Jul 252015

25 July 2015

In one photo, then-Vice President Dick Cheney rests his feet on his desk as he watches a live TV news report of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
In another, he sits beside his wife after they were both frog-marched by Secret Service agents to a secure basement in the White House.
And in a later shot, he takes his glasses off and clasps his hands together before he and his spouse are flown to an undisclosed location.
These never-before-seen images capture Cheney’s reaction to the attacks, which saw two hijacked passenger planes crash into the World Trade Center in New York, another jet strike the Pentagon and a fourth crash in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, killing 2,996 people.
They also show the horror felt by other senior government officials, including then-President George Bush and his wife Laura, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, Cheney’s top lawyer, David Addington, and Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

In the photos, Bush looks tense and even bites his lip as he confers with officials in the President’s Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), a highly-secure underground bunker below the White House’s East Wing that can withstand nuclear hits and other devastating attacks.
The then-President would shortly address the nation about the day’s atrocities, which were aired live on TV screens across the world.
The same evening, Cheney and his wife, Lynne, were flown via Marine Two to a secret destination, revealed in the photos to be Camp David.They were later moved to other undisclosed sites as thousands of rescue workers descended on the wreckage of the WTC towers.
On the day of the attacks, Cheney, now 74, was in charge at the White House, with Bush visiting a school in Sarasota, Florida, at the time.
Cheney has since defended the harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA in the wake of the plane attacks, which included the waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a total of 183 times, declaring that he ‘would do it again in a minute’.
The newly-released images of Cheney and other officials’ reactions to 9/11 were captured by Cheny’s staff photographer, according to PBS.

The photos were released by the National Archives following a FOIA request by FRONTLINE filmmaker Colette Neirouz Hanna.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174018/Never-seen-pictures-inside-White-House-9-11-Bush-Cheney-immediate-aftermath-Twin-Towers-terror-attack.html#ixzz3gtezM89d


Jun 052015

by Peter Drew


The true events of 9/11 have been systematically withheld from the public and greatly distorted by the mainstream media. At the heart of this distortion and cover-up has been the BBC.
The BBC has systematically supported the cover-up of a huge amount of incontrovertable scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence which strongly contradicts the official version of events of 9/11. The result of this cover-up has been the support for the wars launched on Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of 9/11, resulting in more than one million deaths of innocent civilians so far, as well as the ongoing supposed global war on terror at the cost of trillions of dollars to tax payers.
This two part documentary by Press TV exposes the BBC for exactly what role it has played in this process, which is political propaganda, funded by the British public, to support the official version of events of 9/11 and the subsequent global war on terror.
Produced by Ken O’keefe, a former US Marine in Iraq who quit the US military when he realised the truth about what was really happening, and who then led the human shield in Iraq in 2003.
Part 1 – BBC: UK public funding propaganda
Part 2 – BBC covering truth on 9/11
– See more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-bbcs-cover-up-of-the-truth-on-911/5453498#sthash.Stfoy17H.dpuf

Mar 082015

BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC Building 7? Brother of 9/11 Victim goes to Court with the BBC over Alleged Cover Up

By Peter Drew
Global Research, March 06, 2015

Event Details

Date: Monday March 23rd, 2015

Time: 2.15pm

Venue: Court 1 Hastings Magistrates Court, Bohemia Rd, Hastings TN34 1ND

Contact Details: UK AE911Truth truthfor911@hotmail.co.uk

Summary Overview

On 23rd March Matt Campbell of Sussex, United Kingdom, will go to court against the BBC and will claim that the BBC is in violation of UK anti-terrorist legislation in the way that they have covered up evidence relating to 9/11 and evidence relating to the murder of his brother Geoff. Geoff Campbell was killed while inside the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001. Mr Campbell will claim that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been wilfully complicit in the deliberate cover up of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed and that as such the BBC is guilty of complicity with terrorism.

Representing Mr Campbell’s case against the BBC is senior litigation solicitor and human rights activist Mahtab Aziz who has represented a number of well-known public figures such as Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricketer captain turned politician, Herbie Hide the former 2 time World Heavyweight boxing champion and a number of other internationally well-known artists, singers and sportsmen. Mr Aziz also advised British Film Director Tony Rooke at Horsham Magistrates Court in 2013 for his similar case against the BBC’s alleged cover up of 9/11 evidence. That particular court case between Mr Rooke and the BBC was attended by several hundred members of the public and by independent journalists from across Europe where they witnessed Mr Rooke achieve a partial victory against the BBC.

Mr Campbell will also be calling on the support of a number of expert witnesses.

See here for further details of this court case.

Nov 092014

Aphex Twin: ‘If you believe the official 9/11 story you are absolutely gullible’

Richard James says he was shocked anyone would believe his views are ‘crackpot’, and posts tracks apparently made by his six-year-old son

Guardian music
theguardian.com, Tuesday 4 November 2014 07.48 GMT

Aphex Twin has returned to the theme of 9/11 in a new interview, saying those who believe the official story about the attacks on the twin towers are “absolutely gullible”.

In a recent interview with Q, Richard James had said he believed in conspiracy theories because they are more fun. Speaking to his friend Dave Noyze at Noyzelab, he went further when asked if there was anything he wanted to say that he hadn’t said in other interviews. “I keep forgetting that most people are totally friggin’ oblivious to how they are being programmed and controlled from birth upwards from your name, being a ‘citizen’, which basically enters you into a contract, it goes on from there.”

He continued: “Recently, when some journos were saying, ‘So you actually believe 9/11 was an inside job?’ attempting to paint picture of me bein’ a crackpot, I was totally shocked – they were intelligent people but still they didn’t get it … I’m really, really sorry to all folks who might be reading this but if you believe the ridiculous story that is being pedalled about 9/11 from the mainstream media then you are absolutely gullible … Not believing the mainstream media is very hard for some folk who have put their trust and faith in the state and press, breaking that faith will not be an easy process for many.”

James added that 9/11 was “just the tip of the iceberg … but how do you break this stranglehold on humanity? You have to start somewhere to break the illusion and 9/11 is a pretty big weak point in the illusion, but still so many are fooled.”

James also said his six-year-old son had made an album and posted it on Bandcamp. The album has since, apparently, been removed, but snippets from four tracks were posted along with the interview, and sound distinctly Aphex-like.

Read article here

Oct 252014

Russell Brand causes controversy over 9/11 comments

Last updated 10:55 25/10/2014


UK comedian Russell Brand said people should be “open-minded” about the view that the US government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a combative and at times cringe-worthy interview on BBC’s Newsnight, the author and actor said he found the relationship between the families of former US president George W Bush and al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden “interesting”.

“I think it is interesting at this time when we have so little trust in our political figures, where ordinary people have so little trust in their media, we have to remain open-minded to any kind of possibility,” he told interviewer Evan Davis.

“Do you trust the American government? Do you trust the British government? What I do think is very interesting is the relationship that the Bush family have had for a long time with the Bin Laden family.

“What I do think is very interesting is the way that even the BBC report the events in Ottawa to subtly build an anti-Islamic narrative. I think that’s very interesting. I think it’s interesting the way these tragic events are used to enforce further controls on us.”

However, when pressed by Davis on whether he was suggesting the Bush family was involved in the 9/11 attacks, Brand responded: “I don’t want to talk about daft conspiracy theories”.

The BBC said it had received nine complaints following the interview.

“Love him or loathe him Russell Brand has been one of the most eloquent voices articulating the anti-politics mood that all British politicians are currently struggling to engage with,” a spokesman said said.

Brand, who was fired from MTV after dressing as Osama bin Laden to work the day after the 9/11 attacks, was on the show to promote his new book Revolution.

The whole interview was strained and shouty, with Brand embarking on a series of rants and accusing his interviewer of being patronising and rude.

At one point, an exhausted Davis exclaimed: “I’m trying to take you seriously”.

Brand, who has written regularly for The Guardian, stirred controversy when he appeared on Newsnight last year and said he had never voted because of “absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class”.

– Sydney Morning Herald

Oct 022014

Published on Oct 1, 2014


A 9/11 British activist hands himself in to UK’s counter terrorism police following British Prime Ministers David Cameron’s speech at the UN General Assembly last week, Press TV reports.

In response to Cameron’s remarks equating people, who question 9/11 and 7/7 attacks in the US and UK as well as the West’s policy towards the Middle East, with Takfiri preachers who radicalize extremists, Nick Kollerstrom handed himself in.

“As the evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. And we know what this world view is, the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or the 7/7 London attacks were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy,” Cameron said while addressing the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 25. Explaining his actions to the Press TV correspondent in London, Kollerstrom said, “David Cameron has redefined terrorism at the UN to include people, who believe that the London bombings involve government complicity, were to some degree arranged, which I certainly do believe, and I’ve published a book on the subject and also I believe the 9/11 was an inside job. I do think Islamic nations are being selectively targeted, it’s perfectly obvious, and if the police force are going by his directive what constitutes terrorism, it seems to me that they need to arrest me.”

The Press TV correspondent was present while Colestrom handed himself in.

“We want to report a possible terror threat, we’ve got a bit of evidence and wonder if we could come in and report it,” Kollerstrom said at Scotland Yard headquarters in London.

The British police refused to arrest Colestrom, but he said that Cameron’s definition of nonviolent extremism will lead to the arrest of many Muslims, who share his views, and described it as another example of racial profiling.

Kev Baker Show

Kev Baker has been on the front lines since 2009. Hailing from Glasgow, Scotland, Kev was recently featured in VICE magazine as a front-line consultant and expert on activist groups in the United Kingdom. You can listen to Kev Baker on AM/FM in Colorado, Oregan, California, Sydney and London or tune into any of the TFR internet streams or listening options.

Kev Baker has set his mark as a professional broadcaster by featuring cutting edge analysis, current events and breaking news. However he does not stop there! Together with his co-hosts Johnny Whistles and Martin Hardy, Kev is joined by a great panel of expert researchers and whistleblowers in the field of space technology, metaphysics, human origins, black operations and international terrorism.

Seeking the answers to age old questions and dechipering the world around you painted by the mainstream media.. this is the Kev Baker Show!

And remember…


Show Archives — www.truthfrequencyradio.com/kevbaker
FACEBOOK — www.facebook.com/truthtube451
Twitter www.twitter.com/TruthTube451
Youtube www.youtube.com/truthtube451

DJsNorthWest youtube

Join my facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/Truthtube451

Sep 302014

British PM David Cameron: “Non-Violent Extremists” Including “9/11 Truthers” and “Conspiracy Theorists” are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists

By Peter Drew
Global Research, September 29, 2014
Url of this article:

Dear Mr Cameron

I write this open letter to you in response to your recent speech at the United Nations calling for military intervention in Iraq and Syria over the threat of ISIL. In particular I would like to make mention of your reference to the so called threat to society of what you have termed ‘non-violent extremists’, including those who are attempting to bring forward information and evidence about 9/11 which contradicts the official version of events.

Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL for a moment, I find this position on 9/11 evidence to be quite incredible. It is a position that is either extremely ignorant, or it is a position that goes against freedom and democracy in British society to such an extent that it is scarcely believable. Huge numbers of extremely credible and professional people across the world are now bringing forward incontrovertible facts and evidence showing us that the events of 9/11 have been systematically covered up, and that the public has been deceived and manipulated on this issue at a quite incredible level. Just like the public was deceived and manipulated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

While you are labelling these people who bring this evidence forward about 9/11 as ‘non-violent extremists’, are you aware of what is currently happening in New York City regarding 9/11?

Are you aware that more than 100,000 New York residents have just signed the petition calling for a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 through the ‘High Rise Safety Initiative’?

Are you aware that through the fundraising efforts of public groups in the US, there is currently a massive digital screen in the centre of Times Square showing rolling video footage of the controlled demolition of World Trade Centre Building 7 to three million New Yorkers? This is footage of a collapse of a massive 47 story building (not hit by a plane) that most people have not even been aware of or seen before now. How can this level of information cover-up be possible in this day and age?

Are you aware that many members of US Congress are now demanding that President Obama release the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report because there is information in those pages that will shock the nation, according to the two members of Congress who have been authorised to view the pages?

But yet you have just stated to the world that you consider members of the public to be ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the ISIL challenge if they merely wish that these facts, evidence, and information about 9/11 be made available to the wider public and that appropriate investigations are held.

I repeat my previous point. To make that statement to the world as you did, you are either extremely ignorant about this issue, or you are attempting to take a position which is so at odds with a decent, free society that it beggars belief. I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister of Britain would be unaware of what I have stated here, and therefore I have to believe that it is the latter scenario that is most likely.

Just to reinforce my point here, according to what you have said, because of their views on 9/11, or because of the evidence they have brought forward, you consider the following people to be ‘non-violent extremists’ who are a part of the challenge that society faces with the ISIL threat:

· Members of US Congress who have called for the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report to be released

· 100,000 members of the New York public for formally supporting and requesting a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on 9/11

· Dozens of first responder fire fighters who risked their lives on 9/11 and who lost 343 of their colleagues that day, including those who formed the organisation ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’

· More than 2,200 professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts from the organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’

· Norman Minneta – US Secretary of Transport during 9/11 who had his formal testimony to the 9/11 investigation panel stricken from the record

· Richard Clarke – US Head of Counter Terrorism during 9/11

· Numerous family members of the victims of 9/11

The above list is just a very quick start, but gives a feel for the type of people who you are now labelling as ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the battle against ISIL because of their views about 9/11 or the evidence they are bringing forward. According to your speech to the United Nations, we now need to bring in legislation that will be able to shut down internet sites that bring forward the information and the evidence that the people listed above have been trying to highlight for investigation. That to me sounds like extremist behaviour. In fact, that sounds to me like the words of someone who is supporting an attempted cover up of monumental proportions.

It seems that everyone now acknowledges that we were deceived and manipulated on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to take us to war. It also looks like we have been deceived and manipulated on a grand scale regarding the true facts about 9/11. So, on this basis, why should you or anyone else believe one word about what the United States is saying about the threat of ISIL?

You have already attempted to take the UK to war in Syria on the basis of alleged evidence against the Assad government that has since proven to be inconclusive at best. Now just a few months later you are once again attempting to take the UK to war with Syria, this time because you now have conclusive evidence of a new and different threat. Meanwhile, you consider anyone who holds views about 9/11 that are contrary to the official story to be ‘non-violent extremists’.

Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL, which seems to be clouded in uncertainties in terms of exactly who they are, who and how they have been created and supported, and what their wider threat is to the world, I find your comments at the United Nations about the other aspects of this issue to be quite incredible.

9/11 is the event that launched the so called global war on terror and military action in the Middle East. It is now incontrovertible that we have been deceived and manipulated on a large scale about the true facts of 9/11. Getting the true facts about 9/11 runs right to the heart of all the issues we currently see in the Middle East and the so called war on terror. For you to label ordinary, caring, and patriotic members of the public as ‘non-violent extremists’ simply for asking these questions about 9/11 and bringing forward this evidence, and to state that these types of internet sites should be censored, then I have to say that it is you who are the extremist, in the extreme.

The truth facts and evidence about 9/11 are now coming forward and there is a tidal wave of growing awareness as people are now getting to see this information, as shown by what is happening in New York City as we speak. It cannot be covered up by any crude efforts by the UK government to censor the internet or to give these people an extremist label. It is far too late for that. For anyone in office to continue to support the attempted suppression of this information will simply result in them being positioned on the wrong side of history.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Drew – MSc

UK Facilitator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Sep 092014

New investigation links anthrax plotters to 911

The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy

Graeme MacQueen, cofounder of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University, Ontario.

Clarity Press 2014

Review by Ian Henshall, author 911 The New Evidence

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.