The following is a compilation of the WAB commentary and analysis on the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (through 2005)

World Affairs Brief, September 14, 2001 Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (


There is something very dangerous and wrong about this new war fever being pushed upon the American people. Taking advantage of a nation shocked and shaken after being "under attack," the Bush administration is showing every sign of marshaling a much larger military force than necessary to tackle the stated enemy--international terrorism. Terrorism is a distributed and dispersed threat. It is not concentrated in any single country. There are perhaps two dozen significant terrorist training camps in the world, and any one of them can be neutralized by the judicious use of point air strikes and special forces. There are hundreds of smaller terrorist cells in all western countries. Some are too well hidden to be found, but many can be tackled by existing intelligence and police agencies. The point I am making, as forcefully as possible, is that this problem does not have to be attacked with a Gulf War style mobilization--which is precisely what President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are building. Something is very wrong with the growing beat of Republican war drums. The 50,000 reservists being mobilized alone exceed by almost 10 times the number of known terrorists in the world. There appears to be a hidden agenda behind these major war preparations--and fighting terrorism may well be only the excuse.

First, I want to establish that the official US response to this terrorist attack showing surprise, shock and indignation is, in part, a sham. For years the US government has known and tracked every significant terrorist organization to raise its head, and yet has done little to impede their growth or target their weapons procurement lines (with the exception of one attack on a Libyan terrorist training camp in the 80's, and those camps were back in operation within months). There is even evidence of US intelligence agencies turning a blind eye on terrorist preparations for just such an attack as happened this week. As Reed Irvine, writing for, reported,

"In 1995, when one of his (Osama bin Laden’s) followers, Abdul Hakim Murad, was arrested in Manila, the Philippine authorities discovered a plot on his laptop computer that called for hijacking US airliners and bombing them or crashing them into targets, including the CIA. It was called Project Bojinka, and US officials were made aware of it at that time. Murad admitted that he was being trained for a suicide mission. He was extradited to the US and convicted, together with Ramzi Yousef, of participating in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. That should have focused the attention of the CIA, FBI and NSA on any indications that bin Laden had not abandoned Project Bojinka. Reports that bin Laden was training pilots should have set alarm bells ringing. Only a few months ago an American Airlines crew had their uniforms and ID badges stolen from their hotel room in Rome. At the end of August, the airline alerted its employees to be on the lookout for impostors, but apparently no one saw this as a possible link to Project Bojinka. Airport security remained as lax as ever. Next came bin Laden's warning in mid-August that there would be 'an unprecedented attack on US interests.' With Bojinka in mind, the government should have taken the strongest possible measures to prevent hijackings."

So, why should this nation be surprised when it finally falls victim to an enemy the US has allowed to prosper? It's partially because Americans always believe the half-truths about our government’s efforts to stamp out terrorism, or even drugs, for that matter. Simply put, the people don't realize that the government both harbors terrorism and fights terrorism with two different sides of its police power. It both facilitates drug importation (to fund black budget activities) and fights against drugs using competing portions of separate federal agencies. Naturally, the public only sees the "good guy" operations. But the dark side exists, and now predominates--under the surface.

Terrorists have had the motive, the hatred, the weapons and the will to attack the US for many years. Indeed, we in this nation are very vulnerable. So, why has America been spared for so many years? As I have pointed out before in these briefs, the only reason that Islamic terrorism has not struck before (with the exception of the failed bombing of the WTC in 1993) is that someone within the US who controls these terror networks has had a "hold" on any attacks on the US, accomplished by buying off terrorist groups with money, drugs and weapons. Part of the reason for that hold was to reserve the US for "domestic terrorism" that could be fomented by the dark side of government to blacken the reputation of the American right wing. That hold is now obviously gone as the government's ploy to make an enemy out of the right wing has run its course. Accordingly, we can expect Tuesday's attack to be just the beginning. Next, I expect to see terrorists use biological and chemical weapons, or even Stinger missiles left over from the Afghanistan war, to shoot down more airliners. Again, we'll hear the same "wake-up call" that is being trumpeted by government this week. Naturally, we will be unprepared for each new form of attack and as each new threat looms greater, some new and powerful legislative or military solutions will be promulgated--complete with more and more restrictions of liberty.

Sadly, the most ominous effect of this latest attack has been the negation of all the distrust of government that had been properly building during 8 years of the Clinton corruption. I am saddened by the abject submission of the American people to any edict the government attempted to justify in the wake of these attacks. It amounted to a partial use of martial law and the government didn't even have to use the term to enforce its edicts. Now President Bush has declared a National Emergency--without telling the people that former executive orders give the President unlimited powers in such situations. He won't use them just yet--but people will get used to living under an "emergency" form of law, without realizing the full implications. In future attacks people will already have become accustomed to seeing the government shut down any sector of the nation that is affected, just as we saw the virtual shutdown of the air traffic system--including private aircraft flying to private fields. However, the price in billions of dollars lost to the economy will not go unnoticed as the recession deepens.

In the final analysis, I hold the US government in large part responsible for the events of September 11, because they have paid off, trained, swapped favors with, and even saved from destruction terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden and Yassir Arafat for decades. If they didn't have intelligence specifically pointing to the use of hijacked airliners as weapons of destruction, they are at least guilty of having abetted this form of terror.

Conjecture abounds as to how, when and where the US intends to retaliate, but it's clear now that the US intends to make a BIG military statement to the world, and Osama bin Laden is to be the whipping boy. Frankly, I'm not sure what the Bush CFR team is up to, but whatever it is, it is looking ominous. My best guess is that they are going to take on Afghanistan with both air and ground troops. This is a foolish quagmire that the Russians stepped into and you'd think the US would be smart enough not to go down that road. But I suspect Bush may be promoting another agenda, which dovetails with the US/NATO intervention in the Balkans during the last decade--fomenting hatred of the US among the Eastern Bloc of Slavic peoples. If NWO powers intend to use a world War to accelerate the transition to world government, they need to help the attackers (Russia and China) to justify the attack on the West. US meddling and bullying around the world creates that hatred. Obviously, the Islamic world is aligned with the Russians, and thus I suspect that in this upcoming "war" the Powers That Be may have decided to spread even more hatred of America among the Muslims by taking on Afghanistan, in what will appear to the Arab world as a giant unjustly terrorizing a helpless and poor land.

If the insiders at the National Security Council (who really call the shots for Bush) want an even larger war than Afghanistan would provide, they could go after the dozen or so terrorist camps in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, and Libya. But this would surely usher in a major Middle East war, involving Israel. It would also pit the US directly against Yassir Arafat and his Palestinians--which the US is continually trying to protect from ultimate annihilation. I don't think the insiders want a full scale war in that region just yet.

Lastly, Bush could go after Iraq, like his father. However, there doesn't seem to be any new evidence of direct Iraqi involvement in this terror attack. Besides, attacking Iraq is old news and will hardly give a sense of "justice done" that Americans are so wistfully yearning for.

I originally suspected that all this "war preparation" was mere propaganda to justify the $40 billion Congress has agreed to fund this bottomless cause. I have since concluded that these leaders are investing much more money and effort into this military buildup for simple sabre-rattling. They really do intend to go to war with someone larger than Osama bin Laden. A declaration of war, frankly, is meaningless unless you have an identifiable enemy to name as the object of the war. A one-sided declaration of war in this case would probably serve to justify more US interventionist warmongering at home and abroad, rather than fight terrorism. The secondary agenda is surely the consolidation of executive authority in the US. The predictable reactionary legislation to beef up US war-making powers in the name of fighting terrorism is already at Congress' door. The "Elimination of Terrorism Act" is being readied for a fast track treatment in both houses. Lost in the rhetoric, of course, is the fact that no additional powers are necessary to fight terrorism. Nevertheless, this bill gives the Executive Branch permanent powers to engage in warfare at any time without Congressional approval--an approach to which the founders of this nation would have vigorously rejected.

I am saddened to see how unscrutinizing people have become about the motives of government in a crisis. The reason so many people in the US are vulnerable to manipulation by the media in this regard is that they don't compare what the government does in any battle with what they could be doing--what the alternatives are. They only look at the government's story in isolation, as if its reasons stand alone and should be taken at face value. To a certain extent the public can't judge what's real because most people don't have much experience working inside government. Those of us who have been inside know how things work. When things don't follow according to how they are supposed to, experienced people see red flags indicating something unusual is occurring. There are red flags cropping up all over this excessive reaction to the events of September 11th. Let's look at the inconsistencies in the government investigation and its various pronouncements.


America is full of a strange mixture of shock, sadness, indignation and bravado in the wake of the aerial suicide attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers and the Pentagon. We have heard countless leaders vowing that “terrorism will not stand,” and that Americans will bounce back and rebuild these symbols of American economic and military power--if nothing else, to deny the terrorists the joy of seeing America down and discouraged. All this is typically American in its arrogance and is very naive. Terrorism has only begun to strike America and we are terribly exposed--not only because of the free and open access which we rightfully cherish, but also because the political establishment has for years refused to interdict the training and arming of the known terrorist groups they now claim have committed an “act of war on America.”

Government commentators echo the hollow words that “a sleeping giant has been awakened” and is filled with resolve. Hogwash! They said those same words in 1993 after the WTC bombing, and America quickly went back to sleep and all our anti-terrorist vows led to no significant diminution of the tens of terrorist networks and training camps around the world. Indeed, terrorist groups multiplied and became far better armed during the Clinton era. Worse, I don’t believe for a minute that the current administration’s retaliatory attacks being planned are truly meant to eradicate terrorism, let alone be effective at such an objective. They are targeting Osama bin Laden, a convenient scapegoat, while leaving the Palestinians untouched, who are the main source of support for Islamic terrorist activity. I will explain the motives behind government subterfuge, and help sort out the fact from the fiction in our government’s response to this incident. But first, let’s review how this act was accomplished, technically.


This terrorist act was a master stroke of planning and execution. It was a complex attack which could not have been done without the participation of larger groups already tracked by US intelligence. Yet there were at least three advantages to this strategy the perpetrators could count on. For one thing, the tactic itself came as a complete surprise. Attacking buildings via commandeered airliners is a tactic that had never been used before, and was nearly impossible to foresee. Counter-terrorist experts were all caught flat-footed. The perpetrators correctly realized that this kind of aerial attack is possible because of vulnerabilities in the airline security system. Once would-be perpetrators get past the airport security checkpoints the crews have no means of defense against them. Such an attack is also difficult to stop due to the presence of large numbers of hostages on board a hijacked airliner, coupled with the uncertainty about whether the hijackers intend on crashing it into a target or simply flying to an asylum destination (as in prior hijackings). How and when do you decide to shoot down a loaded airliner before the hijackers’ intentions are known? And how do you confirm their intentions to crash into a target as it is descending incommunicado? Tough call!

Commandeering a huge aircraft full of fuel creates damage effects far exceeding the powers of a lone suicide bomber with explosives strapped to his body--or even a vehicular bomb as used in the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in the parking garage in February 1993. In this case, at least four commercial airline flights were targeted for hijacking--all within a 20 minute time frame for departure, in order to ensure the maximum impact of a coordinated attack. This all-at-one-time attack would preclude US forces from reacting and mounting an armed airborne patrol around targeted cities as a deterrent. I suspect there was a 5th or 6th flight destined to attack the White House and the US Capitol as well, but these were fortuitously delayed at the gate for some reason and missed their time slot. They were later canceled in the FAA grounding of all aircraft so that some of the potential hijacking never reached its grisly fulfillment. One such flight that was canceled had several Arab passengers aboard who vigorously protested the cancellation. An airline official said, according to the NY Times, “These guys got belligerent, and said something like, ‘We've got to be on this plane’...They expressed a desire to remain on the plane and resisted getting off.” The men left the area quickly after leaving the plane before police or the FBI could interrogate them.

All flights had things in common. First, they were all transcontinental flights. The two aircraft that hit the WTC were the larger Boeing 767 and the other two were Boeing 757 aircraft. Second, they were all taking off with a full load of fuel necessary to get to the West Coast. A full fuel load on the 767s ensured the maximum fireball in the subsequent explosions within the WTC. Let me explain why this was important. The perimeter steel pillars and cross bracing in the twin towers provided almost all the structural strength. The initial crashes partially severed one side of the perimeter support structure in each case, but the crashes alone would have been insufficient to destroy the towers. The subsequent fuel-fed fires heated the remaining pillars to the point of structural failure so that the entire buildings eventually came down. Steel beams and columns sag when exposed to fire--especially when an explosive impact strips away the protective fireproof coverings surrounding the steel. When the pillars on the damaged floors buckled from the heat, the falling weight of the imploding top portions of each building was enough to overstress all the steel in each succeeding floor beneath--that’s why we observed the vertical domino effect. There was even sufficient collateral force from the falling debris as it spread outward at ground zero to heavily damage all surrounding buildings. The dramatic collapsing forces of the two towers caused the additional collapse of a neighboring 26-story building in the World Trade Center complex.

The time delay between the initial collisions and the final collapse allowed hundreds to escape the two buildings. Sadly, many were slowed or trapped on the upper floors and the roof of the WTC by either the existing damage or, as in one case, the well-meaning intentions of people enforcing an orderly exit. A few waited too long for an orderly exit didn’t make it, including some valiant fire and rescue people who failed to anticipate the imminent collapse of the building.

In terms of getting weapons past security, the hijackers primarily brought makeshift and non-metallic knives in order to successfully evade discovery by airport metal detectors. Another potential tactic is to pose as a pilot or air crewman with false ID, but it does not appear at this time that any of the successful hijackings were done with weapons smuggled aboard by this method.. The Arab man arrested in NY two days later, as the airports reopened, was wearing a pilot’s uniform and in possession of some identification not his own. He was also one of those who had a reservation on a transcontinental flight that didn’t make it into the air on Tuesday. The FBI claimed on Friday that this man had no links to the terrorist act.

To achieve control over the aircraft, the hijackers, in at least one case, began stabbing stewardesses in order to lure one of the pilots out of the cockpit. Others may have made a direct attack on the cockpit door (which is fairly lightweight in composition). Pilots could then be overwhelmed, killed by stabbing, and the plane piloted by the hijackers to the targeted building.

The hijack planners most likely specified that the attack would take place on a cloudless day so as to make sure they could visually navigate to their destinations. While it is now known that the suicide-hijackers received some training in US simulators, run by private contractors, the variety of possible aircraft to train for and the complexity of the systems meant that such training would only lead to partial qualification at best. But full qualification or certification was not necessary. The hijackers did not have to deal with take-offs and landings, the most critical tasks. Taking over a flying aircraft and handling only the yoke and throttles to control altitude and airspeed is a relatively simple process.


While government and media sources continue to point the finger at US-trained terrorist Osama bin Laden, when pressed, all have to admit that there is only circumstantial evidence linking him to this act. That isn’t stopping the Bush administration from acting as if bin Laden is guilty and leaning heavily on Pakistan to induce the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan to extradite him to the US.

In response to US demands, Pakistan and the Taliban have told the US they will be only too happy to comply with US demands for bin Laden’s extradition if the US presents credible evidence of his involvement--which may be tough to come by. One former US CIA official was even more candid. He said, “no specific evidence is necessary since we’ve proven the case against bin Laden’s cohorts in court recently and no one will question us if we go after him again.” Sad, but true--Americans are all too willing to give unquestioned support to government in these times. I was also distressed to see a CNN internet poll showing that almost 80% of Americans condoned the bombing of the Afghanistan capitol of Kabul should the Taliban refuse to hand over Osama bin Laden. Where is America’s compassion for innocent citizens? Would they become terrorists themselves in bombing innocent civilians simply to assuage their ruffled national sensibilities?

Focusing on Osama bin Laden may be a red herring meant to divert attention from the Palestinians, support for whom provides the fire and drive behind almost all other Islamic terrorist groups. I have no doubt that these terrorist acts were committed by Arab Islamic extremists with a mix of Palestinians who may or may not feel the need to hide behind religious motives. This radical branch of Arabs is the only culture on the planet intentionally producing committed suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots to slaughter innocent civilians. We also have specific evidence on the ethnicity of the attackers from cell phone callers on the doomed airlines who uniformly described the hijackers as Middle Eastern males, some wearing the tell-tale red bandannas identifying a unique terrorist group.

The FBI also claims to now know the identifies of 19 hijackers--all with Middle Eastern origins. Strangely they refuse to release the entire list publicly. Some of the 19 are Palestinians with links to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and US officials appear to be steering the blame away from them. I believe there exists a hidden protective inclination towards the Palestinians in our government operations--despite public support for the state of Israel. At least one Palestinian journalist filmed jubilant Palestinians rejoicing at the news of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (this is not the same film from 1993 erroneously broadcast as if it were taking place now). Israeli correspondent Oded Granot reported that Yasser Arafat's Tanzim have kidnapped the Palestinian cameraman who filmed a report for a major news agency showing Palestinians in Ramallah celebrating the attacks against the United States as hundreds cheered. He said that the news agency was warned that the cameraman would be killed if they dared to air the item. Other films have been released and photos from these films can be viewed at These threats are very real and are carried out ruthlessly from time to time. To demonstrate how far the Palestinians will go to perpetuate the appearance of innocence in this affair, PLO leader Yasser Arafat arranged to have film crews roll the cameras while he gave blood for the victims of NY. Even if his blood was destined for NY (which I doubt), I certainly wouldn’t want to be the recipient of this hypocrisy.

So, who is responsible? It’s going to be very difficult to find that out in a timely manner. Even a US defense source admitted to the International Herald Tribune, “We're talking about an operation that was extremely well-planned and compartmentalized...Such a case could take years to complete and we simply don't have that amount of time.” That is why the US has decided to go after Osama bin Laden. Israeli intelligence, on the other hand, says (correctly) that all terrorist cells are supported and sponsored by one or more governments. Terrorist organizations need a steady flow of money, arms and explosives to do their work. Terrorist groups also need a broad base of intelligence operatives throughout the world to keep tabs on their targets. Governments provide this kind of support, but never allow those links to surface so as to avoid blame. Since the Bush administration keeps trying to build an Arab coalition against Iraq, it can’t afford to go after any of the legitimate governments harboring terrorists--Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Iran. So that leaves Afghanistan to attack. But, just remember, unless the US goes after all the terrorist camps (including most refugee camps) in Arab countries, it isn’t really serious about carrying on a war against terrorism.

It really isn’t all that important to know who, at the lower and middle levels, planned and carried out this attack. Fact is, the US is hated by all the major Arab nations (except Kuwait) for its superficial support of Israel. Even Saudi Arabia is only feigning friendship with the US. The motive for Arab antagonism against the US does not really rest of the issue of Iraq, for Saddam Hussein has made his share of enemies in the Middle East. The real unifying motive of all the Arab terrorist organs is the Arab hatred toward the state of Israel, camped right in their midst. There are many factions of terrorists, and some are bitter enemies, but they can all unite on the desire to see the Israel and the US brought down. That is why the pictures of US destruction were so heartily applauded by young and old alike in the Middle East. In the final analysis, any war on terrorism is ultimately futile unless it punishes all terrorists uniformly, and the Palestinians specifically.


As the story of the tragedy unfolded, media talking heads were seemingly in the dark about what was happening and who was responsible for these crashes. The first collision with the WTC was viewed as a possible accident. By the time the second happened, some 16 minutes later, everyone began to suspect terrorism. Yet from the very beginning, many moments before any building was hit, there was one very public government body that had crucial information that a hijacking had taken place, or at the very least that an aircraft was veering away from its destination and heading for NY--the FAA. Airline crashes and hijackings ring big alarm bells at the FAA which monitors and controls all commercial traffic. By law, all commercial aircraft flying in controlled airspace are in constant communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC). Thus, the FAA is going to know when something goes wrong.

A hijacking takes time to complete. Pilots are behind a locked cockpit door, so hijackers cannot burst in without flight attendants having a least a few seconds to alert the flight deck. There are intercom stations at both ends of each aircraft accessible to the flight attendants. Even if the hijackers aimed their first actions at the flight deck, it takes time to break down the door. In any case, with the onset of any hijacking emergency it is standard operating procedure for one of the flight crew to key the mike and make a call to ATC. Pilots are also trained to switch the aircraft radar transponder to code 7500 or 7700 indicating (silently) a hijacking or an emergency in progress. In addition, any time the aircraft deviates from its designated route of flight it must contact ATC or ATC will give them a call--all of which is tape recorded.

I find it impossible to believe that ATC did not have tape recordings of these emergency calls alerting them to a hijacking. Even during something catastrophic such as an explosion in the air, most pilots still have time to make an emergency call. A hijacking allows more time to react, especially when the only weapons in use are knives. The FAA would have turned these recordings over to the NTSB or FBI, but no federal agency has made mention of their contents even days after the events, and the FBI spokesman in NY specifically told at least one reporter that he had no knowledge of FAA reports. But even that same FBI official made statements at another session about pilot communication and routes changes that could only have been known through FAA provided tape recordings--so we can assume they exist. Strangely, none of the news media asked the FAA if such recordings exist, even though it is common knowledge that ATC communicates with aircraft. Why? The media continues to talk about waiting till the onboard voice and data recorders are found to find out what happened--as if that is the only available source of information. Even after the first voice recorder was located (at the Pentagon crash site), it was announced by one television station that it was blank. This is also strange since these recorders have a 30 minute continuous loop tape that should have some older recorded information on it, even if it failed to record the current flight. Even if the hijackers learned which circuit breakers to pull to disconnect power to the recorder, it would still contain old recorded data.

The FBI has already demonstrated a propensity to alter and hide evidence in politically charged cases. They did so in the OKC investigation, working overtime to make it appear as McVeigh and Nichols acted alone, even though there were numerous Middle Eastern accomplices seen by numerous witnesses. In the TWA 800 crash, the cockpit data recorder was found the first day by special Navy divers, altered, and then put back into the sea for later retrieval. Sounds bizarre, but the FBI and CIA took control of the investigation from the NTSB, corrupted the evidence pointing to a missile attack and concocted a fuel tank explosion scenario so bizarre that it took a $2 million computer generated phony reenactment to make this story half-way believable to a gullible public. While I don’t believe the federal government was involved directly in any form of instigation of this particular attack, there are some indications they might want to skew the direction of blame away from the Palestinians.


The FBI claimed on the day of the terrorist attacks that they found a car at Boston’s Logan Airport containing written materials in Arabic as well as flight training manuals, which led them to a small pilot training facility in Florida. Jared Israel tracked down the owner of manuals, Huffman Aviation, and quickly determined that his company provided only small aircraft flight training. Rudi Dekker, the owner, did have information, however, about a company in Popana Beach, Florida that could have provided follow-on commercial pilot training with flight simulators. The FBI also claimed that surveillance cameras of the parking structure in the previous weeks showed the same car making multiple trips to the airport, perhaps to scope out the terrain. According to, they also found a van with pictures of Osama bin Laden and copies of the Koran--an all too convenient link to a sought-after conclusion.

Within 2 days of the tragic events of Tuesday (that supposedly caught every intelligence agency completely by surprise), the FBI claimed they had identified 50 participants, including all 18 hijackers, and have accounted for the whereabouts of 40 out of the 50--leaving only ten unaccounted for. In the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, it took years to find less than half a dozen leads. Something doesn’t compute. In order to judge how much of this recent magic is probable or possible one has to know something about the Bureau’s investigative capacity. No agency starting from nothing finds this much evidence so fast. It’s simply too good to be true. Here is what was legitimate. They did do a cross check of the passenger manifest lists with CIA, FBI, and INS “watch lists” of terrorists. Bingo, lots of matches. They also checked on how payment was made for the tickets of these passengers. Apparently, they were able to trace the purchase of all 5 hijackers on the Boston plane to a single credit card--which yields an obvious accomplice.

But, here’s the rub. If federal agencies had most of the hijackers and accomplices already in their database of dangerous suspects, why is it that they were not under surveillance and wiretapping? The FBI tapes thousands of innocent American phone conversations without a warrant according to telephone sources, searches through millions of emails via its Carnivore software, and echelon taps virtually everything going overseas.

Furthermore, if this large, complex and sophisticated operation was so sophisticated as to evade total scrutiny by the CIA, FBI, INS and NSA, why would the perpetrators be stupid enough to leave a car at Logan airport with telltale flight manuals inside? Why not take a taxi? This operation apparently took place over a 5 year period. Considering the expense of training pilots they could certainly have afforded a taxi ride to the airport. Tickets could have been purchased with cash at separate travel agencies. Either someone is planting evidence to send the FBI off after low-level accomplices (to shield others), or the feds are bringing up predictable suspects that will point to Osama bin Laden--the scapegoat. I have no doubt that Osama bin Laden, after dealing with the double-crossing CIA in his early years, is very anti-American, but I’m suspicious about the US rush to judgment on this issue.


One of the main reasons why I do not believe the US government was in any way involved in this terrorist act directly--despite strong past evidence of agent provocateur activities in Waco and Oklahoma City--is that the government at all levels was obviously totally unprepared for what happened. Every agency seemed to over-react and go into panic mode. The Secret Service went berserk in their reaction to the possibility of Pres. and Mrs. Bush being specifically targeted. One agent guarding Mrs. Bush recounted to a relative that while moving Mrs. Bush from the halls of Congress to a secret underground bunker in the sub-basement of a Washington building, loaded guns were pointed a Congressional staff members, warning them to clear the way for the First Lady’s entourage--hardly a civil way to treat people on our own side who were trying to leave the Capitol quickly, as they had been instructed. Amid heavy traffic, the caravan reached speeds of nearly 60 mph, and at a grid locked intersection, police cars leading the First Lady’s limo bashed other cars out of the way in order make way--all this without any specific evidence of an enemy lurking nearby to justify such rash actions on innocent citizens. The President was flown from Miami to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana and then to the deep nuclear bunkers in Omaha, Nebraska before coming back to Washington. Vice President Cheney was shipped off to bunkers in Camp David to keep him separate from the President (admittedly, a good precaution).


The most draconian measure taken was when the FAA grounded all aircraft in the country and forced the closure of all airports, public and private. I think there was good cause to halt all air commercial air traffic since it was obvious that the entire air security system had broken down, but they went way too far in keeping that lock-down on too long and applying it to small private aircraft operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) which don’t even require a flight plan. It is patently unfair to penalize private commerce for the failure of the government to provide proper security in the commercial sector.

Look at the reality of US security. The White House and Congress sit under restricted airspace that no one is supposed to fly over, but there exists virtually no military or police means to stop anyone who does. There are usually only a few token National Guard aircraft on alert to patrol our borders--and only to play cat and mouse with Russian bombers who used to routinely violate US airspace. The nation’s capitol used to be guarded by Nike missiles long ago, but they were removed in the 50’s, leaving the center of government virtually unprotected. Until this week, there were no regular air patrols of armed aircraft ready to be called into action to protect critical infrastructure from attack. Why all the talk about Americans having to give up their liberty to have security when our own military policies, which require no sacrifice of personal liberty, are not allowed to do their job?


Suddenly America has a crisis. It gets caught flat-footed and it over-reacts. Jets are now roaming the skies on 24 hour patrols at great expense and with inadequate numbers of pilots and planes to continue this practice indefinitely. The FAA continues to ban VFR flying by civilian aircraft. Currently, everything that flies has to be under a flight plan, and the ATC system isn’t equipped to handle the added load of all the nation’s small planes. I fear that this ban on free private flying may become permanent.

Here’s the official list of new security restrictions mandated by the FAA:

Discontinued curbside check-in and off-airport checked baggage acceptance (a real inconvenience).

Access beyond security checkpoints limited to passengers with electronic or paper tickets, or with ticket confirmations (no more meeting passengers at the gate).

Increased aircraft and airport security inspections (personal inspection of all bags).

Vehicles near airport terminals monitored closely.

No knives of any size on flights, or anything remotely resembling a sharp pointed object.

Security at the airports is being beefed up to the point that passengers must arrive 2 hours in advance of each flight just to make it through the detailed bag searches being mandated by the FAA. One cannot carry scissors, small pocket knives, needle nose pliers, multi-tools, or perhaps even large fingernail clippers. Billions of man hours are being lost simply because the federal government refuses to consider a simple, rational solution--that is politically incorrect.


In the 50’s and 60’s airline pilots would sometimes carry a revolver in their flight bag, albeit unknown to the company--kind of a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. When the first hijackings occurred, all on flights going to Havana, pilots became more open about carrying weapons for protection. The airlines, with government prodding, disarmed the pilots as a matter of formal policy. Airlines wouldn’t even allow pilots to carry a non-lethal stun gun to subdue a hijacker. The results were predictable when the word got out that airlines are a guaranteed “gun-free” zone. Hijackings skyrocketed. The FAA responded with metal detectors, which are OK, but they’re not foolproof, as we now know. They never have been foolproof. People can still hijack planes with even the threat of a bomb in their carry-on bag, because of airline policies directing flight crews to simply submit to hijackers. Now, its a different ball game. To submit to a hijacker is to die. The only solution is to give crews the means to fight back.

I’m a pilot and I know the risks of firing a weapon in a pressurized airplane. While not as catastrophic as depicted in the movies, it does put a small hole in a pressurized skin. Too many holes and the aircraft would have to descend. There are special weapons and rounds that have been developed, however, that won’t penetrate an aircraft, but that will disable a human with blunt force. Yes, there is some risk to passengers in any fight, but now the stakes are high. With hijackers resorting to weak weapons like non-metallic knives, even a canister of pepper spray would be effective. Most pilots would be very competent with pepper spray or a gun, especially with some additional training. Many have former military experience. I’m not suggesting arming flight attendants, however, since they mingle closely with passengers; there is too much danger of having their concealed weapon taken from them forcefully. But with armed pilots and flight engineers behind a solid flight deck door, no plane could be commandeered as happened this week.

Hiring armed Air Marshals is also a possibility but not as good an alternative as an armed flight crew. There are thousands of flights per day that have to be protected and the cost to the airlines would be high. Most likely the airlines would economize by using Air Marshalls only on occasional flights as a partial deterrence. On the other hand, pilots could fill the role with no additional expense and are, I believe, capable of receiving training and acting as the ultimate guardians of the aircraft. Indeed, after this week’s experience, they are probably anxious to do so for their own safety. Above all, the deterrent affect of knowing that every aircraft has an armed crew would be dramatic. Best of all, most of these new and costly air travel restrictions could be removed once again. If you agree, let the FAA hear from you.

World Affairs Brief, September 21, 2001


Tom Brokow, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather lavished rare praise President Bush following his Churchill-imitating address to the nation. Everyone, it seems, is caught up in the lemming-like fervor to go to war against terrorism. Even Bush critic Pat Buchanan said after the speech that Bush has finally risen to the full stature of a President. I respectfully disagree. Everything about this speech was a fraud. Even at the expense of appearing unpatriotic, someone has to declare the truth: that the “emperor has no clothes.”

Bush is no Churchill. Churchill was a master of oratory. He wrote his own speeches. Churchill’s resolve was real. The Bush “resolute look” was tutored and practiced for hours in front of speech specialists, helping him overcome many of the normal facial quirks that betray this President’s amateurish personality and phraseology. Bush’s speech was written for him by the slickest team of wordsmiths money can buy--none of whom have any principles. They write speeches based only on what will sell. Even if the words are true, the motives are not. They use a stock format developed to a fine art by the Clinton team during prior State of the Union speeches, including:

Carefully crafted generalities that promise something for everyone, and offend no one--all the while consciously omitting the specifics that would allow the listener to discern the contradictions with reality or principles that underlie each statement. My intent will be to clarify those contradictions.

Liberal use of emotional and patriotic catchwords and phrases, like God, prayer, liberty, and freedom, without any real correlation to a true devotion to these concepts that would make such references honest and without hypocrisy.

Praise for two or three token heroes brought into the galleries for special recognition. These people are being used for propaganda purposes and to provide images of support that leave no room for dissent or criticism. The Bush team predictably brought in the wife of a courageous passenger, the PM of Britain, a fireman, plus the Mayor and Governor of NY.

Special emotional phrases meant to engender the spectacle of robot-like standing ovations at two minute intervals. So overdone is this mechanistic ploy that faces were dour at having to play along, and most hands were clapping in only token enthusiasm. And yet not a soul could afford, politically, to be seen NOT standing and not clapping. Even Hillary would reluctantly clap, while carrying on a diversionary conversation with Chuck Shumer (D-NY).


1) In response to his query, “Who attacked our country?” Bush said, “The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as Al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole.” This is possibly true, but the US really doesn’t know this for sure. What this response does is purposely lead the listener to a specific blamable subject and allow the US to avoid hitting other terrorists that they have ongoing “arrangements” with. Indeed, it is impossible at this point to pin the blame on any single organization because of the cross-connections between all Middle Eastern terrorist organizations. Most of the known hijackers can be linked with any one of half a dozen different organizations--so take your pick. Bush is selectively picking only one because it matches the need to go after Afghanistan and the Taliban, which have the fewest friends, internationally, and which provide the best opportunity for a big first military thrust that will make all this war hysteria justifiable.

2) To pacify the public about the long-term dangers of radical Islam, Bush said, “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children.” It is correct not to paint all Muslims as evil, but radical Islamic fundamentalism is far from a fringe movement. Indeed, it is very inaccurate to depict this radical movement as small and without support. It has broad based historical and doctrinal support going back centuries to when Arabs set out to conquer and forcefully convert whole continents. It has a huge following in all Islamic nations and threatens the balance of power within every country in the Middle East. I believe that the fervor and ideological hatred being generated by fundamentalist Islam is capable of crushing the moderates among them. One of the things that makes this possible is the irrational mob mentality that so easily captivates young Muslims. Whether this dangerous personality weakness is cultural or innate, it is real and millions of young Muslims are being radicalized in their hatred against the US as you read this. In downplaying this danger of Islamic Jihad (holy war), Pres. Bush is denying Americans a realistic understanding of the threat to world stability that Islamic Jihad represents.

3) “The United States respects the people of Afghanistan — after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid — but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.” Clearly the Bush administration is going after the Taliban--not just Osama bin Laden. The capture of bin Laden would be too easy and let the air out of this campaign before it has achieved its hidden agenda. Going after the Taliban allows the US in intervene in affairs of an entire nation and replace this hostile regime with one more compliant to the NWO. Bush claims to support the people of Afghanistan, but he leaves out many details that belie that support. Bush had to admit that the US is currently the “largest source of humanitarian aid” to Afghanistan since this fact has been widely reported on the internet in the past week. But it wasn’t humanitarian aid. What Bush neglected to tell his audience is that the $43 million Bush authorized for Afghanistan in May of this year went directly to the Taliban supposedly for cocaine trade counter-measures--even though the Bush administration knows that the Taliban manages all cocaine trade in the country. So, how can Bush claim to “condemn the Taliban regime” when it just gave the regime $43 million? Fact is, the money never went to the Afghan people and Bush knows it. Bush said that “by aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban is committing murder,” but in reality the Bush administration is aiding and abetting the very enemy they claim to condemn. The only true statement Bush makes here is that the Taliban is repressing its own people. But they knew that before. Why give them aid then and pretend it went to the people?

4) “The United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:

Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.

Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned, and protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country.

Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities.

Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.”

There are two levels of hypocrisy in this set of demands. First, the US never allows any of its allies (e.g., Israel, Ireland) to engage in these kinds of “take it or leave it” demands without condemning them for refusing to “engage” the terrorists in the “peace process.” Second, Bush isn’t telling his audience that these demands are specifically designed to be impossible to comply with--thus guaranteeing that the US will be justified in attacking Afghanistan. No country can know when they have delivered “all the leaders of Al Qaeda” because no such list exists. First, there’s the question of what constitutes a “leader,” and second, most leaders of Al Qaeda are from other Arab nations and are not physically present in Afghanistan. The same goes for the demand to “hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities.” How does anyone define support people? How do you know if you’ve complied without a US presented list? Of course, we know what the US means by “appropriate authorities” --a rigged UN tribunal lacking many essential rights to due process.

For its part, the US has virtually no intelligence assets on the ground in Afghanistan. US military forces don’t even have translators who speak the southern Afghan dialect. How would they know any of the specifics necessary to judge compliance with their demands? To say that these demands are “not open to negotiation or discussion” means that no clarification can be had on these ambiguous issues--a catch-22 situation that clearly indicates the Bush administration doesn’t want a peaceful resolution. Shame on the Congress for applauding this radical agenda. China just signed a pact of mutual support with the Taliban a few days before this speech. Perhaps that is one reason the Taliban’s reaction today to Bush was defiant. Overall, I am skeptical of the Bush assertion that the US “respects the people of Afghanistan.” I worry about the innocent people who are shortly to become collateral damage in the wake of the US juggernaut.

5) “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” This is pure bravado. It can’t be done. The Palestinians rabble-rouse and radicalize more terrorists in a month than the US will eliminate in a year--and the US protects them from Israeli retaliation through various forms of pressure. Remember, this proclamation of intent to prosecute terrorism comes from a nation that has funded and made secret deals with terrorist organizations for at least 30 years. Why should we believe Bush now when the US has never even owned up to its illegal and secret support of terrorists in past years? Some US double dealing has even been done in the light of day. Remember when the US rescued Yassir Arafat from defeat in Lebanon and used taxpayer moneys to send in the Marines and fly hundreds of PLO terrorists to safety? Did that reform Arafat? Hardly. He’s still at it, with the help of millions in US aid each year.

6) “Why do they hate us?” Bush asks rhetorically. “They hate what we see right here in this chamber, a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote.” This is NOT why the radical Muslims hate us. If this were the real reason, terrorists would be attacking other democratic nations like Switzerland or Japan. The real reason they hate the US because it has become the bully of the world, intervening under globalist pretenses into every nation on earth. The proclaimed motive is always to “protect human rights,” but the real purpose is to establish global hegemony over every nation on earth and reduce national sovereignty to a euphemistic label. Muslims and Arabs hate the West because the West has betrayed them for centuries and betrayed every agreements they have made. Finally, they hate the West because they are allied with Russia, who has faithfully supplied them with weapons and explosives (for its own hegemonic ambitions), and who is inexorably leading Islam into a future war with the West of horrific proportions. The globalist insiders who call the shots for Bush also want war to bring about their vaunted NWO purposes, and I believe that the true hidden agenda behind this proclaimed war on terrorism is to further antagonize and polarize the world prior to the coming war on the West. However it is probable that the young Bush doesn’t know the ulterior motives behind his bold war of agitation. His father probably knows, but I think Dubya is just reading a script.

7) “They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.” What Bush says here is true, and with this statement the speech writers have given us a hint of what this new war is all about. I believe that in the name of SAVING other countries from terrorism, the US will now have a new and unique excuse to intervene with and bully the world. This is borne out by the Bush statements of how broad ranging and varied the attacks will be, as well as the indefinite timeline he lays out:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” These are very threatening statements and are hypocritical as well. The US through FINCEN has long tracked the trail of money feeding terrorism. The US has even provided much of this money through the cover of aid to the very countries which harbor terrorism--who are all known to US intelligence. The primary nations supporting terrorism are RUSSIA, followed by CHINA. Any bets about whether Bush is going to attack these two monsters? The new Bush war will be highly selective. That is why this statement is both true and a lie.

8) “Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me — the Office of Homeland Security. These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it grows.... We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act, and find them before they strike.” These words reflect hints that the government spokesmen have been dropping for the past week--the need for more power and further reduction of private liberties. I’ve seen an advance copy of Attorney General Ashcroft’s new legislative proposal for increased law enforcement powers. They are ominous, but really only seek to legitimatize what government already does illegally. Even though this legislation is being justified as a means to fighting terrorism, it’s amazing how much of Ashcroft’s proposals have nothing to do with terrorism. How does expanding the types of private property that can be confiscated by the feds for drug busts affect the war on terrorism? But sadly, Congressional opposition has dried up. Out of fear of appearing an obstructionist to this holy war, there is a de facto silencing of voices of reason. Whether America will seriously beef up its homeland defense remains to be seen. We have far more facilities to protect than we have police and military combined, so I think we will still remain relatively vulnerable to most small scale terrorist strikes.

9) There is a globalist sweep to this agenda. Bush calls for world unity behind the war: “We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: an attack on one is an attack on all.” Nice words, but the truth is the US has had deep connections with all the world’s police and intel forces for years--and such connections have never helped eradicate terrorism before. Most of these forces are too busy reaping the profits from government sponsored drug pipelines. Most terrorist groups form portions of these drug networks, sharing in the profits to finance their works of death. If things change now, it is only because the Powers That Be are switching agendas from supporting or tolerating terrorism to selective eradication.

10) Lastly, there is the promise of a bailout for everyone: “We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying with direct assistance during this emergency...We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy and put our people back to work.” Bush and the FAA are refusing to allow the most simple and cost effective of the air safety alternatives (arming the aircrews). Instead he asks for us to be patient with the millions of dollars and man hours lost due to the new spat of restrictions. Instead of allowing the airlines to get back to normal fast, we will keep them hog-tied with inefficiency, spend billions in direct assistance, and force up ticket prices as well. And what about all the other people harmed by this event? What will the socialist Republicans say to the victims’ families, the insurance companies, the travel agents, and every other sector of society who wants a bailout too? Going down this path is a recipe for financial disaster and a guaranteed tax bite that no one will relish. The most dangerous words I’m hearing lately from Capitol Hill are “money is no object.” When money is no object, then someone is about to play loose with financial responsibility, and our liberties.

Here’s the bottom line--two tests for determining Bush’s true resolve on this matter:

1) If this is a real war on terrorism, Bush will actually do what he claims: He will hit all terrorists everywhere, including host nations like Russia, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and China. This will never happen.

2) If this war is real, terrorism will fight back with increased fanaticism and will strike the US constantly and steadily, with everything from petty bombings to biological and chemical attacks. If we DON’T SEE a massive increase in terrorism, I will be very suspicious that someone is still controlling terrorism and making it appear as if this phony war is successful. If you want to see what a legitimate fight against terrorism looks like, watch Israel. Its government plays the game with one hand tied behind its back, and the results are daily attacks against Israeli civilians. If we don’t see the same thing here, with our much weaker military and police presence on the streets, something will be very wrong with this picture.

World Affairs Brief, September 28, 2001


The following comes from an article in The Hindu by Shamsul Islam, of the Department of Political Science, Satyawati College, University of Delhi, published on September 26, 2001. [courtesy of a posting by]

The unprecedented deaths and destruction in two cities of the US on September 11 has stirred the conscience of the world. It was the most lethal, ruthless and daring terrorist strike on the nerve center of the world's most powerful nation today. The US, which promises to guarantee security to the world, was found wanting in checking the terrorist strikes at home for more than 40 minutes when the terrorists had the free run of its major airports, highjacking not one or two but four domestic planes to be used as flying bombs. It did not take long for the US establishment to identify the culprits who masterminded these terrorist acts. These were the `evil' forces of `Islamic terrorism' led by Osama bin Laden. The mainstream US media went on to explain these terrorist attacks in the context of the `clash of civilizations' thesis of Samuel Huntington. There were urgent calls for "forming a global alliance that will use all tools - diplomatic, political, economic, educational, investigative, and where appropriate, force - to pursue and root out the terrorist criminals and their supporters...''

But it is really surprising that the US, mecca of information technology with its super computers and all kinds of data bases, should be so greatly short of memory about Osama bin Laden. The media in the US these days is full of biographical sketches of Osama bin Laden in which he appears on the world scene in 1990 opposing the Gulf War and then is shown growing into an anti-West monster, finally, targeting the US on `Black Tuesday'. However, it may be news to many ears that Osama's journey as a terrorist did not start in 1990-1991. Any honest biographical description of Osama should not overlook his activities in the 1980s when he was deputed by the CIA to Afghanistan to finance and oversee the resistance to the Soviets. He was groomed as a theocratic-terrorist by the US openly.

In fact, there is lot of weight in the thesis that the modern Jehadi-Islam is a byproduct of intrigues by the West to keep the Islamic world under its suzerainty, devoid of any kind of democratic processes. And also to use it as a whipping boy occasionally whenever attention needs to be diverted from issues raised by anti-globalization campaigners. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), which has a long tradition of opposing the Taliban regime and paying for it with blood, raised this issue in its September 14 press statement. While condemning the terrorist attack, the statement went on to underline the fact that "the people of Afghanistan have nothing to do with Osama and his accomplices.

But unfortunately we must say that it was the Government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq in creating thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged. In the similar way, as is clear to all, Osama has been the blue-eyed boy of the CIA''. How the US and the CIA created Osama and his network has been well-documented in the book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia'' by Ahmed Rashid who is the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Daily Telegraph of London. This book which has been published by the Yale University Press clearly shows who in reality created Osama. Ahmed Rashid in his superb expose is able to present the factual linkages between the US and the `monster' which it created.

Some of the excerpts are too revealing too be missed. In 1986, CIA chief William Casey had stepped up the war against the Soviet Union by taking three significant, but at that time highly secret, measures. He had persuaded the US Congress to provide the Mujaheddin with American-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Soviet planes and provide US advisers to train the guerrillas. The CIA, Britain's MI6 and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence) also agreed on a provocative plan to launch guerrilla attacks into the Soviet Socialist Republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the soft Muslim underbelly of the Soviet state from where Soviet troops in Afghanistan received their supplies. Casey was delighted with the news, and on his next secret trip to Pakistan he crossed the border into Afghanistan with President Zia to review the Mujaheddin groups. "Thirdly, Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin. Washington wanted to demonstrate that the entire Muslim world was fighting the Soviet Union alongside the Afghans and their American benefactors.''

The book also goes on to show in graphic detail how harmless madrassas [Islamic religious schools associated with a Mosque. For a more in-depth reading on the radicalization of these schools, see:] were turned into factories for breeding religious guerrillas. "... between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North and East Africa, Central Asia and the Far East would pass their baptism under fire with the Afghan Mujaheddin. Tens of thousands more foreign Muslim radicals came to study in the hundreds of new madrassas that Zia's military government began to fund in Pakistan and along the Afghan border. Eventually more than 100,000 Muslim radicals were to have direct contact with Pakistan and Afghanistan and be influenced by the jihad... "In camps near Peshawar and in Afghanistan, these radicals met each other for the first time and studied, trained and fought together. It was the first opportunity for most of them to learn about Islamic movements in other countries, and they forged tactical and ideological links that would serve them well in the future.

The camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism''. Interesting details of Osama's recruitment by the CIA for jehad [jihad] in Afghanistan are also available in this book. "Among these thousands of foreign recruits was a young Saudi student, Osama Bin Laden, the son of a Yemeni construction magnate, Mohammed Bin Laden, who was a close friend of the late King Faisal and whose company had become fabulously wealthy on the contracts to renovate and expand the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina. The ISI had long wanted Prince Turki Bin Faisal, the head of Istakhbarat, the Saudi Intelligence Service, to provide a Royal Prince to lead the Saudi contingent in order to show Muslims the commitment of the Royal Family to the jehad. Only poorer Saudis, students, taxi drivers and Bedouin tribesmen had so far arrived to fight. But no pampered Saudi prince was ready to rough it out in the Afghan mountains. Bin Laden, although not a royal, was close enough to the royals and certainly wealthy enough to lead the Saudi contingent so when Bin Laden decided to join up, his family responded enthusiastically.

He first traveled to Peshawar in 1980 and met the Mujaheddin leaders, returning frequently with Saudi donations for the cause until 1982, when he decided to settle in Peshawar. In 1986, he helped build the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border.'' The book also demolishes the CIA claim that after 1990 there were no contacts with Osama. Surprisingly, just a few weeks before the US Embassy bombings in Africa, the book tells us, "the Saudi conundrum was even worse. In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their Dubai license plates''. This all shows that any meaningful fight back against world terrorism today will have to begin from the backyard of the US” [end of Islam quote]

World Affairs Brief, October 12, 2001


(I am indebted to the research of Dr. Stan Montieth for many of these findings. Hear his radio broadcasts at or order his September Radio Liberty Report and other fine materials at 1-800-544-8927.)

1. Israeli Mossad warned the US a week in advance

Numerous sources in Jerusalem and the UK published reports from Israel that the Mossad had sent a major warning to the CIA a week prior to the 9/11 terror attack that “large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.” The CIA claims they get these all the time and didn’t take it seriously. Now the CIA is issuing daily warnings and they expect us to take them seriously!

2. The FBI was tracking at least two of the terrorists

According to the LA Times, the FBI was tracking at least two of the hijackers prior to the event and failed to notify airlines. If the names of Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhamzi had been passed to the airlines, they would not have been able to buy tickets on that fateful day.

3. Financial speculators shorted airline stocks before the crash

The New York Times reported the findings of Ernest Welteke (German Bundesbank) that “There have been fundamental movements in these markets (airline stocks) and the oil price rise just ahead of the attacks is otherwise inexplicable.” The US government claims to be investigating who placed these massive short positions, but have not reported any findings. Experts say it would take less than 1 hour to track these transactions down. Why the silence?

4. Certain VIPs were warned against travel

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Mayor Brown was called eight hours before the attack and warned that “Americans should be cautious in their travel.” (I consider this a general warning only since none of the planes involved were on the West Coast). Author Salman Rushdie (who has written anti-Islamic works) was warned by the FAA on Sept. 3 not to fly to Canada and the US, according to the London Times.

5. Certain military bases and overseas embassies were put on high alert

The Defense Language Institute in Monterey was put on alert prior to the attacks, as well as some overseas embassies and military bases. This is not definitive evidence, as there are other reasons for going on alert, but one has to question why the public was not warned.

6. CIA had advance warning of a plot to destroy buildings with hijacked airliners

I reported previously on Project Bojinka--the code name of a terrorist plot uncovered in the Philippines (where there are numerous Islamic terrorist activities). The CIA failed to surveil any fight schools in anticipation of this threat.

7. Suppression of Flight School warnings by higher authority in the FBI

According to wire services, FBI agents in Minneapolis, MN arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, an Algerian with French citizenship, on immigration charges. He was arrested after a tip from a local flight school that reported that the suspect wanted to be trained in flying a large jet aircraft, but said that he did not want to take the time to learn how to take off or land. The FBI knew he was a terrorist on French watch lists, but refused to pursue the case or issue search warrants on orders from higher authority, according to Phil Brennan of (Oct 8, 2001) and David Schippers (see below).

World Affairs Brief, October 19, 2001


For weeks, I have been making a case for the fact that the Bush administration is only prosecuting the war on terrorism in a very selective manner. However, this past week, the Bush team has begun to show signs of not being so selective. They have alerted the Israelis that they are going to go after Hamas and the Lebanese-based Hezbollah, two of the most virulent groups of terrorists in the Middle East. It still remains to be seen how or if these terrorists threats will be prosecuted. While this policy seems to add credence to their offensive against terrorism, note that Arafat himself is still favored by the US, and has even been welcomed into the anti-terror coalition by both Bush and Tony Blair. In fact, Blair held a major press conference side by side with Arafat, praising his commitment to peace, just hours before Palestinian assassins gunned down Israeli Minister Rehavam Ze’evi, Israel’s highest ranking outspoken critic of the Oslo accords. The only beneficial result of Ze’evi’s martyrdom was that it temporarily stymied US intents to elevate Arafat to sainthood and force Israel to deliver to Arafat his desired Palestinian state. Bush himself is careful not to cozy up to Arafat publicly. This tells me that Bush still wants to publicly distance himself from this wily snake--not because Bush doesn’t intend to keep forcing Israel toward a disastrous negotiated settlement with the PLO, but because Bush doesn’t want to be held liable for Arafat’s unpredictable antics, should he suddenly bite the hands that feeds.

This contradiction in US policy, claiming to lead a worldwide war on terrorism while openly supporting a long-time international terrorist leader, is only one example of the hypocrisy of our leaders in dealing with terrorism. Indeed, the globalist leaders in the US, Britain, and other nations are adept at playing both sides of the fence in these conflicts: pretending to champion the cause of liberty, while lending aid and support to terrorist organizations behind the scenes. Here are just a few examples:

Tony Blair, Britain’s Leftist PM and supposed biggest supporter of the war on terrorism, has a long history of appeasement of terrorism. In 1998 he released the Balcombe Street IRA gang from prison, in return for promises of IRA weapons decommissioning which were never fulfilled. This year he released hundreds of IRA prisoners on the basis of the same worn-out promise. London is also the fundraising headquarters for Europe of almost every international terrorist organization. They operate openly there.

The Dublin government of Northern Ireland has joined in the anti-terror coalition (as has almost every other nation harboring terrorism), notwithstanding a long history of shielding IRA weapons, including helicopters which are almost impossible to hide for long without government complicity.

Speaking of complicity, in 1988, during the Republican Bush Sr. administration, the US shipped arms, ammunition and Stinger missiles to the IRA in a CIA C-130 aircraft, via Dublin. Whistleblowers to this operation included Stephen Crittenden, owner of a CIA airline operation, and former IRA member Michael Martin, who helped unload the aircraft. The subsequent US administration under Bill Clinton openly gave honor and recognition to Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams, political leader of the terrorist IRA, and also facilitated other arms shipments. The IRA operates a huge fundraising organization in the US, and this pipeline of cash has still not been shut down or frozen despite assurances by the current Bush administration that they would shut down the money supply to all terrorist groups everywhere. Thus, all three recent US administrations are guilty of continuing covert support of the terrorist IRA.

As we watch this selective war on terrorism unfold, keep in mind what the globalist leaders did during WWII. It is true that globalist insiders funded and facilitated the rise of Hitler. They appeased him and gave him the silent wink, unleashing Hitler on Poland and Czechoslovakia. When war fully emerged, the West, by all appearances, began to prosecute the war vigorously. But it was not to last. As the tide began to turn to victory, the seeds of betrayal of Western interests began to emerge, affecting how the war would end. Secret concessions at Yalta and Tehran were made to the next future enemy (Russia) in order to facilitate its growth and power in the aftermath of war. Similarly, in the Gulf War, we saw the ending turn sour as Saddam Hussein was allowed to remain in power. I suspect no matter how far it appears that Bush will push this war on terrorism, he will never completely eliminate the core threats in the Middle East, in Ireland, in South Asia, or even in Latin America--areas where terrorism is allowed and fomented as an agent for change. In general, if there does emerge a pattern indicating which groups Bush protects and which he takes down, it will develop along the lines of who has been controllable in the past versus which groups have now grown beyond control, and therefore must be pared down to size.

World Affairs Brief November 9, 2001


Tom Kenny of the National Urban Search and Rescue (Part of FEMA) told Dan Rather in an interview this week: “we were currently one of the first teams that was deployed to the city of NY for this disaster. We arrived late Monday Night and went into action on Tuesday morning.” Who gave them the orders to deploy to New York the night before? Dan Rather never asked. You can hear the interview for yourself at :


There is growing evidence that all or some of the 19 hijackers listed by the FBI were not actually on board the doomed aircraft. This much we know: All hijackers came through airline security with a government issued photo-ID which matched their facial identity. But we have no assurance that the name listed on the ID matched the face. It is highly improbable, in fact, that hijackers with access to this level of sophistication and planning would use their own identities. Why not use the identities of known hijackers that your organization wants to make disappear? What better way to disappear than to have the FBI assume you died on Flight 77 or Flight 11? The FBI knows this is a common ruse, so it is strange that they would publish the names of all the hijackers so quickly and confidently without ensuring that these men are in fact dead--which is no easy task without identifiable body parts. The FBI claims that they took the names right off of the passenger manifests and matched them with their computer “watch lists.” Strangely, as pointed out by Gary North, the passenger manifest lists published by CNN are missing all the names of the Arab hijackers. After over a week of my appeals to CNN to remedy this oversight, they are stonewalling, telling me they are “looking into it.” What’s to look into? Just give us the list. With this kind of obfuscation going on, I’m not sure we could trust the list even if they provided it.

I’m also not buying the all-too-suspicious story about the abysmal flying records of the supposed hijacker-pilots as they attempted to learn to fly at various private flight schools in Florida, Minnesota and elsewhere. First, even though it doesn’t take a lot of talent to fly an airliner once in cruise mode, it does take talent and training (hands on in a real aircraft) to navigate over a long distance and then execute a fairly rapid descent and do a tightly controlled descending turn as was required in the attack on the Pentagon. It is highly unlikely that those Arab students who were washed out of flight school did these maneuvers. Secondly, there actually is an Arab run flight school in the US, with lessons taught in Arabic. Delta-Qualiflight Aeronautics, run by Khaled Miloud, operates at the Fort Worth Meacham field. Just this week, despite assurances by the newly implemented Office of Homeland Security that “the American people can have confidence that their government is working around the clock to protect them,” 14 Syrian students were allowed to enter the US in order to enroll at this flight school. Given the availability of such a program for the hijackers in training, why would the terrorists go searching for English speaking flight schools in other states? Doesn’t make sense.

Let’s look at another possibility. Realistically, if a large Arab terrorist organization were going to implement training for this type of attack, they would have relied upon one of the nations that sponsor terrorism (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran or Egypt)--all of which have fleets of airliners and trained pilots--to host the training. Then, to divert attention away from these nations, the cell’s leaders would send low level future suicide participants (expendable if they get caught) to enroll in relatively cheap US small aircraft schools. That’s what I think happened. This does not release the FBI from their responsibility to track these flight school students, nor does it excuse their ineptitude in the task. In fact, there is evidence, as I presented last week, that the FBI purposely shut down any investigations that tried to highlight Arab attempts to get partial flight training, thwarting even speculation to the end that such an attack as happened last month was being planned.

World Affairs Brief, December 28, 2001


In all major conspiratorial events, evidence related to the event continues to surface over time, and if the government is involved, it demonstrates its collusion by the degree to which it attempts to suppress and cover up the emerging evidence. As in the JFK assassination and the downing of TWA 800 by a missile, we are beginning to see the same pattern of obfuscation, denial, and cover-up by federal agencies in the September 11th tragedy--especially by the FBI, the military, and the FAA.

Some of the biggest questions about the events of 9/11 center around the hijacking of the various airliners: how the pilots reacted, and what actions the government took via the military to impede the results. Pilots have instant access to Air Traffic Control (ATC) with a push of a button on the control yoke. In contrast, it takes time for a hijacker to take over the cabin and then deal with the pilots who are in a separate compartment behind a locked aluminum sliding door. We know, by FAA admission, that in each and every case the pilots had time to communicate their emergency to ATC. In at least two cases the pilots were able to change the transponder code to 7700 for “emergency in progress” before the hijackers took control and switched off the transponder. The FAA and US military have standing orders and written procedures on how to intercept and deal with aircraft hijackings.

The FAA has said that it alerted military authorities in Colorado at the first signs of a hijacking. Yet we know that a few aircraft were scrambled and that all others were grounded and prohibited from reacting according to standing procedures. One of my subscribers is friends with an air traffic controller at McGuire AFB in New Jersey. His friend confided to him that “he was on duty at the time of the crashes into the towers. They got a phone call in between the first and second 'hit'. His superior told him that ‘NO take-off's were permitted ... NONE at all.’” This was too early to be a direct result of shutting down all flights nationwide--which only affected private and commercial flights--not military. Here we have evidence of the US military acting in direct opposition to national defense--acting on orders from above. These orders couldn’t have come from Bush, who was engaged at an elementary school, so higher military officials were either taking orders from someone else at the White House or acting on predetermined orders.

I find it also very strange that flight data and voice recorders from all the 9/11 crashes except Flight 93 (which crashed or was shot down over Pennsylvania) have been declared not found, destroyed, or unreadable. These declarations are without precedent in aviation accident history, and especially preposterous when we consider that the FBI claims to have found letters, passports and other fragile documents belonging to the supposed Arab hijackers amidst the tons of rubble of the WTC--and yet they couldn’t find crash hardened data recorders. The data and voice recorders are designed to survive both the crash and resulting fire and almost always do. Why not this time?

Now the FBI tells us they will not be releasing the lone cockpit voice recorder that survived Flight 93 because “it would be too traumatic for the surviving families.” What could be more traumatic that what they already know? This is just another blatant excuse to withhold even more information about the tragedies. There has to be a good reason why the FBI refuses to release this voice recorder, and I think it has to do with the fact that it may not have been a hijacking at all that took down this aircraft.

It is becoming evident that Flight 93 was shot down by an unmarked white jet that was seen intercepting Flight 93 and following it down as it crashed. The jet was witnessed in detail by several people on the ground. One military witness claims he heard a missile being fired. In addition, the main body of the engine of Flight 93 was found miles from the main wreckage site, with damage comparable to that which a heat seeking missile would do to an airliner. There were also personal papers, and articles of clothing from the plane found miles from the crash. The government is now saying these were carried up into the air by the crash fireball--but no such occurrence has happened in other crashes. The existing body of evidence is found at on a website at The author of the website doesn’t draw any conclusions except that Flight 93 didn’t go down as the public has been told and that the government knows why and isn’t telling.

World Affairs Brief, February 1, 2002.


Two stories have emerged this week further indicating that the Bush administration is aware of wrongdoing within the government and attempting to cover up.

First, in a private meeting with Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other leaders of Congress, President Bush pushed to limit the scope of any Congressional investigation of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. The meeting was called by Bush, indicating that he was sufficiently worried about the results of such an investigation, and was attempting to forestall it through a little arm twisting. I think he and others up the chain are worried that Congress may discover or reveal to the public one or more of the numerous pieces of evidence that point to government prior knowledge of the events, and its recent relations with Osama bin Laden. Bush knows that there are various witnesses who can give damaging testimony about government involvement--such as FEMA’s Tom Kenny, who has been kept completely out of sight and beyond the reach of any media interviews since he told Dan Rather that he and his team were sent to NYC on Monday prior to the 9/11 disaster; or the CIA station chief in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, who knows of US officials’ contacts with Osama bin Laden in the American hospital where bin Laden was being treated for kidney disease. Even if the Bush administration is able to skirt the prior knowledge charges, they would certainly have trouble avoiding blame for egregious intelligence failures relative to the attacks--attacks committed by persons well known to the CIA and FBI and who were already in their computer files.

Second, Bush made an impassioned attack against Congressional efforts to force the administration to reveal what was discussed with Enron during the secret meetings on energy policy with VP Cheney. The President said he must have the right to preserve a visitor’s private conversations if he is to be successful in getting people to talk with government. Hogwash! Bush might have had a point if the subject of the meeting were a matter of true national security or a criminal investigation, but this was supposedly a matter of government energy policy--something easily within the scope of government open meeting guidelines. The only possible reason for wanting to maintain secrecy was to conceal government collusion with certain favored companies--designing policies and energy rates that would give those companies a favorable advantage in the market place. We have the testimony of former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Curtis Herbert, Jr., who claimed that he was forced to submit to an interview with Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay prior to being considered for the post, and that Lay made improper demands to him about energy policy after he was installed. Herbert also claims to have been removed by President Bush after he refused to comply with Lay’s demands. If this is true, Bush has some explaining to do about why Enron seems to have veto authority over who serves in government energy oversight committees.

World Affairs Brief, March 8, 2002


A huge potential conspiracy scandal is emerging on the internet as photographs of the Pentagon crash site are being aired showing no evidence of any aircraft parts or wreckage. Rumors are flying that the government falsified this attack with a planted explosive charge at the Pentagon or that a truck bomb did the actual damage. I have viewed the sketchy evidence so far, and concur that no visible aircraft wreckage is shown. But, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The total package of evidence is far from conclusive at this point. In fact, there does exist other evidence, including witnesses who saw a plane, that directly contradicts the assertion of no aircraft. If you want to examine the photo evidence yourself go to Here are some points to consider:

1. The photographs were taken from too far away to make a definitive determination.

2. The explosion occurred at the base of the building and the roof structure caved in afterward on top of whatever wreckage may have survived the fire--making it difficult to see the wreckage.

3. The damaged portion of the building is more narrow than the wingspan of the airliner, lending credence to the charge that the aircraft could not have created this hole. However, the building exterior does show damage where the outer wings would have impacted. When an airliner crashes into a building with a hard exterior and a soft interior, the entire aircraft tends to break up in small pieces and be absorbed inside the building. That’s what happened in both WTC towers. The façade of the Pentagon may not have given way. The outer portions of a wing are far less dense than the rest of the structure and could have disintegrated upon impact. All flammable materials would have been consumed in the ensuing fire.

4. At a press conference held at the Pentagon by Assistant Defense Secretary Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher had this to say: “First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.” This quote does admit to the lack of large pieces of airplane wreckage, but he does say there were small pieces. Any pieces of aircraft wreckage would tend to discredit the no-airplane theory.

5. There is the issue of the security camera from a gas station across the street which reportedly captured the crash. As with all other such evidence, the FBI confiscated the video and has refused to reveal its contents. This happened in the OKC bombing as well. These actions are naturally suspicious, but typical of a government that regularly engages in cover-ups. All the government has to do to defuse these charges is to release the tape. As of this writing, the FBI has not done so. However, the government did release on March 7 a clip from a surveillance camera outside the Pentagon--advertised as showing the plane hitting the Pentagon. See it at,2933,47420,00.html Finally, I thought we were going to settle this issue. No such luck. The first picture frame claiming to show an aircraft as a minor “white blur” is simply not there at the computer resolution Fox News was sending out. A Boeing 757 would certainly have had a much larger visual signature, even if blurred. Is this the best the government can come up with?

6. The biggest unexplained aspect of these charges is, what happened to the actual Flight 77 and all its passengers--none of whom have ever appeared alive. The plane can’t simply have disappeared into nowhere, and no other airliner crash site exists that has not been accounted for. There is ample evidence that some of the supposed Saudi hijacker pilots (of other flights) have turned up alive, but this could easily be explained by the ad hoc way in which the FBI came up with the list of hijackers in the first place, without a shred of forensic evidence. The FBI also suppressed all aircraft passenger manifest lists that had Arab names, thus leaving the public with no means of confirming the government’s assertions.

7. There are eye-witnesses, however. On Sept 11, the Washington Post compiled the testimony of several who saw the aircraft or debris on the ground. I will quote from the article by Barbara Vobejda, found at

I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles,...It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion.”

Asework Hagos, 26, of Arlington, was driving on Columbia Pike on his way to work as a consultant for Nextel. He saw a plane flying very low and close to nearby buildings. ‘I thought something was coming down on me. I know this plane is going to crash. I've never seen a plane like this so low.’ He said he looked at it and saw American Airline insignia and when it made impact with the Pentagon initially he saw smoke, then flames.

At the Pentagon, employees had heard about or seen footage of the World Trade Centre attack when they felt their own building shake.”

Ervin Brown, who works at the Pentagon, said he saw pieces of what appeared to be small aircraft on the ground, and the part of the building by the heliport had collapsed.”

Damoose said the worst part was leaving the Pentagon and walking along Fort Meyer Drive, a bike trail, ‘you could see pieces of the plane.’”

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was

about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said... He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon ‘envelope’ the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.”

This last quote, as well as the others, clearly confirms that a plane did hit the Pentagon. But it is disturbing for another reason. Patterson is a graphic artist who works at home, so his ability to perceive detail and make accurate descriptions is founded in a lot of eye training. There is little chance a trained graphic artist is going to mistake a huge Boeing 757 flying only 150 yards from his window for a small commuter airplane holding only 8-12 passengers. The 757 would have been gigantic and its huge fuselage and long rows of windows could never be mistaken for a plane holding less than 12 people. This, combined with the nearly non-existent “white blur” proported to be the aircraft on the Pentagon security camera clip, may indicate that the plane which hit the Pentagon may not have been an airliner. This still leaves wide open the question of what happened to Flight 77. I have, so far, been unable to locate a Steven Patterson in the Pentagon City area of Arlington, Va. None of the graphic design firms in the area that I called have heard of him. Barbara Vobejda told me she didn’t have a contact number for him either since his testimony was picked up by one of the dozens of “stringers” they had out in the field that day interviewing people on the ground.

So, for now we must conclude that some type of aircraft flew into the Pentagon, but the jury is still out on other murky details. It looks doubtful to me that the government would be so stupid as to try to falsify the entire aircraft event. On the other hand, they spent millions trying to explain away the missile shootdown (by the US Navy) of TWA 800, including the creation of a completely bogus video presentation falsifying what really happened. So they certainly are capable of grand conspiracy and deception.


We now have additional proof that the FAA suppressed news of occurrences surrounding the 9/11 crash of American Airlines Flight 11. A memo has surfaced from within the FAA indicating that hijacker Satam al-Suqami (hard to imagine how they could know his name) had a gun on the aircraft and shot and killed passenger Daniel Lewin in the process of hijacking the aircraft. The FAA initially denied the memo’s existence, and then admitted its existence, but altered its contents, denying the presence of a gun on board. Anonymous investigators within the FAA have admitted that the original memo detailing the shooting is factual. This information could only have come from detailed pilot to ATC controller radio transmissions as the hijacking was in process. This partially explains why the FAA and FBI refuse to relinquish these tape recordings. The government continues to claim that no usable black boxes have been recoverable from any of the crash sites, though they have the audacity to claim they have recovered letters and passports (highly flammable items) from the wreckage of the WTC. All of these things indicate the government has much to hide.


According to Daniel Hopsicker (, a former investigative reporter for NBC, the Venice, Florida-based flight school at Huffman Aviation which trained two of the suspected 9/11 hijacker pilots, has links to a company called Britannia Aviation, suspected of being a CIA operation. The CIA operates many shell corporations fronting for various aviation purposes that assist in its dark side operations. Britannia Aviation surfaced recently in a dispute in Lynchburg, VA when a multi-million dollar contract for aircraft maintenance at Lynchburg Virginia Regional Airport was awarded to Britannia instead of a much larger local aircraft maintenance company, fully certified with many employees and already located at Lynchburg. Hopsicker discovered that Britannia has only one listed employee and assets totaling less than $1000. Britannia’s only address points to a small office sub-leased from Rudi Dekker’s Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida. Another pertinent question might be, who made the call to the Lynchburg authorities (home of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University) to influence them to award this suscipicious bid to Britannia? They aren’t talking.

This connection may help answer the question why Arab hijackers, who could barely speak English, went to various English-speaking flight schools for marginal training when a fully operating Arab-speaking flight school was in operation at Dallas Fort Worth airport. I believe the hijacker pilots were trained by large Middle Eastern airlines and attended the US schools only to establish a cover. They didn’t want to implicate the Arab operation at Dallas Forth Worth. This story adds to the growing body of evidence that the CIA had foreknowledge and allowed the attack to go forward in order to justify the ongoing war on terrorism.

World Affairs Brief May 17, 2002


White House press secretary Ari Fleischer made a dramatic admission this past Wednesday--that US intelligence agencies had delivered to President Bush in early August definitive warnings that Osama bin Laden would be attempting to hijack commercial airliners. Fleischer was quick to provide a ready excuse for government inaction on the warnings by stating that the warnings did not indicate the possibility that the hijackers would use the aircrafts as guided missiles targeting high profile buildings.

This announcement is suspicious on its face. First, it has all the markings of a total fabrication designed to head off or soften the mounting real evidence of government foreknowledge and complicity with the 9/11 terrorist attack. The CIA was collaborating with Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia as late as July of 2001, so it is highly suspicious that the supposed intelligence warnings would have mentioned bin Laden by name as an enemy--unless bin Laden’s primary purpose is to serve as a fall guy. Second, if, as Fleischer says, the warnings gave no indications that the hijackings would be “for the use of suicide bombing, nor for the use of an airplane as a missile,” what did they think they were for, and why should this warning have been given such special priority? Generic potential hijackings are not considered worthy news items to put before the President in his daily briefings. last, why no prior admission of this prior warning (if it existed at all)? Why wait for six months to reveal it?

I strongly suspect that this is a ploy to defuse the growing evidence of government prior knowledge. By airing a harmless version of prior warning, the public will be induced to view all other subsequent and more damaging evidence as ‘old stuff.’ Even Congress may be diverted from highlighting evidence of other more telling collusion between government and the hijackers as they go through the pretenses of an investigation. Here are some major questions that will probably go unanswered by Congress as a result:

What is the relationship between the CIA and Rudy Dekker’s Huffman Aviation which trained two of the alleged hijackers? Dekker leases space in his hanger to Britannia Aviation, a CIA front company.

Why did the INS give numerous visas to these hijackers (in previous years, before 9/11) when they were conspicuously prominent on the CIA and FBI computer terrorist “watch lists?” I think the INS “mistake” of issuing renewed student visas to them after the attacks was only to provide a phony image of government incompetence--which doesn’t match the exacting ruthlessness of the INS in holding Caucasian immigrants to the letter of the law.

In light of the recent admissions about prior warning, why didn’t the same agencies who briefed the President put two and two together and link flight school training taken by Arabs (with supposed ties to Al Qaeda) to the known threat of hijacking (even assuming the CIA didn’t know the ultimate purpose of the hijacking)?

Why did Arabs who could barely speak English go to America flight schools (which offered no instruction in large airliners) when there was an Arab-speaking airline flight school in operation at Fort Worth International?

Why is the FAA refusing to make public any of the tape recorded conversations with pilots of the hijacked airliners as the hijacking was taking place?

Why the suppression of ATC controller testimony that two F-16 fighters were vectored to and intercepted Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, or about witness statements of explosions aboard the aircraft and the unmarked white jet aircraft that followed Flight 93 down to the ground as it crashed and then flew off at tree top altitude?

Why did the government shut down all military flight lines in the East half way through the 9/11 attacks so they could not respond to other hijackings still in progress?

Why is the FBI refusing to release the service station surveillance camera video they confiscated minutes after an aircraft flew into the Pentagon? How did they know to show up at the service station within such a short time period? Why did the government leak (unofficially) to NBC strange excerpts from a Pentagon parking video that, in fact, does not show a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon? The anomalies in the official story about the alleged crash of Flight 77 have given rise to a whole rash of internet suspicions pointing to another type of aircraft, possibly combined with a missile, that more fully explains the damage to the Pentagon. All this could easily be clarified by evidence the government has in its possession. Why the gag order?

People are so easily duped into accepting facile explanations for government incompetency and inaction. I participated on a panel discussion on terrorism at the FEE National Convention, and presented some of the anomalies in the official version of events surround 9/11, including the highly suspicious refusal of FBI headquarters to allow a local FBI office in Minnesota to search the apartment of an Arab flight school student who was reported to be only interested in learning to maneuver a large aircraft--not takeoff and land. Michael Ladeen, a fellow panelist who works for the establishment American Enterprise Institute, was quick to react to my charges by saying the FBI was under pressure by the federal courts to be cautious about violating anyone’s rights. Hogwash. My learned colleague was apparently oblivious to the voluminous testimony of FBI whistleblowers stating that the FBI violates the law anytime it wants. The surveillance of conservative Congressmen (Filegate) is only one example of such egregious violations of the law on a routine basis at the Bureau. If the FBI chose to be cautious in this case, it was only because the FBI was looking for an excuse to avoid exposing evidence pointing to an incident that powerful dark side forces in government wanted to happen--perhaps to justify further restrictions of constitutional liberties in America (see below) and to further globalist intervention.

World Affairs Brief, June 7, 2002


This is the title (by analyst John Horne) given to the bipartisan Congressional committee to investigate the government’s role in the 9/11 attack on America. The committee is composed of members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees--all but a few of which are eminently controllable by establishment powers to ensure an outcome favorable to the government’s official version of events (which denies all direct or indirect involvement and which claims it was too incompetent and underfunded to properly deal with the vague warnings it has admitted to having been aware of). Despite all the ‘mea culpas’ uttered by agency heads at the CIA, FBI and INS, no one has been asked to resign and no one has been fired or disciplined--except the few brave whistleblowers who say the agencies knew more than they are admitting.

The title is an appropriate one for the joint Congressional committee, given that the former Warren Commission’s sole purpose was to cover up for the government’s role in the JFK assassination and pin the blame on a CIA stooge. The thirty representatives comprising the current commission meet in soundproof security rooms, to make sure there are no leaks to the public. The majority of these men and women are recipients of large campaign contributions from government connected corporations, Wall Street firms, and labor unions. A large percentage are members of or have ties to the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers. Some have prior involvement with the CIA. The few who are conservative and independent will be overruled by virtue of their small numbers and muted by the rules of secrecy. You can read John Horne’s analysis of each member and their financial background, sources of contribution, and involvement with ideological organizations at the following URL: .

World Affairs Brief, November 29, 2002


In a move that has shocked both the American left and savvy people on the right, President Bush named Henry Kissinger, the consummate insider and dark-side high-level manager, as head of the upcoming 9/11 investigation. Survivor groups have been demanding to know how much the government knew beforehand which might have allowed them to prevent the attacks. Most survivor groups demanded the creation of an independent commission to investigate the attacks, to be provided for as part of the domestic security bill. But the independent commission clause was removed from the bill after the White House balked at the commission’s broad subpoena powers (which were aimed at White House insiders who have thus far refused to cooperate with Congress). Provisions for the 9/11 commission were reinstated at the last minute in a separate intelligence-spending bill after heavy lobbying by family leaders of the victims of 9/11.

The Bush administration has been maintaining for several months that it does not desire an independent inquiry. Now that Congress has mandated it, in spite of White House lobbying, the Bush administration has decided to sabotage the process by putting Kissinger in charge. Both Bush and Kissinger were guilty of egregious misstatements of fact and intent in their recent joint appearance at a press conference. In a classic example of doublespeak, President Bush remarked, “This investigation should carefully examine all the evidence and follow all the facts wherever they lead. We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th.” If Bush is sincere, then why has he been so adamant about killing this investigation or limiting its scope, as I have reported in earlier briefs?

At the signing ceremony, Bush enthused, “Dr. Kissinger will bring broad experience, clear thinking and careful judgment to this important task.” Indeed, Kissinger will use all his power and experience in secret dealing to make sure this investigation points no fingers at the Bush administration for this tragedy. For his part, Kissinger claimed he would “go where the facts lead us....We are under no restrictions, and we will accept no restrictions.” More lies. The first thing the White House announced at Ari Fleischer’s daily press conference was that the President would not be testifying at any point in the investigation. No restrictions?


Publicly, Kissinger is most well known for serving as National Security Advisor and later as Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford. During his tenure in these positions, Kissinger sold out Vietnam to the Communists, despite the US’s demonstrated military advantages and bombing victories at the end. During secret negotiations with China for pulling out of the costly war, Kissinger made one-sided promises to Red China on behalf of the US to: 1) refuse to support Taiwanese independence; 2) allow Red China to replace Taiwan in the UN; and 3) remain silent about US prisoners of war not released by Vietnam and Russia at the official end of hostilities. Kissinger was also responsible for convincing Nixon to order the ban on the exportation of miniature ball bearing technology to the Soviet Union lifted -- a ban which had up to that time kept the Russians from developing accurate independently targeted warheads (MIRVs) on their nuclear missiles. This piece of treason increased the US’s risk of nuclear annihilation tenfold. Kissinger also insisted on the ratification of the disastrous 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which effectively kept the US from developing any counter deterrent to the growing Russian missile threat.

There have been instances in which Kissinger has appeared to have anti-Communist sympathies. In 1973, Kissinger was involved directly in giving the green light and CIA covert support to Gen. Augusto Pinoche in his efforts to overthrow the Communist government of Salvador Allende in Chile -- just in time to thwart a systematic assassination of hundreds of anti-Communist officers and even American missionaries by Allende’s most radical political wing. In 1975, Kissinger secretly gave a green light to Indonesian dictator Suharto to invade East Timor to suppress a Communist insurgency there. In 1976, Kissinger backed the coup leaders in Argentina who overthrew the leftist government that was allowing the Communist Tupamaro guerrillas to terrorize urban areas of Argentina and Uruguay. The left views each of these examples as evil. The conservative right views them as legitimate interventions to fight against the Communist domino effect. My view is more complex. Kissinger, like almost all State Department officials, is involved in efforts both to facilitate Communist revolutions and to curtail them. Under most circumstances, Communism is to be assisted so that it can serve as a vehicle for future conflict -- conflict which will help globalists usher in the era of world government. However, when a Communist revolution gets out of hand in the minds of these globalist leaders, it becomes necessary to curtail its progress until conditions can be established which are more easily controlled. Thus even in these examples, Kissinger was championing not the cause of liberty, but the complex agenda of globalism.

If we go even further back in Kissinger’s career, we find he got his start with the OSS during World War II. The John Birch Society did a good deal of investigative research about this shadowy period and came to the conclusion that Kissinger became a Communist agent during this period. Frank Capel’s book, Henry Kissinger, Soviet Agent elucidates Kissinger’s hidden background. Capel writes, “An anti-Communist who infiltrated Polish Communist Intelligence and rose to the equivalent rank of general has now named Henry Kissinger as a Soviet agent, recruited into a special group known as ODRA while he was a sergeant in the U.S. Armed Forces in Germany during World War II.” More modern revelations indicate that Kissinger was actually assigned by the OSS to infiltrate Communist ranks and serve the US as a double agent. He served in this role during the FDR administration under the auspices of double agents such as Alger Hiss. In my view, the purpose of Kissinger’s assignment was not, as most anti-Communist conservatives like to believe, merely to find out what the Reds were up to. More likely, his purpose was to actually facilitate Russian and East German espionage into US circles. In other words, I believe that globalists were running the US government even then, and that agents such as Kissinger and Hiss were really sophisticated global agents, allowing the Russians to think they were better at penetrating US intelligence than they really were. Again, the globalists are always playing a two-sided game, building future enemies up and then eventually going to war to eliminate them -- all with the purpose of advancing their goal of globalist control over sovereign nations.

World Affairs Brief, December 20, 2002


In response to a requirement that both Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell make public a complete list of their clients and lobbying activities or resign as heads of a Congressional panel investigating September 11, both chose resignation rather than comply with disclosure. Kissinger’s maneuvers were particularly telling. At first he tried to negotiate a deal whereby he could make the appearance of disclosure while still keeping it all secret from the public. He asked the 9/11 survivors group to designate a single person to receive knowledge of his client list, and stipulated that that person be sworn to absolute secrecy, prohibited from telling anyone what the list contained, even if he or she viewed a potential conflict of interest. When this was turned down for obvious reasons, not the least of which being that it wouldn’t pass legal muster, Kissinger backed out rather than reveal who he does business with.

What’s Kissinger got to hide? Kissinger and Associates includes other ex-government insiders such as National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Under Sec. of State Lawrence Eagleburger, international economist Alan Stoga, and investment banker Jefferson Cunningham III. Kissinger and Associates has lobbied for various Middle Eastern countries, most nations in the Far East (especially those with whom Kissinger has had major business relationships with, such as Indonesia with its gold mines), and Russia and China.

Kissinger also serves the globalist leaders by meeting with new leaders of other countries and explaining to them what is expected of them vis a vis the global agenda, and what they must comply with if they expect to be favorably treated. For example, Kissinger was the newly elected Spanish president’s first visitor. President Jose Maria Aznar explained that Kissinger was merely explaining to him “how the world worked.” I’ll bet he was! Israeli government officials have often been observed meeting with Kissinger before engaging in official talks at the White House. Kissinger also jets around the world and meets with up-and-coming government leaders in secret confabs like the Bilderburger Conference, the Club of Rome and the Committee of 300. Thus, Kissinger certainly has much to hide in his client list – facts and relationships that would clearly indicate too much about Kissinger’s real power in the world.

Here are a few interesting facts that shed light on Kissinger’s commercial lobbying on behalf of corporations desiring an insider relationship with government. There are undoubtedly hundreds more that are not in the public arena.

Henry Kissinger was an international director of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the Italian bank whose branch in Atlanta, Georgia made a $4 billion unauthorized loan to Iraq during the Gulf War, according to the chairman of the US House banking committee. Kissinger also had links to BCCI, a front for CIA money laundering. In 1991, the Banking Subcommittee received documents from BCCI's liquidators that linked Kissinger to BCCI's use of a retired Brazilian Ambassador, Sergio da Costa, who was trying to front the purchase of a bank in Brazil. This was during the time the CIA relationship with BCCI was being leaked by various whistleblowers and they were getting ready to pull out, leaving the private shareholders and US taxpayers holding the bag. Da Costa was a partner in Kissinger Associates.

Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger played a major role in formulating the Bush administration’s proposal to use $1 billion in Export-Import Bank credits to sell defense technology and equipment to foreign companies that had lobbying contracts with Kissinger and Associates. Brent Scowcroft was particularly attempting to promote military sales to companies that he owned stock in – a clear conflict of interest. Another of Kissinger’s clients was Unical, which was a partnered with Enron during the energy trading scandal. These connections and meetings are part of the records VP Cheney is attempting to keep out of public hands.

Bush has nominated Thomas Kean as Kissinger’s replacement. Here’s some background on Kean. He was the liberal governor of New Jersey from 1982 to 1990, and is currently president of Drew University. He also serves as a corporate director for the Pepsi Group and petroleum giant Amerada Hess, which has extensive relations with Saudi Arabia. Kean has a long history in managing left/liberal endowments: the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, and the National Endowment for Democracy. He served on the advisory board to the President's Initiative on Race during the Clinton administration, and has been involved in various UN gatherings, including the World Conference on Education for All and the Fourth U.N. World Conference on Women in 1995. Kean is obviously a reliable team player who will ensure that the 9/11 investigation never touches establishment powers.

Bush has also named Richard Ben Veniste to the panel, the same insider attorney that sabotaged Barry Seal’s counter-suit against the US government. Seal correctly alleged that the CIA had hired him to fly in drugs to Mena, Arkansas, and he had the witnesses and evidence to prove it. Seal was assassinated after he talked too much about Clinton’s connection with these secret shipments.

World Affairs Brief, May 9, 2003


The Bush administration, the CIA, and the FBI are all refusing to cooperate with Congress as the latter tries to release for publication its 900-page report on the 9/11 terror attack on the WTC. The report contains numerous critical comments about administration and intelligence agency mishandling of forewarnings received by agents in the field—including a warning from an FBI agent that al-Qaeda supporters might be training in US flight schools. This story, and many others that are even more damaging, has already been leaked to the public either by establishment sources or by internet news sources—and yet the administration is adamant that these same stories must remain classified and not be released as part of the report. Obviously, the administration doesn’t want these reports to benefit from the increased credibility that a mention in a Congressional report would endow.

This particular Congressional report is unrelated to the independent 9/11 Commission [] that was so slow in getting underway, and will be even slower at answering the questions presented by representatives of the victims’ families []. Given the less than comprehensive scope of the questions posed to the commission, as well as the establishment make-up of the commission’s panel members, I don’t expect anything revealing regarding government foreknowledge, failure to respond, and cover-up of suspicious activities to come out of its investigation. Even this commission is being stonewalled by the Bush administration. Newsweek magazine has reported that, “President Bush’s chief lawyer has privately signaled that the White House may seek to invoke executive privilege over key documents relating to the attacks in order to keep them out of the hands of investigators for the National Commission on Terror Attacks Upon the United States—the independent panel created by Congress to probe all aspects of 9-11.”

The members of the commission have all had to get security clearances to be on the panel. After the government delayed issuing the clearances for months, members are still not being given full access. As Newsweek reported, “Just two weeks ago, one commission member, Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, had sought to read transcripts of three days of closed hearings that had been held last fall by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees—hearings that Roemer, as a member of the House panel, had actually participated in. But when Roemer went down to a carefully guarded room on Capitol Hill to read the classified transcripts—he says to refresh his memory—he was stunned to learn that he couldn’t have access to them. The reason, relayed by a congressional staffer, was that…administration lawyers [must] first review them to determine if the transcripts contained testimony about ‘privileged’ material.” Obviously, the White House is trying to suppress something.

A couple of the victims’ representatives did ask some crucial questions, such as why official Defense protocols were not followed, and why the NY Port Authority delayed evacuation of the second tower, but they failed to ask any of the really tough questions that point to government collusion and provocation:

Why has the government refused to make public the recorded pilots’ conversations with Air Traffic Control, notifying them of a hijacking in progress? We know these conversations took place because the FAA has confirmed having reported the hijackings to NORAD within minutes of their commencement.

Why has the government denied having intercepted Flight 93 over Pennsylvania with 2 F-16s, despite the voluminous evidence that the airliner was shot down and shadowed to its crash by an unmarked jet leased to the government?

Why were most military tower operators in the area told to ground all flights from taking off, including fighter interceptors?

How and why were the reported cell phone calls from passengers on the hijacked airliners faked? Recent tests have shown that cell phones at high altitudes do not communicate with antenna towers on the ground. Almost all cellular and PCS systems utilize antennas which are only oriented for horizontal reception—not vertical.

How did the US so quickly develop complete profiles and dossiers on all the supposed hijackers, including their night club activities, if these individuals were not previously being tracked by government agents? There is also the question of the long trail of incriminating letters, passports and flight manuals supposedly left behind by the hijackers at the airport or, in the case of the intact passport, miraculously recovered in the WTC debris.

Why has the government never amended the list of alleged hijackers given that eight of these names belong to people still living? The government has never given a rational explanation for why hijackers would use their real names in any case.

Why were the alleged hijackers whose names were on terror watch lists given visas, without the proper documentation normally required?

What is the relationship between Huffman Aviation (the Venice, FL company that trained two of the hijackers) and the CIA, which leases space in Huffman’s hangar through a front company?

Why did the hijackers who could barely speak English attempt (unsuccessfully) to take flying lessons for small planes when there was an Arab-speaking flight school for major aircraft in Fort Worth, Texas? [They were covering for training on major aircraft received elsewhere.]

Why did certain investors know to short the stocks of American airline companies prior to 9/11? Along the same lines, why has the government never attempted to subpoena Wall Street computer records to find out who these “lucky” investors were?

Why have the testimonies of New York firefighters who heard bomb-like explosions in the towers during the evacuation process been suppressed?

The evidence of internal explosives being associated with the bringing down of the two buildings has been compelling, yet frustrating given its often amateurish assumptions. (One of these is that burning jet fuel would have had to melt the steel structures in order to precipitate the collapse—which is false. The heat need only have been sufficient to soften the metal beams and trusses, causing them to sag and fail). Claims concerning evidence of planted charges on all floors, leading to a controlled collapse of the WTC buildings, have never been credible to me (such a scheme is too complex, involving hundreds of small charges). However, there is new evidence that charges at the bases of the towers’ 47 central steel columns could have precipitated the controlled vertical collapse of the buildings, and still have been consistent with the legitimate failure of the upper floor trusses reacting to the sudden collapse of central support. One crew of first responders into the first tower were shocked to see that the lobby on the main floor appeared to have been the object of an explosive blast—yet no signs of fire. On 9/11, two ABC reporters were filmed running away from the towers after seeing and hearing a ground floor explosion just prior to the collapse of the towers. There have also been reports of pools of molten metal at the base of these columns observed during debris removal. It is suspicious that the government threatened fire fighters who had heard other explosions to keep silent, and also that they ordered the tower debris removed so quickly, precluding complete forensic testing of the failed structure. The same thing happened after the Oklahoma bombing, where there was also irrefutable evidence of multiple charges and explosions.

World Affairs Brief, August 1, 2003


The best summary of the administration’s attempt to cover-up federal involvment in the events of 9/11 is by former Watergate whistleblower John W. Dean, entitled, The 9/11 Report Raises More Serious Questions About The White House Statements On Intelligence

The recently released Report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, and its dismal findings, have been well reported by the news media. What has not been widely reported, however, are the inescapable conclusions that must be drawn from a close reading of this bipartisan study.

Obviously, Republicans were not going to let Democrats say what needed to be said, or maybe Democrats did not want to politicize the matter. But since the facts could not be ignored or suppressed, they reported them without drawing certain obvious, not to mention devastating, conclusions.

Bluntly stated, either the Bush White House knew about the potential of terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers (notwithstanding their claims to the contrary), or the CIA failed to give the White House this essential information, which it possessed and provided to others.

Bush is withholding the document that answers this question. Accordingly, it seems more likely that the former possibility is the truth. That is, it seems very probable that those in the White House knew much more than they have admitted, and they are covering up their failure to take action.

The facts, however, speak for themselves. Bush's Claim Of Executive Privilege For His Daily Intelligence Briefing

One of the most important sets of documents that the Congressional Inquiry sought was a set of copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB), which is prepared each night by the CIA. In the Appendix of the 9/11 Report we learn that on August 12, 2002, after getting nowhere with informal discussions, Congress formally requested that the Bush White House provide this information.

More specifically, the Joint Inquiry asked about the process by which the Daily Brief is prepared, and sought several specific Daily Brief items. In particular, it asked for information about the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief relating to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist threats against the United States, and other Daily Brief items regarding Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and pre-September 11 terrorism threats.

The Joint Inquiry explained the basis for its request: ‘the public has a compelling interest ... in understanding how well the Intelligence Community was performing its principal function of advising the President and NSC of threats to U.S. national security.’ In short, the Joint Inquiry wanted to see the records. Bush's public assertion that his intelligence was "darn good" was not sufficient.

The Inquiry had substantial background material, for the Clinton Administration's national security team had been very forthcoming. As a result, it warned President Bush of the inevitable consequences of refusal to provide access to the requested Daily Briefs. The Inquiry told Bush: ‘In the absence of such access, we will have no choice but to

extrapolate the number and content of [Daily Brief] items on these subjects from the items that appeared on these subjects in the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief and other lower level intelligence products during the same period.’

Bush nevertheless denied access, claiming Executive Privilege. While the Inquiry did not chose to draw obvious conclusions, they are right there in the report for everyone else to draw. So I have drawn them, to see what they look like. Revealing Information In the 9/11 Report

After pulling together the information in the 9/11 Report, it is understandable why Bush is stonewalling. It is not very difficult to deduce what the president knew, and when he knew it. And the portrait that results is devastating.

The president's briefing of August 6, 2001 was the subject of public discussion even before the Inquiry started its work. As the 9/11 Report notes in a footnote (at page 206), ‘National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997.’

At that May 16, 2002 briefing, Rice went on to say that the Brief made clear that one method Bin Laden might choose was to hijack an airline, taking hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said it was ‘a eneralized warring’ with nothing about time, place or method. And she added, ‘I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon.’

Unfortunately, Rice's statements don't fit comfortably with the Inquiry's information. It appears from the 9/11 Report that either Rice was dissembling, or the CIA was withholding information from the President (and hence also from Rice). But as we have been learning with the missing Weapon of Mass Destruction, the CIA has consistently been forthcoming. So it seems that it is Rice who should explain herself.

A Closer Look At Rice's Statement Note again that Rice stated, in explaining the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief, that it

addressed Bin Laden's ‘methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997.’

What exactly did it say? We cannot know. But the Inquiry's 9/11 Report lays out all such threats, over that time period, in thirty-six bullet point summaries. It is only necessary to cite a few of these to see the problem:

In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it.’

In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas.

In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statute of Liberty was specifically mentioned , as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans.

In sum, the 9/11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that the intelligence community was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an airplane into an American skyscraper. Given the fact that there had already been an attempt to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center with a bomb, how could Rice say what she did? Certainly, someone could have predicted, contrary to Rice's claim that, among other possibilities, ‘these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon.’

The Unanswered Questions Is Rice claiming this information in the 9/11 Report was not given to the White House? Or could it be that the White House was given this information, and failed to recognize the

problem and take action? Is the White House covering up what the President knew, and when he knew it?

The Joint Inquiry could not answer these questions because they were denied access to Bush's Daily Brief for August 6, 2001, and all other dates. Yet these are not questions that should be stonewalled. Troublingly, it seems that President Bush trusts foreign heads of state with the information in this daily CIA briefing, but not the United States Congress. It has become part of his routine, when hosting foreign dignitaries at his Crawford, Texas ranch, to invite them to attend his CIA briefing.

Yet he refuses to give Congress any information whatsoever about these briefings, and he has apparently invoked Executive Privilege to suppress the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief. It can only be hoped that the 9/11 Commission, which has picked up where the Congressional Inquiry ended, will get the answers to these questions. Rest assured that they will be aware of the questions, for I will pass them along. “ [End of Dean quote]

World Affairs Brief, August 8, 2003


The Bush administration is building an ominous and blatant reputation for hiding its true dealings and motives behind a wall of “national security.” Here are some examples:

VP Cheney defied the courts and refused to turn over to Congress records of White House meetings with Enron and other insider connected energy companies colluding to raise prices.

The White House claimed “executive privilege” in response to numerous requests from Congress for information, including FBI dealings with the Mafia.

The Bush administration continues to hold secret numerous pieces of information relative to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, including FAA tape recordings of conversations with pilots and NORAD; crucial video tapes of the Pentagon attack; and testimonies of firefighters at the WTC suggesting the occurrence of multiple explosions before the collapse.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has refused repeatedly to reveal the names and conditions of hundreds of prisoners being held without charge relative to the war on terror, citing “ongoing investigations.”

President Bush declared material presented in open public hearings at the 9/11 Commission as classified, and even prohibited the members of the Commission from reviewing the material afterwards.

President Bush is claiming executive privilege in refusing to turn over copies of the CIA Daily Briefing reports he received prior to the 9/11 attacks. Sources claim these reports would demonstrate that the White House was warned specifically about the likelihood of attacks on government buildings using hijacked airliners.

Of course, the latest flap about excessive use of secrecy concerns the currently classified 900-page United States congressional report regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Al) told the audience of NBC’s Meet The Press, “I went back and read every one of those pages, thoroughly. ... My judgment is 95 percent of that information could be declassified, become uncensored, so the American people would know.” Shelby ought to know—he worked for the CIA before coming to public office. At the moment, the White House is refusing to declassify 28 pages of the report which, according to Congressmen familiar with the report, contain information giving evidence of Saudi financing of the terrorists.

Bush is refusing on a well-worn excuse: “It makes no sense to declassify when we've got an ongoing investigation,” he said. Bush also implied that he could refuse declassification indefinitely as long as the open-ended war on terror continued, claiming that “it would help the enemy if they knew our sources and methods.”

Let’s examine these facile claims. Intelligence revelations included in the report would jeopardize an ongoing investigation only if the report mentions specific intelligence methods and sources, which it does not. The report makes only general statements about telephone intercepts and unnamed witnesses—which tells the Saudis nothing. The whole world knows about the US’s eavesdropping capabilities. That a Congressional report would reveal that US intelligence is capable of gathering evidence on Saudi funding of terrorists is hardly an excuse for classifying the entire portion on the Saudi connection. Perhaps there is justification for redacting a sentence or two, but not 28 pages.

Much has been made in the news about the implications of the information contained in the 28 pages. In a purposefully ambiguous statement during a recent interview, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fl.) remarked, “High officials in this [the Saudi] government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practice and then execute the tragedy of Sept. 11.”

The claim repeated by Graham is suspect for a couple of reasons. First, the US knew about the Saudi connection before 9/11. Why reveal it now and not before? Second, the US really doesn’t have any reliable evidence that the much-publicized passenger manifest names [never seen by the public] really belonged to the hijackers. Six of the persons listed on the government list of dead hijackers are still alive. How can you make a case for Saudi funding of the hijackers when you can’t even prove that the two the Saudis were funding were the real terrorist hijackers? Let’s revisit the issue of the hijacker names before we proceed.


Much has been made of the fact that the majority of the presumed 19 hijackers were of Saudi origin. I don’t know how the media and Congress can continue to play on these numbers. In reality, we know nothing about the real hijackers. The US claims the names are on the passenger manifests, but is keeping the passenger lists secret—at least in terms of the names of the Arabs on board. The fact that six of the named hijackers are still alive has not dissuaded the FBI from its certainty about the lists. Insight Magazine did an extensive article on the identities of these six. Here’s an excerpt:

The six claimed they were victims of identify theft. They were ‘outraged’ to be identified as terrorists, they told the Telegraph of London. In fact, one of the men claimed he never had been to the United States, while another is a Saudi Airlines pilot who said he was in a flight-training course in Tunisia at the time of the attacks.

The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is ‘no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.’ After that admission a strange thing happened – nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open.

Until now. Now the FBI is sticking with its original story – regardless of whether photographs displayed of the suspected Sept. 11 terrorists were of people who never boarded those planes and are very much alive. FBI spokesman Bill Carter simply brushes off as false the charges from news reports that the FBI misidentified some of the Sept. 11 terrorists. Carter says they got the names right and it doesn't matter whether the identities were stolen. This comes as a complete about-face from Mueller's comment that there might be some question about the names of the Sept. 11 terrorists because they might have been operating under stolen identities.

How can the FBI be sure that the 19 men it ‘identified’ are indeed the hijackers? ‘Through extensive investigation,’ Carter insists. ‘We checked the flight manifests, their whereabouts in this country, and we interviewed witnesses who identified the hijackers.’” But this is obviously untrue, at least in the case of the six living “hijackers.” Insight continues with one of the more egregious examples of misidentification on the list—the case of Wail al-Shehri.

Wail al-Shehri was identified as one of the suspected hijackers on American Flight 11. He reportedly was in control of the plane when it crashed. Another Saudi man who is a pilot has the same name, and his father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. His picture was displayed by the FBI as the ‘terrorist’ al-Shehri who crashed the plane. The al-Shehri who is alive had resided in Daytona Beach, Fla., where he enrolled in flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He currently works for a Moroccan airline. Last year the Associated Press reported that al-Shehri had spoken to the U.S. Embassy in Morocco. His photograph having been released and repeatedly shown around the world is evidence the man in the FBI photograph still is alive, the Saudi Embassy explains.” [End of Insight quote.] Since the US has published this person’s photograph, and refuses to retract it, clearly this isn’t a case of merely relying on a stolen name. The fact that the person in the photograph is still alive proves his name shouldn’t be on the list, but the FBI continues to assert total infallibility. This indicates that the US is intent upon maintaining a “we make no errors” front.

Back to the Congressional report, it has been damaging enough to US-Saudi relations that the Saudis were mentioned at all, let alone by innuendo and without specific charges. The Saudis have sent a special ambassador to Washington to demand the 28 pages be released so they can respond to the charges. Still Bush refuses. What is there to hide? Bush appears to be protecting the Saudis from scrutiny. I think it’s a ploy.

The crucial dichotomy here is that the Saudis are not pleading for the US to cover for them. In fact, it’s just the opposite. They are demanding openness in order to defend themselves. Yes, I think the Saudis are funding fundamentalist movements throughout the Middle East, but they did not fund the US-controlled terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. The US’s insistence on painting the hijackers as Saudis is telling and may explain why the US insists on maintaining the existing list of hijackers despite evidence it is a fraud. If the US were really interested in covering for the Saudis, they wouldn’t have provided Congress with the intelligence on the Saudi connection in the first place. By making a big flap about the classification of the 28 pages, the administration actually accentuates the Saudis’ guilt by innuendo—all the while claiming to be protecting an “ally.” With friends like this, who needs enemies?

It appears to me that the Bush administration is using the bogus list of Saudi hijackers to blacken the Saudi image—another form of the ongoing blackmail the US uses to keep the Saudis in line for some other purpose, perhaps oil. It is no secret that Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, is hostile to the US, and yet the Saudis continue to keep OPEC in line and oil flowing to the US.


Accusing the Saudis of complicity in the 9/11 attacks is like the pot calling the kettle black. Collusion by our government with terror is a matter that needs open and careful scrutiny, despite Americans’ almost outright refusal to consider the possibility. Given the Bush administration’s blatant attempt to permanently weaken the Constitutional protections against warrantless searches and due process, coupled with its ongoing mania for armed intervention around the world in conducting the presumed “war on terror,” I think there is more than sufficient reason to suspect that this government may have resorted to agent provocateur tactics to set the stage for such changes. A high profile terrorist attack such as what happened on 9/11 is a perfect opportunity for a hegemonic government to assert greater control over its citizens. The advent of the suspicious anthrax attacks (using spores traceable to US stocks) just prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act gives additional credence to the charge of government provocation.

In order for provocations-through-terror such as the 9/11 attacks to work, the US has to make use of numerous third parties to give support to terror so that none of the terrorists’ actions can be traced directly back to the US government. We already know that the CIA used Pakistani ISI intelligence operatives to funnel arms and other explosives technology to Al Qaeda. Pakistan continues to provide safe havens for the Taliban despite being partners in the war on terror. In fact, I do not believe there is any significant evidence, outside the government’s own word for it, that either Osama bin Laden or the hierarchy of al Qaeda has broken away from CIA direction and support. This is not to say that the majority of mid- or low-level operatives in al Qaeda have any knowledge of continued CIA control. The connection needs only to be maintained at the highest levels. This would account for the French intelligence leak about Osama bin Laden’s meeting with the CIA station chief in Dubai, Saudi Arabia 7 weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks. It would also account for the fact that Osama bin Laden and his hundreds of Arab guards were allowed to escape the fighting in Afghanistan. The US had knowledge through satellite surveillance of their embarkation aboard ships, but failed to intercept them.

The US is also covering for the aircraft flight training the would-be hijackers received prior to 9/11. For instance, FBI headquarters suppressed local agent requests for search authority of one potential hijacker (Zacarias Moussaoui) who was taking flight simulator lessons in Minnesota, but was not interested in learning how to take off or land an airplane. There is also ongoing evidence of CIA involvement with Huffman Aviation in Florida, which provided superficial light aircraft flight training to two Arabs as cover for their having received training on major airliners elsewhere—perhaps in Libya or even Iraq. Flying Cessnas does not train anyone for handling the complex systems on Boeing aircraft—but it does provide a nice cover for training that may have taken place in other nations. Why cover for these other nation’s training of the hijackers? Because it was done with US foreknowledge and there are those involved that could blow the whistle on US involvement. The US obviously has some nations to cover for, and others to expose. In all these reports and investigations, the real culprits funding terrorism (Russian and China) are not exposed while peripheral players like Saudi Arabia are. This is not mere stupidity, but purposeful confusion of events and target players in order to divert the American public from the truth.

Now, despite the utter lack of any significant low profile terrorism since 9/11, the Bush administration continues to push for more power to restrict civil liberties. Just this week, Attorney General Ashcroft announced another round of Patriot Act provisions, euphemistically entitled the VICTORY Act [Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act], which would further expand government powers. All last month the Department of Justice was assuring the public that it had no plans for a Patriot II version of legislation. Now, Ashcroft has announced he will make a 10-day, 20-state “Victory tour” that includes a stop in New York to push the new Act. There must be a nasty agenda behind all of this for the administration to keep pushing the limits of truth and honesty to this extent.

World Affairs Brief, September 12, 2003


A heretofore unreleased amateur video of the Boeing 767 crashing into WTC #2 shows a disturbing modification on the bottom side of the United Airlines Flight 175 aircraft. The aircraft almost missed its target and the person directing the aircraft made a dramatic last minute steep turn to intercept the corner of the building. In the process of the turn the bottom of the aircraft suddenly becomes visible in the low morning sun and reveals a very large and bulging modification on the right side of the fuselage behind the landing gear doors. The bulge is as wide as the wing root, so it is easy to detect.

You can view key images of this anomaly from the new Pavel Hlava video on the NY Times website: The last image in the sequence on the slide show clearly shows the bulge. A computer enhanced version of the image shows more detail on the size and shape of the bulge; see URL: This site contains some very speculative conspiracy theories that should be viewed with extreme caution for now. Also, the computer enhanced photos do not come from the new Hlava video but from the original CNN video of the crash. You can see a video clip of the orginal CNN footage by using opening a video player like windows Media Player and on “open URL” under File and putting in the URL: The bulge is visible on this earlier video as well, proving that the bulge is not simply a doctored image by one source.

Compare these photos with pictures of a normal Boeing 767 here: (go to bottom of the web page to view how smooth and uniform the underside is). There is no bulge.

I called the Boeing Company for their reaction and had an interesting chat with Liz Verdier, the media contact person, informally tasked to answer 9/11 issues. I asked her for Boeing’s reaction to the potential modification of one of its aircraft involved in the crash into WTC 2 and described the large bulge showing up on the two videos. She quickly skirted the issue by saying that Boeing was not a part of the 9/11 investigation and insisted that all queries by directed to the FBI or Dept. of Homeland Security. I replied that this wasn’t about the investigation, but rather a technical question for Boeing on what this large bulge could possibly represent.

She said that Boeing would not admit there was a modification nor comment on it, and that Boeing does not make these kinds of modifications (if there were any) but that it would have been something United Airlines might have done. I told her that based upon my experience as a military pilot and maintenance officer in a squadron, no major modification like this that would affect high speed air worthiness could or would be approved by the FAA without intensive consultations with the engineering staff at Boeing. She continued to deny that Boeing would have been involved, which I found completely incredible. I then told her that I thought it was strange that she expressed no interest in seeing evidence of this bulge that we had been discussing in some detail. She admitted then that Boeing knew all about the internet charges surrounding the modified aircraft, had seen the pictorial evidence and that Boeing was determined not to comment about it. I picked up on the feeling that this was a very touchy subject at Boeing and tried to get her to at least admit to that much. She cordially declined to confirm even that. Obviously, she had her marching orders, which tells me Boeing knows more than they are saying.

Why is this such an important issue? First, this is a modification that has never been seen on any other commercial 767 aircraft in the United fleet, according to various United pilots I have talked to. It is totally unique. For it to show up on one of the aircraft used to take down one of the WTC towers indicates it may be specifically related to the purpose of carrying out the attacks: enabling the aircraft to be remote controlled, or enhancing its explosive effect, or any number of other possibilities. Leonard Spencer at charges that it has something to do with firing forward missiles prior to crashing into the WTC, which I find absolutely no evidence for. The CNN video clip detail, previously mentioned, shows a burst of flame from the nose of the aircraft only after it actually penetrates the facade of WTC 2, belying his own conclusion about a missile being fired. I observed no evidence of a missile here.

Second, such a modification would have to have involved United Airlines, the Boeing Company, and the FAA—each with close government connections. No foreign terrorist group could have pulled this off, no matter how much time or money they had, unless they were simply fronting for US black operations. Furthermore, the United Airlines pilots and ground crew would never have signed off on such an aircraft unless assured by airline management that it had some legitimate purpose, albeit of some secret “national security” issue.

Third, if the modification had a benign explanation, Boeing, the FAA and United Airlines would all be quick to answer. So far they have not. If the modification was related to the 9/11 tragedy, and this airplane was specifically inserted in the fleet for this task, it would be hard evidence of US involvement in provoking this tragedy. It would also provide evidence that there was some larger directing force behind the Arab terrorists charged with the event. No airline or other large US corporation would have been involved in facilitating such an act without acting on behalf of dark side operations within the mantle of government secrecy.

There is no proof of any of these charges at this point, but these are the plausible conclusions that can be derived from what appears to be a cover-up over this strange modification. I find it difficult to believe that no one in the establishment media has noticed this glaring protrusion, especially since the NY Times published blowups of the 767 in its moment of maximum turn. The establishment media won’t touch this story. Like Boeing, someone higher up must not want this issue to surface on a larger scale.

World Affairs Brief, September 19, 2003


The Bush administration wants it both ways. First, it is bragging about winning the war on terror and is taking credit for dozens of unsubstantiated “successes” in foiling terrorist attempts. At the same time, Bush and Ashcroft are continually demanding additional surveillance powers, claiming they cannot effectively fight terrorism without them. Which is it? They can’t have it both ways. Or can they? Obviously, if the public and the media can’t or won’t think through the contradictions, the federal government can keep claiming whatever they want.

Here are the contradictions:

A. There have been no normal, small scale acts of terrorism in the US, even after 9/11; even after attacking the presumed host countries of Al Qaeda; even after attacking Iraq, a nation supposedly harboring terrorists. It is easy for the administration to claim they are winning the war on terror – terrorism might not even exist in the US in the way the public thinks. If there are “hundreds of Al Qaeda cells” in the US, why have they never carried out an attack? If you think they are cowed by the “effectiveness” of our Homeland Security system (Cheney’s claim), look at Israel. With a tiny country to surveil and a 10-fold higher density of police and military checkpoints, including security guards at every business, Israeli forces still can’t stop all car bombings, suicide bombings and infrastructure attacks – though they do stop many. Our country, in comparison, is wide open. Yet we have experienced none of these typical terrorist attacks. Why? As I have said before, either there are no significant terrorist cells here (hard to believe), or terrorism in the US is a controlled entity that our government can restrain or allow to operate according to its own political purposes.

B. There is no rational linkage between suspending civil liberties and the current “state of emergency.” The only justification for denying habeas corpus, due process, right to a speedy trial, access to counsel, and proving probable cause in the issuance of search warrants is when the courts are flooded with defendants and the system is overwhelmed. At no time during or since 9/11 has that ever been the case. There is no reason why citizens or others cannot have access to normal judicial procedures and safeguards. Designating persons as “enemy combatants” with no civil rights is simply a cover for not having a good case against them. When judges buy into this scheme, they are acting in collusion with government rather than as a proper check and balance.

C. The DOJ claims it cannot allow terrorist suspects to take testimony from other terror suspects or prisoners for fear they might coordinate or pass along terrorist information. Baloney. None of these depositions take place in secret. The government is present and an official recording is always taken. What good would it do to pass information when the government is listening? Ashcroft continues to defy a court order to allow these depositions to precede.

D. In his latest tack, President Bush claims the DOJ needs broad new authority for all federal agents enabling them to demand access to private records and to compel testimony without the approval of a judge. This is in addition to continued requests for more warrantless surveillance power. While no one can deny it would ease any government’s surveillance job to be able to surveil anyone and anything at all times, there are reasons why we do not allow this in a society that safeguards (or pretends to safeguard) fundamental rights, like privacy on private property. The key safeguard to this effect written into the Constitution is that no warrant shall be authorized against private property except when the government presents credible evidence of probable cause to a judge. Is that so much to ask, that there be some evidence or demonstrable reason why someone should be surveilled or his papers scrutinized?

Of course, if the government could demonstrate that there was a backlog of 100,000 suspected terrorists warranting secret surveillance, they might convince the court of the need to wave or expedite the process of issuing warrants. And in fact, that is the government’s current claim: their “new” consolidated Terror Watch List contains approximately 100,000 names. But given the grave implications of such a breech of Constitutional rights, the substance behind the government’s numbers must be carefully scrutinized. What I find absurd about their claim is that it accentuates the dichotomy I mentioned above: the utter lack of normal terrorism in this country. You can’t have it both ways. There cannot be 100,000 terrorists and their supporters needing surveillance and have no acts of terrorism. The list is simply too big and too inaccurate.

There’s another problem with secret government watch lists. There is no way available for anyone to purge his name from the list once on it. All those on the list are barred from travel on any airline forever—with no means of correcting potential injustice. That is not how the “rule of law” should work. Where is equal protection and due process here?

World Affairs Brief, September 26, 2003


Associated Press writer John Solomon published excerpts from government “reports” which he was invited to review by “sources” that he declined to identify - even as to the federal agency involved. These reports purportedly contain confessions of the supposed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was captured by CIA and Pakistani operators in the city of Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1 of this year. Naturally, he is being held “by the CIA at an undisclosed location.” Also, naturally, we can assume that Solomon’s reluctant source is from the Thus, none of what Solomon reveals can be checked or verified independently. I will quote the relevant excerpts and tell you why I think there are multiple contradictions and huge gaps in the story as Solomon portrays it. [My comments in brackets.]

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks [a total presumption by Solomon based only upon these reports and what the CIA has told him, improperly stated as a fact], has told American interrogators that he first discussed the plot with Osama bin Laden in 1996 and that the original plan called for hijacking five commercial jets on each U.S. coast before it was modified several times, according to interrogation reports reviewed by The Associated Press. [Notice Solomon doesn’t say why he was invited to review these secret reports. If I were to request to see these same documents, either directly or via a legal FOIA request, I would be told they are “classified” and unavailable for “national security” reasons. And yet, here we see them freely offered to a select member of the press. This is typical of how the CIA disseminates disinformation: “leaks” are often purposefully channeled through favored reporters who will not ask any tough questions or reveal contradictions.]

Mohammed told his interrogators he had worked in 1994 and 1995 in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah on the foiled Bojinka plot to blow up 12 Western airliners simultaneously in Asia. After Yousef and Murad were captured, foiling the plot in its final stages, Mohammed began to devise a new plot that focused on hijackings on U.S. soil. [The US had captured laptop computers with all the details about the Bojinka hijackings – and yet claim not to have any idea the US was at risk of such hijackings.]

“…in its final stages, the hijacking plan called for as many as 22 terrorists and four planes in a first wave, followed by a second wave of suicide hijackings that were to be aided possibly by al-Qaida allies in southeast Asia [very ambitious plans]… Mohammed's interrogations have revealed the planning and training of operatives was extraordinarily meticulous, including how to blend into American society, read telephone yellow pages, and research airline schedules. [Yet the admissions that follow reveal huge contradictions to these claims – that there were no support cells inside the US for such an ambitious plan, and that communications between operatives were amateurish, lacking attention to planning.]

In fact, Mohammed claims he did not arrange for anyone on U.S. soil to assist hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi when they arrived in California. Mohammed said there ‘were no al-Qaida operatives or facilitators in the United States to help al-Mihdhar or al-Hazmi settle in the United States.’ Mohammed portrays those two hijackers as central to the plot, and even more important than Mohammed Atta, initially identified by Americans as the likely hijacking ringleader. [Central to the plot and yet given no means of support? Unthinkable, especially considering the level of sophistication necessary to pull off the 9/11 hijackings. According to other claims, al-Qaida had huge amounts of money supposedly made available to them by the Saudis, leaving them well positioned to finance such support.]

Mohammed said he communicated with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar while they were in the United States via Internet chat software. [No trained terrorist is this dumb. Even random use of pay phones is more secure than the Internet, and the CIA has long claimed that al-Qaida has sophisticated scrambling-enabled satellite cell phones. The vaunted NSA, which eavesdrops on all the world, claims al-Qaida is not leaving them any trace to follow. Such sophistication in eavesdropping avoidance could not have been achieved by a group as incompetent as Mohammed’s testimony describes.] Mohammed said al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were among the four original operatives bin Laden assigned to him for the plot, a significant revelation because those were the only two hijackers whom U.S. authorities were frantically seeking for terrorist ties in the final days before Sept. 11. [Frantically seeking? Says who? This is more disinformation. The majority of US agencies didn’t have a clue about the imminent terrorist threat, let alone were they frantically seeking anyone!]

By 1999, the four original operatives picked for the plot traveled to Afghanistan to train at one of bin Laden's camps. [Another all-too-convenient statement lending justification to the US decision to invade Afghanistan, even though the camps, by the time of the invasion, were guaranteed to be empty of terrorists.] The focus, Mohammed said, was on specialized commando training, not piloting jets. [This brings up another huge gap in the story. Why are there no details anywhere in this interrogation about where the presumed hijackers got real training in flying big jets? The story about learning to fly Boeing 767s in Cessna trainers is too bogus to even contemplate. It is merely a cover the US government has conspicuously failed to debunk, because to bring up the real source of large jet training would necessarily focus attention toward possible US collusion with a major Middle Eastern country, other than Iraq.]

Mohammed told his interrogators the hijacking teams were originally made up of members from different countries where al-Qaida had recruited, but that in the final stages bin Laden chose instead to use a large group of young Saudi men to populate the hijacking teams. [Contradiction: No plot this sophisticated can substitute a large percentage of its attack team at the last minute.]

U.S. intelligence has suggested that Saudis were chosen, instead, because there were large numbers willing to follow bin Laden and they could more easily get into the United States because of the countries' friendly relations. Mohammed's interrogation report states he told Americans some of the original operatives assigned to the plot did not make it because they had trouble getting into the United States. Mohammed said the first major change to the plans occurred in 1999 when the two Yemeni operatives could not get U.S. visas. [Very true. In fact, none of the Saudis qualified to get into the US under existing visa guidelines. Visa holders have to show a visible means of support (regular job), have lots of money in a bank account, and meet a profile that indicates they have many obligations to family members left behind which would induce them to not stay in the US. The indigent hijackers had none of these, and yet they all got visas without question. The INS has no explanation for its supposed incompetence. The INS even sent Mohammed Atta and a fellow terrorist their visas at Venice Aviation in Florida (a CIA front) after the 9/11 hijacking, just as a demonstration of how “incompetent” they were.]

Addressing one of the questions raised by congressional investigators in their Sept. 11 review, Mohammed said he never heard of a Saudi man named Omar al-Bayoumi who provided some rent money and assistance to two hijackers when they arrived in California. [Contradiction: How can Mohammed claim to have developed a huge master plan and yet not know about a key support person? Are we to believe two of his key terrorists are the lucky recipients of anonymous largess?] Congressional investigators have suggested Bayoumi could have aided the hijackers [easy call - providing rent money is significant support] or been a Saudi intelligence agent, charges the Saudi government vehemently deny. The FBI has also cast doubt on the congressional theory [a convenient peace of coordination between two agencies tasked with covering up the real events of 9/11] after extensive investigation and several interviews with al-Bayoumi.

But they have been able to corroborate with other captives and evidence much of his account of the Sept. 11 planning. [Easy to say when the CIA provides no details, holds all the captives themselves, and controls all dissemination of their supposed admissions].

The interrogation reports make dramatically clear that Mohammed and al-Qaida were still actively looking to strike U.S., Western and Israeli targets across the world as of this year. [Why would he admit any of this? No terrorist of the dedicated Middle Eastern variety is going to spill anything that would jeopardize future operations – especially when not under any kind of torture. The US certainly isn’t going to allow him to go free for cooperating. Muslims aren’t afraid to die for the cause, so where’s the inducement to tell all?]

Mohammed said through the various iterations of the plot, he considered using a scaled-down version of the Bojinka plan that would have bombed commercial airliners, and that he even ‘contemplated attempting to down the planes using shoes bombs,’ one report said. [Another all-too-convenient statement giving credence to theory of the shoe bomber having a “link to al-Qaida.” In fact, the shoe bomber caught by the US government had no effective means of setting off the explosive (he was using a match), indicating he wasn’t a trained terrorist.]” [End of Solomon quote.]

All the details provided in this story give the appearance that this captive is “telling all,” but when the story is scrutinized more carefully, the gaps I mentioned become even more conspicuous by their absence. Either the CIA is too dumb to ask obvious questions in this investigation, or they are purposely withholding critical information, or they are making it all up. The question of where they learned to fly jumbo jets is a huge issue in the investigation, and yet these suspicious and juicy leaks from the CIA give no indication they even asked Mohammed about this issue.


Michael Meacher, a former British Minister of the Environment, made dramatic claims two weeks ago that, “Wars against both Iraq and Afghanistan were planned in advance of Sept. 11.” This is a fairly brave statement for a former member of the British governing establishment, one which may cost him his political career in the UK. In an article published in the Guardian, Meacher claimed that the US had foreknowledge of the plot but deliberately allowed it to go forward to advance a strategic agenda related to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), involving promoting future US dominance in world affairs. [As my readers know, it is my opinion that PNAC was a carefully crafted front for the larger, more secret global agenda to take down US sovereignty and replace it with world government.] Meacher said that incompetence is only a cover, that it is “clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11…[A]t least 11 countries provided advance warning to US intelligence agencies.”

World Affairs Brief, October 24, 2003


According to the Wall Street Journal, after years of stonewalling Congress over the issue of when did NORAD know about the highjackings, “[t]he independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks said it will issue its first subpoena, demanding documents it says the Federal Aviation Administration has withheld for months… FAA representatives testified they notified Norad almost immediately, but Norad officials testified that there had been a delay of about 30 minutes.” Fortunately, the targets of the subpoenas are the FAA tape recordings of voice communications with the pilots on the highjacked aircraft and the recordings of the call to NORAD.

In an unusually sharply worded statement, the panel said ‘the FAA's delay has significantly impeded the progress of our investigation’ and said the subpoena also is meant to warn other agencies that the commission now is ready to use its subpoena power to obtain the information it needs…The decision to issue the subpoena came late Tuesday, after staff members informed the commissioners that they had discovered records had been withheld…The commission said it was told by the FAA in early September that all records had been turned over, but investigators recently discovered that ‘highly material’ documents hadn't been included. The FAA has since turned over dozens of additional boxes, but the subpoena would still be issued to ensure no omissions, the commission said.”

There is no reason why the FAA should be stonewalling on these requests unless there is something significant to hide. Shoving “filler material” at the commission is a common tactic: flood them with minuscia and hope they don’t realize there is more. I doubt the material they are covering up will be delivered. The government will destroy the tapes before acquiescing to a subpoena.

World Affairs Brief November 14 2003


The independent commission on 9/11 announced this week that the White House would allow a small number of commissioners to review the classified intelligence briefings previously withheld. These could then share their findings with the other 9/ll panel members, but only after the White censors their notes. Finally, all such information will be kept secret from the public, thus denying the public the key purposes of the 9/11 commission - to inform the public as to how much responsibility the government shares in the intelligence and military failures to protect American lives in the WTC. This agreement is a sellout. Victims groups feel betrayed. They are, as with every other Congressional investigations (whitewashed) in recent history.

World Affairs Brief, February 6, 2004


A day after trying to defend his justification for going to war in Iraq (saying, “Saddam was still a danger, even if no WMDs are found”), and denying the need for an investigation, President Bush reversed himself this week and called for an official inquiry. His advisors must have assured him that there is no way he can win the public relations battle on this issue without being exonerated officially by a commission. The recent official inquiry into the role of the Blair government in Britain on the David Kelly death, must have been encouraging to the Bush staff. PM Tony Blair, following the lead of Bush and other American presidents, called for his own inquiry into claims of WMDs in Iraq – and so far seems to have succeeded in whitewashing the issue for the general public. No savvy persons in Britain expect this issue to get a fair hearing after the precedent-setting Hutton report.

In commenting on the upcoming investigation in the US, the White House made self-important comparisons between this new investigation and the Warren Commission, which investigated the JFK assassination. They intended the comparison to refer to the size and importance of the investigation. In reality, it is an apt comparison in a totally different sense. The Warren Commission was a whitewash and a cover-up from start to finish, including the choices of which predictable persons to serve on the Commission, which colluding Chief Justice to lead it, and which key lawyer (Arlen Specter, now a powerful US Senator) to run the day to day staff work.

Watch carefully who they choose to serve on this new commission. Just as with the 9/11 Commission, the members will all be establishment politicians who have been controlled in the past. Notice also that the breadth of the investigation is being widened to include dozens of superfluous issues—to make sure that commission members have no time to tackle the real issues, and also that the results won’t be ready until 2005, conveniently after the November elections. And they called Nixon “Tricky Dick”!

In point of fact, the entire premise of the investigation – that this was a case of intelligence “failure” – is a red herring: a false lead to divert the public’s attention from the truth. There was no intelligence failure. It was all a fabrication! There is a big difference. Everyone in the Bush administration, including CIA director Tenet, keeps trying to downplay what they said, claiming they really didn’t say the threat was imminent or that there were definitive quantities of WMD. Really?

On March 11, 2003, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said, “[W]e know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations every 12 to 24 hours and placing them in residential neighborhoods.” Think about this for a minute. This has to be a fabrication. If the US had this kind of detailed intelligence (which Rumsfeld claims they did), the US military would have been able to go right to those locations at the beginning of the invasion and capture these weapons. The fact that none were found anywhere, even after house to house searches means what Rumsfeld claimed was a lie.

Again, these are not intelligence failures, but fabrications. These fabrications would never have been made at the analyst level of the CIA, but rather at the political level in the White House and Pentagon. That is why Director Tenet can say with a straight face, “We never said the threat was imminent.” Of course not. But Bush did! Not only should people be fired over this, but they should do jail time for abuse of the public trust.

World Affairs Brief, April 2, 2004


The controversial testimony of former counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke in juxtaposition with the constant drama surrounding whether or not President Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will testify before the commission (under oath and in public) is all just a scripted diversion to use up the Commission’s limited time and ensure that the real issues are never investigated or aired publicly.

First, Clarke’s testimony is only partially genuine. He is playing a partisan role to help the Democrats undermine Bush by confirming that Bush and other Cabinet members had intentions to attack Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11 (which is true), but he continues to foster the false idea that he and others during the Clinton administration were highly focused on al Qaeda—a threat the Bush administration, he says, failed to take seriously. In reality, the Clinton administration during Clarke’s tenure never tried to capture Osama bin Laden any more than the Bush administration, even when the Sudanese government had him in their custody and offered to turn him over to the US. Clarke had to have known this.

CBS News and a Frontline Special reported that within hours of the 9/11 attack, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was instructing his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan was planned before 9/11, as evidenced by US diplomatic pronouncements to a closed meeting in Berlin in July 2001 where it was leaked that Bush would attack Afghanistan no later than October 2001. The Indymedia documentation of that meeting has since been purged from all government internet sites. The India Times also reported a secret military agreement between the US and Russia in the spring of 2001 to jointly invade Afghanistan. Many suspect that the main reason VP Cheney is so adamant about refusing to disclose minutes of what went on during the secret meetings on energy is because oil giants openly discussed with Cheney the need to overthrow the Taliban in order to be able to build a major pipeline through Afghanistan.

Currently, the Bush administration has said they will allow Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath. Despite the months of wrangling over executive privilege and separation of powers, it’s a safe bet that Rice won’t be embarrassed by the pseudo-inquisitor, Chief Counsel Richard Ben Veniste. I listened to Ben Veniste’s examination of numerous government officials on NPR radio. By all the initial joking and comradery that was exchanged between him and CIA Director Tenet, and later with Asst. Sec. of State Richard Armitage (former chief drug importer for the CIA), it was clear no tough questions were going to be forthcoming. He played softball with them both. Instead of setting up legal traps in advance by asking questions Ben Veniste could later trip them up on, he wasted hours asking them questions these officials could easily evade by claiming ignorance or “national security,” and then failed to present any contradictory testimony.

It will be the same with Rice. There are dozens of general explanations she can come up with to explain the contradictions between her former statements to the press and the testimony of Richard Clarke. But even if Ben Veniste were able to make something of the differences, what would they show? That the CIA was negligent, incompetent, and worked at cross purposes with other agencies? Or, heaven forbid, that they failed to share information with other agencies? If they are guilty, so what? These are not faults meriting more than a slap on the hands. No wonder no government official responsible for security and intelligence has been fired. By focusing on such innocuous drama, the public is denied the key issues that cry out for an explanation.


Planted, too-good-to-be-true evidence:

Hijackers are apparently too stupid to follow one of the cardinal rules of covering your trail: Don’t drive to the airport – have an accomplice or Arab taxi driver drop you off. Instead, they drove themselves to Boston Logan Airport, and proceeded to leave flight manuals and Arabic messages in their van. Mohammed Atta’s magic indestructible passport survived the inferno of Twin Towers and was found two or three blocks away. (Two passports were found in all, plus a pristine suicide letter in Arabic.) Within two hours, FBI agents were at restaurants where the hijackers had been eating, and at nightclubs where they went carousing — so much for their religiosity. How did they find this information so fast if they were too incompetent to track them beforehand?

Refusal of the government to produce tape and video evidence that would corroborate the official version of events and the list of hijackers:

The surveillance video recorded at the gas station across from the Pentagon crash site was confiscated by the FBI and never released. The parking lot video excerpt that was leaked doesn’t show any jet the size of a Boeing 757. Crash proof black boxes from all aircraft except one were claimed to be destroyed or unreadable. The one played for surviving family members from Flight 93 was edited.

The Commission claimed it would subpoena FAA recordings of conversations with pilots prior to the hijacking, but never has followed through or released them. One tape recording from Cleveland Air Traffic Control that monitored the fate of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania was leaked, so we know these tapes exists. Interestingly, this tape shows that three or four other commercial aircraft talking on the same ATC frequency heard the pilot of Flight 93 tell the passengers that the hijackers told them there was a bomb on board, and yet the government has never mentioned this.

Here’s an abbreviated excerpt from the leaked private ATC transcript:

Executive 956 [private jet]: Just answering your call. We could year that, er, yelling too.

Cleveland Center: OK, thank you, were just trying to figure out what’s going on.

United 93: [unintelligible] this is captain, please sit down, remain sitting, we have a bomb on board. [Sometimes pilots key the wrong button. In this case the Captain thinks he is broadcasting to the passengers on intercom but he is pressing the radio transmit button—shows he is under severe stress.]

Cleveland Center: Uh, calling Cleveland Center, you’re unreadable, say again slowly.

Executive 956: [unintelligible] was reasonable, sounded like someone said they had a bomb on board.

Cleveland: That’s what we thought, we just, er, we didn’t get it clear. …United ninety-three calling. United ninety-three, understand you have a bomb on board, go ahead. Executive nine fifty-six, did you understand that transmission?

Executive 956: Affirmative. He said there was a bomb on board.

[Later]Cleveland Center (2): [Voice changed to female, apparently second Cleveland controller.] Do you see any, ah, activity on your right side, smoke or anything like that?

American 1060: Negative. We’re searching. Yeah, we do have a smoke puff now at about, er, oh probably two o’clock. There appears to be just a spire up like a puff of black smoke. [Indicates evidence of explosion in the air.] [End of ATC excerpt.]

Lack of verifiable evidence of hijackers’ identities:

Security cameras at airport boarding gates would have clearly shown the Arab hijackers. The government won’t release them or the actual passenger manifests, including Arabic named passengers. The claimed DNA samples are a fraud unless the government can prove it has custody of original DNA from the hijackers, seven of whom (according to other evidence) are still alive and nine of whom were dead or missing before 9/11.

Lack of evidence that al Qaeda is a world wide terrorist organization:

Al Qaeda had roots with the CIA, so it may still be controlled at the higher levels, for purposes of creating conflict and engendering in Americans a blind patriotism to support a phony war on terror. The CIA and its cohorts in the Pakistani ISI and the Israeli Mossad are the only sources of information on al Qaeda, which is suspicious. The organization was rarely considered a credible threat before 9/11. Even now, the CIA consistently refuses to display captured al Qaeda leaders in public or put them on trial. All leaks about supposed confessions mirror the government’s story and have no other corroborating evidence. Of greatest significance is the fact that there have been virtually no normal terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, even though the US has almost open borders and no protection against car bombings, electrical tower sabotage, or suicide bombings: weekly occurrences wherever terrorism is a legitimate threat.

Evidence of CIA involvement with the terrorists:

Ruddy Dekker, the owner of Huffman Aviation, and a fellow Dutchman who bought another aviation school next door, both had prior CIA dealings. Dekker had no previous aviation experience prior to acquiring Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, and showed a broad ignorance of technical aviation regulations and affairs when dealing with other professionals in the field. He sublet space in his hangar to Britannia Aviation, another government front company.

Prior knowledge warnings:

High schools in some NY city districts told students not to go down to the WTC on 9/11. SF Mayor Brown was told not to fly that day, as was Salmon Rusdy in the UK. Putin warned Bush about 25 suicide pilots. Germany and the Israeli Mossad said the US was warned not to fly that day.

Evidence of explosives in the World Trade Centers:

Investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn has written one of the best expositions on the ample evidence that there were explosives wired into the building prior to the attack. He writes, “In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of ‘literally molten steel’ were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of ‘literally molten steel’ at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to remove the debris from the site. Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself ‘the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.’ Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean up plan for the entire operation. AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘hot spots of molten steel in the basements.’ These incredibly hot areas were found ‘at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,’ Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found ‘three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,’ Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, ‘Think of the jet fuel.’ Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by ‘paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they pancaked into the basement.’ However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions, told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be ‘a smoky smoldering pile.’ Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat. This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.” [End of Bollyn quote.]

Canadian Investigator Will Thomas has written an excellent work entitled, All Fall Down. In it he documents, “An eyewitness 6 blocks from the WTC heard explosions prior to each collapse. A fireman’s transcription of the New York Times 9/11 firefighters’ audio tape reveals an explosion prior to the collapse of WTC 2 was reported. A video shows an object falling from WTC 1 followed by a camera shake. 14 seconds later WTC 1 collapses.”

Thomas, Bollyn and others believe that the only explanation that explains the collapse of the Twin Towers without the use of complicated timed explosives placed throughout the building (requiring extensive pre-wiring) is the use of thermite charges in the basement, filling the cavity of the core section of 4 inch thick pillars holding up the towers. Here’s Bollyn again: “Thermite is very exothermic. Temperatures above 4,500°F (2,500°C) are often reached. A byproduct of a thermite detonation in the WTC basements would be molten steel. The service core [of central pillars] of WTC 2 initially survived the collapse, but after a few seconds it also came to ground. This is consistent with molten iron from a thermite reaction pooling around the core columns, thus causing the collapse. ‘If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure,’ [says] Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.”

Terrorists of the incompetent Arab variety that showed up at US flight schools could not have pulled off high tech insider explosives job, nor the collapse of WTC Building 7, which video evidence does show had been pre-wired with normal demolition explosives — lots of small charges on critical steel columns and corners which were timed to collapse the building vertically. Building 7 was almost exclusively occupied by government, and could have been pre-wired by government agents without alerting any civilians.

Christopher Bollyn commented on the insider connections to the WTC complex: “For example, Peter G. Peterson, chairman of the CFR and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced that his Blackstone Group had purchased, in October 2000, the mortgage on 7 World Trade Center, the 47-story building built by Larry Silverstein in 1987. Silverstein is the person who obtained 99-year leases on the twin towers shortly before 9-11 and who insured the property and its future income against terrorism. He is seeking some $7.2 billion claiming the attacks were two separate events.” Silverstein also made the indiscreet comment to reporters that he had given orders to “pull the building” just prior to its collapse. This is demolition lingo for bringing down a building by controlled demolition.

According to Bollyn, others suspected controlled demolition too: “WTC 7 mysteriously collapsed at 5:25 p.m. on 9-11, in what appears to have been a controlled demolition. John Wholihan, a firefighter with Rescue 5 from Staten Island was near WTC 7 when it collapsed. Wholihan told American Free Press that he heard ‘many explosions’ just before the building collapsed neatly within the perimeter of its foundation. Silverstein received some $441 million in insurance money for WTC 7 although the cause of the collapse remains officially unexplained.”

What is clear, in my analysis, is that the official explanation of it coming down vertically and instantly cannot meet the test of reality. If it suffered damage from the collapse of the nearby WTC tower, it would have only been damaged on one side. A collapse from damage to one side would only have occurred with a massive falling over movement. There was no central system of support to fail in this building that could explain a vertical collapse even with fire (which was not uniform throughout the building).

Selective stand-down of military interceptors:

One of the most powerful evidences of government participation in the outcome of this attack by what I think were government controlled operatives, is the shooting down of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania by an F-16 aircraft, and the simultaneous but inexplicable holding of other fighters on the ground (orders to “stand down”). One of my subscribers is friends with a tower operator at McGuire AFB in NJ. He reports that his friend told him to not permit any fighters to take off. They could have easily stopped Flight 175 heading for the second WTC strike. (Flight 175 was the Boeing 757 airliner that several video tapes showed had a large bulging modification on its belly, as documented in a prior World Affairs Brief.) Other fighters which were launched did so painfully late and were not told to “go buster” (supersonic speeds), to make sure they wouldn’t catch the Pentagon targeting aircraft on time. All of this analysis is contained in Will Thomas’ publication, entitled Stand Down.

The strange case of the Pentagon attack:

The attack on the Pentagon was much more complex than the government’s version of events, and also filled with contradictory evidence: lack of external debris coupled with a damage area too small to match a 757 airliner. The Pentagon parking lot video shows a huge, white explosion on the Pentagon wall, followed by a fuel-fed fire. Ordinary people wouldn’t know that only high explosives can generate this white image—and that it never occurs with the crash of a fuel-laden aircraft. The strangely edited video clip evens fails to show a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon, but rather the hazy image of a much smaller fighter-sized jet with a mysterious smoke or missile trail. Witnesses did see a large airliner, but others also saw a smaller jet. It is possible both were present, and that the smaller jet fired a missile into the Pentagon wall prior to the crash, which would explain how one object punched a 12-foot-diameter hole through three rings of the Pentagon. This could not have been done by any part of the relatively soft airliner nor its turbo fan engines. The video clip showing the smoke trail looks strangely unlike a real smoke trail from a missile (too white and too much soft curling smoke). It is almost as if whoever leaked the edited clip doctored it to give a hint that there was another aircraft and a missile involved.

Conclusions: As you can see from my abbreviated listing, there is no shortage of legitimate and substantive matters to investigate. No government commission with the kind of money and staff this commission has could possibly be unaware of these issues I have mentioned. They are documented and discussed by tens of credible internet sites, complete with photos, videos, theories, and laborious investigations. is one of the most comprehensive, though I don’t buy into the total package of conclusions proffered by any one site. One must look at a variety of theories and issues to come to a final conclusion.

All these private investigations need some form of legal power of discovery in order to penetrate various veils of government secrecy surrounding key issues. The 9/11 Commission has failed the public by refusing to provide that penetration into government secrets. All of the roadblocks met by investigators have been put up by our own government—almost as if they really don’t want the public to find out exactly how these sophisticated attacks took place.

I, for one, am convinced that Muslim terrorists were involved, but that they were directed and assisted by a huge network of secret operatives that only the US government could have produced. No portion of the 9/11 Commission investigation was allowed to follow through with any evidence pointing to government collusion in this great tragedy. That is why this investigation is an exercise in futility, if not a direct cover-up

World Affairs Brief, April 23, 2004


This is my edited transcript from the comments of a caller named “Al” to the Howard Stern Radio Show on April 21, 2004. Howard asks him to tell the audience what really happened to Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

I live in Sommerset, Pa, just out of Shanksville. We were coming down the road from a friend’s house. We heard a plane, a low level plane. We stopped the car to look, because that was unusual for this area. We heard an explosion …saw smoke coming from the plane in the air, and there were two other airplanes that passed right over in the air…” Hear it via the Internet on the Alex Jones website:

World Affairs Brief, July 30, 2004


One of the biggest contradictions in the accounts of the 9/11 series of crashes is the claim by government that nearly all of the 8 black boxes involved in the crashes were destroyed. Statistically, the survival rate of black boxes is above 95%. Why should this rate fall so dramatically during this one devastating terrorist event? Perhaps it didn’t. Up until now, the public has been kept in the dark about the construction of these destruction proof recorders. We keep thinking there is a tape recorder inside that could easily be destroyed. Apparently it’s an entirely different technology. Here’s a report by David Luke following his dissection of one of these boxes at an alloy recycling center.

Black boxes are made of extremely strong and resilient materials and designed to withstand every conceivable possibility for destruction. More importantly, the material that holds the information is not what the FBI would like you to know about. This material will survive even if the black box is TOTALLY DESTROYED (which in itself is highly unlikely by design). These materials, high temperature nickel alloys, are some of the most indestructible materials known to man…they are marked with a stylus not so much different than that of our old 33 1/3 vinyl albums, but in reverse. The information is scribed onto this alloy along with timing "nicks" for time/date reference…the marked strip is ‘rolled’ up into a continuous roll of high temperature alloy. The tight circular roll now resembles a solid. [It becomes] a solid piece of material that by design protects itself by only allowing the EDGES of the roll to be exposed to damage -- THE DATA ITSELF IS SAFE IN THE CENTER OF THE STRIP. So designed, the mass of the continuous rolled strip shields the ‘whole’ from damage.”

In the face of this analysis, Luke derives a disturbing conclusion: “So, when the FBI tells us that the boxes were nearly destroyed -- you can think, ‘This is possible’... BUT, during the highly unlikely event of the box's near destruction, it is doing what it is designed to do -- the casing absorbs energy to protect the metal roll that by design is nearly indestructible by itself. So when flight recorders come up blank, I ask the question, ‘NO DATA... For Whom?’” [End of Luke quote.]

World Affairs Brief, September 17, 2004


For the second time in as many years, Alex Jones has interviewed Stanley Hilton, who has filed a $7 billion dollar lawsuit against key members of the Bush administration, charging them with executing the 9/11 terrorist attack. Hilton, a lawyer and former Chief of Staff for Senator Bob Dole, has assembled a prodigious list of smoking gun witnesses that, if real, could expose the government’s direct involvement in 9/11. Here are excerpts from both the 2003 and 2004 interviews with Alex Jones []:

AJ: What is your case alleging?

SH: We are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It’s not just incompetence – in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th – when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, “seen on television the first plane attack the first tower.” And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government ordered thing.

AJ: Absolutely and now it has come out – five separate drills of flying hijacked jets into buildings that morning – which you told us about before it even broke in the Associated Press. They were trying to get out ahead of you. You talked about how you interviewed military people who were told it was a drill that morning. Then to get out ahead of that, the news finally reported on it. Now, we’ve learned that all these operations – I want to get into that, I want to talk about the new incriminating evidence of ordering it and how they had drilled on this, how Cheney was in the bunker controlling this. That has even come out in the mainstream news but they won’t release the details of that, Stanley

SH: And I’ve been harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off the court, after 30-years on the court… I did an interview with you, Alex, back in March of 2003, about a year and a half ago, and literally two weeks after that, I was contacted by the emissary of the chief judge of the federal court where I have the lawsuit. And I was warned not to publicize it but to keep it quiet and threatened with discipline. And it remained quiet until a couple of months ago and then I got on the air on some programs and some publicity and… July 1st, I was threatened directly by the chief judge here, threatened with court discipline. This particular judge has been circulating communiqués to the other federal judges seeking anything negative she can get against me to try and discipline me after I’ve been on the court here for 30-years with no disciplinary problems at all. This is suddenly happening. And her assistants who are on the committee of the court met with me on July 1st in Palo Alto, California, and threatened me directly. They handed me a copy of the lawsuit and said that the judge wants me to dismiss this. What’s this? She doesn’t like the content of it. This is politically incorrect. This is outside the norm. I said I represented more than 400 plaintiffs, how am I going to dismiss this case? And they threatened me directly and they said, “the next time you’ll be disciplined.” And also they’ve threatened me not to go public, etc. And this is just outrageous….They sent a letter out, and of course they deny it’s because of the political content of the suit but they told me directly on the phone that it is because of this suit and this judge is very, very angry, apparently has been in contact with Ashcroft’s Justice Department. I got a call from Ashcroft’s Justice Department a few months ago about this, demanding that I drop the suit, threatening sanctions and all kinds of things. I refused to drop it.

I've been harassed by the FBI. My staff has been harassed and threatened. My office has been broken into and this is the kind of government we are dealing with…First of all, my office was burglarized in San Francisco several months ago. Files were gone through and some files were seized – particularly the ones dealing with the lady that was married to one of the hijackers…at least some of them were on the payroll of the U.S. government as undercover FBI, CIA, double agents. They are spying on Arab groups in the U.S. And, in effect, all this lead up to the effect that al Qaeda is a creation of the George Bush administration, basically. That’s the entity that he called al directly linked to George Bush. And all this stuff was stolen Fortunately, I had spare copies in a hidden place so nothing disappeared permanently. But more significantly, FBI agents have been harassing one of my staff members and threatening them with vague but frightening threats of indicting them. And it’s just total harassment. They have planted a spy, an undercover agent, in my organization, as we just recently discovered. In other words, these are Nazi Germany tactics. This is the kind of government you have in this country. This is what Bush is all about.

AJ (2003): And this you told me last week before this was on ABC News that you have gotten some of this information through depositions and some other little tidbits that haven’t been disclosed. But also, you talked about how you deposed, you got the marriage certificates, the evidence, the photographs - a woman who was married to one of the hijackers. You talked to what you said were six or eight people who were connected to them. And then we have the news articles where the FBI gave them homes, paid their rent, followed them around. We know Israel was involved in similar things. Can you speak to that please?

SH (2003): Yes, I do have a witness who was married, she’s an American woman, but she was married to one of the hijackers and she knew about seven of them. She met seven of them. Essentially these Arab hijackers were double agents. That is, they were operating inside the U.S. for ten to fifteen years in “cells”. Some of them used the term al Qaeda, they’ve used other terms. Al Qaeda is just a word. That means nothing. You could call them the Muslim Brotherhood, the Army of God, they go by all sorts of names. But what they are is a series of cells that have been aided and abetted by the U.S. Government. This woman was involved also, married to him at the time of the 1993 World Trade Center first bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing when her “ex-husband” actually traveled to Oklahoma City several weeks before the bombings. And they were involved, apparently, in that.

But what we have here is double agents. In that they nominally appear to be Arab fanatics. But one of the points that she stressed is they are really not Muslims. They are more interested in Playboy than in the Koran. I mean these people drink. They are very secular. They are not the fanatical Muslim zealots that the Bush criminals would lead us to believe is what’s operating here. What they are is they receive regular payments from the U.S. Government. They have been recruited by the CIA, FBI, counter-intelligence, and so-forth and paid money and allowed to exchange information with U.S. government agents about various activities going on....

AJ: Now, let’s talk about what they want you to drop. Let’s talk about, without giving names, the people you deposed, what really happened, the picture you’ve got. You said earlier that Bush ordered this, they were simulating this which they now admit there were simulations on that morning. Let’s go over what they don’t want you to talk about, Stanley.

SH: We have evidence both documentary as well as witness sworn statements from undercover former FBI agents, FBI informants, etc., that other officials in the Pentagon and the military and the Air Force that deal with the fact that there were many drills, many rehearsals for 9/11 before it happened. Bush had seen this simulated on TV many times. He blurted this out at a press conference in California a few months after 9/11 where he said he had, quote, seen the first plane hit the first building on the video. And that’s not possible because there was no official video of that. There was one of the second plane not the first one. He had seen the first one. We do have some incriminating documents that Bush personally ordered 9/11 events. It was well planned. A FEMA official has admitted on tape that he was there the night before – September 10th, that is …[The official later recanted, and stated he arrived the next day. However, his denial doesn’t match his other statement that he and his crew “were the first ones on the scene.” The two claims are completely contradictory.]

AJ: And now Mayor Giuliani, a few months ago in the 911 Commission, admitted that – Tripod II. They had their whole command post already moved out of Building 7 [destroyed later in the day of the attack]. Now, this is very, very important. This is a key area of this whole event.

SH: I have interviewed individuals in NORAD and the Air Force. Individuals that work in NORAD as well as the Air Force have stated this, off the record, but the point is, yes, this was not just five drills but at least 35 drills over at least two months before September 11th. Everything was planned, the exact location……

AJ: But five drills that day.

SH: That day, that day, and Bush thought it was a drill. That’s the only explanation for why he appeared nonchalant………

AJ: We also had NORAD officers and civilian air traffic controllers going, “Is this part of the exercise? Is this a drill?”

SH: Well, I’m trying to take their depositions – I’ve been trying to take their depositions for months. They’ve been trying to object to it. They will have to admit they were either lying then or now. It’s clearly perjury either way. They are liars and perjurers; that’s what they are. These are the people that we have running this government and, of course, they knew about it. How are they going to claim now that they didn’t know about these drills? Their idea is that nobody knew anything. It’s the old know nothing mentality. And how anybody considers this believable is beyond me.

National Security Council classified documents which [garbled] and it was part of a series of documents that were involved with the drill documents. This was all planned – they had it on videotape. These planes were controlled by remote control, as I stated previously a year and a half ago, there’s a system called Cyclops.

AJ (2003): Let me stop you right there Mr. Hilton. Everything you said was already backed up by mainstream reports. You’ve gotten it now, in sworn testimony in depositions under oath. But something that everybody wants to ignore is that three of the hijackers, at least, were trained at Pensacola Naval Air Station not at a local airfield - on the base, by the government, at least. Now we find out that eight of the hijackers under names we heard are still alive in the Middle East, on television doing interviews. You know, their faces, their names, same people. We have then Mohamed Atta being sent over to the Defense Language School at Monterrey. You talked to Steven Butler (the Dean).

SH: Yeah. The witness I was talking about, personally met Atta - two Attas - Mohamed and the younger brother. And they are alleged to be two of the ones on the airliners. You know, the thing is, these individuals are, in my view, “patsies”. That is, they were paid by the government. I don’t believe that they themselves flew the planes into, as I said previously, allegations are that the government has this device that we codename Cyclops that allows, from an airbase nearby, to disable the pilot’s control of an airliner and to fly them by remote control.

AJ: Let me stop you. Let me stop you. This is really key, Sir. We are so honored to have you. I’ve really studied this and I want to give you.. You probably already have and I want to reiterate it for the listeners. Bush, two days after the attack at a speech in New York said that in the future we can remote control these planes and land them so this doesn’t happen. And someone reached up and physically grabbed him by the arm and made him shut-up. And, if you’ve seen “The Masters of Terror,” we have the two Associated Press articles, after you were on our show and brought this up that you have this from inside military officers.....

SH: See the thing is that you look back in ’93 and ’95, Oklahoma City, World Trade Center, and you say well Clinton was in power; whereas now it’s Bush. So you say well how could it be the same players here? The answer is that the shadow government transcends individual political puppets that occupy 1600 Pennsylvania. I mean it doesn’t really make much difference whether it’s Clinton or Bush. The shadow government, as I call it, essentially is continuous. These bureaucrats that you’ve got there at the Pentagon, State Dept., White House, etc., they stay on. They stay on from administration to administration pursuing a certain agenda. And I think this is all part of a pattern. And the latest example, manifestation was 9/11. You’ve got that and the anthrax attack which happened immediately right after 9/11.

AJ: Mr. Hilton, from your experience, what types of groups of people, the shadow government, which they just announced, remember last year, that we’ve known about for years. And what does the shadow government want this world to be like?

SH: Basically a one-world globalist tyranny controlled by them, of course, the neocons, neo-conservatives. But they are not really conservatives; they are radicals because they are seeking a radical destruction of our way of life for the last two-hundred years. They’re are basically introducing an alien anti-American form of tyranny which has more to do with old Europe and Asia than it has to do with this country.

SH: Well, the term that has been used is Zionazis, I think it’s an apt term - Zionazis. And I think it’s ironic because the Nazis based their theory on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which are alleged to have been shaped by Czar claiming the Jews wanted world conflict. Now we’ve got the complete reverse, where the current Zionazis of Israel and their friends here in the Bush administration and elsewhere are emulating Hitler. It’s come full circle. Essentially it is the same thing, whether you call them Jews or non-Jews. The point is it’s the same ideology - tyranny....

I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject – how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.” [End of interview excerpts.]

Analysis: Hilton has many things right, though he provides no backup evidence at this point. There is much circumstantial evidence to support the notion that the hijackers were linked to the government. If Hilton does have a credible ex-wife of one of the hijackers, who can give details supporting the suggestion that these Arabs worked for the federal government, this is indeed a smoking gun. But those suppositions won’t do anyone any good if Hilton never divulges his facts. His claim that he is under a “gag order” by the judge does not surprise me, but I am skeptical about his double standard. He seems free enough to talk about the case, but refuses to give us the hard facts, names and details that would prove his charges. The courts won’t ever let this information be made public, so if he is already breaking half his gag order, why not divulge the rest – the important part?

I’m also skeptical of his claim that George W. Bush personally gave the orders to put this heinous plan into action. He most probably was aware of it, and may have signed some orders initiating the trial runs, but this man is not capable of conceiving, let alone putting such a plan into action—except as he may have been following the directions of his handlers.

Hilton does seem to have a pretty good handle on the globalist controllers and their motives in using terror to take away our liberties. However, his admission that he was once one of them (in training), went to school with various globalist/neo-con conspirators, and even wrote a major paper promoting the concept of the US provoking another “Pearl Harbor” to achieve global hegemony is troubling. We are given no logical explanation of where or why Hilton supposedly made the change from globalist provocateur and theoretician to patriot. His background is pure establishment, he has written nothing during the intervening years that would indicate a gradual change, and suddenly he emerges pushing a lawsuit that presses all the right buttons for 9/11 conspiracists. This has all the markings of an insider planted within the movement to discredit it.

Hilton’s foray into this field is reminiscent of Daniel Sheehan’s botched lawsuits aimed at the Iran-Contra scandal. Sheehan, a leftist lawyer from Harvard, and head of the left-liberal Christic Institute, filed suit against the Nicaraguan Contras and various government officials alleging many true things (gun running, drug smuggling, etc). However, he presented a poor case and allowed the largely true body of evidence to be discredited. Sheehan was also general counsel for the Jesuit National Headquarters, a radical Catholic order which has promoted Marxist “liberation theology” throughout Latin America.

Hilton’s reference to Zionazis is also not very instructive. The relationship between Jews and the conspiracy is very complex, as is the dual nature of Zionism (some evil, some legitimate), and does not lend itself to these kinds of broad sweeping pejoratives.

I have read Hilton’s legal brief. It is very sloppy, poorly written with rambling generalizations that can easily be disregarded as frivolous by the courts. This is a case that is going nowhere, and may thus allow Hilton to continue giving interviews without ever having to produce real evidence. I’m still waiting.

World Affairs Brief, October 29, 2004


Few of the family members of 9/11 victims are satisfied with the whitewash done by the official 9/11 Commission. A large group has banded together to demand another investigation. When will they ever learn that if the government can rig one investigating commission, they can rig each succeeding one?

The 9/11 Commission made mountains out of molehills on insignificant issues, while assiduously avoiding any in-depth analysis of critical evidence, such as the bulging modification on the bottom side of the second Boeing aircraft to hit the Towers, and the telltale molten pools of metal around the bases of the main supporting pillars of both buildings. The latter item especially is proof that the WTC was not brought down by burning fuel and debris in a low oxygen environment (which would never get hot enough to melt metal), but by special thermite explosives. Both of these pieces of evidence indicate aspects of the attack which could not have been accomplished by the bumbling terrorists seen taking flying lessons.

Another crucial piece of evidence of the government’s collusion in the cover-up is the testimony of several rescue workers who assert, contrary to official reports, that US authorities found the black boxes that belonged to the hijacked planes. The following excerpt is from a story appearing in the October 28 Philadelphia Daily News.

Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes” from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 - contradicting the official account. Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices - a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes - were ever found in the wreckage. But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book -- self-published by several Ground Zero workers -- that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October of 2001 and helped them locate three of the four. His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone, whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times, [who said] he saw a device that resembling a “black box” in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.”

As time goes on, more and more people who have evidence countering the official version are having the courage to come forth and state their case. Yet they are finding it increasingly difficult to do so. The reason this latest expose had to be self-published is that the established media and publishing sources won’t touch any evidence that counters the official story. This conspiracy is broader than many Americans are willing to admit.

World Affairs Brief November 26, 2004


Many controversies continue to rage around the official version of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington DC. One of the most glaring anomalies in the 9/11 Commission’s report was the virtual absence of proof on key issues such as whether or not there were more than one aircraft, or even a possible missile that collided with the Pentagon. There is ample evidence and witness testimony that Flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon, including airplane parts (engines and landing gear) whose serial numbers match maintenance records. But there are also witnesses to a smaller aircraft, and video evidence of high explosives and a missile. The government could easily put these arguments to rest by releasing all of the various video tapes they rounded up after the incident. So far, none have been released. Only a partial, and potentially doctored video from the Pentagon parking lot camera has been released—and that was a leak, totally unauthorized.

As columnist Devvy Kidd pointed out, “The Department of Justice must release all the video from the Pentagon - the video tape immediately taken from the gas station camera pointed right at the point of impact, the videos from the nearby Sheraton, grabbed immediately and in a strong armed fashion by the FBI according to employees. That film will show what plane went by. The Virginia Department of Transportation cameras mounted on the freeway overpass would have recorded whatever plane went right by into the Pentagon. The FBI immediately grabbed all those videos and won't release them. The same should be done regarding all video taken from surveillance cameras mounted on all buildings surrounding the WTC towers and WTC 7. The FBI has them and won't release them to anyone. The Department of Justice could give the families and survivors private screenings of all this film and then release them to the public. If there is nothing to cover up, then stop hiding the eye witnesses (all those surveillance cameras) that captured these events as they happened. What is there to hide?” [Source:] That is no idle question. The government should be eager to put these conspiracy theories to rest. Their refusal to release any of them can only be because the video evidence does not match the official version.

World Affairs Brief February 18, 2005


Some of you may have read about the huge fire that engulfed the thirty-two story Windsor building in Madrid, Spain. It caught fire and burned all night, and into the next day. It was left a mere lattice work of steel beams and girders. The big question is why did the structure not fail? If temperatures exceeded those of the World Trade Center, why did this older steel structure, with almost no fire protection, survive and yet the Twin Towers collapsed in ominous heap? Lest you think that differences in construction accounted for this, World Trade Center building #7 was of similar beam and girder construction, yet it came down as if done by controlled demolition—with only moderate damage to one side. Something doesn’t compute here.

John Kaminski has just published a piece on this key issue, asserting that the best evidence of black operations assisting the 9/11 terror attacks is found in the way in which the towers came down. Read it on the Jeff Rense site: The evidence is powerful.

World Affairs Brief May 19, 2005


Private internet_based investigators continue to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to probe into government black operations that plan and assist supposed terrorist operations. Government illegal attempts to thwart these probes (including outright defiance of court orders, or blotting out 90% of the text of documents released) tend to provide further evidence of that government has something very big to hide.

When powerful information pointing to government wrongdoing emerges, conspirators within all branches of government use a variety of blocking and stalling tactics to make sure researchers are stymied in their naive attempts to get “honest” government officials to act on the information. One of the most insidiousways is to route these damaging revelations to Senators and Representatives that have a “conservative” reputation and yet are either compromised or knowingly involved in the cover_up. They promise to champion the cause and then bury it in a pile of delays and bureaucratic wrangling.

One such story is now emerging. Patrick Briley, one of most tenacious researchers into government involvement in the OKC bombing, has detailed the extensive evidence that Timothy McVeigh was being guided and directed by several FBI or CIA undercover operatives. What’s more, he also shows how attempts to bring these revelations to the public have been thwarted by nearly the entire Oklahoma Congressional delegation–all conservative Republicans. When the information was brought to conservative California Congressman Dana Rohrabacker’s attention, he promised a vigorous challenge to the official story, but he too has failed to deliver. I don’t have the space to cover the whole story but you can read an excellent summary at the following link: Briley’s extensive writings have the specific back_up details.

On the 9/11 Pentagon crash front, one researcher sent me a summary of eye_witnesses that is very

comprehensive. Although witnesses can be unreliable about fast moving events, when we read multiple accounts, certain patterns emerge. One thing is very clear: An 757 aircraft painted in AA colors did hit the building, despite the lack of much visible debris. There are simply too many witnesses who saw it. But that isn’t the whole story. Several others saw another smaller aircraft, and several testified that the 757 aircraft, in fact, did not penetrate the Pentagon wall. This is because This particular section of the Pentagon had just been renovated with special steel, kevlar reinforced masonry walls and blast proof windows. What happened a second later tells what really happened.

Here’s the testimony of an airline pilot, Tim Timmerman: I saw it hit right in front of __ it didn't appear to crash [directly] into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. ... and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames. And the building shook, and it was quite a tremendous explosion. I saw the area; the building didn't look very damaged initially,”

Eyewitness Vin Narayanan said: “The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball.”

Other evidence that the plane didn’t penetrate is from Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda: "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low, ... "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it." Sepulveda also described a huge explosion that sent him flying against a light pole.

The key item in this witness testimonies is that the airplane just disintegrated about a second after impact. That simply doesn’t happen in fuel explosions. They all could see the nose breaking up and the wings flying forward–indicating the airplane was not penetrating the building. Then there was a massive explosion. If you have ever seen films of airplane crashes, and as a pilot I have seen many. They don’t just disintegrate into tiny pieces, even when crashing into the ground at a steep angle, or even when erupting into a huge ball of burning fuel, as in the Pentagon crash. But this plane disintegrated into thousands of tiny pieces. One witness talks about seeing the ground littered with thousands of small bits and pieces of aluminum. This doesn’t happen in a crash when the only explosive element is fuel.

When you couple this information with the Pentagon parking lot video which shows a huge white flash just prior to the ignition of the fuel, we have our answer. This plane was loaded along its entire length with high explosives–which always give off a white signature, unlike fuel which is only red and black. No single suitcase bomb in the baggage compartment could have caused this kind of disintegration of the 757 into tiny pieces. A suitcase bomb would have blown the plane into several big sections only. The presence of high explosives on the plane might also explain the narrow channel of damage that penetrated 3 rings of

the Pentagon. As we know now, It wasn’t the airplane__ which stopped at the outer wall__ but perhaps the force of high explosives might well have sent the heavy nose gear parts forward at tremendous velocity. What does all this mean? It amounts to additional evidence that this crash, like the WTC Twin Towers ,which had explosives planted in the basements, could not have been done except without sophisticated insider help. Sadly, It’s too bad that these revelations won’t be read by more than a few thousand Americans. The public’s tolerance for new evidence diminishes over time as the official line becomes more and more part of official history. The conspirators know this, and count on it. Of course, it helps to control all the establishment news outlets just to make sure the damaging analysis is very limited in distribution.

World Affairs Brief August 1, 2005


Vanity Fair magazine just came out with a blockbuster revelation demonstrating that translator Sibel

Edmund’s story of corruption in the FBI is not going to die quietly as the Bush administration had hoped.

Not only has it been revealed that some of the turkish intercepts Edmunds was translating contains

information pointing to cash payoffs to Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, but that Air

Force Office of Special Investigations (SOI) helped in the cover-up of an Air Force officer’s participation in

the Turkish bribery scheme.

For a summary of the Hastert bribery story, here’s the Corporate Crime Reporter: “Turkish officials

boasted of giving ‘tens of thousands of dollars in surreptious payments’ to House Speaker Dennis Hastert

(R-Illinois) in exchange for political favors [votes in favor of Turkish interests]. That allegation is contained

a profile of Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) whistleblower Sibel Edmonds in the current issue of

Vanity Fair magazine.

The article, ‘An Inconvenient Patriot,’ by British writer David Rose, reports that Edmonds was asked to

listen to wiretaps as part of what appeared to be an FBI public corruption probe into bribes paid to

members of Congress –– both Democrat and Republican. Rose, citing ‘some of the wiretaps,’ reports that

the FBI’s targets had arranged for tens of thousands of dollars to be paid to Hastert’s campaign

funds in small checks.” provided information from Edmund’s lawyers that they were challenging the Air

Force’s attempt to whitewash the participation of an Air Force couple in the FBI corruption affair. On 7

August 2002, Sibel Edmonds launched a complaint with the US Air Force over the suspected illegal

activities of USAF Major Douglas Dickerson and his wife, Turkish-born FBI translator Melek Can

Dickerson. The Dickersons had tried to lure Edmunds into a scheme to join the shadowy Turkish-

American Council (Chaired by Brent Scowcroft of Kissinger and Assoc–and other establishment business

luminaries) which promised her a “lucrative arrangement” if she would help them keep secret certain

transcripts that indicated Turkish bribes were going to key US government players like Hastert. Instead of

cooperating Edmunds blew the whistle at FBI headquarters. Instead of being rewarded, she was silenced

by threats and then fired. Edmunds even gave closed door testimony at the 9/11 Commission, and it too

was buried, demonstrating how far the effort to cover for government collusion with terror goes.

As to charges of Air Force whitewashing the Dickerson matter reports, “On 10

September, Colonel James N. Worth, the director of the Inquiries Directorate in the USAF Office of the

Inspector General, sent an official reply [to Edmund’s charges of wrongful conduct of Major Dickerson–ed].

This letter assured Edmonds that the Air Force’’s Office of Special Investigations (AFSOI)

had……conducted a complete and thorough review of her concerns [without answering any of them], and

therefore the case was closed. Of course, this did not deter the indefatigable Edmonds, whose lawyers

whipped off a letter challenging the validity and depth of the Air Force’’s investigation –– had one even

taken place –– on 19 September.” correctly notes that, “On top of the usual prohibition against disclosing classified


the Bush administration has smothered her case beneath the all-encompassing blanket of the ‘state-

secrets privilege’—a Draconian and rarely used [actually not rare anymore-ed] legal weapon that allows

the government, merely by asserting a risk to national security, to prevent the lawsuits Edmonds has field

contesting her treatment from being heard in court at all.”

Conspiracy note: Evidence of conspiracy is powerful when persons higher up in the FBI chain of

command (the Edmunds stonewalling went all the way to Director Mueller’s office) and other government

officials in totally different and independent government investigative agencies (US Air Force) engage in

coordinated cover-ups or whitewashes. Such coordination to obstruct justice is illegal among persons with

investigative and judicial powers. Illegal use of the State secrets Acts is also takes a conspiracy among

those with fiduciary responsibilities to implement.

World Affairs Brief August 19, 2005


I have long maintained that there is something very suspicious about the way in which al Qaeda is brought

up as the blame of choice for all sophisticated and high-profile terrorist events, and yet there is a

disturbing lack of normal small terrorist activity that would normally present easy opportunities of choice to

do damage to the US–with little or no border protection. Now comes a blockbuster revelation out of

Turkey which gives specific connections between a variety of supposedly al Qaeda operatives and the

CIA. Turkey, like Pakistan, has long played along with the CIA and knows a lot about US double agents

and black operations. Kurt Nimmo, reports from Turkey:

Consider the following, published in Zaman, the fifth largest newspaper in Turkey: ““Amid the smoke from

the fortuitous fire [i.e., the capture of Louai Sakra, said to be the al Qaeda regional boss in Turkey]

emerged the possibility that al-Qaeda may not be, strictly speaking, an organization but an element of an

intelligence agency operation. Turkish intelligence specialists agree that there is no such organization as

al-Qaeda. Rather, Al-Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation. The concept ‘‘fighting terror’’ is the

background of the ‘‘low-intensity-warfare’’ conducted in the mono-polar [US] world order... It is interesting

that Turkish intelligence would admit that the neocon ““war against terrorism”” is an entirely artificial construct.

Moreover, according to Turkish intelligence, ““Sakra has been sought by the secret services since 2000.

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interrogated him twice before. Following the interrogation CIA

offered him employment. He also received a large sum of money by CIA. However the CIA eventually lost

contact with him.”” It is curious how alleged key people in the al Qaeda network end up working for the

CIA and other intelligence agencies [like ISI in Pakistan–ed].

For instance, Abdurahman Khadr, who (according to ABC News Online) ‘lived side-by-side with Osama

bin Laden,’ was a ‘double agent, sent to spy on Al Qaeda fighters at Guantanamo Bay and in Bosnia.’ Ali

Mohamed, a former U.S. Army sergeant who trained Osama bin Laden’’s bodyguards and helped

plan the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, worked for the FBI (Mohamed, obviously with the

grace of the feds, brought Ayman al-Zawahiri to San Francisco on a covert fund-raising mission),

according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Hamid Reza Zakeri claimed (during the trial of Abdelghani

Mzoudi, a Moroccan accused of helping the nine eleven hijackers) that ‘Iran’s secret service had contacts

with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network ahead of the September 11 attacks,” according to Reuters. It

just so happens Zakeri claims the CIA owes him $1.2 for services rendered as a double agent. [This will

be used in the future to help set up Iran for aiding al Qaeda–ed]

Mullah Krekar, the leader of Ansar al-Islam, told al-Hayat newspaper in 2003 he had ‘a meeting with a

CIA representative and someone from the American army in the town of Sulaymaniya (Iraqi Kurdistan) at

the end of 2000. They asked us to collaborate with them,’ an offer Krekar said he refused. Osama

Moustafa Hassan Nasr, aka Abu Omar, ‘a dangerous terrorist who once plotted to kill the Egyptian foreign

minister,’ according to the Chicago Tribune, was such a valued CIA asset it was deemed necessary to

kidnap him off the streets of Milan after he had second thoughts about his work. And then there was

Muhammad Naeem Noor Khanm, the al-Qaeda ‘computer engineer’ who ‘became part of a sting

operation organized by the CIA,’ according to the Washington Post.”

All of this puts the following story into sharp perspective as to why the US had significant knowledge of

Mohammad Atta prior to 9/11 and never sought to arrest or extradite him. The US claims “they couldn’t

touch him” because he had a green card. Really? Since when has that been a guarantee against arrest

for terrorism?


More and more whistleblowers are coming out complaining that the US agencies knew of a terrorist cell in

Brooklyn containing 9/11 terrorist leader Mohammed Atta and that the US government repeatedly refused

to intervene. The AP ran this story this week, and it implicates the 9/11 Commission for playing a role in

the cover-up of damaging information:

An Army intelligence officer yesterday said he told staff members from the September 11 commission

that a secret military unit had identified two of the three cells involved in the 2001 terrorist strikes more

than a year before the attacks. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who said he was associated with the Able

Danger unit, recalled that during a 2003 meeting with commission staffers in Afghanistan, he mentioned

that the unit had identified September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta along with three other hijackers as

terrorist suspects. Three months later, in January 2004, Col. Shaffer said he was back in the United

States and offered to follow up with the commission, but his offer was declined.

A number of people are asking why this information is only now coming to light in the press and why the

9/11 commission hadn't investigated it last year. Rep. Curt Weldon reported on the Able Danger

operation clear back in 2002 when he talked about it at the Heritage Foundation. Weldon's source for this

revelation is a "former defense intelligence officer" (Col. Shaffer) who told the GSN news service where he

thought the fault lied: ‘I personally talked with [Philip] Zelikow [executive director of the 9/11 Commission]

about this,’ recalled the intelligence officer. ‘For whatever bizarre reasons, he didn’t pass on the

information.’” Zelikow says he wasn’t told there was any specific cell in Brooklyn, implying that the

information was general. Shaffer disputes Zelikow’s claim of ignorance.

World Affairs Brief Sept 4, 2005


Thanks to the tenacious efforts of Rep Curt Weldon (R-PA), The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman

said Wednesday he would look into whether the Pentagon obstructed his committee by refusing to allow

testimony from five people who had knowledge of a secret military unit named "Able Danger.” This is a

big issue the government wants cover-up badly. If the allegations are true, the government had

foreknowledge of Mohamed Atta’s terrorist cell long before 9/11 and destroyed the information when one

of the intelligence analysts attempted to get the FBI to investigate. Rep. Weldon even took the information

to the 9/11 commission and it was buried. Now, the Pentagon is refusing to allow some of the key

whistleblowers to testify. Neo-conservatives at National Review magazine were parroting the

government position, which drew a stinging response from reader Andy McCarthy:

I watched the hearing this morning, and that (NR’s excuse for government dismissal of the charges) is

not gonna wash. Both DOD and the 9/11 Commission put out numerous statements casting aspersions

on the Able Danger people who came forward on the ground that no documentary information

corroborated the claim –– a claim no one seems too willing to go out on a limb to dispute any longer ––

that the program identified Mohamed Atta as a potential terrorist (and perhaps other hijackers, too) well in

advance of 9/11. Now it turns out that volumes upon volumes of documentation from the program were

ordered destroyed in 2000. That also appears to have been a rather widely known fact (the guy who did

the deleting voluntarily testified at the hearing). If that was the case, why were these witnesses assailed

the way they were? And why did we continue hearing about how the Pentagon was looking under every

rock but not finding anything when, in fact, it had to have known that the entire quarry had intentionally

been destroyed five years ago?

The Project On Government Oversight ( revealed that this treatment of whistleblowers is

becoming systematic, and is being ignored by the Congressional committee responsible to shield

whistleblowers: “Sibel Edmonds, president of the newly formed National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

made this statement: ‘Chairman Davis and his staff have continued to disregard our requests for a

Government Reform Committee hearing to discuss badly needed provisions that would apply to

whistleblowers from the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Considering the unprecedented

number of national security whistleblower cases since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it is appalling to see that

the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee refuses to extend protections to those

courageous individuals coming forward.’"

Keep in mind, that coordinated collusion and cover-ups within different branches of government that are

specifically required to act independently in enforcing the law is a Proof of conspiracy–not theory.