Signs of the Times.org


Signs of the Times "Pentagon Strike" Makes Waves In Washington

By Signs of the Times Editorial Staff - [email protected]
October 8 2004


On Thursday 7th October 2004, The Washington Post carried on its front page an article on the Pentagon Strike Flash Presentation produced by Signs of the Times.


Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet

By Carol Morello
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page B01

Working from his home office in a small town in England, Darren Williams spent four weeks this summer making a short but startling video that raises novel questions about the 2001 attack on the Pentagon.

The video, "9/11: Pentagon Strike," suggests that it was not American Airlines Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon, but a missile or a small plane.

With rock music as a backdrop, the video offers flashes of photographs taken shortly after impact, interspersed with witness accounts. The pictures seem incompatible with damage caused by a jumbo jet, and no one mentions seeing one. Red arrows point to unbroken windows in the burning building. Firefighters stand outside a perfectly round hole in a Pentagon wall where the Boeing 757 punched through; it is less than 20 feet in diameter.

Propelled by word of mouth, Internet search engines and e-mail, the video has been downloaded by millions of people around the world.

American history is rife with conspiracy theories. Extremists have fed rumors of secret plots by Masons, bankers, Catholics and Communists. But now urban legends have become cyberlegends, and suspicions speed their way globally not over months and weeks but within days and hours on the Web.

"The dissemination is almost immediate," said Doug Thomas, a University of Southern California communications professor who teaches classes on technology and subgroups. "It's not just one Web site saying, 'Hey, look at this.' It's 10,000 people sending e-mails to 10 friends, and then they send it on."

The Pentagon video could be a case study. Williams created a Web site for the video, www.pentagonstrike.co.uk. Then he e-mailed a copy to Laura Knight-Jadczyk, an American author living in France whose books include one on alien abduction. Williams, 31, a systems analyst, belongs to an online group hosted by Knight-Jadczyk that blends discussions of science, politics and the paranormal.

On Aug. 23, Knight-Jadczyk posted a link to the video on the group's Web site, www.Cassiopaea.org. Within 36 hours, Williams's site collapsed under the crush of tens of thousands of visitors. But there were others to fill the void.

In Texas, a former casino worker who downloaded the video began drawing almost 700,000 visitors a day to his libertarian site. In Louisiana, a young Navy specialist put the video on his personal Web page, usually visited by a few friends and relatives; suddenly, the site was inundated by more than 20,000 hits. In Alberta, traffic to a cabdriver's site shot up more than sixfold after he supplied a link to the video.

Across thousands of sites, demand for the video was so great that some webmasters solicited donations to pay for the extra bandwidth.

"Pentagon Strike" is just the latest and flashiest example of a growing number of Web sites, books and videos contending that something other than a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

Most make their case through the selective use of photographs and eyewitness accounts reported during the confusion of the first hours after the attack. They say they don't know what really happened to American Airlines Flight 77 and don't offer other explanations. The doubters say they are just asking questions that have not been answered satisfactorily.

The ready and growing audience for conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been particularly galling to those who worked on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the bipartisan panel known as the 9/11 commission.

"We discussed the theories," said Philip D. Zelikow, the commission's executive director. "When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all. They satisfy a deep need in the people who create them. What we tried to do instead was to affirmatively tell what was true and tell it adding a lot of critical details that we knew would help dispel concerns."

Conspiracy theories are common after traumatic events. Michael Barkun, a political scientist at Syracuse University who has written books on the culture of conspiracies, said contradictory and inconclusive eyewitness accounts often leave room for different interpretations of events.

"Conspiracy theories are one way to make sense of what happened and regain a sense of control," Barkun said. "Of course, they're usually wrong, but they're psychologically reassuring. Because what they say is that everything is connected, nothing happens by accident, and that there is some kind of order in the world, even if it's produced by evil forces. I think psychologically, it's in a way consoling to a lot of people."

The belief that the government is lying about the Sept. 11 attacks is coming from both the right and the left. Experts say more than suspicion of the Bush administration is at work.

"It seems that since the end of the Cold War, the enemy is the United States government, the enemy is within," said Rick Ross, whose Ross Institute of New Jersey monitors cults and other controversial groups, many of which see manipulative forces working behind the scenes. "Instead of projecting conspiracy theories out, it's become internalized."

Zelikow, for example, lacks credibility with many who question the work of the 9/11 commission because he wrote a book with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. He believes that it is futile to discuss evidence with people convinced of a conspiracy.

"The hardcore conspiracy theorists are totally committed," Zelikow said. "They'd have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. That's not our worry. Our worry is when things become infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination. Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body."

David Ray Griffin considers himself an unlikely recruit to what is called the "9/11 Truth Movement." The retired theologian, who taught religion for three decades at Claremont School of Theology, initially dismissed the notion that it was not an airliner that hit the Pentagon. But after visiting several Internet sites raising questions about the attack, he ended up writing a book. "The New Pearl Harbor," published in the spring, argues that a Boeing 757 would have caused far more damage and left more wreckage strewn around the Pentagon.

"There are reasons why people doubt the official story," he said. "There are photographs taken, and there is no Boeing in sight."

Suspicions formed as the Pentagon still smoldered.

For 2 1/2 years, the attack on the Pentagon has been discussed and researched by members of Knight-Jadczyk's online group, the Quantum Future School.

The group's talks formed the basis for articles in which Knight-Jadczyk argues that after the attack on the World Trade Center, eyewitnesses at the Pentagon were predisposed to see a large airliner. She believes that the Pentagon was attacked by a smaller plane and that members of the Bush administration were somehow complicit because it was beneficial for war-profiteers and Israel.

Interviewed by telephone from what she said is a 17-bedroom castle outside Toulouse, where she lives with her Polish physicist husband and five children, Knight-Jadczyk acknowledged that her group is considered "fringe."

Knight-Jadczyk, 52, a Florida native, has been a psychic and a channeler. She is now involved in experiments in what she calls "superluminal communication," which she described as involving "time loops" that would enable people to communicate with their former selves.

Knight-Jadczyk said she never imagined anyone outside her group would ever view "Pentagon Strike."

"The fact everybody's been sending it to his brother and his cousin, almost frenetically, reflects the fact that there is a deep unease," she said. "They don't come out and say it. They don't want to be accused of being with terrorists, anti-American or anti-patriotic. But they still feel something's wrong."

Bret Dean of Fort Worth said he considers it "baloney" to question whether a plane hit the Pentagon. But he also believes that the government ignored warning of the attacks.

After posting a link to the video on his libertarian site, www.freedomunderground.org, Dean recorded more than 8 million hits. At least one came from inside the Defense Department, he said.

"I don't think the video is an instigator," said Dean, 45, a former casino worker. "It's a symptom. A lot of people don't trust the government's explanation because the government's classified all the information."

Asked if there were unreleased photographs of the attack that would convince the doubters, Zelikow, of the 9/11 commission, said, "No."

"The question of whether American 77 hit the Pentagon is indisputable," Zelikow said. "One reason you tend to doubt conspiracy theories when you've worked in government is because you know government is not nearly competent enough to carry off elaborate theories. It's a banal explanation, but imagine how efficient it would need to be."

Comment: Well, what can we say, there may be something to the 'butterfly wing' effect after all.

First of all, we would like to say that we understand that there are many restrictions placed on mainstream media reporters and editors by 'vested interests', and we applaud any attempt these reporters and editors make to nevertheless give the truth a chance to shine. The recent Dan Rather episode and the treatment he received from the Bush gang is a case in point.

We are not unappreciative therefore of the obvious time and effort that went into producing the above article and the opportunity it presents to millions of Washington Post readers to get a closer and more accurate representation of the facts about the attack on the Pentagon and the 9/11 attacks in general.

That said, we would like to address some of the points made by some of the people interviewed for the article.

The first point is made by the author Ms. Morello. She notes that:

Most [conspiracy theorists] make their case through the selective use of photographs and eyewitness accounts reported during the confusion of the first hours after the attack. They say they don't know what really happened to American Airlines Flight 77 and don't offer other explanations. The doubters say they are just asking questions that have not been answered satisfactorily.

What is most interesting about this statement is that if photographs exist that raise questions about the official story of the Pentagon strike, and if such photographs received very little or no attention in the mainstream media, then it is simply logical to conclude that some of the major media outlets were themselves engaging in "selective use of photographs". Nevertheless, it is those individuals who seek out these rare photographs and video footage to question the official line who are accused of picking and choosing material to support their "conspiracy theory". If material has been withheld from the American and global populations, there is no conspiracy theory - there is an actual conspiracy to conceal the truth, period.

Ms. Morello continues:

The ready and growing audience for conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been particularly galling to those who worked on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the bipartisan panel known as the 9/11 commission.

"We discussed the theories," said Philip D. Zelikow, the commission's executive director. "When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all. They satisfy a deep need in the people who create them. What we tried to do instead was to affirmatively tell what was true and tell it adding a lot of critical details that we knew would help dispel concerns."

Members of the 9/11 commission may say that they tried to tell what was true, but did they? Consider the following article.


Harper's Cover - 9/11 Report A Whitewash
Monday, 4 October 2004

In an essay of the new October Issue of "Harper's Magazine", editor and professor Benjamin DeMott describes, ''how the 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation''. DeMott is also author of the books "The Imperial Middle" and "The Trouble With Friendship"

DeMott seems to go a bit further, than just outrage about "negligence".

Here are some excerpts from his 12-page essay:

"..this was the promise, after all: answers. Answers in return for serious attention...

The Promise was not kept. The plain, sad reality - I report this following four full days studying the work - is that The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud.

It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantalize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation.

Because it is continously engaged in scotching all attempts to distinguish better from worse leadership responses, the Commission can't discharge its duty to educate the audience about the habits of mind and temperament essential in those to discharge command responsibility during crises. It can't tell the truth about what was done and not done, thought and not thought, at crucial turning points...

..the 567 pages, which purport to provide definitive interpretations of the reactions, are in fact useless to historians, because seeming terror of bias transforms query after commissarial query after commissarial query - and silence after silence - into suggested new lines of self-justification for the interviewees. In the course of blaming everyone a little, the Commission blames nobody - blurs the reasons for the actions and hesitations of successive administrations, masks choices that, fearlessly defined, might actually have vitalized our public discourse...

...there's little mystery about why the Commission is tongue-tied. It can't call a liar a liar.

The most momentous subject before the 9/11 Commission was: What did President Bush know about the Al Qaeda threat to the United States, when did he know it, and if he knew little, why so?...

...conceivably it was at or near the moment when Bush took his position that the members of the Commission who heard him grasped that casting useful light on the relation between official conduct and national unpreparedness would be impossible.

The reason? The President's claim was untrue. It was a lie, and the Commissioners realized they couldn't allow it to be seen as a lie...

...nevertheless the chief executive, seated before the Commission, declared: Nobody told me. And challenging the chief executive as a liar entailed an unthinkable cost - the possible rending of the nations social and political fabric...

...The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature.

Each paragraph of the Bin Laden briefing is directed not at the past but at the present or future...

...The Commissioners have heard that Bush received more than forty briefings naming Al Quaeda as a danger...

...The President expressed himself to National Security Adviser Rice in March or April of 2001 as 'tired of swatting at flies' and, on the same occasion, declared that he wanted 'to play offense...(wanted) to take the flight to the terrorists'...

...Faced with The 9/11 Commission Report, this country's true need now is to shout Shame!

Comment: Lies, lies, and more lies. Is this "the truth" that the 9/11 Commission was tasked with revealing? Yet the biggest lie of all is the one that not even Harper's is willing to confront: that there may well have been complicity in the organisation of the 9/11 attacks by members of the U.S government itself. It seems that the commission didn't try very hard to tell the truth after all.

But don't take our word for it. Do the research yourself. We are here only to raise questions, present evidence we have uncovered and open the door to consideration of an idea that many Americans simply refuse to believe possible.

Getting back to the Washington Post article:

Ms. Morello states:

"The doubters [of the 9/11 conspiracy theory] say they are just asking questions that have not been answered satisfactorily."

Of course, the logical response to this is: "Why has the 9/11 commission not satisfactorily answered the questions?"

Luckily, 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow gave of his time to answer our concerns. In the article he states:

"When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all. They satisfy a deep need in the people who create them. What we tried to do instead was to affirmatively tell what was true and tell it adding a lot of critical details that we knew would help dispel concerns."

Notice the words: "careful NOT to answer all the theories?" Naturally, we allow for the fact that the Commission did not have time or resources to report on every single allegation or aspect of the attacks, but is it not reasonable to suggest that the question: "Where is the wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon?", should have been towards the top of the list? Apparently not for Mr. Zelikow...

Note also Zelikow's comment that certain theories (of a "conspiratorial nature we suppose) "fulfill a deep need in the people who create them".

We wonder just what theories and what sort of "deep need" Mr. Zelikow is referring to. Perhaps he means the theory that, if there was no commercial aircraft wreckage outside the Pentagon, then there is a chance that it was not a commercial aircraft that actually hit the building? If so, then how can he reasonably suggest that someone "created" such a theory? Clearly such a statement is not a theory, but rather a hard fact (unless proven otherwise by Mr. Zelikow) and was not "created" by anyone, but is self-evident.

We also have to wonder why, in this case, Mr. Zelikow would not see fit to fulfill his responsibility to provide the proof of his assertion that it was indeed a plane that hit the Pentagon. It should be remembered that it was not "conspiracy theorists" who claimed that a 757 commerical aircraft hit the Pentagon, it was the US government. The burden of proof therefore lies with the government, and not with those who ask for proof. The most remarkable thing in all of this is that, if a Boeing 757 really did hit the Pentagon, it should be very easy for the government to provide clear and irrefutable proof of this. Yet we are still waiting.

As for the "deep need" that such self-evident facts provoke in people, we can only assume that the "deep need" that Zelikow is referring to is the "deep need" for the TRUTH that at least some people seem to possess.

Next we note the comment, which we assume is by Michael Barkun, political scientist at Syracuse University, where he states:

"Conspiracy theories are common after traumatic events."

Really? Is it really true that "traumatic events" often give rise to some form of "conspiracy theory"? Is it a commonly held belief that a person involved in a traumatic car accident for example will immediately seek to develop a conspiracy theory to explain it?? What of death? If a family member dies in tragic yet natural circumstances, where there exists clear evidence of the cause, do the traumatized surviving family members immediately begin a quest to uncover some devilish scheme to explain the death? Of course not. The truth is that conspiracy theories commonly exist where there is clear evidence that all of the truth about a given situation has not been presented or is being withheld.

Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:

The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.

Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world's most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]

Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.

America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.

Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.

During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.

Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.

In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]

A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.

If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?

Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]

Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]

The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.

Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.

[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. Don't hold your breath.

This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection. [Richard Dolan]

Keep Mr. Dolan's comments in mind as we continue our examination of the Washington Post article.

Mr. Barkun goes on to say:

"Conspiracy theories are one way to make sense of what happened and regain a sense of control," Barkun said. "Of course, they're usually wrong, but they're psychologically reassuring.

We agree that conspiracy theories arise as a result of the need in people to "make sense" of, or understand the truth of, a given situation. As to whether conspiracy theories are "wrong", such a sweeping statement is extremely disingenuous and is not in the purview of Mr. Barkun or anyone else to make.

The truth or otherwise about the conspiracy theories surrounding the events at the WTC and the Pentagon can be easily established if Mr. Zelikow would see fit to present clear and objective proof that corroborates the official US government story of what happened on September 11, 2001.

As regards the idea that conspiracy theories are "psychologically reassuring", this is pure nonsense. In fact, if there is one common reaction that all of our detractors have exhibited when confronted with the evidence of a government cover up, it is fear. Is it "consoling" to think that one's own government is behind the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent crackdown on civil liberties, rather than believing it was the work of foreign terrorists? We think not.

"Psychological reassurance" then, is definitely not to be found in objective investigation of the facts about 9/11, but rather in fleeing from those facts and the decidedly uncomfortable and disconcerting reality which they present.

The term conspiracy theory is in fact not appropriate to describe the allegations of those who claim that there is more to 9/11 than we are being told. In general, a theory is an idea or hypothesis that lacks any evidence to support it. There exists copious evidence to support the argument that the US government knows more about the events of 9/11 than they are telling us. As such, that evidence does not form a conspiracy theory, but rather evidence for the distinct possibility of an actual conspiracy.

In short, consider the following logical deductions derived from a single fact:

While the government claimed that "al-Qaeda" perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, no one actually claimed responsibility. (The FBI released a tape purportedly showing Osama Bin Laden confessing to the attacks, but that tape was clearly a fake.)

If there was no credible claim of responsibility for the attacks, it is logical to assume that the persons who were actually responsible would attempt to hide their involvement.

It is also logical to assume then that, if we find any person or persons who are clearly attempting to cover up or stall any investigation which attempts to reveal the facts of 9/11, then that person or persons may well be somehow involved in the attacks themselves. It's just common sense, right?

Think about that.

Getting back then to the Washington Post article:

It is rather interesting that the article references one Mr. Rick Ross as an "expert". As it happens, we have had encounters with Mr. Ross in the past and this led to an article about him located here, where we include our correspondence with Mr. Ross as well as information about his convictions for theft. For example:

"Mr Ross, by his own admission, conspired to steal furniture and appliances at model homes - Those who comment on Mr Ross also alleged that he "bought and used stolen credit cards". As Mr Ross indicates: "The conviction in no way, shape or form involved "stolen credit cards." Obviously, buying and using stolen credit cards would not be "Conspiracy to commit Grand Theft," it would instead be simply "Grand Theft," which is more serious and a felony".

With Mr Ross' liturgical nature I am surprised that this statement has not been challanged, let alone that it remains on the internet, if indeed it is a "false statements with malicious intent." Is it then the fact that semantics are again involved here? Was there "bought and used stolen credit cards" without a conviction?"

Second Criminal Conviction & Felony: 1975

Mr Ross was later approached by a friend who offered to make him a partner in a diamond robbery involving 306 items valued at $100,000. That led to Rick Ross' second arrest, for grand theft and conspiracy, a guilty plea, a conviction and 6 weeks in Maricopa County Jail, Arizona. A subsequent psychiatric evaluation reduced what might have or should have been a prison sentence to a probation sentence.

Here you will find an article about another of Mr. Ross's activities which includes this interesting tidbit:

It was CAN and one of its highest-ranking deprogrammers, convicted felon Rick Ross, who provided the information which spurred the deadly raid on the Branch Davidian compound at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas. Ross and other CAN officials worked with apostate former Davidians to convince law enforcement that "lethal force" was justified at Mount Carmel. (For a detailed story of what happened at Waco, see "Fanning the Fires at Waco," from Freedom's Special Report on CAN, available on request.) The 86 lives lost at Waco speak volumes of CAN's involvement.

So do the legion of criminal acts, charges and convictions surrounding CAN and its members. Many of its officers, members and associates were charged with or convicted of criminal acts, including its former president, Michael Rokos, and former security adviser Galen Kelly, a felon found guilty of criminal charges associated with kidnapping for the purpose of deprogramming.

It's interesting how such a guy becomes a "consulted expert," isn't it?

Returning to the Washington Post article, Ms. Morello makes the following comment:

Zelikow, for example, lacks credibility with many who question the work of the 9/11 commission because he wrote a book with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. He believes that it is futile to discuss evidence with people convinced of a conspiracy.

Is it not logical to question Zelikow's beliefs and statements given that he has worked closely with Condoleezza Rice, a member of the very administration that he was supposed to be investigating? Furthermore, Rice has herself proven that she has lied and deceived the American public on several occasions...


Flashback: Rice Yet to Answer For Two Dishonest Statements

Daily Mislead Archive
April 8, 2004

As Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission approaches, she continues to push two distinctly dishonest statements in an effort to blur President Bush's failure to defend America in 2001.

First and foremost, Rice continues to make the now-discredited claim that the White House did not have intelligence warning them that terrorists were plotting to use airplanes as missiles in an attack on America. In 2002 she said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile". She said this in spite of the intelligence community having issued 12 separate warnings of such a plan, including a 1999 warning saying that "suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft...into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House".

When presented with these facts, she told the 9/11 Commission in January 2004 that she misspoke and that she "regretted" her earlier denials. Yet less than four months after her apology, she made the same false claim, writing in a March 22, 2004 op-ed in the Washington Post that "we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles".

Secondly, Rice is now saying through spokesmen that she was "not briefed" about terrorists' plans to use airplanes as missiles before 2002, when she began making the false claim that she had no such warnings. But even if Rice did neglect all 12 previous intelligence reports, she cannot claim she was never briefed about such a threat, considering she was the top national security official accompanying President Bush to the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001. There, she and the president were explicitly warned that "Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill world leaders by crashing an airliner" into the summit.


Flashback: Rice: Saddam Posed Nuclear Threat to U.S.

Yahoo News
Oct 4 2004

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sunday defended her characterization of Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities in the months before the Iraq invasion, even as a published report said government experts had cast doubt at the time.

In the run-up to the March 2003 war, Rice said in a television interview in 2002 that the Iraqi president was trying to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes to rebuild his nuclear weapons program. The tubes, she said, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." On Sunday, Rice acknowledged she was aware of a debate within the U.S. intelligence community about whether the tubes were intended for nuclear weapons.

"I knew that there was a dispute. I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute," Rice told ABC's "This Week" program.

So Condi is saying that "she knew there was a debate about whether the tubes were intended for nuclear weapons" but at the same time she "did not know the nature of the dispute"?

Well, perhaps we should help her out. You see, Ms Rice, if there is a dispute about whether aluminium tubes are going to be used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, then the nature of that dispute is whether or not aluminium tubes are going to be used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Is that clear enough?


Returning to today's Washington Post article, Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission Executive Director, states:

"The hardcore conspiracy theorists are totally committed," Zelikow said. "They'd have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. That's not our worry. Our worry is when things become infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination. Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body."

They would have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. Indeed! What was that remark from the Harpers article above?

And challenging the chief executive as a liar entailed an unthinkable cost - the possible rending of the nations social and political fabric...

Bush is a liar, that much is clear, yet no one dares to really question him. He lied to promote the invasion of Iraq. Rice is a liar, that also is clear, yet no one dares to really question her. Why not? Here's an idea: Americans would have to repudiate much of their life identity in order to accept that their leaders do NOT have their best interests at heart, that the US is NOT the greatest democracy on the planet, and that the goal of the war on terror is NOT to preserve freedom and democracy. The truth isn't always pretty - but it is the truth.

David Ray Griffin considers himself an unlikely recruit to what is called the "9/11 Truth Movement." The retired theologian, who taught religion for three decades at Claremont School of Theology, initially dismissed the notion that it was not an airliner that hit the Pentagon. But after visiting several Internet sites raising questions about the attack, he ended up writing a book. "The New Pearl Harbor," published in the spring, argues that a Boeing 757 would have caused far more damage and left more wreckage strewn around the Pentagon.

"There are reasons why people doubt the official story," he said. "There are photographs taken, and there is no Boeing in sight."

Suspicions formed as the Pentagon still smoldered.

For 2 1/2 years, the attack on the Pentagon has been discussed and researched by members of Knight-Jadczyk's online group, the Quantum Future School.

The group's talks formed the basis for articles in which Knight-Jadczyk argues that after the attack on the World Trade Center, eyewitnesses at the Pentagon were predisposed to see a large airliner. She believes that the Pentagon was attacked by a smaller plane and that members of the Bush administration were somehow complicit because it was beneficial for war-profiteers and Israel.

Interviewed by telephone from what she said is a 17-bedroom castle outside Toulouse, where she lives with her Polish physicist husband and five children, Knight-Jadczyk acknowledged that her group is considered "fringe."

Consider the idea of being on the "fringe". The official line is based on lies and deception, and the "fringe" now includes those individuals who seek the truth of what really happened. Don't those individuals - both Americans and "foreigners" - who lost their lives on 9/11, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq deserve the truth? What higher tribute can there be?

"The fact everybody's been sending it to his brother and his cousin, almost frenetically, reflects the fact that there is a deep unease," she said. "They don't come out and say it. They don't want to be accused of being with terrorists, anti- American or anti-patriotic. But they still feel something's wrong."

In other words, many Americans are afraid to exercise the constitutional rights that are supposed to be defended and preserved by the war on terror. What's up with that?

Bret Dean of Fort Worth said he considers it "baloney" to question whether a plane hit the Pentagon. But he also believes that the government ignored warning of the attacks.

We have already shown that Condi Rice is a liar. Recent news about the absence of WMD's in Iraq proves that Bush is a liar. Now, how does that make it "baloney" to question whether a plane hit the Pentagon? Given the facts, it is illogical and unreasonable to not question the official story of the events of 9/11.

At the end of the Washington Post article, we read the following:

"The question of whether American 77 hit the Pentagon is indisputable," Zelikow said. "One reason you tend to doubt conspiracy theories when you've worked in government is because you know government is not nearly competent enough to carry off elaborate theories. It's a banal explanation, but imagine how efficient it would need to be."

This statement might be true if by the word "government", one refers to the public side of the American government. Could there not be factions within the US government and intelligence agencies that could organize and pull off the 9/11 operations? For example, the development of the first atomic bombs was done in near total secrecy. Even many senior administration officials were completely unaware of the bomb's development. The CIA has also conducted numerous operations against other countries and against the American people over the years, again without the knowledge of many government officials. See our timeline for more details.

Furthermore, what if the events of 9/11 involved more than just elements of the US government? There is substantial evidence that indicates that the Israeli Mossad had a hand in the death and destruction of September 11th. The Zionists, good buddies of the Neocons, have certainly benefited from the US war against "Arab terrorists". For an interesting look at the evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11, see Mossad and Moving Companies: Masterminds of Global Terrorism?

We suggest that interested readers purchase the video 911 in Plane Site produced by The Power Hour. It is a detailed analysis of the attack on the Pentagon and on the WTC. Using video from mainstream news sources such as Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, Dave von Kleist leads the viewer through the reports as they came in on that fateful morning. Much of this footage was broadcast once, never to be seen again. Why? Because it shows that the official story is a fraud. Readers may also wish to read our analysis entitled Comments on the Pentagon Strike.

Eyewitnesses to the attack on the WTC including someone who works at Fox News, not known for their hostility to the Bush Administration, report that the plane that hit the second tower was not a commercial aircraft, that it had no windows, and that it had a blue logo that was not that of an American Airlines jet.

Police and firefighters at the scene report hearing explosions at the base of the WTC before it fell. They describe them as sounding like bombs or detonations. How do planes 80 stories up create explosions at street level?

Sadly, most people will reject the idea out of hand, before they even look at the evidence, and for those with the courage to consider the facts, their blind belief that "the government wouldn't do that" will ensure that their own personal investigation goes no further.

But what if it is true?

Isn't that worth a few hours of research?

Isn't that worth looking at the evidence yourself?

Ultimately, it is up to each individual to come to her own conclusions about what really happened on 9/11. An accurate analysis requires all available data. If new data becomes available, theories must change to accommodate the new facts. In the search for truth, there is no room for sacred cows, cherished beliefs, and personal bias. The facts must speak for themselves.

As we noted previously, the truth isn't always pretty - but it is the truth.

There is much, much more to this issue than has been possible to publish here today on one page. We encourage all interested parties to visit this site regularly as we continue our investigations into the truth of our world and the self-styled "elite" that control it.

 

.