Friday, February 29, 2008

Call For "Federal World Government" Endorsed By Hillary - Extended Clip

Former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite receives an award from the World Federalist Association for supporting globalism and admits, "We need a system of enforacable world law, a federal world government."

Cronkite says "I am glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan." Hillary Clinton endorsed the award.



Alleged Hijacker Booked On Post-9/11 Flights


Astounding FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report as CIA veteran Robert Baer calls for investigation to be re-opened

Astounding newly released FBI documents obtained via the Freedom Of Information Act show that alleged 9/11 hijacker Hamza Al-Ghamdi had booked future flights to San Francisco and Riyadh, suggesting that he was unaware of his eventual fate aboard United Airlines Flight 175, the plane that hit the World Trade Center's south tower.

The papers consist of a 300 page Federal Bureau of Investigation timeline (PDF link) that was used by the 9/11 Commission but not made public until now.

The 9/11 Commission failed to mention in its final report that Al-Ghamdi was booked onto several flights scheduled to take place after 9/11, including another flight on the very day of the attacks.

The fact that Al-Ghamdi had booked post-9/11 flights obviously gives rise to doubts about whether the alleged hijacker knew the 9/11 attack was a suicide mission and even brings into question if he was on the flight at all.

Citing "UA passenger information," on page 288 under an entry pertaining to "H AlGhamdi," the FBI timeline reads: "Future flight. Scheduled to depart Los Angeles International Airport for San Francisco International Airport on UA 7950," reports Raw Story (excerpt below).

Al-Ghamdi was also booked to fly on September 20, 2001 from Casablanca, Morocco to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and September 29, where he planned to fly from Riyadh to Damman, Saudi Arabia.

The FBI timeline documents also contradict with several other details of the 9/11 Commission Report, notably on the movements of alleged Flight 77 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar.

According to researcher Paul Thompson, he believes the Commission cherry-picked the dates of the alleged hijacker's movements in order to shield their ties with high-level Saudi Arabian officials.

He points to the redaction of the name of a person who is a known employee of a Saudi defense contractor, Omar al-Bayoumi, who lived at the same location, reports Raw Story.

"We know it's Bayoumi," said Thompson, "because after 9/11, the Finnish Government mistakenly released a classified FBI list of suspects that showed Bayoumi living in apartment 152 of Parkwood Apartments." That information is available here.

"But also important is that it strongly suggests that the hijackers already had a support network in Southern California before they arrived," Thompson continued.

"In the official version of the story now, the hijackers drift around L.A. listlessly for two weeks before chancing to come across Bayoumi in a restaurant [according to Bayoumi's account]," Thompson added. "Whereupon he's an incredible good Samaritan and takes them down to San Diego, pays their rent, etc."

"But from the FBI's timeline, we now know the hijackers started staying at Bayoumi's place on Jan. 15 – the very same day they arrived," Thompson says. "So obviously they must have been met at the airport and taken care of from their very first hours in the US. That's huge because the FBI maintains to this day that the hijackers never had any accomplices in the US."

Alleged Hamza Al-Ghamdi appears in his "martrydom tape," which interestingly enough was only released in September 2006, post-9/11 just like his flight plans were.

Former 20-year veteran CIA case officer Robert Baer, who has previously asserted that 9/11 has aspects of being an inside job, told Raw Story that the new developments immediately demand the 9/11 investigation be re-opened.

"There are enough discrepancies and unanswered questions in the 9/11 Commission report that under a friendly administration, the 9/11 investigation should be re-opened," wrote Baer.

"Considering that the main body of evidence came from tortured confessions, it's still not entirely clear to me what happened on 9/11," he concluded.

Raw Story provides further details concerning how the documents shed more light on the role of Saudi authorities and their complicity in the attack.

These new revelations mark the most astounding 9/11-related developments in many months and are sure to kick of a firestorm of new doubts about the crumbling official government story.


Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Able Danger premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival?

Are the programmers at Tribeca committed to advancing a 911 agenda? They have developed a '911 Category' at the Festival this year and The film Able Danger has been entered to this year's festival and would be an obvious pick. It is a noir homage 911 conspiracy theory femme fatale driven noir thriller filmed in New York, Brooklyn, Tribeca and based around a New Yorker Patriot who runs a little cafe-bookstore-micropoublisher ( in Flatbush.

Able Danger played in Rotterdam to 3 sold out shows of 400 in attendance and the Q&A with the director went on until the movie theater had to shut it down.

Now you could say that the Dutch are just smarter than the Americans, but I don't think so.
I think this country and especially this city is hungry for this film. It could be a catalyst to the tipping point,

Able Danger Director Paul Krik reported to this blogger directly that,
"Tribeca would be the perfect backdrop for this film premiere, the Festival literally exists because of, and in response to, 911. The Festival itself is memorialized in controversy. "

Mr. Krik is referring of course to

For the record, the film title refers to project Able Danger. for more information on that, these two sources are most compelling;

Webster Tarpley's position

and a collection of Able Danger news clips that made it into mainstream media before Congressman Curt Weldon was publicly maligned and lost his seat;

and here's the link to the website and the trailer, flash required.



ZERO : Europe for an Independent Inquiry into 9/11

BRUSSELS, European Parliament, 26th February 2008.

Mark Dermul ( reporting.

On Tuesday 26th February, Europarlementarian Guilietto Chiesa invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named 'ZERO, an investigation into the events of 9/11'. Object of the screening was to create political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission.

Besides Mr Chiesa, the panel consisted of Japanese parlementarian Fujita, Dr David Ray Griffin, film distributor Tim Sparke & the director and producers of the film.

After his opening statements, Mr Chiesa welcomed his guest speakers, including the producers, director and distributor of the documentary. Mr Chiesa pointed out that he was unable to find any distributor in his native country of Italy and was happy to find a company in the UK, led by Mr Tim Sparke, to handle worldwide distribution of this important film.  'It is important to realize,' he emphasized 'that the movie was made thanks to contribution and donations of hundreds of citizens who feel a new investigation is more than warranted.' No less than 450 people worked on this documentary on a voluntary basis. They never received any kind of payment. Their reward is the movie itself, which they feel is an instrument to create awareness and a means to provoke a political debate in Europe

Since the movie projector didn't work, Mr Chiesa invited the public to ask questions until the technical problems were solved and we could start watching the movie

    Question: 'Why did you make this film?'

    Chiesa: 'It is obvious that we are now cast in an infinite war, based on lies. And as long as there is no new and independent investigation, we will never have security. There are too many lies for the official narrative to be true. Our film is an instrument to request the re-opening of the 9/11 investigation.'

    Question: 'How do you propose to reopen the investigation?'

    Chiesa: 'The film is the primary instrument to get the debate going. It is a collection of discoveries, by many respected researches from around the globe (the film features, among others, Gore Vidal, Sibel Edmonds, Dario Fo, David Ray Griffin, Dr Steven Jones, Dr Kevin Ryan, Webster Tarpley, Barbara Honegger, FAA-controllers, USAF pilots, military commanders, physicists – ed. note). But they are still questions. The movie doesn't provide the answers. It only lays bare the questions that remain, that were left unanswered by the official investigation and need to be answered by the US government.'

    Question: 'Mr Fujita, how did you become involved?'

    Fujita: 'I work for several Japanese NGO's and one of those people showed me some videos and books. At first I couldn't believe it. So I saw Loose Change and read Dr Griffin's books. And last year a good friend of mine who has a very high position at the German national bank told me about the put options that were placed on American Airlines and United Airlines. I believed him. And reading Dr Griffin's book, looking at his reputation, I have every reason to believe him. That's when I realised that every truth finding effort has to be continued. So I gave a presentation in the Japanese parliament (which is extensively covered on YouTube – ed. note). But I feel the truthers find their information mostly by internet. The truth should not only go by internet. It should now go political! Networking is very important. We must all work together.'

    Question: 'But what can we, regular citizens who go about their daily lives, trying to make a living for them and their families, what can we do?'

    Griffin: 'As in any movement, the 9/11 Truth Movement is a minority movement. We must continue to use our networks to make this minority into a majority. We have the upper hand to find the truth, for we have the conscience of the people. And I know that's not an easy feat. I have now written six books on the subject, which is getting good reviews – go check it on Amazon. I had a good reputation as an author before as well and now I've just written my sixth book on the subject. But I have yet to get a review in any mainstream publication.'

    Question: 'Do you, in your new book, take the same stance, saying that 9/11 was an inside job?'

    Griffin: 'My new book is called 9/11 Contradictions. In this book I do not take any position, actually. Reporters have hidden in the past saying either the books were too technical and they're not engineers, so they couldn't comment on the book. In other cases they felt the official story was the only story they could report about, for the risk of being labelled a conspiracy theorist or even worse, getting fired. But with my new book, reporters will not be able to hide behind these excuses. These are only contradictions that they can verify and ask questions about.'

    Question: 'What kind of contradictions?'

    Griffin: 'Well, one very important one is the alleged Barbara Olsen phone call. Ted Olsen at the time claimed he had been called by his wife twice on 9/11, thus establishing the fact that American Airlines 77 was in fact hijacked by men with Middle Eastern looks. First he claimed it was a cell phone call. Later he changed his story to seatback phone. But when a German journalist got Boeing to confirm that on this type of flight there were no seatback phones, Olsen changed his story back to call phone. Now, you might think 'oh, so he got it right the first time', but… At the Moussaoui trial an FBI-report showed that there was never any connection between Barbara Olsen and her husband. No cell phone calls were ever made from that flight (Dr Griffin gave three more examples, contradiction with regards to the whereabouts of General Meyers, the highest ranking military officer on 9/11, the timeline of Dick Cheney's activities and the question about why the Pentagon was not evacuated when the Doomsday plane, shown on CNN, was actually in the air over Washington – ed. note)

    Question: 'Many people, even today, are still baffled about WTC-7. When can we expect NIST to publish its final report on this collapse?'

    Griffin: 'NIST has delayed the publication time after time. In 2004 they said it would be released in 2005, in 2005 they said it would be released in 2006 and so on. Now we are expecting the report in August 2008, but I feel we may yet get another delay until at least the end of November, after the current administration has – hopefully – left office.'

At this point, people start joking about the fact that the US-government has probably sabotaged the screening of the documentary, since the projector cannot be fixed. We change rooms a few minutes later and the screening of the film begins.

The documentary is probably the most important film made so far on 9/11 as it is very accessible; it is obviously created for '9/11 newbies'. If you want to get a crash course into the 9/11 event and the failures of the commission's investigation, this is the movie you need to see. Some of the highlights for me were the interviews with an FAA-air controller who explained how the hijacking procedures were changed on 1st June 2001, slowing down response, only to be changed back on 12th September 2001. And the very important discovery that the CCTV-images that were released by the FBI of Atta and his companion boarding Flight AA11 in Boston were actually taken by a CCTV at the airport in Portland, where they took a plane to arrive in Boston! It has also a lot of footage that I had never seen before, including videos taken at the Pentagon shortly after the attack. A must see and clearly a labour of love. Impressive.

After the film, after the several minute long applause finally died away, Chiesa re-opened the debate.

    Question: 'Why do we put op with this? Surely the United States are not all that powerful?'

    Chiesa: 'But they are. The fact that this group of about 300 people has only 6 Europarlementarians and 2 journalists among them shows that the US is controlling everything. They are all powerful. No politician in the European Parliament can ignore the power – or wrath! – of the US.'

(True to form, the Belgian media didn't publish or broadcast any of this debate on this or the following day, even thought this debate took place inside the European Parliament – ed. note)

    Tim Sparke: 'But it's up to you now, the general public. You have to help the politicians to by telling people about this film and talking to your local cinema's and TV-stations. Get the word out. Only then can we create the momentum to get the debate to the political level.'

    Question (from myself) : 'In the aftermath of 9/11 and in the period leading up to the war in the Middle East, the Bush administration; President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney; have repeatedly lied to the American people and, by extension, to the world. The crimes they have committed are much worse than those in the Watergate scandal. So why are the American people not in an uproar? Why are these people still in power and not in jail? Is it a lack of political will?

    Griffin: 'Many people simply are misinformed and kept misinformed by the government and the mainstream media. As for political will, we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy.'

    Chiesa: 'For many people 9/11 is simply too controversial. There is a very strong psychological opposition to 9/11 truth. For most people, considering a conspiracy theory…' '…other than the official theory, which is – obviously – also a conspiracy theory.'

    Chiesa: 'Yes, indeed – so considering another conspiracy theory about 9/11 is taboo. We must overcome this taboo and we must overcome this total lack of information. We must break this wall of silence. We must break free from the web and fight the mainstream media. This film is an instrument to do that. We need voices of different levels of society. We need not convince them that we are right. We need to convince them there is a problem that must be investigated… re-investigated. But you have to show them what happened. You cannot convince people by telling them about 9/11. They need to see it – hence the film.

At this moment, there is one person in the room who gives criticism on the film, claiming that the feels there are incorrect theories in the documentary. He feels the wing damage in the Pentagon is clearly visible and that Steven Jones' claims about the thermite/thermate are not proven. He also claims that a response by jet fighters during the attack was in fact ordered. He gave no explanation as to where he got his information. He said he was a muslim and at the European Parliament as an independent, ready to defend himself against the reaction of the public who had started 'boo'ing. One person's behaviour was unbecoming in my opinion when she shouted 'Who paid you?' While I do not agree with the person's assertions, I do respect his opinion. The director of the movie went on to explain that in the movie they were not able to show everything in detail (the movie would become too long) and that – again – it was an instrument to provoke action on the part of the viewer. A few more – and rather interesting questions and remarks – came from the audience and were addressed by the panel.

By now it was getting very late (partly because of the delay of the movie screening) and Mr Chiesa wanted to wrap up the event by making a closing statement.

    Chiesa: 'A new American commission is inconceivable. But a European commission is inconceivable too. We have no jurisdiction. The US-government would never allow it. It would have to be an international group of 'Wise Men & Women' such as previous heads of state, engineers, artists, scholars, first responders, survivors, witnesses and so forth. We realize we still have a long road ahead. But we can create change!'

    Griffin: 'I've always said that the truth will come out of friendly countries. If Iran or Korea were to tell us 9/11 was an inside job, we would not believe it. They're just saying that, because they're our enemies. But if Japan, Europe or even an individual European country would say 'We have examined the evidence… The war on terror is a hoax!', then the American press would no longer be able to ignore it. They would have to publish it and then the US-government would be forced to respond.'

Editor's note: the text above is written from extensive notes taken during the debate, but it's is inevitable incomplete. It's the gist of the debate. Otherwise it would become too long. Also, it is not an exact word-for-word transcript, as the debate was not recorded (by me). It is the best representation I could give of the event, staying as close to the actual text as I could distill from my notes. Several videos will be made available soon, so you can see the whole of the debate. Until such time, I felt it important to share my impressions.



Former Congressman Joins 9/11 Commissioners, Military Leaders and others who question 9/11

Former Congressman Hamburg Joins 9/11 Commissioners, Military Leaders and other Highly-Credible People Who Question 9/11


The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that "We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."


According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job


Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they've changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism."

Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon

U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:

"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....

Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"

U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ....

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story".

The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)


Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke", and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).

20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East", and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .

The Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.

The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"

A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about "serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws" in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).


A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was "very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters" (Richard F. Humenn), stated that "the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down."

Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].''

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."

A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"


A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)


Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr.
Francis Boyle) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.

Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."


A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being "disrespectful to the victims and their families".

However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).

And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.


Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser


The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:

The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)

Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).

Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of her allegations have been confirmed in the British press.


Lone Gunmen Producer Questions Government on 9/11

Wonders why TV writers could accurately predict the attack while the government couldn't

Cast and crew of the X-Files attended "WonderCon 2008" in San Diego this weekend to discuss the upcoming X-Files movie. During the question and answer, one intrepid audience member asked Chris Carter, creator of X-Files and The Lone Gunmen, about the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which eerily predicted the events of 9/11 that took place in New York mere months after the episode aired on tv. Carter, looking slightly flustered, turned the question over to the Lone Gunmen producer, Frank Spotnitz. Video of the response is available from YouTube:

After Carter's bizarre and awkward joke about turning the question over to his producer because he had "a special underground connection" that made him better qualified to answer it, Spotnitz admits he was "disturbed that if we could imagine it [crashing planes into the World Trade Center] our government didn't, and I didn't understand why we weren't prepared for a tragedy like that." After raising this very valid point about the government and military's complete lack of response on the morning of 9/11, he then quickly dismisses any suggestion that the pilot episode's uncanny prediction of that attack was anything more than a coincidence, as the story was produced merely from an "active imagination."

The episode in question featured rogue elements of the government hijacking a plane by remote control and attempting to fly it into the World Trade Center in order to launch wars in the Middle East. Highlights of the episode can be seen here:

That Spotnitz dismisses the incredible similarities of the episode to the events of 9/11 is perhaps unsurprising, given that he was featured prominently in the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary which attempted—albeit hamhandedly—to discredit the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists"...that is to say, anyone who doesn't believe that the government is not telling us the truth about 9/11, which just happens to be the majority of the population.

Of course, many serious people have questioned just how the writing team was able to dream up a plot of a government staging an event to launch wars in the Middle East which actually happened six months later only for the government to use it as an excuse to launch wars in the Middle East.

This may well be coincidence, as Spotnitz asserts, but it's worth questioning whether the writers of that episode were also correct about the supposition that the attacks were carried out by a rogue element within the government itself. Although Spotnitz is quick to dismiss this as "conspiracy theory" some of the crazed conspiracy wingnuts who believe it include ex-CIA field agents, ex-FBI translators, the former German Defense Secretary, the head of the largest victims family group (and the majority of its members) and many others, including Dean Haglund, star of The Lone Gunmen.


Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel

A structural engineer who was a member of the team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the World Trade Center site after 9/11 has described numerous phenomena indicating extremely high temperatures suffered by the WTC structural steel. This appears to be further evidence that high-temperature explosives, such as thermate, were used to bring down the towers.

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]

He said the towers were exceptionally well designed and built, describing the WTC as "the best-designed building I have ever seen." [2] Yet the structural steel had suffered unusual warping and other major damage:

  • Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]

  • At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." [4] He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack." [5]
  • He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]
  • In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]
  • He found a foot-long twisted shard of steel that was "like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel." He commented, "I haven't seen anything like this [before]." [8]
  • He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9]
  • The fireproofing that had been used to protect the WTC steel also showed evidence of extreme conditions. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [10]
  • Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7--a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized." [11]

These observations indicate that the World Trade Center steel was subjected to very high temperatures. Yet, while postulating that the towers collapsed due to fire (and without the use of explosives), even Thomas Eagar--an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--admitted, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." [12] One must conclude that the phenomena observed by Astaneh-Asl are therefore highly suspicious.

It may well have been because it offered such revealing clues that the remaining structural steel from the World Trade Center was so rapidly destroyed, being shipped abroad as scrap to be melted down and recycled. CBS News described: "The [cleanup] operation--which began days after the collapse, okayed by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani--goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas." [13] As the New York Times reported, the steel scrap was worth "only a few million dollars, a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars the cleanup" was going to cost. Yet the knowledge that could have been gained from it "could save lives in a future disaster." [14]


9/11 Aircraft ’Black Box’ Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.

NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:

NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:

The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.

The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11 attacks:

- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).

With flight data recorder serial number data that is virtually always provided within NTSB reports of major U.S. commercial airline crashes that occur within U.S. territory, one can trace an installed device to a particular registered aircraft through manufacturer or Federal Aviation Administration records.

The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:

"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."

A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.


A 1/3/2008 e-mail reply from a Loren Cochran, a FOIA specialist with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, regarding the FAA FOIA denial reads as follows:

"It is unusual and unlawful for them to not cite an exemption. "[W]e are not in a position to release the said records at this time," certainly isn't an exemption any where in the Freedom of Information Act, and I can't think of any case law that supports that answer either."

The RCFP site:

Because of the criminal nature of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI became the lead investigative agency into the 9/11 aircraft mishaps, along with the requested aid of the NTSB. It is possible that the FBI seized FAA 9/11 aircraft records containing component serial number data for aircraft identification purposes and that the FAA no longer possesses them.

By document labeled "Testimony of Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate", it is indicated that the NTSB assisted the FBI with the process of "aircraft parts identification" regarding the said aircraft.

Flight data recorder information provided by the NTSB, for all major U.S. commercial passenger aircraft crashes within U.S. territory, involving major aircraft and/or loss of life, since 1988, with noted FDR serial numbers:

Comair Flight 5191, August 27, 2006, CRJ-100, 49 Dead, Fairchild Model F-1000 FDR, Serial Number: 102368

>>Full article here<<



Thursday, February 21, 2008

7/7 Ripple Effect

Regarding the 7/7/2005 terrorist attacks in London, let us look at the facts, and what we were told, and compare them. Then, using Ockham's Razor and common-sense, let us see what conclusions are to be drawn, so we can all understand what most likely really did happen that day.


UN Propaganda aimed at U.S. Schoolchildren

Marvel Entertainment, owner of Marvel Comics, is teaming up with the UN to produce a comic book for schoolchildren with the purpose of improving the UN's bad image.

Follow this link to the original source: "Kapow! A hero for our troubled times"

Marvel Comics will be working with the UN Office for Partnerships to produce a new comic book that will include UN characters and agencies working alongside Spider-Man and other superheroes to "settle bloody conflicts and right the world of disease." According to the UN press release: "By making the complex UN system accessible to youth, the partners hope to teach children the value of international cooperation, and sensitise them to the problems faced in other parts of the world."

Exact details have not yet been released, but American schoolchildren will be the first target for the UN's propaganda blitz with the distribution of one million copies sometime in 2009. Eventually the plan is to translate the comic book into other languages, for further indoctrination of the world's children. The UN wants children to get used to the idea of visits from UNICEF officials and visions of blue helmeted "peacekeeping" forces.

This project is something of an admission by the UN that the world body's reputation has sunk to new lows. The fact that they've had to resort to clever marketing techniques aimed at children in order to try and rescue their image speaks volumes.

What could these new UN comic books use as plot lines? A superhero needs a villain, of course. Marvel, in this case, need look no further than the UN itself for these. UN officials have been involved in exploitation of women and in sex rings in third world nations. Perhaps Marvel could have Spider-Man apprehend villains of this sort. Or maybe the X-men could bring to justice the criminals who profited from the oil-for-food program/scandal.

These would be more appropriate than using the beloved hero characters to convince children of the UN's supposed beneficence.



Child Abuse by the Government

Government rips an autistic boy from his home because it prefers a different treatment than the one offered by the parents

What kind of society rips a 17-year-old autistic boy from his loving home and places him in a state-run mental institution, where he is given heavy doses of drugs, kept physically restrained, kept away from his family, deprived of books and other mental stimulation and is left alone to rot?

Certainly not a free or humane one.

Yet that's exactly what has happened to Nate Tseglin, after a teacher called Child Protective Services, the county agency charged with protecting children from many forms of abuse and given power to remove children from their family homes in certain circumstances. The teacher reported seeing self-inflicted scratches on Nate's body and complained about the doctor-approved arm restraints his parents used to keep Nate from hurting himself. Nate remains in Fairview Developmental Center (formerly Fairview State Hospital) in Costa Mesa, labeled a danger to himself and others, while his parents fight a lonely battle to bring their son back home.

Isn't there anyone out there who can help them?

After the complaint, social workers intervened and decided that the judgment of a psychologist who examined Nate's records but never even met the boy trumped a lifetime of treatment and experiences by his parents, Ilya and Riva Tseglin. Without prior notice, "the San Diego Health and Human Services agency social worker, with the aid of law enforcement, forcibly removed a struggling and terrified autistic boy … from his home, while his mother and father, who are Russian Jewish immigrants, and Nate's younger brother stood by helplessly," according to the complaint the parents, who have since moved to Irvine to be near Nate, filed with the court.

The forced removal came after the Tseglins came to loggerheads with the government over Nate's proper treatment. The parents are opposed to the use of psychotropic drugs and argue that Nate has had strong negative reactions to them. They point to success they've had with an alternative, holistic approach that focuses on diet and psychiatric counseling. The government disagreed, so it took the boy away from home and initially placed him in a group home – where he had the same negative reaction to the drugs that his parents predicted would happen.

Of course, once social workers are involved in a family, they are reluctant to relinquish their power – something I've found in every Child Protective Services case I've written about. And even though the court determined "the evidence is clear that the parents have always stood by and tried to help their son," the court sided with the government. That's another common theme from these closed family-court proceedings – the social workers' words are taken as gospel, and the parents are treated like enemies and given little chance to defend themselves.

The details are complicated and discouraging. But, essentially, the parents were cut out of any decision-making regarding their son. They were given only short visits with him. After he ran away from the group home, the government transferred Nate to a mental hospital. The Tseglins say the drugs the hospital gave Nate caused him to have a "grand mal" seizure, and his health has continued to deteriorate while he languishes in a government mental facility. When they visited him over the summer, they found his face swollen. He faded in and out of consciousness and was suffering from convulsions. They believe he has been beaten and are worried about sexual abuse, given that he is housed with the criminally insane.

The Tseglins claim Child Protective Services has told them they have the "wrong set of beliefs" and even threatened to force them to undergo court-ordered psychological evaluation. The agency at one point suspended the parents' visitations as a way "to assist them in coming to grips regarding their son." The Tseglins, as former citizens of the Soviet Union, have good reason to be fearful of the authorities. But they tell me that they experienced nothing of this sort in the former communist nation. If their descriptions are correct, then the Soviets weren't the only ones who know how to create a totalitarian bureaucracy.

The family's legal argument is persuasive:

"Riva and her husband have cared for Nate, in their home, for his entire life, until he was dragged kicking and screaming away from his parents. … The court found that it was very impressive that the parents 'were able to maintain Nate in the home for the better part of a decade when he was having some severe behavioral difficulties.' … The court found further that when the parents put Nate on a 'more holistic approach' and ignored the professional opinions, that 'for a period of time, Nate responded very well to that.' Even though Nate subsequently deteriorated, the court found that he fared no differently using the more traditional medical approach.' …

"In short, this case turns on value judgments, such as whether it is preferable for Nate to be maintained in his own home, subject to occasional physical restraint, surrounded by the love and devotion of his parents and brother, or whether Nate should be placed in a locked facility, subject to occasional physical restraint and constant chemical restraint, surrounded by strangers and a burden to the California taxpayer. … The real issue in this case is that the agency and some medical personnel believe their opinions regarding Nate's treatment are better than the parents' choices, and have sought the judicial intervention to override the parents' decisions regarding their son."

In a free society, individuals and families get to make those judgments and decisions. As the Tseglins argue, "Riva has a right to raise her child, Nate, free from government interference, as long as he is not at risk of physical, sexual or emotional abuse, neglect or exploitation."

Sure, the state can and does intervene when parents are accused of abusing or neglecting their children. There are many problems and injustices even in those cases, but at least it's understandable when the government intervenes to protect a potentially threatened child. But in this case, the state is simply saying that it knows best, that no matter how diligently a boy's parents have worked to provide the best-possible care for him, that officials get the final say. And the government's choice of mandatory incarceration seems harsh and cruel, which shouldn't surprise anyone, given the basic nature of government.

At last check, autism is not a crime. It's time to free Nate Tseglin and return him to the love and care of his parents.



Athletes for 9/11 Truth

Most guys (and a smaller percentage of women) pay a lot of attention to sports. Most athletes are hesitant to speak out about politics. So when an athlete does speak out, it makes a large impact.

5-time NFL Pro Bowl center Mark Stepnoski (Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers) and former NFL running back Bill Enyart (Buffalo Bills and Oakland Raiders) have both spoken out for 9/11 truth.

But we need a lot more star athletes to speak out if we want to get the attention of American men. If we want any chance of reaching the millions of male (and female) sports fans in the U.S., courageous athletes like Stepnoski and Enyart have to pool the goodwill associated with their good names to promote 9/11 truth.

I am therefore calling for the formation of a new group: Athletes for 9/11 Truth.

Athletes for 9/11 Truth will be able to reach a large segment of the population that wouldn't otherwise listen to 9/11 truth.

Ready, Break!

If you are a professional athlete willing to speak out for 9/11 truth, contact us and we'll put you in touch with the right people.



Media Blackballs Willie Nelson’s Call To Impeach Bush

If an award-winning icon and a pure symbol of Americana boldly argued for the impeachment of President Bush and urged that the general public "throw the bastards out" of the White House in an election year, would it make for a good story?

Not according to the mainstream media, who have once again chosen to blackball Willie Nelson's comments that he made this week on the Alex Jones Show.

Two days after Nelson warned that some kind of staged event could provide the Neo-Cons with an excuse to cancel an election that their anointed candidate Hillary Clinton seems increasingly unlikely to be involved in, no corporate news outlets have dared to even mention the story.

At a time when President Bush is hyping the threat of terror attacks as a result of the Republican's failure to pass the warrantless surveillance legislation, such a prescient warning from such a high-profile public figure would be deemed newsworthy in anyone's book.

But the silence is deafening.

Despite the fact that we have issued a press release via the usual channels that has been spread all over the web, no establishment media outlet has picked it up, not even to ridicule Nelson with their usual smear attempt tactics.

When a celebrity breaks a toenail, the press swarm like flies around excrement, but if one dares utter something meaningful or anti-establishment, they either ravenously attack or bury their heads in the sand and pretend it never happened.



Kucinich to Investigate 9/11 Insider Trading

Congressman Dennis Kucinich revealed that he is initiating an investigation the insider trading that took place leading up to 9/11, particularly in regards to put options placed on American Airlines and United Airlines stock.

Kucinich said that he had personal questions about the implications insider trading had.

"I've indicated a long-standing interest in gathering information and trying to get to the bottom of exactly what happened with respect to all the stock activity that took place preceding 9/11." Kucinich said.

Kucinich said it was the bizarre record-level put options that caught his attention initially. The odd trades heavily indicate prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks and have raised a number of questions that Kucinich hopes to probe.

"First of all, I'm not afraid to ask questions about 9/11," Kucinich told the Alex Jones Show.

"From my own personal standpoint, I've had long-standing questions about why this volume, why those airlines, why that time, who made the buys, why did they buy them, who told them to make the buys, who was involved? There are questions there that need to be answered as part of an effort to get to the truth," Kucinich said.

He made clear he was not yet pointing the finger. "I don't know what happened. I'm not alleging anything here. But I sure want to find out how it happened."

But Kucinich hopes that inquiries in a committee hearing would clarify the information and answer questions.

"I think we need to talk to the people who were involved in making those transactions in order to try to figure out why they were made, for example, American Airlines and United Airlines stock." Kucinich said.

At least two FBI agents have been previously charged for their smaller roles in the insider trading. The NY Times has reported on the cases, but larger coverage of the issue has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, and no larger probe has been underway until now.

Kucinich has also promised to hold hearings on the health of 9/11 first responders. He has already met with a number of rescue workers to hear their stories and is in the process of bringing forth information to committee.

The Congressman warned, however, that his seat has been hotly contested by 'Cleveland corporate interests' who have sunk millions into defeating Kucinich. He pleaded for help to win his local election, but remained steadfast.

"I can't be bought and I can't be bossed." Kucinich said. "I'm going to keep speaking the truth, I'm going to keep seeking the truth, and as long as people are there to support that, I'll be in Congress."

To find out more about Kucinich's Congressional race and/or help his campaign, visit


Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly to the CIA's Highest Ranks

Prison Planet: 9/11 Prior Knowledge Archive




TruthgoneWild is PRO America. TruthgoneWild is not, in any way, connected to, or supportive of, any person(s) who engage in violent acts towards anyone or anything, for any reason. TruthgoneWild is not, and will never be, associated with, or support, any person(s) who are involved with any kind of religious, extremist, occultist, terrorist organization(s). TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the people who read the TruthgoneWild blog. TruthgoneWild posts consist of information copied from other sources and a source link is provided for the reader. TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the authors' content. Parental discretion is advised.

TruthgoneWild is exercising our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. TruthgoneWild is not anti government. TruthgoneWild is anti corruption. And we the people have every right to know who in our government is corrupt.