why it is important to understand 9/11

Why It Is Important To Understand 9/11

In the beginning Osama denied any responsibility for the 9/11 Attack, which seems odd. We think he would have admitted it openly.

September 2001 Headlines THEY Would Like You To Forget

bin Laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy war

"The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this," bin Laden said.

Bin Laden denies being behind attacks

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," said the statement, broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel.


Notorious international terrorist Osama Bin Laden denies his involvement in the US terrorist acts. The Pakistani Khabrein daily with reference to some Taliban sources quotes him as saying that the terrorist act was committed by some American terrorist group and that he had nothing to do with it.

Bin Laden Denies U.S. Attack, says paper

"The terrorist act is the action of some American group. I have nothing to do with it," the newspaper Khabrain quoted Bin Laden as saying through "sources close to the Taliban."

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

Bin Laden Denies Role in Attacks

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," said the statement, broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel.

Taliban Says Bin Laden Denies Role in Attacks

Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement said on Thursday that Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden had told them he had no role in Tuesday's terror attacks in the United States.


On Friday 14 December 2001 a videotape of Osama bin Laden "confessing" to the 9/11 attacks was released. The tape was supposedly found in a house in Qandahar, Afghanistan. The recording was of very poor audio and visual quality and the authenticity of the tape was questioned.

This annoyed President Bush who said "[It is] preposterous to think this tape was doctored".

Okay, let's have a look.
Picture of 5 Osama's with one that does not look like the others
Here's 5 Osama's - which is the odd one out?

Bin Laden denies terror attacks and points finger at Jews

The paper quoted bin Laden as saying: "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida is involved in the attacks and the US has traced the attackers within America. Ummat quotes bin Laden as saying: "We are against the American system but not the American people. Islam does not allow killing of innocent people, men, women and children even in the event of war."

More Stuff THEY Would Like You To Forget



Between 1983 and 1992--the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle era--the U.S. gave Iraq innumerable weapons, and issued about $2 billion in loans, most of which were used to buy even more weapons; the U.S. never expected full repayment. In addition, U.S. corporations provided Iraq with the means to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. The "point man" the Reagan administration sent to solidify U.S.-Iraqi relations--and who had personal knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, and who helped remove the "terrorist" label against Iraq--was . . . Donald Rumsfeld.

The above link is no longer valid here is a copy of the complete article:

The Shock and Awe of American Ignorance
Playing Spin the Battle
by Walt Brasch, April 25, 2003

More than half of all Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to an Associated Press poll conducted shortly after the conclusion of the successful invasion of Iraq, 53 percent of the nation pin the 9/11 murders on Saddam, something the CIA and most of the world intelligence gathering organizations have consistently discounted.

The fact that so many Americans believe this reveals the successful drum beating of the Bush administration along with a failure of both Congress and the media to adequately question the President's motives or to challenge the statements coming from the White House and Pentagon. President Bush and his horde of advisors have constantly said they never--ever--said that Saddam was the person behind the attacks. But, if the President could say "subliminal," that's what he, the vice-president, and their administration did to the Americans, with the complicity of the media who abrogated their responsibilities and made it seem that challenging anything the President said would be treason.

In message after message, the President referred to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. Then, as in the movies, he jump-cut to the evils of Saddam, letting the people think there was a smooth transition, while implanting those "hidden" meanings.

A month after 9/11, Americans believed Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible. Upon that basis, the President ordered an invasion of Afghanistan, one of several countries that harbored bin Laden and his terrorists, and overthrew the Taliban regime. At the time, finding anyone who thought Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 was as rare as finding a corporate executive who believed in unions.

Americans quickly learned that 15 of the 19 suicide/killers of 9/11 were Saudi. With a little more digging into buried news accounts, they might have also learned that 26 of al-Qaeda's top leadership at the time of 9/11, including bin Laden, were Egyptian, Saudi, or Yemini. Only one, a third level administrator, was an Iraqi. They might also have learned that eight of the top 10 financial contributors to al-Qaeda are Saudi. They might also have learned that Saddam and al-Qaeda had never been close, that as ruthless as Saddam was, he was relatively moderate in the world of terrorism except, of course, against his own people.

A year of Presidential drum beating and brow-bashing led to about a third of Americans becoming believers. A month before the invasion of Iraq, about 45 percent of Americans, according to the AP, believed the Iraqi dictator was personally involved.

The eight percent increase in the month after the invasion could be attributed not only to war-mongering rhetoric, but to the nation trying to justify why it sent more than 200,000 of its sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins to war.

By the time war had begun, the message wasn't that Iraq was behind 9/11, but that it was a potential enemy because it had weapons of mass destruction.

In the most recent State of the Union, President Bush had forcefully declared that Iraq had a weapons program that included at least 500 tons of chemical weapons, 38,000 liters of botulism, 25,000 liters of anthrax, as well as uncountable numbers of SCUDs. But, as in the telephone rumor game when a simple fact spread person to person eventually becomes a bloated urban myth, America's people and their news media escalated even those unproven numbers until the average working person may have been led to believe that Iraq actually posed a greater danger to America than did North Korea and Iran, both of which had nuclear capability to hit American targets, something Iraq did not have.

However, Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction, although none were nuclear. Between 1983 and 1992--the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle era--the U.S. gave Iraq innumerable weapons, and issued about $2 billion in loans, most of which were used to buy even more weapons; the U.S. never expected full repayment. In addition, U.S. corporations provided Iraq with the means to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. The "point man" the Reagan administration sent to solidify U.S.-Iraqi relations-and who had personal knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, and who helped remove the "terrorist" label against Iraq--was . . . Donald Rumsfeld.

But, slowly and reluctantly under a U.N. mandate, Iraq began to destroy its weapons. So far, 300,000 American and British combat forces, aided by numerous infiltrators and the best spy satellite system ever known to mankind, have been unable to locate any weapons of mass destruction--other than ones used by the Coalition forces. Maybe the Bush administration should send in Monk and Colombo.

The fact that the two-nation "coalition" of 300,000 overwhelmed and destroyed a country of 24 million quickly, and that Iraq's armies used only bullets, light artillery, and short-range, but legal, missiles in its defense, suggests that the defeated nation probably didn't have the weapons the U.S. claimed.

President Bush and his supporters kept saying the war wasn't about oil. But, the first thing the Coalition troops protected once they entered Baghdad weren't the hospitals or museums but the Oil Ministry. Maybe the Ministry was in an "historical district."

At the time President Bush was telling the U.N. and the American people that he had no plans to go to war with Iraq, his administration officials were meeting in secret with several industry giants with financial and political ties to the Administration to develop a plan for a post-war Iraq.

One of those giants was Bechtel, a multi-nation conglomerate with close financial ties to the White House. Another was a subsidiary of Haliburton, the multi-billion dollar oil company that once had Dick Cheney as its CEO.

In a few months, Americans may be shocked that Iraq didn't help al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, that it didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and that there may have been collusion between the Administration and major corporations to reap financial rewards for rebuilding a country that the U.S. destroyed. We should be shocked--but we should also be in awe of how well the President and his administration spun their messages of war, and how dizzy the major media must have been to have accepted the words unchallenged.

Walt Brasch, a national award-winning reporter and editor, is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University. He is the author of 13 books, including The Press and the State, and the current book, The Joy of Sax: America During the Bill Clinton Era. You may contact him through his web-site http://www.walterbrasch.com


However, he [Bush] replaced the secret evidence law with a No Evidence law and appointed an Islam-hater Israel-lover, John Ashcroft, as Inquisitor General for the removal of Muslims from the U.S. For the Muslim world he appointed another Islam-hater Israel-lover, Donald Rumsfeld, as Chief Propagandist against the Muslim world so that he could launch military campaigns to weaken them further. Rumsfeld came with a whole team of strategists to remove Islam from the world and establish American hegemony worldwide. They came in with their 9-11 plan, which they have been working on since 1997. See the documents “Plan for the New American Century” and “A Clean Break”; some of the key documents are being removed from their web sites.


Aug 23 2001: The Mossad gives US intelligence a list of the hijackers including Alhazmi, Almihdhar, Alshehhi, and Atta.

Sep 11 2001: The attacks happen. While they are happening the Carlyle group (the Bush-associated defense contractor) is hosting bin Laden's brother in Washington. Five Israeli Mossad agents are caught videotaping the WTC attack from Liberty State Park. They tell the FBI, "our purpose was to document the event".

http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/ - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/stf1.html

"By way of deception thou shalt do war." - Megastup

In 1955, Israeli agents, impersonating Arab terrorists, were caught staging a series of bombings against American installations in Egypt.

When this conspiracy was exposed, it ultimately created such a controversy that it brought down the Israeli government. The long since forgotten scandal became known as "the Lavon Affair".

During a 1967 war with the Arabs, Israeli gunboats and fighter jets deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, an unarmed US communications ship. Thirty five American sailors were murdered and 170 others injured in a prolonged Israeli onslaught - carried out in broad daylight and with the U.S. flag flying prominently. The intent was to kill all of the Americans and then leave the Egyptians to take the blame.

In 1989 former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrosvky revealed exactly how the Israeli Mossad framed Libya for the bombing of a German night club which killed American servicemen. It was this frame up job that caused President Reagan to bomb Libya.

January, 2000: A DEA government document later leaked to the press suggests that a large Israeli spy ring starts penetrating the US from at least this time, if not earlier. This ring, which will later become popularly known as the "art student spy ring," is later shown to have strange connections to the events of 9/11.

March 23, 2001: The Office of National Drug Control Policy issues a National Security Alert describing "apparent attempts by Israeli nationals to learn about government personnel and office layouts." A crackdown ensues and by June around 120 Israelis are apprehended and expelled, but many remain at large.

September 10, 2001: An Army School of Advanced Military Studies issues a report written by elite US army officers, which is made public just prior to 9/11. The report gives the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

September 11, 2001: Five Israelis are arrested around 4:30 P.M. after having filmed the burning WTC from the roof of their company's building near Liberty State Park, then shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. They were spotted by a neighbor who called the police and the FBI. The police tracked them down in a van with the words " Urban Moving Systems" written on the side.

Investigators say that " There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted... It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen. The FBI interrogates them for weeks. They hold them on immigration violation charges, before ultimately releasing them 71 days later. Their names are later identified as Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel. Dominick Suter, owner of the company Urban Moving Systems, flees the country to Israel.

Police in the Midwest stop six men containing suspicious documents, and then release them. They possess photos and descriptions of a nuclear power plant in Florida and the Trans-Alaska pipeline, and also have "box cutters and other equipment." All six also have Israeli passports. They are let go after their passports are shown to be valid, but before anyone interviews them. The FBI is reportedly furious about their release as it appears they may have been Mossad agents.

December 12, 2001: According to FOX news, throughout late 2000 and 2001, a total of 200 Israeli spies were arrested. It was the largest spy ring to be uncovered in the history of the US. The Washington Post also reported that some of these Israelis were arrested in connection with the 9-11 investigation. US. Carl Cameron of FOX News Channel did a excellent four part, nationally televised, series of investigations into this blockbuster scandal. But FOX pulled the investigative series after Zionist groups complained to FOX executives. FOX even went so far as to remove the written transcripts of the series from its website!


Regarding the Five Israelis who were arrested on 9-11:

One man was found with $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, another had two passports on him, and a box cutter was found in the van. [ABC News, 6/21/02]

Investigators say that "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted... It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen." [Bergen Record, 9/12/01]

One of these Israelis later says, "Our purpose was to document the event." [ABC News, 6/21/02]

The FBI later concludes at least two are Mossad agents and that all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. The FBI interrogates them for weeks. [Forward, 3/15/02]

They are held on immigration violation charges and released 71 days later. [ABC News, 6/21/02]

Their names are later identified as Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel. [Forward, 3/15/02]

September 11 , 2001 (X): An FAA memo written on the evening of 9/11 suggests a man on Flight 11 was shot and killed by a gun before the plane crashed into the WTC. [See the leaked FAA memo, originally posted at World Net Daily] "


Someone has persuaded the US government and the media that the American people are only supposed to see the evidence that points to a certain direction, and must never see any evidence that points someplace else. Likewise, the media have been "persuaded" not to report evidence that Israel knew of the Sept. 11 attacks ahead of time. The foreign press has outright accused the Mossad of taking part in the Sept. 11 attacks but the American media have been" persuaded" not to cover these accusations. ...

...and What About This:

The Incredible 9-11 Evidence


Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq -- even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

Picture of the book, "9/11 In Plane Site" by William Lewis


The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism

This article, which demonstrates that the official story of what happened on September 11th, 2001, is ridiculous, and which presents the only explanation so far offered of what actually happened which is consistent with the known facts, is quite large (207 KB), so it is best to access it from the Serendipity mirror site nearest to you (Europe, Australia or the U.S.)

The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism

UPDATED 09 Apr 2005
If the moon could talk,
Intelligence Deception since Afghanistan!

by Maher Osseiran

Investigative article that sheds new light on the confession of Osama Bin Laden on tape to 9/11 and supports the possibility that it was produced by western intelligence. It also vindicates those who coined the term "Synthetic Terrorism".

While the controversy in England about the advice of the Attorney General on the legality of the Iraq war rages on and fuels requests for its publication in full, in America, George W. Bush is luckier and has survived the Valerie Plame issue, WMD's, and the scathing report on the failure of intelligence prior to 9/11, the question is, how would both deal with the issue brought up in this article that potentially dwarfs all other issues.

The issue is Bin Laden confessionals to his guilt of 9/11 on video tapes; yes plural, it is not a typo. One British supposedly acquired through intelligence, and one American explained as the product of an amateur videographer. Could those two tapes be just one and could it be as reported by the Observer the "result of a sophisticated sting operation"?

We have all seen the "American video", a video tape acquired by US soldiers in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and, provided by the Pentagon to the media and the general public in its raw form after intelligence services dissected it, analyzed it, and authenticated it. On the tape aired Dec 13, 2001, Osama Bin Laden, through a conversation with a visiting sheikh, later identified as Khaled al-Harbi, admits to 9/11, or in the least shows prior knowledge of it.

Many of you might have forgotten or never even heard that there is also a "British video". On On Nov. 14, 2001, Tony Blair addressed parliament and informed the audience that the British Government published transcript excerpts of the "video" in which it says Bin Laden admitted taking his campaign to the United States. The article quotes bin Laden as saying: "It is what we instigated for a while, in self-defence. If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists. The battle has been moved inside America, and we shall continue until we win this battle, or die in the cause and meet our maker."

Now since Jalalabad fell on Nov. 14, the same day Mr. Blair uttered that quote in parliament, and, the president of the United States first exposure to the "American video" recovered in Jalalabad was not until Nov. 29, one has to assume that the "video" Mr. Blair is referring to is a different "video". After all, if it is the same "video", how could Mr. Blair have knowledge of something that has not yet existed?

On Nov 11, The British video makes it debut introduce by David Bamber of the Sunday Telegraph in London. Mr. Bamber informs us that the Telegraph had access to it and reports it this way: "The footage, to which the Telegraph obtained access in the Middle East yesterday, was not made for public release via the al-Jazeera television network used by bin Laden for propaganda purposes in the past. It is believed to be intended as a rallying call to al-Qa'eda members. He also tells us: "The video will form the centrepiece of Britain and America's new evidence against bin Laden, to be released this Wednesday."

On Nov 14, three days later, the tape commits a disappearing act and this is how T.R. Reid, the Washington Post Foreign Service correspondent, reports from London on its official introduction in Parliament by Tony Blair; he writes: "The British government did not release the video or a full transcript, saying it does not have a copy of the video but has information about it from intelligence sources." In the same article, he also reports that there was an interviewer on the tape.

Now you see it, now you don't !!!

This is how the Washington Post describes on Dec. 9 Mr. Blair's video in the article that unveiled the "American video" and I quote: "The new videotape is not the one described last month by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Intelligence sources had obtained only a transcript of that tape, not the actual video."

It is a fact that the "British video" Tony Blair referred to on Nov 14, has never been provided to the public and his quotes of Nov 14, which are hearsay, are nowhere in the transcript of the "American video" recovered in Jalalabad and aired on Dec. 13, 2001. It is also a fact that through the various newspaper reports, we are asked to believe that only the Telegraph had access to the video while British and American intelligence had no chance to see it, vet it, or authenticate its transcript. Also, we are asked to believe that there are two "videos", and that confessionals by "video" are a standard Osama Bin Laden business practice with copies distributed to heads of state.

Logic dictates that we not believe, and dictates that we ask Tony Blair and the Telegraph, to release the video immediately. Also, since the analysis that follows increases the credibility of a report that the tape is the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by intelligence services, urgency is warranted.

The following came to light while I was researching inconsistencies in intelligence that sent us to war in Iraq. The "American video" released by the Pentagon, even though not specifically related to the war in Iraq, stayed in my mind ever since it was aired and warranted a revisit as part of my research.

While viewing the "American video", both historic and technical inconsistencies were found. Granted, the tape is the most analyzed tape in the world, still, most of the analysis was centered on the looks of Bin Laden, his voice quality, his words, and none reported an investigative analysis that considered post-taping edits. Due to limited technical capabilities, we could only report that the tape was a fourth generation edit (copy or otherwise), that there are both VHS and digital drops on the tape, which is unusual, and that there was unwarranted editing that might have happened post-taping. Also, and most importantly, that certain camera angles and motions seemed too similar to a hat camera that football umpires wear. Those who are better equipped to conduct further evaluation are encouraged to do so. (click here for hints to those interested in conducting further technical analysis)

In terms of the historic inconsistencies, the timeline inconsistencies that follow are of a serious nature and clear enough that the Pentagon analysts should have easily picked them out. The failure to detect them and report them should weigh negatively against those who released the video.

The first anchor for the timeline analysis is what Ari Fliescher, the White House press secretary, informed us through his press briefings. Mr. Fliescher told us that the tape was found in Jalalabad, in an abandoned house, that the tape did not seem to be planted, and that the occupiers of the house seem to have left in a hurry. Mr. Fleischer also tells us that the tape seems to have been made on November 9, 2001, since that is what the time stamp on it is. He also goes on to say in one of his answers: "I can tell you, the President was first informed of it on November 29th. He first viewed portions of it on November 30th." Again, for the record, Jalalabad fell on Nov. 14.

Now let us use the transcript of the tape that the Pentagon provided.

In the transcript, the visiting sheikh to whom Bin Laden confessed is reported to have said: "We came from Kabul... We asked the driver to take us, it was a night with a full moon, thanks be to Allah." On the tape itself, the sheikh actually infers prominent moon, which I interpret as 3 to 4 days before and after a full moon. He is later reported to have said: "Allah has bestowed on us...honor on us...and he will give us blessing and more victory during this holy month of Ramadan." In the tape he never uses the word Ramadan, he actually says: "....victory during this Moubarak (meaning blessed) month and the month after." The translators decided to interpret "Moubarak month" as Ramadan since the word Moubarak is usually used to describe the month of Ramadan and totally omitted the fact that he said: "and the month after".

If Ramadan were the month the taping took place, Ramadan in 2001 starts like every other Ramadan with a new moon, as black as the night can get, and was on Nov. 16, while a full moon is not until Nov. 30, which means a prominent moon is between Nov. 26 and Dec. 4. The taping could not have happened during a prominent moon in the month of Ramadan since Kabul, the town the sheikh traveled through, had fallen on Nov. 12, Jalalabad, where it was found, on Nov.14, and Kandahar, where supposedly it was taped, was surrounded by anti-Taliban forces during that period and fell towards the end of it.

Now that we have established that the taping could not have taken place during Ramadan and that the reported date stamp of Nov. 9 on the tape could have been a programming error on the part of the camera operator, we need to go back in time and examine the previous periods of a prominent moon which are: Oct. 27 through Nov. 4, and, Sept. 28 through Oct. 6.

Going back to the transcript released by the Pentagon we find no mention of carpet bombings, coalition operations, or travel difficulties due to the military operations that officially started on Oct 6, 2001. I find it incredible that, over a period of 40 minutes of tape, there was no mention of military activities by the coalition or their effects on travel, considering the magnitude of such activities and the chattiness of the sheikh, which puts the period of Oct. 27 through Nov. 4 in doubt.

The second anchors for the timeline analysis are statements by Tony Blair, that of Nov. 14 and the following two:

On Oct 4, 2001, in a speech, he states that a Government document is to be released and I quote the document: "There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the guilt of Bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to release." The operative words are "very specific".

On Sept. 30, 2001, in a BBC interview, Tony Blair states that he has evidence from intelligence services of Bin Laden's guilt and that the evidence was "powerful and incontrovertible". I had to look up incontrovertible in the dictionary, it means; not open to question or dispute; indisputable, as in, absolute and incontrovertible truth. This was only 4 days prior to Oct. 4, is he talking about the same "very specific" evidence. Very likely as it takes governments about 4 days to vet and publish.

When we combine all three statements, we can deduce that the incontrovertible evidence was available as early as Sept. 30, that it was acquired by intelligence, and that it is a "video" since the only incontrovertible evidence, even though hearsay, Blair put forth was his quote of Nov. 14.

Again, logic dictates that we ask Tony Blair to release his video.

Going back to the timeline analysis. If we now take the period of Sept. 28 through Oct. 6, into consideration, we have to consider a fact that strongly favors this period, it is the fact that the visiting sheikh is a paraplegic and needs considerable help during travel. I would think a handicapped person would travel into Afghanistan during the relative calm of this period while he could still get the support and cooperation of the Taliban in his trek to locate and meet Bin Laden. Oddly enough, this time period also fits perfectly with Tony Blair's statements of Sept. 30 and Oct. 4 and begs the conclusion that the video was produced around Sept. 28.

The only inconsistency with the Sept. 28 through Oct. 6 period is where Ramadan is deduced by the translators but never mentioned by name by the sheikh. Again, let us review what the sheikh said: "....victory during this Moubarak month and the month after." One can wonder if his usage of the word Moubarak was strictly out of piety, if it is, then there is no inconsistency. But, since the mention of the prominent moon in the video was a normal statement and stating a fact that should be known to all present, giving it more prominence as the truth, and the use of the word Moubarak is not only proven out of chronological context but would also have raised eye brows if he had not followed it with "and the month after", one has to consider the possibility that the word Moubarak was inserted intentionally, which adds credibility to the following paragraph.

Ed Voliami and Jason Burke reported in the Observer on December 16, 2001 and I quote: "This weekend, as the debate the tape has provoked continued across the Islamic world, several intelligence sources have suggested to The Observer that the tape, although absolutely genuine, is the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by the CIA through a second intelligence service, possibly Saudi or Pakistani."

If Voliami and Burke are correct in their reporting, and our timeline on target, the sting operation that did the taping of the video could have been the sting operation that did the capturing or elimination of Bin Laden which would also have averted the Afghanistan war and significantly contained terrorism, not to mention preventing the loss of life on both sides.

Another very serious consequence of airing a tape that is a product of a sting operation is the effect it would have on its subject, Bin Laden, when viewing it. By airing it, the producers of the tape tipped their hand and exposed the fact that they were mere feet from him; his paranoia and security concerns could only have increased and made him harder to locate.

Considering all these serious questions that have been raised, strictly through the use of logic and public domain information, it is imperative that we ask Tony Blair and the Telegraph to release their tape.

The implications that arise if both tapes, American and British, are the same are beyond comprehension, and the words needed to comfort those who have lost loved ones in 9/11 and in the war or terror are beyond imagination.

If only the moon could talk!

Source: http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/147632/index.php

Watergate II by Michael C. Ruppert


Missing / Dead Scientists

Speaking of Plans:
Native Americans lag in health

American Indians and Alaska natives still have more illnesses and early deaths from injuries compared to whites, says an official of the Indian Health Service.

US Nobel Laureate Slams Bush Gov't as "Worst" in American History

I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy.

Sometimes Even the President of the United States Has to Stand Naked

Aren't Reporters Supposed To Report The Truth ?

When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators

The babies in the incubator story is a classic example of how easy it is for the public and legislators to be mislead during moments of high tension. It's also a vivid example of how the media can be manipulated if we do not keep our guards up.

"Yes, We Censored News About Afghanistan"
The Lapdog Conversion of CNN

During the Persian Gulf War, however, things were different--some of the media did not so easily roll over and play dead like a dog straight out of obedience school. In 1991, Harper's, The Village Voice, The Nation, and others sued, claiming government censorship was a violation of the First Amendment. Predictably, the major corporate newspapers and TV networks refused to join the lawsuit. Instead, as now, they simply ingratiated themselves with the Pentagon and dutifully spoon-fed the public censored and heavily excised information (if not outright lies and fabrications). The lawsuit was eventually dismissed by a judge who didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. It would seem the media of decades past was made of brawnier stuff than the media of today.


In early May of 1991, two months after the Gulf War ended, the Washington editors for 15 major American news organizations sent a letter of complaint to then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. They charged that the Pentagon had exerted "virtually total control" over coverage of the war. The letter represented completion of a ritual for American media coverage of U.S. military actions: News outlets routinely engage in self-censorship and sometimes grouse -- especially after the fact -- that the government has imposed too many restrictions on the press.

Cartoon of someone looking like Dick Cheney eliminating ammendments from the Constitution

"For their part, the leaders of the private sector also have responsibilities to be honest and above board in all dealings, and truthful in reporting profits and losses.""Most people who do business in America are indeed trustworthy and honest. … We must not allow the deeds of a few to tarnish our free enterprise system." - Vice President Dick Cheney, July 2003

"If what Halliburton did was legal in terms of their accounting principles, then why didn't they make full disclosure to the American public? Why did they hide it from the public? Where there is smoke, there's fire." - Larry Klayman, July 2003


Cheney and Bush want privacy for their conversations, but not for anyone else's." --Tony Mauro in USA Today, Feb. 27, 2002

Cheney had Iraq in sights two years ago
By Simon English in New York (Filed: 22/07/2003)

Documents released under America's Freedom of Information Act reveal that an energy task force led by vice-president Dick Cheney was examining Iraq's oil assets two years before the latest war began.

The papers were obtained after a long battle with the White House by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal charity that opposes government secrecy and which is suing for the dealings of the task force to be made public.

The emergence of the documents could fuel claims that America's war in Iraq had as much to do with oil as national security. It also indicates that the Bush administration is beginning to lose the battle to keep its internal workings secret.

The 16 pages, dated March 2001, show maps of Iraq oil fields, pipelines, refineries and terminals. A document titled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts is also included, listing which countries were keen to do business with Saddam's regime.

U.S. government: no charges needed to jail citizens

The Justice Department has declared it has the right to jail U.S. citizens without charges and deny anyone it deems an "enemy combatant" the right to legal representation.

Grunt Vision Goggles
(Flash Format) by
Mark Fiore

Raccoon Carjacks Woman; Escapes Police

Christine Leonard of Barrington, R.I. said that when she was getting into her car to go to the grocery store over the weekend a raccoon dove into the vehicle and forced her from the car.

Bush's Nose is Growing; Nobody Cares

"The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power ..." George W. Bush

We were all hallucinating when we watched news footage of reporters chasing U.N. weapons inspectors around Iraq last winter. Those were but voices in our collective head when we heard pleas from the likes of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter to allow the digging around to continue. And we must have all swallowed a giant tab of yellowcake when we read the news of U.N. weapons inspectors scrambling to beat a path out of Baghdad on the eve of the Shock & Awe bombing campaign.

This is the first installment of a two-part series on the history of the Narragansett Indians.
By Ellyn Santiago

Bush/Cheney 2004 Election Donors

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!