 1977. Described by former CIA Director Richard Helms as “a quadruple threat – Drugs, Arms, Money and Murder,” Shackley was a central character in many off-the-books operations. He was a leader of the CIA’s anti-Castro plan Operation Mongoose, its secret U.S. war in Laos, and the overthrow of Salvadore Allende in Chile.

Although Walker is officially only the son of a CIA man, his past has much in common with that of Shackley. In the 1980s, both men were strongly linked to the Bush family network, to Kuwait, and to aviation. They both ran security companies as well. Walker became close to the Kuwaitis at the same time as their government was working closely with Shackley and another CIA operative. Moreover, the people pulling the strings from the Kuwaiti side in those relationships were close relatives of KuwAm chairman Mish’al Al-Sabah.

Read more here

Mar 272014
 

Access to YouTube has been cut off in Turkey after an explosive leak of audiotapes that appeared to show ministers talking about provoking military intervention in Syria.

By RT

March 27, 2014 “Information Clearing House – “RT”- Access to YouTube has been cut off in Turkey after an explosive leak of audiotapes that appeared to show ministers talking about provoking military intervention in Syria. Other social media have already been blocked ahead of tumultuous local elections.

The latest leaked audio recording, which reportedly led to the ban, appears to show top government officials discussing a potential attack on the tomb of Suleyman Shah, the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire.

The tomb is in Syrian territory, but protected by Turkish soldiers.

On the tape, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu is heard to say that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sees any attack as an “opportunity” to increase Turkish presence in Syria, where it has staunchly supported the anti-Assad rebels. Security chief Hakan Fidan then goes one step further, and suggests staging a fake attack to give Turkey a casus belli to intervene in the conflict.

Turkish officials have recently vowed to protect the tomb as its “national soil.”

The Foreign Ministry in Ankara reacted to the tape by issuing a statement, calling the leak a “wretched attack” on national security. It also claims the tape was “partially manipulated.”

“These treacherous gangs are the enemies of our state and people. The perpetrators of this attack targeting the security of our state and people will be uncovered in the shortest time and will be handed over to justice to be given the heaviest penalty,” the ministry said.

A source inside the office of President Abdullah Gül, who has taken a softer line than Erdoğan over the series of government leaks, told Reuters that access to YouTube may be restored if the sensitive content is removed, even though the original video has been deleted.

Invoking national security and privacy concerns has been the government’s tactic in fighting off a stream of leaks showing top officials engaging in unsavory or downright illegal practices.

Erdoğan has also repeatedly claimed that most of the audio recordings are fakes. He labeled the latest audio revelation “villainous” during a stump speech in Diyabakir.

Twitter, another popular source for leaks, has already been shut down in Turkey since March 20, after a court order.

More here

Mar 172014
 

The 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry and 28 Missing Pages
by Kevin Ryan

When the report of Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 was released in December 2002, it was met with considerable skepticism. That skepticism grew for a period of time but then was reduced to speculation about what was contained in the 28 pages that had been redacted by the Bush White House. Various U.S. government leaders have since suggested that the missing 28 pages point to Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 9/11 crimes. However such musings fail to discuss other important issues, like the links between the Saudi regime and the Western deep state, or the fact that, from the start, even the Saudis were calling for the 28 pages to be released. Discussion of the missing 28 pages also omits mention of the highly suspicious nature of the Inquiry’s investigation and its leaders.

Read article here

Mar 132014
 

The 9/11 Attacks, “Keeping the Lid on the Lie”: Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement
Part III: Media Coverage of the International ReThink911 Campaign, 2013-14

By Elizabeth Woodworth
Global Research, March 12, 2014

It is impossible to keep the lid on a lie forever – especially a major deception carried out in full view of witnesses and cameras.

The last article in the Media Response series was published in February 2010, when public broadcasters in eight countries were reporting doubts about the official 9/11 story, and nine corporate media reviews had explored the issue during the previous year.[1]

Since then, the mainstream media has forged ahead on the subject. In the past six months alone, 20 stories in major papers have covered the September-December 2013 ReThink911 campaign – including Time Magazine, the NYT, the Ottawa Citizen, and BBC News Magazine.

As time passes our memories of 9/11 becomes less painful and more open to public discussion. There is increasing skepticism in both the social and corporate media about the credibility of 9/11 as the foundation for the continuing global war on terror.

Last year, President Obama was prevented from waging – on grounds of state terrorism –war with Syria.

As of March 2014, seven congressmen, backed by impacted 9/11 families, are calling for the release of a secret 2002 congressional study that implicates Saudi Arabia in financing the alleged hijackers.

Establishing the truth about 9/11 is a fundamental necessity for the achievement of peace between East and West.

The horrendous visual images of airliners careening into the tallest buildings in America were seared into the collective world brain on 9/11.

This collective human experience has been so powerful and haunting that no equally powerful and pervasive experience has emerged to show that the Twin Towers were not brought down by Muslim hijackers run by Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.

Yet the weakness and falsity of the official story has been amply demonstrated by more than a decade of peer-reviewed research and scholarship, as shown by the 23-member 9/11 Consensus Panel’s evidence-based Consensus Points and reading list.[2]

And people suspect this. A 2011 poll shows that 42% of Canadians believe US government information about 9/11 has been intentionally hidden from the public.[3]

The tale of 19 hijackers is viewed more and more as a construct – and the “reality” that it created, as a contrived perception.

If there is one force with the power to reverse this perception, it is the dynamic ReThink911 campaign, which has taken hold strongly in the US and Canada and has plans to expand into Britain and other countries.

The ReThink911 Campaign

The ReThink911 organization spearheads its campaign with the Achilles heel of the 9/11 perception – the sudden collapse, later in the day, of the 47-storey steel skyscraper World Trade Center 7, which stood adjacent to the Twin Towers.

Massive in area, Seven’s base was the size of a football field. It was not hit by a plane.

It took the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seven years to devise a computer simulation purporting to show how an enormous steel skyscraper could collapse symmetrically with a level roofline in six seconds – from “office fires” alone.

One dismayed professor of chemistry told how he watched its collapse ten times on YouTube, his “jaw dropping lower and lower…I have not slept since that day.”[4]

But NIST concluded that on one floor, one over-heated beam expanded and detached from one pillar, thereby causing the entire building to drop like a stone –with all columns failing simultaneously.[5]

So for the month of September 2013, ReThink911 purchased large blue and orange billboards in major cities across Canada, the US, England, and Australia.

These included an enormous 5-storey high sign[6] in New York City’s Times Square, posted throughout September and October, and seen by millions of people. A similar sign was posted in Dundas Square, Toronto.[7]

Needless to say, the media could hardly ignore an “elephant in the room” this size, towering beyond the windows of the New York Times.

How did the media deal with the situation?

First, it is important to consider that the survival of truth in a democracy rests on the outcome of an information war that is based largely on psychological operations and propaganda.

With regard to the truth about 911, the history of corporate media reporting is reminiscent of Gandhi’s famous statement: ”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

In 2010, at the time of my last media survey, the mainstream media was waking up to research from the 911 truth community.

By the fall of 2013, the new ReThink911 campaign had gained considerable attention in papers such as the New York Times, Time Magazine, the BBC Magazine, and the Ottawa Citizen.

Most of the 20 or so stories were neutral in tone, with only a few ridiculing or opposing the campaign.

I. New York City:

On October 15, 2013, New York’s popular Village Voice ran a long story about the ReThink911 billboards in Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Dallas, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Sydney, and London – with the enormous Times Square ad as the centerpiece – adding that

“Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has denounced the NIST report as fraudulent and insist the truth has yet to be revealed.”[8]

The Village Voice then gave a lengthy description of the ReThink911 media blitz, printing about a dozen of the 200 emails they had received, and ending with “Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.” (The article attracted 79 comments.)

Compare this to the rambling Libertarian Republic article[9] that set out to debunk what it called persistent “conspiracy theories.” (The term “conspiracy theory” is a well known psychological thought-stopper.)

It was full of superficial obsolete evidence (compared, for example, to new evidence emerging through the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s research[10]) and full of irrelevant speculation about what motivates 9/11 researchers.

Understandably, it received only one comment.

However, the piece was published in a mainstream conservative journal, and because the author had worked long and hard to challenge the ReThink911 campaign, and because the publisher gave it so much space, it fits into Gandhi’s category #3, “then they fight you.” (which is the last stage before truth wins)

Time Magazine, on the other hand, published an objective account (on September 11, 2013 anniversary) about the ReThink911 campaign’s leading spokesman, architect Richard Gage:

In 2006, Richard Gage, a San Francisco-based architect, founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which doubts Building 7 collapsed because of fire. Gage and other architects and engineers argue that 7 World Trade Center came down in a free fall, which could only have been caused by a deliberate demolition explosion. More than 2,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the building’s collapse.[11]

However, Time marginalized public support for the controlled demolition evidence by citing a 2011 BBC poll showing that only 15% of Americans believe the government was involved.[12]

Note that back in September 2006 Time had reported:

“A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”[13]

The New York Times, also on the September 11, 2013 anniversary, reported in neutral terms that “a group known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which wants a new investigation into the events that day, is buying billboards in New York and other cities as part of what it calls its Rethink911 campaign,” and linked to the ReThink911.org website.[14]

And in January 2014, the Village Voice ran a second article featuring actor Austin Farwell (“The Long Ride Home”), who wrote:

I hope and pray daily that we as a nation recognize that forensic evidence exists proving that Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. We at rethink911.org and the entire crew at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been tirelessly pursuing recognition for our peer-reviewed critiques and experiments into how and why Building 7 (the third tower to fall at freefall speed on 9/11) fell the way it did. Our hope in another new year is that the American people receive a true and impartial investigation into the events of 9/11.[15]

In summary: Twelve years after the event, the New York media has become simply factual – rather than dismissive and scornful – in reporting the work of a credible professional group calling for a reinvestigation of 9/11.

This move beyond “ignoring” and “ridiculing” signals a sea change in media receptivity to the idea that rogue elements within the US were somehow complicit in 911.

II. “Then They Fight You”

However, three news accounts were either sensational or condescending in taking issue with the ReThink911 evidence.

The Dallas Observer, referring to Dallas as the “City of Hate,” wrote at the top of its piece, “We Apologize in Advance for This Particular Item.”[16] It then lumped together doubts about Pearl Harbor, JFK, and 9/11 as (thought-stopping) conspiracy theories.

The Observer did do its homework, though – enough to cite an academic paper arguing against a classic 9-author per-reviewed study[17] that found nanothermite, an incendiary/explosive, in the WTC dust.

This willingness to argue the evidence in a mainstream newspaper is an encouraging sign that a public debate is no longer taboo.

And indeed the piece did generate a fight, as shown in its 269 comments. The most recent commenter wrote: “I’m not going to speculate on motivations re. the slant of this article, but it amounts to a denial of an objective, careful look at the evidence.”[18]

The Huffington Post Canada’s editorial piece, “9/11 Conspiracy Ad On Ottawa Buses And Toronto Billboard Sparks Outrage,” produced 377 comments.

Although the paper referred to “the well-known 9/11 ‘Truther’ organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” it focused strongly on the “widespread outrage” – the “disrespectful” and “disgusting” notion that the US government may have been complicit in the attacks.[19]

This is the sort of superficial outdated pap (insulting to an infantilized but media-savvy public) that is leading the fight (against the truth of the people) that Gandhi described.

When ReThink911 purchased 100 ads in the Bay Area Transit System, the San Francisco Weekly reported on the advertizing angle.[20]

After devising a particularly sarcastic title and describing the ads as “a valiant form of evangelism,” the paper did manage to briefly discuss the controlled demolition debate between NIST and the architects and engineers from AE911truth.org.

The four comments supported the ReThink911 campaign.

It seems that when the media disparages 9/11 skepticism these days, the fight is on.

III. The Canadian Media: 1.Ottawa

“The ads in Canada sparked more public discussion than anywhere,” reported campaign manager Ted Walter to the BBC News Magazine.[21]

In Ottawa alone, six newspaper reports followed the controversy over OC Transpo’s decision to allow prominent ReThink911 ads on 300 of its city buses for the month of September 2013.[22]

The first story, in the Ottawa Citizen, reported in a neutral, balanced way:

Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?

The question appears on 300 OC Transpo buses this week in a global advertising campaign challenging the official version of the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster in Manhattan.

New York-based Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is trying to rally public pressure for a new official inquiry into whether the World Trade Center towers and neighbouring WTC Building 7 were actually toppled by shadowy U.S. forces using controlled demolitions.

Though the group is careful not to blame anyone in particular, the implication is that elements allied with the former administration of president George W. Bush needed to manufacture sufficient reason to justify planned military assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq.[23]

Sun News also reported the group’s position on the WTC collapses, and quoted Mayor Jim Watson’s comment, “I disagree with the sentiment of the truther movement, obviously. I think it’s very disrespectful … but we do in this country have free speech, and at the end of the day they met council’s (advertising) standards and they’re allowed on the buses.”[24]

An editorial by the Ottawa Citizen came down strongly in favour of free speech, defending ReThink911′s right to advertize its views:

The ads in question are the work of people who question official accounts of what happened at the World Trade Center. The group, including the New York-based Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, ran the ads in cities across North America, including Ottawa, to make their point. The 9/11 truthers believe there is compelling forensic evidence to show the towers were not destroyed by fire, as official accounts maintain. These people believe advanced military grade explosives and clandestine demolition measures structurally weakened the buildings before the planes crashed. They are entitled to their views, and if they want to disseminate them, it is their right to do so.[25]

A poll run by 1310News asked “Should the ads from ‘ReThink9/11′ be allowed on OC Transpo buses?” 91.5% voted “yes” and 8.5% said “no.”[26]

In December 2013 the ads resumed, and the OC Transpo review issue hit the headlines again.

The Ottawa Citizen City Hall Blog suggested that pressure from city councillors was more than coincidental:

“One of the odder spectacles at Wednesday’s meeting of the city’s transit commission was councillors insisting that the review they’ve ordered up of OC Transpo’s policy on the ads it accepts has nothing to do with the ad campaign bought by 9/11 truthers to coincide with the anniversary of the terrorist attacks (or, let us allow for the conceivable possibility, fake terrorist attacks) this year.

Keith Egli tried that line out: ‘It is not about a particular ad campaign,’ he said. It’s about the transit commission doing due diligence, as a new body, to make sure its policies and whatnot are in shape, he said. Shad Qadri and Diane Deans gave versions of it, too, though less stridently. They’re just being responsible overseers. The 9/11 truther thing? No connection.

Yet Deans was the one who called for a review of the advertising policy specifically in response to the 9/11 truther ads.”[27]

The City Hall Blog then tracked the public debate, showing clearly that the issue boiled down to free speech versus demonstrable bias. A city lawyer was cited. When “Rainer Bloess asked [the lawyer] whether there’s any indication that the city’s in violation of any relevant law or jurisprudence. No, she said.”[28]

MetroNews Ottawa produced a balanced report as well, quoting 9/11 Truth spokesperson Isabelle Beenan:

“The goal of rethink 9/11 is to make this information widely known by running advertisements in cities around the world, encouraging the public to look at evidence and decide for themselves,” she said.

“Should such an activity be blocked because some in our society are uncomfortable about the implications about this building being brought down by controlled demolitions? The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms says, ‘no.’”[29]

This article received 185 comments (which are usually moderated in online papers), the most recent being:

Glad *someone* is educating the public about the collapse of Building 7… the mainstream media sure aren’t! Take a look please, and judge for yourself; don’t buy what others tell you to think about it. It will definitely surprise you how strong the evidence really is for controlled demolition of this building, including its free-fall.[30]

Summing up the controversy, the Ottawa Sun wrote: “And while it’s hard, if not sometimes seemingly impossible to do so, it would be far better if councillors’ personal points of view are left out of guiding any policy on city advertising.”[31]

The Ottawa media coverage of the ReThink911 campaign shows that within Canadian public culture, the idea of US complicity in 9/11 has shifted from the unthinkable to the debatable.

IV. The Canadian Media: 2. CBC, Toronto Star

On September 11, 2013, Canada’s national public broadcaster covered the ReThink911 Ottawa story via print and TV.

CBC TV News in Ottawa reported the organization’s belief that the World Trade Centre was felled “not by planes but by controlled explosives.”[32]

The CBC article cited a letter from the ReThink911 website addressing fears that questioning 9/11 might show “insensitivity” to the surviving families:

“The ReThink911 coalition includes 9/11 victims’ family members who want nothing more than an accurate and unbiased accounting of the death of their loved ones.[33]

Indeed it was a group of 9/11 families who scheduled a Capitol Hill press conference for March 12, 2014, along with seven US Congressman, urging Congress to publicly release 28 strangely classified pages from a 2002 Congressional Report that have remained secret for 12 years.[34]

Canada’s largest newspaper, The Toronto Star, covered the ReThink story at street level in Toronto, quoting comments such as, “What brought down these buildings? It was actually a controlled demolition.”

A young man said, “Once you see the evidence – people don’t want to put the few hours in it takes to be convinced –” adding that even his mom, after hearing a lecture in Hamilton, is convinced. “We’re not conspiracy theorists. We don’t know who the conspirators are.”

As to the huge ReThink911 sign in Dundas Square, the Star quoted a student’s answer to the question it posed, “Did you know a third tower fell on 911? ”

“They’re not trying to sell you anything, it’s just a question, and they’re giving you the opportunity to answer.”

V. London, England, BBC News Magazine, December 16, 2013

The BBC coverage was subtly dishonest, announcing the ReThink campaign but moving immediately away from the evidence itself to a red-herring discussion of whether Canadians tend to be wary of US officialdom.[35]

And it emphasized perceptions rather than evidence. For example, it related how Canadian nuclear physicist Frank Greening had been intrigued by the collapses and did his own research, teaming up in 2008 with a co-author to write a paper concluding that the allegations of controlled demolition had no merit.

But then he heard about evidence of explosive residue in the dust and invited his co-author to explore it. Greening was disappointed to be told, “Frank, look, the intent of the paper was to silence the truthers. I consider it mission accomplished.”

Now Dr. Greening is no longer sure. “My motive was not to silence anybody, but to get to the truth,” he said. “If I ever make it to heaven, my first question will be: ‘OK, tell me what really happened on that day.’”[36]

There’s a new development that might help Greening to decide. The NIST Report simulations, showing that WTC7 came down by fire alone, left out vital pieces of the building structure that would have made its collapse impossible.[37]

The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Mr. Richard Gage will be presenting these details on his cross-Canada speaking tour, March 13 to April 1st.[38]

If the media ever starts investigating the details rather than the perceptions, there’s bound to be a reinvestigation and a big fight.

“And then you win.”

Notes

[1] Elizabeth Woodworth, “The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010,” Global Research, February 15, 2010 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-media-response-to-the-growing-influence-of-the-9-11-truth-movement/17624).

[2] The Consensus 9/11 Panel, “Evidence-Based Literature Sources Opposing the Official Story of September 11,” (http://www.consensus911.org/references-evidence-based/). The Consensus Points, developed by more than 20 researchers using a medical review model, are at http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

[3] Benjamin Shingler, “Many Canadians unsure they’ve been told everything about 9/11: poll,” The Toronto Star, September 10, 2011 (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/09/10/many_canadians_unsure_theyve_been_told_everything_about_911_poll.html).

[4] Dr. Niels Harrit, Prof. Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, after watching

[5] Pepper, William F., “The NIST Report on the Collapse of WTC Building 7 Challenged by 2100 Architects and Engineers.” Submitted to US Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General, December 12, 2013 (http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A.

[5] Pepper, William F., “The NIST Report on the Collapse of WTC Building 7 Challenged by 2100 Architects and Engineers.” Submitted to US Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General, December 12, 2013 (http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf).

[6]http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11104364.htm

[7]http://rethink911.org/photo-gallery/#pagecontent

[8] Anna Merlan, “Times Square Billboard Calls for “Independent Investigation” of 9-11–and the People Speak,” Village Voice, Oct 15, 2013 (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/10/september_11_rethink911_building_7_conspiracy.php).

[9] Austin Petersen, “False rumors still persist about ’9/11 truth,’”The Libertarian Republic, September 11, 2013 (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/911-conspiracies-debunked/#axzz2vFrAmkCL).

[10] See http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/[

11] Nate Rawlings, “Sept. 11 ‘Truthers’ Mark Anniversary: With a billboard in Times Square and a global ad campaign, a group keeps questioning what happened twelve years ago,” Sept. 11, 2013 (http://nation.time.com/2013/09/11/sept-11-truthers-mark-anniversary/).

[12] The poll was commissioned by Mike Rudin, producer of the BBC’s “Conspiracy Files,” which has a long history of seeking to debunk emerging evidence about 9/11. See BBC, “9/11 conspiracy theories,” August 29, 2011 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14572054).

[13] Lev Grossman, “Why the Conspiracy Theories Won’t Go Away,” Time Magazine, September 3, 2006 (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html).

[14] Stuart Elliott, “12 Years Later, Americans Are Asked to ‘Take a Day’ for 9/11,” New York Times, September 9, 2013 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/12-years-later-americans-are-asked-to-take-a-day-for-9-11.html?_r=1&).

[15] Raillan Brooks, “If You Could Make One Change in NYC in 2014, What Would You Do?” Village Voice, Jan 1, 2014 (http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-01-01/news/new-york-new-years-resolutions/3/).

[16] Brantley Hargrove, “Dallas Gets Its Very Own Truther Billboard on Stemmons Freeway,” Dallas Observer, September 25, 2013 (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/dallas_gets_it_very_own_911_tr.php).

[17] Niels H. Harrit, et al., “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009), 7-31, (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm)

[18] Ibid.

[19] Huffington Post Canada, “9/11 Conspiracy Ad On Ottawa Buses And Toronto Billboard Sparks Outrage,” September 12, 2013 (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/12/911-conspiracy-ad-ottawa-bus-photo_n_3913937.html).

[20] Rachel Swan, “Truther in Advertising: 9/11 Conspiricists Decide Commuters are Ready to Learn a Terrible Secret,” San Francisco Weekly, September 25, 2013 (http://www.sfweekly.com/2013-09-25/news/truthers-rethink911-bart-advertising/).

[21] Tara McKelvey, “Canadians wary of 9/11 explanations – and of US officials,” BBC News Magazine, December 16, 2013 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25370076).

[22] This list of references starts with the earliest report, and includes Ottawa city newspapers:

Ian Macleod, “Ads questioning truth of 9/11 appear on OC Transpo buses,” Ottawa Citizen, September 12, 2013 (http://web.archive.org/web/20131107093607/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/appear+Transpo+buses/8899246/story.html).

Jon Willling, “Free speech protects ‘disrespectful’ 9/11 conspiracy bus ads: Ottawa mayor,” Sun News, September 12, 2013 (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/09/20130912-154907.html).

Ottawa Citizen, Editorial: “OC Transpo should err on the side of free speech,” September 14, 2013 (http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/archives/story.html?id=e2507136-01c6-4fd9-957c-c754f30484d0).

By David Reevely, “Fresh 9/11 ads coming to OC Transpo buses amid review of advertising policy,” Ottawa Citizen, November 20, 2013 (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Fresh+coming+Transpo+buses+amid+review+advertising+policy/9190435/story.html).

Susan Sherring, “OC Transpo bus ads draw attention,” Ottawa Sun, November 20, 2013 (http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/11/20/oc-transpo-bus-ads-draw-attention).

Trevor Greenway, “More 9/11 ‘truther’ ads to hit Ottawa buses,” Metro News Ottawa, November 21, 2013 (http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/860796/more-911-truther-ads-to-hit-ottawa-buses/)

”OC Transpo’s advertising-policy review is all about the 9/11 truthers,” Ottawa Citizen, City Hall Blog, November 21, 2013 (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/11/21/oc-transpos-advertising-policy-review-is-all-about-the-911-truthers/)

[23] Ian Macleod, “Ads questioning truth of 9/11 appear on OC Transpo buses,” Ottawa Citizen, September 12, 2013 (http://web.archive.org/web/20131107093607/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/appear+Transpo+buses/8899246/story.html).

[24]Jon Willling, “Free speech protects ‘disrespectful’ 9/11 conspiracy bus ads: Ottawa mayor,” Sun News, September 12, 2013 (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/09/20130912-154907.html).

[25] Ottawa Citizen, Editorial. “OC Transpo should err on the side of free speech,” September 14, 2013 (http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/archives/story.html?id=e2507136-01c6-4fd9-957c-c754f30484d0).

[26] 1310News, “Controversial 9/11 ads spark call for review of OC Transpo ad policies,” September 12, 2013

( http://www.1310news.com/2013/09/12/controversial-911-ads-spark-call-for-review-of-oc-transpo-ad-policies/)

[27] “OC Transpo’s advertising-policy review is all about the 9/11 truthers,” Ottawa Citizen, City Hall Blog, November 21, 2013 (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/11/21/oc-transpos-advertising-policy-review-is-all-about-the-911-truthers/) It is interesting to note that the article in which Deans called for a review (the link to it is underlined) has disappeared from the Internet, and is also not available in the Internet Archive. The URL was http//www.ottawacitizen.com/news/questioning+truth+appear+Transpo+buses/8899246/story.html

[28] Ibid.

[29] Trevor Greenway, “More 9/11 ‘truther’ ads to hit Ottawa buses,” Metro News Ottawa, November 21, 2013 (http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/860796/more-911-truther-ads-to-hit-ottawa-buses/)

[30] Ibid.

[31] Susan Sherring, “OC Transpo bus ads draw attention,” Ottawa Sun, November 20, 2013 (http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/11/20/oc-transpo-bus-ads-draw-attention).

[32] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aye5yAK0Yes&feature=youtu.be

[33] CBC News,” Group behind 9/11 bus ad responds to criticism,” September 11, 2013 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/group-behind-9-11-bus-ad-responds-to-criticism-1.1703868).

[34] Paul Sperry, “Victims’ families: Release secret ‘Saudi’ 9/11 report,” New York Post, March 8, 2014 (http://nypost.com/2014/03/08/victim-families-release-secret-saudi-911-report/).

[35] Tara McKelvey, “Canadians wary of 9/11 explanations – and of US officials,” BBC News Magazine, December 16, 2013 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25370076).

[36] Ibid.

[37] William Pepper, “The NIST Report On the Collapse of WTC Building 7 Challenged by 2,100 Architects and Engineers,” January, 2014 (http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf). Fraud is a possibility and the case is being investigated by attorney William Pepper on behalf of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

[38] Tour information at: http://www.rethink911.ca

Mar 112014
 

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/support-us/

by James Corbett
BoilingFrogsPost.com
March 11, 2014

http://www.corbettreport.com/pretexts-for-war-how-the-public-is-deceived-into-fighting/


When Secretary of State John Kerry made his now infamous statement about Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the hypocrisy was immediately apparent to all but the most clueless of viewers.

But perhaps Kerry wasn’t so wrong to expect the public to let him get away with such a transparently hypocritical statement. After all, the public have always been happy to go along with every pretext for war presented to them for decade after decade.

Mar 082014
 

The Path to a World Beyond War
by Kevin Ryan
Everyone says that they hate war, and most people really do, yet war has always been a part of human life. Nearly all societies throughout history have engaged in some form of warfare. And for as long as there has been war there have been good people trying to end it. Unfortunately, despite minor successes lasting peace has been a dream that has been impossible to realize. That dream has not died, however, and people continue the fight to end all war. A recent example is the new campaign called World Beyond War (WBW).

At the WBW website, the organizers call for new ideas and ask for feedback on the strategies outlined there. The group’s approach to ending war calls for “defeating the propaganda of war promoters and countering the economic interests of war promoters with alternative economic possibilities.” Furthermore, WBW stresses the need for “a combination of disarmament and investment alternatives.” This means that nations must disarm, stop selling arms, and negotiate disarmament agreements.

How to accomplish such things is the problem. The disarmament ideas would require governments to dramatically change course but the governments are often led by the war promoters. Changing the governments in any substantial way would necessitate a dramatic change in the mindset of most citizens. Similarly, although there are theoretical ways to counter the economic interests of war promoters, such as coordinating the purchasing and tax-paying decisions of citizens en masse, organizing for it would require unprecedented changes in public opinion. The arguments of the past won’t make that happen.

Like many others, I believe that unprecedented changes in public opinion can be achieved by taking a more courageous and committed approach to one of WBW’s key objectives. That objective is to “communicate the facts about war and discard the myths.” It takes courage to really examine the facts and myths about how wars begin and how they are maintained because most of us—even people who see themselves as peace activists—play a part in that process.

How do wars start, for what reasons, and by what mechanisms? To answer these important questions it might help to begin by dispelling several powerful myths about the origins of war.

Read full article here

Mar 032014
 

Washington’s Arrogance, Hubris, and Evil Have Set the Stage for War
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, March 03, 2014
paulcraigroberts.org

n some quarters public awareness is catching up with Stephen Lendman, Michel Chossudovsky, Rick Rozoff, myself and a few others in realizing the grave danger in the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine.

The puppet politicians who Washington intended to put in charge of Ukraine have lost control to organized and armed neo-nazis, who are attacking Jews, Russians, and intimidating Ukrainian politicians.

The government of Crimea, a Russian province that Khrushchev transferred to the Ukraine Soviet Republic in the 1950s, has disavowed the illegitimate government that illegally seized power in Kiev and requested Russian protection. The Ukrainian military forces in Crimea have gone over to Russia. The Russian government has announced that it will also protect the former Russian provinces in eastern Ukraine as well.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn pointed out, it was folly for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to transfer historic provinces of Russia into Ukraine. At the time it seemed to the Soviet leadership like a good thing to do. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and had been ruled by Russia since the 18th century. Adding Russian territory to Ukraine served to water down the nazi elements in western Ukraine that had fought for Hitler during World War 2. Perhaps another factor in the enlargement of Ukraine was the fact of Khrushchev’s Ukrainian heritage.

Regardless, it did not matter until the Soviet Union and then the former Russian empire itself fell apart. Under Washington’s pressure, Ukraine became a separate country retaining the Russian provinces, but Russia retained its Black Sea naval base in Crimea.

Washington tried, but failed, to take Ukraine in 2004 with the Washington-financed “Orange Revolution.” According to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, since this failure Washington has “invested” $5 billion in Ukraine in order to foment agitation for EU membership for Ukraine. EU membership would open Ukraine to looting by Western bankers and corporations, but Washington’s main goal is to establish US missile bases on Russia’s border with Ukraine and to deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base and military industries in eastern Ukraine. EU membership for Ukraine means NATO membership.

Washington wants missile bases in Ukraine in order to degrade Russia’s nuclear deterrent, thus reducing Russia’s ability to resist US hegemony. Only three countries stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony over the world, Russia, China, and Iran.

Read full article here

Feb 272014
 

A New Neocon Push for Syrian War

By Coleen Rowley

February 25, 2014 “Information Clearing House - The propaganda that continues to flourish for war on Syria shows many Americans fail to understand the problems posed by “U.S. Empire-building” believing it to be an altruistic force, toppling other governments and starting wars for the good of all mankind.

Two recent articles in the New York Times: “Use Force To Save Starving Syrians” and “U.S. Scolds Russia as It Weighs Options on Syrian War“ are typical of the concerted efforts underway to ramp up U.S. military intervention despite overwhelming opposition voiced by Congress and the American public thwarting Obama’s plan to bomb Syria announced in late August last year.

The “U.S. Weighs Options” news piece is easier to expose since it employs an obviously twisted and one-sided reporting lens that puts the primary blame on Russia for the violent conflict in Syria. It was apparently fed to Michael R. Gordon and his NYT colleagues by anonymous Administration officials as well as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the neocon think tank nefariously founded by the Israeli American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to deceptively appear to be independent of its parent. (AIPAC has been revealed by scholars as the most powerful force in recent decades on U.S. foreign policy, repeatedly pushing the U.S. into wars for Israel.)

It should be recalled that Gordon himself is the same NYT reporter who gave a big assist back in 2002 to Judith Miller, notoriously collaborating with Vice President Dick Cheney’s aide Scooter Libby and other neoconservatives to gin up war on Iraq by writing false front page stories about Saddam’s WMD.

Read full article here