Same story in DC, just all folks too bullied by Gitmo to speak it yet

12.30pm

---

Hungary PM: we lied to win election

Agencies
Monday September 18, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The prime minister of Hungary has confirmed the legitimacy of a leaked tape recording in which he says his government lied to win April's election and "lied in the morning; lied in the evening" during office.

The recording comes from a speech Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany gave to a closed party meeting shortly after his Socialist-Liberal coalition took office for a second term.

In the leaked speech, parts of which have been played on Hungarian state radio, he argued that major economic reforms were needed. "There is not much choice. There is not, because we screwed up," he said. "Not a little: a lot. No European country has done something as bone-headed as we have," he continued.

Article continues

---

---

"Evidently, we lied throughout the last year and a half, two years. It was totally clear that what we are saying is not true."

"You cannot quote any significant government measure we can be proud of, other than at the end we managed to bring the government back from the brink. Nothing. If we have to give account to the country about what we did for four years, then what do we say?"

"We lied in the morning; we lied in the evening," he said.

On Sunday around 3,000 protesters called for the leader's resignation outside parliament in Budapest. But Mr Gyurcsany defended the leaked tape - which was littered with foul language - and said he would not resign.

He claimed the statement "we lied" did not refer to the overall state of the economy but was about "general lies" told by politicians over several years. "Hungarians want to live like those in the west, but they are unwilling to adopt the western norms," he said. "For years ... we made people believe that they have nothing to do, that we will give them happiness as a gift."

Hungary has suffered from budget deficits since 2000 and recently submitted a plan to the European Commission to reduce its deficit - the biggest in the EU - mainly through tax rises.

Some observers say the leaked tape could have come from Mr Gyurcsany's office as a way to justify tough economic reforms. Just hours after the tape came out, a full transcript was posted on his weblog.

The Socialist party won their second term in office in April, with a coalition government taking 210 of the 386 parliamentary seats.

Useful links
Hungarian government
Hungarian parliament
Nepszabadsag online
Budapest Business Journal
Budapest Sun

Exposing The War Profiteers Isaiah J. Poole September 18, 2006
Isaiah J. Poole is the executive editor of TomPaine.com. The only correct response to the waste, mismanagement, theft and, yes, death that have been endemic among private contractors in Iraq is the kind of outrage that makes heads roll and forces sweeping change. Bringing this sordid tale into the limelight are the combined forces of documentary producer Robert Greenwald and congressional Democrats, who are pursuing the kind of oversight that the majority party is refusing to do. As a result, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress may soon find themselves on the wrong side of what looks to be a wave of white-hot anger over Iraq war-profiteering. The impact of Greenwald’s new documentary and intrepid Senate Democrats are converging powerfully today in Washington. The Senate Democratic Policy Committee scheduled the latest in a series of hearings to examine the behavior of Halliburton and other contractors handed billions of taxpayer dollars for reconstruction after the fall of Saddam Hussein. After that hearing, Greenwald will appear as a guest at the Washington premiere of “Iraq for Sale,” a jaw-dropping account of the squandered dollars and lost lives as a result of Bush administration cronyism, bumbling and ideological blindness. The movie premiere and panel discussion , which is open to the public, is being hosted by the Campaign for America’s Future. Each week seems to add new counts to the indictment against the administration’s reconstruction quagmire. The Campaign for America’s Future has compiled the basic case in a damning report  it is making public today. That report chronicles “a procurement process that rewards cronies and condones widespread abuse.” It describes how half of the $270 billion spent on the reconstruction effort between the fall of Hussein and 2005 was distributed without competitive bidding and reveals that the government can’t even track the distribution of more than $20 billion. The report weaves together news reports and government documents requested primarily by Democrats to prove that the failure of the reconstruction effort in Iraq is not merely the product of the inherent difficulties of rebuilding a country in the midst of an occupation and an insurgency. It is, instead, what inevitably happens when the reins of government are handed to people who have contempt for government and whose arrogance blinds them to realities that do not fit into their ideological fairyland. As the report reminds us, George W. Bush mocked President Clinton in 2000 for using U.S. troops in nation-building exercises. In 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld muscled aside knowledgeable State Department experts—and, later, Iraqis who could have helped lead the reconstruction effort themselves—to bull-headedly pursue his own misbegotten neoconservative blueprint. The case against the administration is further detailed in the book Blood Money , written by Los Angeles Times investigative reporter T. Christian Miller. His commentary for TomPaine.com  highlights key points from the book. His point about contractor accountability bears repeating: The record suggests that the ‘accountability administration’ has let the war profiteers run amok. … The lack of oversight has encouraged fraud, waste and abuse. It has threatened our soldiers and Iraqis. And it has turned Iraq into a Wild West, a place without law, a judge or even a traffic cop. Another book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, solidifies the evidence of an insidious form of cronyism that forced competence and knowledge to take a back seat to conservative ideological purity. Chandrasekaran wrote in a book excerpt in the Sunday Washington Post: Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort. … Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated—and ultimately hobbled—by administration ideologues. This would be bad enough if what was at stake were the typical patronage spoils handed out by administrations of both parties. But, in the case of Iraqi reconstruction, lives were at stake—and were lost. Today’s Senate Democratic probe, led by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., will include testimony from survivors of a 2004 ambush of a fuel truck convoy run by KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary. Eight died and 26 were injured in the attack. One of the survivors, Edward Sanchez, is among several former KBR employees who are suing the company for negligently directing the convoy into an active combat zone. He is profiled in “Iraq for Sale” and is slated to testify at the Dorgan hearing. "It was totally preventable,” Sanchez says in the film. “There was absolutely no reason for us to be there. And we had no knowledge, and one of the first things that came across my mind was, a soldier came up to me and said, who are you guys? What are you guys doing out there? The roads are closed. We have been fighting those guys for over 48 hours. They own that road out there. And I was like, how in the world could we [have been] sent down here into this road?" Indeed, how in the world could we have been sent down this road? The answer is all too clear. The administration that ignored the facts to get us into Iraq behaves as if the public will ignore the facts about the occupation and the criminal behavior that has accompanied it. To keep that from happening, Greenwald wants people to purchase copies of “Iraq For Sale” and show the documentary to their friends at house parties. Armed with the facts in the documentary, the Campaign for America’s Future report and the work of such journalists as Miller and Chandrasekaran, an enraged and energized public can hold to account the Republican leadership and the contractors that were allowed to pillage Iraq and the federal treasury.

	Search Money and Markets site Search E-Newsletter Archive Search Special Reports Search Media

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/press.asp?rls_id=427&cat_id=6

The Greatest Scam of All Time (by Martin Weiss)

9/18/2006 8:00:00 AM

Washington’s Enron-style accounting is now so widespread and so deeply ingrained, the nation could be bankrupt and not even know it.

You go to work. You save and invest. You vote in the November election. And you assume that everything is business as usual. Then, one day, you wake up to the shocking discovery that it’s not.

Inflation is at least three percentage points worse than what they’re telling you. Unemployment and the budget deficit is over double. The national debt is at least five times bigger than official tallies.

Almost every number coming out of Washington has been thoroughly massaged and greatly distorted, almost always with a bias toward sweeping the dirt under the carpet and sugarcoating the truth.

This is not a conspiracy. It just happens naturally. But that doesn’t diminish the potential impact on your money. It’s easily the greatest scam of all time.

Every single administration — from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush — has succumbed to the same temptation to “reform” the data collection process ... “streamline” the reporting procedures ... and continually implement minor, incremental changes — all to make things look a bit better.

Each new change has been grandfathered in by the next administration.

And the cumulative effect of all these small changes over time adds up to a gross distortion of reality that could directly threaten your financial future.

Look Back to Recent History,
And You’ll See What I Mean.

At Enron, 21,000 employees — and many more investors — assumed that the company’s books were real. Then, one day they discovered it was all a hoax.

And it was over.

We saw the same thing happen at Adelphia Business Solutions, Global Crossing, Kaiser Aluminum, Kmart, McLeodUSA, National Steel, WorldCom, and scores of other major, household-name companies. Every one had distorted its numbers. Every one went bankrupt. Each left a trail of ruined lives in its wake.

The distortions were so bad even many of Wall Street’s least biased analysts missed the boat. Indeed, in a special report I presented to the National Press Club, I demonstrated that ...

Among 50 major Wall Street firms we reviewed, 94% continued to publish “buy” or “hold” ratings on these failing companies right up to the day the companies filed for bankruptcy.

Worse, America’s largest auditing firms looked the other way, or even directly assisted in the accounting distortions. In a report I submitted to Congress, I showed that ...

Arthur Andersen, America’s most prestigious auditors, gave a clean bill of health to 11 companies involved in accounting irregularities. Deloitte & Touche and KPMG each gave a clean bill of health to five companies involved in accounting problems. And overall, the nation’s major auditing firms gave a clean bill of health to 42.1% of the public companies that filed for bankruptcy soon after their audits. Overall, the auditors failed to warn the public about companies that were worth a total of $225 billion at their peak. Investors lost nearly every dime.

Today, Fannie Mae, the company that controls most of America’s secondary mortgage market — a company without which the entire housing industry would crumble — is also knee-deep in accounting distortions.

Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, which can make or break America’s industrial economy, may or may not have major accounting issues. But their assurances to shareholders and employees, made just a few months ago, are crumbling just the same.

And this is in “good times,” when the economy is apparently strong, when inflation and unemployment are supposedly moderate.

Something doesn’t fit. Something’s terribly wrong with this picture, and it’s this: The government’s distorting the real truth about the U.S. economy and its own books.

How Washington’s Enron-Style Accounting Makes
The Great Corporate Scandals of This Decade
Look Like Little White Lies by Comparison

Much like major auditing firms review the books of a GM or IBM, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits the books of Uncle Sam, including its departments and agencies.

But in its latest year-end media advisory, the GAO plainly states that

“For the ninth straight year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is unable to provide an opinion as to whether the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.”

In other words, the same government that is aggressively pursuing corporations for bad accounting is the most guilty of similar practices.

In an earlier report to Congress, GAO Director and U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker bluntly explained it this way:

“The current system of federal financial reporting provides an unrealistic and even misleading picture of the government’s overall performance and financial condition ... A key lesson from Enron, WorldCom and other business failures is that our free-market system depends on public confidence in the accuracy of ... financial information.”

But, unfortunately, Washington has so far failed to learn that lesson.In several departments of the executive branch, especially Defense, balance sheets don’t balance and taxpayer money disappears. So beyond the deficit manipulations that we know about, there could be many others that are unknown, even to the federal auditors.

This is easily one of the greatest scandals of our time, and yet it’s rarely discussed and often forgotten.

Investors and
Taxpayers
Hoodwinked!

One veteran economist, John Williams, is so thoroughly convinced that government manipulations are hoodwinking taxpayers and investors, he has devoted his current career to painstakingly documenting the shenanigans at Shadow Government Statistics (www.ShadowStats.com).

Technically speaking, these issues are not hidden. The government does tell you nearly everything it’s doing — in a long series of cryptic footnotes. But after 40 years of footnotes, most are long forgotten, even by many of the government’s own economists. Here’s a brief rundown of just the most obvious distortions ...

Distortion #1
The True Unemployment Rate Is Over 12%

One of the first new wrinkles in the unemployment stats was added during the Kennedy Administration. And it persists to this very day.

Instead of measuring how many people are actually out of work, they figured it would be easier to simply keep track of how many people are applying for jobless benefits.

Never mind the fact that the benefits run out after 26 weeks! Never mind the hundreds of thousands of “discouraged” workers who have stopped collecting benefits months ago!

The government’s unemployment number also excludes millions of part-time workers who are seeking a full-time job but can’t find one ... millions more who are disabled ... and even the 2.2 million that are in prison.

Make sense? Not quite. If Mr. A loses his job because he’s fired, he’s “unemployed.” But if Mr. B loses his job because he’s thrown in jail, he’s not unemployed!? Give me a break.

So what is the true unemployment rate in the United States including all those who really want a job but don’t have one?

I can assure you it’s not the 4.7% that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported for August. It’s probably closer to 12%, or over two and a half times more than the official rate.

Distortion #2
The True Inflation Rate Is Over 7%

Probably more so than any other number, the government has a direct, vested interest in keeping its official inflation numbers low.

Reason: The higher the rate of inflation, the more it has to pay in Cost of Living Adjustments to Social Security beneficiaries.

The first major push for inflation-distorting reform began with the Clinton Administration. Until then, the inflation measure was based on an essentially fixed basket of goods.

Example: The basket included an 8-ounce steak. And no matter what, they tracked the same steak through time.

The Clinton Administration, however, argued for a variable basket of goods. If the 8-ounce steak got to too expensive, they argued, the typical consumer would simply substitute hamburger. So the government should do the same.

That wouldn’t be a measure of the cost of living. It would be a measure of the cost of survival. Yet, according to Williams, a series of complex mathematical changes in how the Consumer Price Index is calculated — giving less weight to higher priced items — essentially achieves the same goal as the variable basket of goods.

Add that to a series of other distortions in the Consumer Price Index ... and you’ve got a measure that’s so far removed from reality, it’s a joke. Instead of the 3.8% announced last week, the true inflation rate could be well over 7%.

The biggest victims of this hoax: Anyone collecting Social Security benefits. According to Williams, if the Consumer Price Index were calculated today the same way it was during the Carter Administration, the payments would be 70% larger!

Distortion #3
Gross Domestic Product
Greatly Overstated

Back in 1991, the U.S. government stopped focusing on the Gross National Product (GNP) and started headlining the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A key difference: The payments the government must make to service the national debt are missed in the GDP numbers.

Separately, the government always reports the growth in GDP after subtracting inflation.

Example: If the GDP growth is 8% and inflation is calculated at 4%, the government reports that GDP growth is 4%.

But if the true inflation rate is 7%, then guess what: Instead of moving along at a reasonably healthy clip of 4%, the economy is actually crawling at a feeble rate of 1%.

Big difference!

No matter what, right now, even the overstated rate is slipping: The government reports that GDP growth fell to annual rate of just 2.9 percent in the second quarter of 2006.

Distortion #4
Deficits and Debts

The official 2005 budget listed the U.S. federal deficit at $319 billion.

But according to the GAO, if the government followed the same generally accepted accounting principles it demands of corporations, the real 2005 deficit would have been $760 billion — or more than DOUBLE the official number.

And that’s just one year of new debt the government has to take on to make ends meet.

If you take a look at the total debts and obligations the government has accumulated over the years, the picture gets worse, much worse.

At the end of the first quarter, the total federal debt, including government agencies and government-sponsored enterprises, stood at $10.2 trillion. (In the Fed’s Flow of Funds report of June 8, 2006, see Table L.4. Then sum lines 4 and 5.)

But if you also include the estimated unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other programs, the total federal debt is at least $54 trillion.

And that’s based on three separate studies — by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) and the Brookings Institute.

My Recommendations

First, don’t take government stats for granted. If you can’t trust Ford and Fannie Mae, what makes you think you can trust Uncle Sam?

At the very least, recognize that the government has a built-in institutional and methodological bias in favor of good news. It’s simply not prudent to base your long-term financial future upon them.

Second, take steps to protect your assets from the ravages of inflation, whether hidden or not. That includes a continuing allocation to gold- and energy-related investments, despite any temporary ups and downs.

Third, keep a substantial portion of your money as safe as possible to protect yourself from the day when the truth starts pouring out. It hasn’t happened yet. But just as occurred with Enron and WorldCom, once the bubble of fantasy bursts, it doesn’t take long.

My favorite havens: Treasury-only money market funds such as:

American Century Capital Preservation Fund (800-345-2021),
Dreyfus 100% U.S. Treasury Fund (800-645-6561),
Fidelity Spartan U.S. Treasury Fund (800-544-8888),
USGI U.S. Treasury Securities Cash Fund (800-873-8637),
Vanguard Treasury MMF (800-662-7447), or
Weiss Treasury Only Money Fund (800-430-9617).

Although government officials may distort the numbers, the U.S. Treasury Department has never failed to meet its obligations for the payment of principal and interest.

Good luck and God bless!

Martin

---

About MONEY AND MARKETS

MONEY AND MARKETS (MaM) is published by Weiss Research, Inc. and written by Martin D. Weiss along with Sean Brodrick, Larry Edelson, Michael Larson, Nilus Mattive, and Tony Sagami. To avoid conflicts of interest, Weiss Research and its staff do not hold positions in companies recommended in MaM. Nor do we accept any compensation for such recommendations. The comments, graphs, forecasts, and indices published in MaM are based upon data whose accuracy is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Performance returns cited are derived from our best estimates but must be considered hypothetical inasmuch as we do not track the actual prices investors pay or receive. Regular contributors and staff include John Burke, Amber Dakar, Monica Lewman-Garcia, Wendy Montes de Oca, Kristen Adams, Jennifer Moran, Red Morgan, and Julie Trudeau.

Attention editors and publishers! Money and Markets issues can be republished. Republished issues MUST include attribution of the author(s) and the following short blurb: This investment news is brought to you by Money and Markets. Money and Markets is a free daily investment newsletter from Martin D. Weiss and Weiss Research analysts offering the latest investing news and financial insights for the stock market, including tips and advice on investing in gold, energy and oil. Dr. Weiss is a leader in the fields of investing, interest rates, financial safety and economic forecasting. To view archives or subscribe, visit http://www.MoneyandMarkets.com

From time to time, Money and Markets may have information from select third-party advertisers known as "external sponsorships." We cannot guarantee the accuracy of these ads. In addition, these ads do not necessarily express the viewpoints of Money and Markets or its editors. For more information, see our terms and conditions.

© 2006 by Weiss Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
15430 Endeavour Drive, Jupiter, FL 33478

.../...

Government foreknowledge

The World Trade Center on fire. The plume of smoke escaping the Twin Towers is seen for miles, even from space [7].

One theory is that individuals within the United States government and private sector knew of the impending attacks and purposefully did not act on that knowledge. Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher suggested this possibility.^[6] The theory does not necessarily suggest that individuals within the US Government actually conducted the operation, but rather that they had enough information to have prevented the attack.

Intelligence issues

Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan. Interview with David Schippers. Alex Jones Infowars.com. Retrieved on 2006-05-02.

• According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers, Ashcroft responded that they do not start investigations at the top.
• Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.^[7]
• Author William Norman Grigg furthered the Schippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."^[8]

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. (Able Danger was a SOCOM exercise.)

• The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI, but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00, 8/9/2005)
• Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks. ^[9]
• FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid 2001 after an undisclosed source leaked information to the New York Times about an investigation into an incident that had occurred 13 months earlier. He was then recruited to be chief of security at the World Trade Center. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble. ^[10]

Possible early warning

• On September 12, 2001, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that mayor Willie Brown may have gotten an early warning of the attack, because Brown had said a phone call from his airport security eight hours before the attacks advised him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. He did not cancel his flight plans until he became aware of the attacks.^[11]
• Of the call, Brown said it "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement. It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."[8]

Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge

News accounts in the aftermath reported a suspicious pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines [9]as well as Morgan Stanley and [10]other unusual market activity [11].

• In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, said:

"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account." [12]

However, according to the 9/11 Commission, the SEC and FBI examined each trade, the trades were innocuous, and no evidence of a connection was found:

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades (page 51 of the Commission Report, PDF).

• Numerous researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 express doubts that the Commission was actually able to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks [13],[14]

World Trade Center towers

See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center

Some alternative theories of the collapse of the Twin Towers propose that planted explosives brought down the structures. Much of the support for this claim comes from interpretations of videos and photographs. Several eyewitnesses also reported seeing, hearing and feeling multiple explosions, and explosions in sequence. Many researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have highlighted the following as evidence for the theory that planted explosives brought down the WTC towers:

Controlled-demolition theory

The NIST report did not analyze the actual pattern of the WTC's collapse; the scope of the investigations was limited to the events leading up to the collapse: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. [This report] includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."[15] The FEMA report, some say, also did not analyze the actual pattern of the collapse. (For further information on these reports, see 'Government Inquiry' below)

Skeptics of the progressive collapse, or "pancake" theory, say that there is ample evidence that the towers collapsed due to the systematic destruction of internal supports. Jim Hoffman, a researcher and software engineer, says that the telltale signs of controlled demolition, present in the WTC collapse, are:[16]

• Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.
• Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free fall in a vacuum.
• Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
• Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
• Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
• Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
• Molten metal: A stream of liquid metal was videotaped^[12] flowing out of the corner of 2 WTC moments before collapse, and eyewitnesses observed and reported pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles.

Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, and Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer at Clemson University, say that without the use of explosives to destroy the buildings' internal support structure, the fall of the towers violates conservation of momentum. [17] In addition, Dr. Jones says the angular momentum of the top of the South Tower as it began to collapse could not simply disappear, unless the center of mass of the top was somehow shattered and destroyed.[18] In addition, he says that the collapse of the towers at near free-fall speed indicates that the central core below the impact zone had lost its structural integrity and provided almost no resistance to the falling debris. The theory is also advocated by Jones's group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Molten metal

In addition to the characteristics of the collapse, eyewitnesses reported pools of molten metal in the rubble of 1, 2, and 7 WTC for several weeks after the collapse.[19] According to reports by FEMA^[13] and NIST,^[14] molten metal (visible on video [20]) dripped out of the South Tower just before it collapsed. Having analyzed the color of the molten metal, which is an indicator of its temperature, Dr. Jones believes the metal was at least 1000°C. Adherents of the official theory say the molten metal may simply be aluminum from the aircraft, which melts at about 650°C. Dr. Jones rejects this theory since molten aluminum is a poor emitter of black body radiation and thus molten aluminum appears silvery-gray under daylight conditions.[21] (The metal in the video is bright yellow.) According to Jones, the presence of molten metal at 1000°C would contradict the official story, which says that fires in the buildings reached temperatures high enough to weaken the steel, but not to melt it.

In addition to the molten metal, the initial FEMA investigation team did find unusual sulfide on parts on the structural steel in the towers and 7 WTC.^[15] FEMA was unable to find the source of sulfur, and the NIST report does not mention it. Researchers including Steven Jones believe this sulfide may have been caused by the use of a thermite reaction to melt and destroy the steel within the structure. Others have suggested the sulfur originated from gypsum wallboard ^[16]

Thermite reactions can reach temperatures of up to 4500°F (2500°C), well beyond the temperature (approximately 1500°C) required to melt structural steel, and with the addition of sulfur can cause an eutectic reaction within such steel.[22] Such a eutectic reaction was observed at WTC and according to professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. was "capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."^[17] Thermite would also explain the presence of the aforementioned molten metal seen dripping out of the South Tower. Dr. Jones believes this metal is actually molten iron, a byproduct of the thermite reaction.^[18]

Symmetry and Squibs

1, 2, and 7 WTC also fell straight down with, according to theorists, remarkable symmetry. Without explosives, they say, this symmetry would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Collapse theorists also point to photographs and videos of what they believe are demolition "squibs", which are tightly focused horizontal plumes of smoke and debris being ejected from the twin towers during the collapse.[23] The official theory is that the squibs were merely the ejection of material due to the evacuation of air as the floors collapsed; the plumes, however, appear approximately 10 stories below the area of main destruction and are ejected only from the centers of the towers.^{[citation needed]} These plumes appear in both towers, at regular intervals, and from multiple camera angles. Researchers say the presence of these squibs indicate secondary explosive devices, activated just ahead of the collapsing material, removing the structural support and allowing total collapse.^{[citation needed]} Some conspiracy theorists also believe that squibs were seen in the destruction of 7 WTC, running rapidly up the Southwest corner of the building [24]. They argue that while a possible theory is that the 7 WTC squibs simply result from the floors collapsing, the time between the events is much too rapid to be due to gravitational acceleration. [25]

Ejected debris

Girders of weight up to 4 tons each were ejected sidewards and found 600 feet from the WTC2.^[19] A calculation of ejection speed needed for girders to land so far away is used as an argument for explosives blowing up inside.^[20]

Oral History Support for Demolition

As evidence of controlled demolition, some 9/11 conspiracy theorists point to eyewitness descriptions of the events before the collapse of the towers which appeared consistent with explosives, such as "It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions," and "You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down," etc.[26][27]

In addition, William Rodriguez, a high profile survivor^[21] was located in the basement of the North tower, when he reported a large explosion on Sublevel B3, before the plane impacted. Rodriguez escaped the building, and escorted several people to safety.

His testimony was told to the 9/11 commission, but no explanation was ever given for the explosions.

Molecular and Chemical Support for Demolition

Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust [28]and indicates that chemicals consistent with thermate are present. Other environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including a study by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue.[29] [30].

Pulverization

Software engineer Jim Hoffman suggests that gravity alone exerts too little energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, or to explain the pyroclastic flow-like cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions[31].

Lack of Collapse Precedents

Furthermore, since no steel high-rise building has suffered a total collapse as the result of fire before or since the 9-11 attack, theorists allege the collapse of 1, 2, and 7 WTC are anomalies. The WTC towers burned for less than 102 min (1 WTC) and 56 minutes (2 WTC), during which both towers were stable after the impacts. Theorists consider the following hi-rise fires to be the most similar for comparative purposes: [32]

• 1 New York Plaza (1970) - burned for more than 6 hours, no collapse.
• First Interstate Bank (1988) - burned for 3 1/2 hours, gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower, no collapse.
• One Meridian Plaza (1991) - burned for 18 hours, gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building, no collapse; later had to be demolished.
• Torre Este de Parque Central (Venezuela) (2004) - burned for more than 17 hours, spread to over 26 floors, no collapse.
• The Madrid Windsor Tower (2005) - a partial collapse of some steel sections building [33], [34], while the concrete framework prevented a complete collapse [35].

Many 9/11 researchers say these fires are particularly relevant to WTC7, which was not struck by planes and which suffered damage only from fires and falling debris from the collapse of 1 and 2 WTC.

The Caracas Tower, First Interstate Bank [36] and 1 New York Plaza were constructed using the conventional steel girder system consisting of a grid of steel columns and trusses connecting the columns. The Windsor Tower, however, was constructed with concrete columns and a concrete core for the first 16 floors, steel girder and concrete core for the floors above that, and two additional concrete slabs to provide additional strength [37], [38].

Steel temperatures

Researchers have compared the heat of the fires in the twin towers and the fires effect on steel to actual fire tests in open sided car parks carried out by steel manufacturer Corus (formerly British Steel) on unprotected steel beams. The highest recorded steel temperatures in open sided car parks when exposed to the hydrocarbon-fuelled fires was 360°C [39], well below the estimated 800°C temperature of the steel supports in the twin towers (which were not open sided car parks) at the time of the fires [40].

Although independent experiments and fire models find that hydrocarbon fuels can produce temperatures of 1100°C and more[41][42], the steel itself would not reach this temperature.

Attempts to Debunk Conspiracy Theories

Those attempting to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories have compared the WTC collapses to the Ronan Point disaster [43], in which one corner of Ronan Point collapsed after a gas explosion [44]. Although Ronan Point was found to be structurally unsound (unsafe) [45] [46], the building did not totally collapse. Jim Hoffman has noted that the section of the Ronan Point building that collapsed were nonstructural - the short cantilever sections were supported by the building's main structure, making any comparison with the WTC towers unsound. Hoffman states, "The problem with the progressive collapse theory is that it's very difficult to actually build something that will exhibit this behavior." [47] Outside of the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapses, Ronan Point is the most common cited example of a progressive collapse, despite only one corner collapsing and not involving any of the support columns [48].

.../...

The debris

A section of fuselage rests in the ruins of the World Trade Center.

In addition to the observation of the collapse, theorists draw upon the remnants of the collapse of the World Trade Center. Opponents of the official story cite the following in support of the controlled demolition theory.

The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse. [54]

• This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives. Several observers in and around the debris field utilized phrases containing the words “molten metal” or “molten steel” to describe the devastation. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done. The following are some of the more common statements seen:
• The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers in a second hand account by James Williams who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

The lobby of one of the towers was partially destroyed (broken windows and marble panels) and a dust cloud can be seen rising from the ground during the moments of collapse.

• Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, stated in the Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." [55]
• Obtaining a conclusive answer to these molten metal reports is difficult because of the lack of debris remaining. While NASA's satellite images of Ground Zero do show large hot spots well after 9/11, they do not provide an exact measure of temperatures within the rubble pile since this type of remote sensing captures only the temperatures on the surface of a debris pile. [56] Independent scientific investigation into what sort of metal, if any, was liquefied has yet to be conducted.

Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft (10 m) long and large sections of steel destined for recycling were quickly sent to areas in SE Asia.

• This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence.
• The longest beam surrounding the towers was no greater than 38 feet. [57]
• It took more than eight months to remove all of the debris from Ground Zero. [58]
• Furthermore, Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, responded to this notion and the evaluation of evidence, "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples." [59] NIST has numerous sections of steel from both Towers as well as 7 WTC. (Images of the debris sorting.)

The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack.

• The Chicago Tribune reported that experts believed the recorders would not be found simply because of the massive scope of the damage and debris. NTSB and FBI have both publicly stated the recorders were never recovered. The 9/11 Commission and federal authorities claim that none of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes that crashed into the Twin Towers was ever found, however 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, raising the question of whether there was a government cover-up at Ground Zero (Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 28, 2004, http://web.archive.org/web/20041030023935/http:/www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/10033802.htm; http://counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html.

Individuals questioning aspects of the collapse

The following individuals have expressed skepticism or doubt regarding the official theory:

• In a research report, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones writes, "The 'explosive demolition' hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated." ("Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones)
• In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. [60] That fact should be of a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention of the steel failing at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." UL is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. Kevin Ryan was subsequently fired from his job. [61]
• Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, a major authority on explosions' effects on buildings, has said, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." Romero has since retracted his belief, later stating, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001).
• Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the common account in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."
• In The New Pearl Harbor, former theology and philosophy Professor David Ray Griffin presents a litany of observations he says are consistent with controlled demolition, including sudden onset, straight down symmetry, pulverization, horizontal ejection, dust clouds, squibs, and molten metal. He says that since 2 WTC collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower, the mechanism of collapse is questionable. Additionally, he argues the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, suggesting less fuel would have burned in the central support area.
• On June 13, 2005, the Washington Times reported that former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the common account of the WTC collapse is "bogus" and suggests a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. He also questioned the involvement of commercial jets stating that "North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767." [62]
• Jimmy Walter, who believes that 9/11 was the work of a government conspiracy and has run ads in New York requesting that the investigation into 9/11 be reopened- suggests that, "[the] aircraft were robot planes; the passengers were mainly military contractors; the aircraft were only 10 to 25 per cent full, while all other planes that day were booked out."[63][64]
• Recently, actor Charlie Sheen gave an interview on GGN Radio Network's "The Alex Jones Show," in which he suggested that the federal government was covering up what "really" happened. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions," Sheen said. He also expressed disbelief over how American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and said the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like a "controlled demolition."^[22]

.../...

7 World Trade Center

Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume along the South face of 7 WTC, looking from the World Financial Plaza.

7 World Trade Center was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the WTC complex. It was not hit by any plane and collapsed at approximately 5:20 p.m. EDT on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. According to experts, no building like WTC7, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.^[25]

The official report of the 9/11 Commission does not address the collapse of WTC7. NIST has several times postponed the issue date of its report on the collapse of WTC7. Some 9/11 researchers say these examples show that an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 is quite difficult, unless controlled demolition is introduced to explain it.

9/11 researchers have proposed the idea Building Seven collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. Support for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances, and the reports of molten & partly evaporated steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. One source describes the building as coming down in just under seven seconds. The FEMA report describes a collapse timeline of 37 seconds.

Early tests conducted on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators from NIST stated[74] Building Seven was not struck by an aircraft nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. [75] The official working hypothesis is that Building 7 collapsed as the result of structural damage from the collapsing Towers in addition to prolonged fires throughout sustained by fuel stored for emergency generators. Further discussion of the intensity and severity of the fires is mentioned below. Engineers refer to this type of destruction as a "progressive collapse."

A kink or crimp near the center of the building is identical in appearance to many that have occurred when implosion professionals have made buildings collapse inwards to minimize damage of the surrounding structures.

• This observation appears to support the demolition idea which suggests that a carefully calculated fall took place. [76]

The damage and fire

According to the controlled demolition theory, among the primary questions unanswered by the official theory regarding Building Seven are the severity of both the damage and the fire. The controlled demolition theorists maintain neither were severe enough to initiate a collapse. Dr. Steven E. Jones, a proponent of the controlled demolition theory, stated on Building Seven:

"The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires."[77]

Dr. Jones also points to concluding notes in the FEMA report on the 7 WTC collapse:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."[78]

Opponents to the controlled demolition theory recognize testimony provided by firefighters and EMT personnel about the severity of the damage to 7 WTC. Firefighters used transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure and were surprised to discover that it was, in fact, moving. [79] A collapse zone was set up at that time, and 7 WTC collapsed about an hour and a half later at 5:20 p.m..

• New York Fire Department personnel on the scene described the damage inflicted to the south face of WTC 7. Several statements were given by firefighters and other first responders emphasizing the critical condition of Building Seven. [80]

The FEMA report provides a timeline of the collapse and photographs of the major events leading up to it. Mechanical penthouses are shown to have collapsed in succession during a 30-second window before the building itself collapsed. The east mechanical penthouse is shown to collapse first. Photographs also show a visible "kink" in the east side of the roofline as the building fell.

The release of NIST's final report on its investigation into the structural failures of Seven World Trade Center has been twice postponed and is scheduled for release sometime in 2006. [81] In a New York Magazine interview in March 2006[82], Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said that NIST has "had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." In draft copies of the report, NIST states that it has "seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."

The Silverstein statement

Debris from the collapse of 1 WTC located between 7 WTC (left) and the Verizon building (right).

Within the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of Building Seven and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC Complex, recalled the collapse of WTC7:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse. [83]

Some critics of the official theory have said that the term "pull" is industry jargon for planned demolition and that Silverstein's remark exposes his assent to demolishing the building. [84]

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later explained:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

McQuillan said that by "it" Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.[85] The firefighters themselves describe how they were pulled out of the building[86].

Researcher Jim Hoffman disputes the assertion that "pull" is industry jargon. A Google search, he says, fails to uphold the assertion. For this and other reasons, he says, the case built from Mr. Silverstein's statement is "extremely weak." He concludes: "While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for demolition based on the physical characteristics of the collapse. . ." [87]

Controlled demolition experts at ImplosionWorld.com refute this, saying that they have never heard the term used to refer to the demolition of a building. They also debunk the theory that controlled demolition was used to bring down 7 World Trade Center.^[26]

^.../...

Questions about war games on the morning of 9/11

On the morning of 9/11, 50 minutes before Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, the National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles from Dulles airport^[28]. The National Reconnaissance Office is responsible for operating US reconnaissance satellites. At 9:25 an order had been issued by the Federal Aviation Agency grounding all aircraft, including military and law enforcement aircraft^[29].

Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 assert that government and military exercises point to a cover-up. There were a number of drills being performed on the morning of 9-11. US Rep. Cynthia McKinney, economist Michel Chossudovsky, and publisher/editor Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness are a few of the individuals who have questioned these exercises.

The following war games and training events were being conducted by USAF, NORAD, CIA, NRO, FAA and FEMA: [102] [103]

• Northern Vigilance: a yearly Air Force drill simulating a Russian attack, in which defense aircraft normally patrolling the Northeast are re-deployed to Canada and Alaska.
• Vigilant Guardian: a NORAD exercise posing an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide with a simulated air war and an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States.
• National Reconnaissance Office emergency response drill of a small aircraft crashing into its own headquarters.
• Tripod II, a FEMA drill simulating a biowarfare attack in New York City, was to take place on September 12th. FEMA set up a command post for this exercise at Pier 29 on September 10th.

It is theorized that with these multiple training scenarios being carried out that NORAD, FAA and other military personnel would have been confused in the event of a real attack. McKinney has twice questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about these 9/11 war games during his testimony before Congress. [104]

The President's behavior

President Bush was promoting the passage of his education plan at Emma E. Booker Elementary School on the morning of September 11th.

Allan Wood and Paul Thompson have questioned the President's behavior after being told that the nation was under attack[105]. They think it's likely that he would have been taken to safety at once, presuming that he too would be a possible target of a terrorist attack. He remained in the classroom for another 5 minutes.

Did George W. Bush see the first plane hit?

On December 4, 2001, at a townhall meeting in Orlando, Florida, in response to a question from a third grader, President Bush described his reaction to the initial 9-11 news as follows:

"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

"But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack.'"

A month and a day later, at a townhall meeting in Ontario, California, President Bush described his experience like this:

"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, 'America is under attack.'"

These observations make it appear that George Bush had access to coverage of the attacks that the public did not. As some have pointed out, George Bush could not have seen the first plane hit the tower live on commercial television, since it was a surprise attack and no television station was covering that area when the first plane hit. [106], [107]. A White House spokesperson said that the president's comment was "just a mistaken recollection" ^[30].

See also the morning of September 11th.

Other points of interest

• US Representative Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing on July 23, 2005, into "what warnings the Bush administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." Panelist and former CIA official Melvin Goodman was quoted as saying "Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian and I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom." Many 9/11 researchers testified at the hearing, including Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, Wayne Madsen and several others. [108]
• Between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother was a principal in a company that provided security for both The World Trade Center and United Airlines. According to an article by David Ray Griffin "from 1999 to January of 2002 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO "[109] . According to its president CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down". This last statement has been used by some conspiracy theorists to say that the contract "expired" on September 11, 2001. Barbara Bush allegedly confirmed this theory in her book Reflections (ISBN 0743223594) also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired. However, no specific quote is provided to support this allegation, and a search for the words "contract" or "expired" yields no results. Mr. Bush was also a former director and now is an advisor to the board of directors to a firm HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc that had what it called a small participation in the World Trade Center property insurance coverage and some of the surrounding buildings. [110] Marvin Bush was on a subway under Wall Street when the attacks happened. [111]
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a letter to President Bush said, “September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?” He also wrote, “Some believe that the hype paved the way-- and was the justification-- for an attack on Afghanistan”[112][113].
• Although it had distanced itself from their brother and former company employee, The Saudi Binladin Group's corporate website, [114], expired on September 11, 2001, the same day as the attacks in the United States. Several websites cited in this article use this fact to suggest foreknowledge of the attacks.^{[citation needed]}
• The Washington Post reported in its August 3, 2006 edition that "For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances" and that "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public" and that "Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted". Sources told the Post this was done to hide a bungled Pentagon response [115]

Claims that some of the supposed hijackers are still alive

Initial news reports shortly after 9/11 indicated that some of the supposed hijackers were alive, fueling speculation that others were responsible [116].

The BBC News reported on September 23, 2001, that some of the people named by the FBI as hijackers, killed on the crashes, were actually alive and well.

One of the supposed hijackers was Waleed al-Shehri, and he was supposedly found in Casablanca, Morocco.

• However, the al-Shehri's father says he hadn't heard from his sons in ten months prior to September 2001.[117] An ABC News story in March 2002 repeated this, and during a report entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC on Aug 25, 2002, NBC's reporter John Hockenberry traveled to 'Asir, where he interviewed the third brother Salah who agreed that his two brothers were dead and claimed they had been "brainwashed".
• Furthermore, another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.[118]

Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other supposed hijackers, were also supposedly reported to be living in the Middle East.

• A man with the same name as Abdulaziz Al Omari turned up alive in Saudi Arabia, saying that he had studied at the University of Denver and his passport was stolen there in 1995. The name, origin, birth date, and occupation were released by the FBI, but the picture was not of him. "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list", he said. "They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." [119][120][121] This individual was not the same person as the hijacker whose identity was later confirmed by Saudi government interviews with his family, according to the 9/11 Commission Report.^{[citation needed]}
• On 23 September, 2001, the BBC and The Telegraph [122] reported that a person named Saeed al-Ghamdi was alive and well. His name, birth date, origin, and occupation were the same as those released by the FBI, but his picture was different. He says that he studied flight training in Florida flight schools from 1998 to 2001. The journalist involved with the story later admitted "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time."[123]
• After the attacks, reports began emerging saying that al-Mihdhar was still alive. On September 19, the FDIC distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive. The Justice Department says that this was a typo.[124][125]

The BBC and The Guardian have since reported that there was evidence al-Mihdhar was still alive and that some of the other hijackers identities were in doubt. This was commented on by FBI director Robert Mueller.[126]

Motives

Theories as to why members of the US government would have allowed the attacks to occur, perpetrated the attacks, and/or obstructed the investigation generally involve one or more of the following:

• Michel Chossudovsky in an article entitled "The Criminalization of the State" suggests a simple motive in a plan for a New World Order. This particular theory takes root in a David Rockefeller Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994: We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. [127]
• An article on whatreallyhappened.com entitled "The 9/11 Reichstag Fire" suggests that the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) may have been responsible.[128] It cites as evidence a statement from page 51 of a document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by PNAC: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.[129]
• The Web site OilEmpire.us proposed that 9/11 was arranged by the U.S. government in order to benefit the arms manufacturing and oil industries [130].
• The Web site 9-11 Review listed several other benefits of the attacks as possible motives, including Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and President Bush's surge in popularity, Halliburton's defense contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a $3.6 billion insurance payout to the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein [131].

Another less publicized theory, yet very much in line with the Rockefeller quote above, is the claiming of the Holy Land. 9/11 provided an excuse to take the "New Babylon" from Saddam Hussein, who had already begun the process of rebuilding Babylon.^{[citation needed]}

Claims related to the Saudi royal family and other Saudi government officials

Of the increasing instances in which 9/11 conspiracy theories have been discussed in the mainstream media, two instances occurred in 2004 involving Howard Dean and Michael Moore. Howard Dean, who was then the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President stated that he had heard of some people theorizing that the Saudi Royal family were behind the attacks. Though he made the comments somewhat sympathetically, he did state that this was not his personal belief. Later, he would also comment that he believed Osama bin Laden needed to be "proven guilty" in a court of law, a remark some saw as a subtle indication Dean did not presently believe bin Laden's guilt was self-evident. Such 9/11 statements were often cited as an important reason for the failure of his candidacy.

Also in 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore released the controversial documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11, in which many aspects of September 11th were discussed from a point of view skeptical of the official story. The film suggests that the business relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud led to a conflict of interest, if not an outright conspiracy which hindered both the prevention of the attack and the investigation of it.

An article in the December 7-13, 2005 issue of The Village Voice reported "The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, which was released in late 2002, included 28 pages that were blanked out, apparently concerning the possible role of Saudi government officials". Another article from the same issue discussing the 9/11 Commission reported "The Joint Inquiry traced the flow of money from the Saudi royal family and government institutions to a Saudi spy in California who had contact with the hijackers. The commission found Saudi Arabia blameless although behind closed doors the staff is said to have demanded an airing of the situation."

Claims related to Jews and Israel

4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on 9/11

This claim made by Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah, has been repeated by a wide variety of other sources, such as Amiri Baraka. The original Al-Manar claim, posted September 17, 2001 on the English language version of Al-Manar's website, was:

"With the announcement of the attacks at the World Trade Center in New York, the international media, particularly the Israeli one, hurried to take advantage of the incident and started mourning 4,000 Israelis who work at the two towers. Then suddenly, no one ever mentioned anything about those Israelis and later it became clear that they remarkably did not show up in their jobs the day the incident took place. No one talked about any Israeli being killed or wounded in the attacks."[132]

Al-Manar further claimed that "Arab diplomatic sources revealed to the Jordanian al-Watan' newspaper that those Israelis remained absent that day based on hints from the Israeli General Security apparatus, the Shabak".[133] It is unclear whether al-Watan (a minor Jordanian newspaper with no website) made these claims or who (if anyone) the alleged "Arab diplomatic sources" were. No independent confirmation has been produced for this claim.

In some versions of the story circulated on the Internet, the title was changed to "4,000 Jewish Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack" from its original "4000 Israeli Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack", spawning a further rumor that not only Israeli but all Jewish employees stayed away. On September 12 an American Web site called "Information Times" published an article with the headline "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," which it credited to "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." According to Slate.com, "The '4,000 Jews' page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message's rapid dissemination."[134] The rumour was also published; according to the United States Department of State "Syria's government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the "4,000 Jews" claim... its September 15th edition falsely claimed 'four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions.' "[135]

There were a total of 5 Israeli deaths in the attack (Alona Avraham, Leon Lebor, Shay Levinhar, Daniel Lewin, Haggai Sheffi), of which 3 were in the World Trade Center and 2 were on the planes. (4 are listed as American on most lists, presumably having dual citizenship.)

Early estimates of Israeli deaths, as of the total death toll and the death toll for other countries' citizens (e.g. India) proved substantially overestimated. George W. Bush cited the figure of 130 in his speech on September 20th.

The number of Jewish victims was considerably higher, typically estimated at around 400;[136][137] according to the United States Department of State

A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%. This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.[138]

The figure "4,000" was probably taken by Al-Manar from a Jerusalem Post article of September 12 (p. 3) which said "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack." This number was obviously not (as Al-Manar claimed) restricted to employees; in fact, Tsviya Shimon, minister of administrative affairs for the Israeli consulate and mission in New York, said on September 14 "that there might have been up to 100 Israeli citizens working in the World Trade Center". [139]

Furthermore, many Orthodox Jews left for work later than usual that day due to Selichot (additional prayers recited around the time of Rosh Hashanah).[140]

Sharon was warned by Shabak to stay away from New York

Al-Manar the official television station of Hezbollah, also made related claims that then-prime minister Ariel Sharon was warned to stay away from New York:

Suspicions had increased further after Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot revealed that the Shabak prevented Israeli premier Ariel Sharon from traveling to New York and particularly to the city's eastern coast to participate in a festival organized by the Zionist organizations in support of Israel. Aharon Bernie, the commentator at the newspaper, brought up the issue and came up with a negative conclusion, saying "no answer". He then asked about the clue behind the Shabak's position in preventing Sharon's participation, and again without giving an answer.

Detractors claim that this theory does not hold up to examination. A pro-Israel rally led by the United Jewish Communities, expected to include 50,000 people, had been planned for September 23, 2001. Ariel Sharon had been scheduled to speak there, [141] but it was canceled on September 12. [142] According to The Forward, Sharon was still scheduled to speak there at the time of cancellation. [143]

There was no article in Yediot Aharonot that contains the information cited by Al-Manar, nor was there a columnist named Aharon Bernie. There is an Israeli reporter named Aharon Barnea of Israel's Channel 2 News whose wife Amalia works for Yediot Aharonot; [144] it has been speculated that "Aharon Bernie" arose as a misspelling of this name. [145]

Mossad connection to filming of 9/11 attacks with "puzzling behavior"

This claim formed part of the Al-Manar report mentioned above. The claim is that:

For its part, the Israeli Ha'aretz' newspaper revealed that the FBI arrested five Israelis four hours after the attack on the Twin Towers while filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building. The FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior". They are said to have been caught videotaping the disaster in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. [146]

This claim was substantially correct. Yossi Melman had reported to that effect in Haaretz on September 17 2001, [147] using the words "puzzling behavior" and "what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery." Several mainstream Western media groups researched this. On June 21, 2002, ABC published a report that five Israelis seen filming the events of September 11 in New York and looking "happy" were subsequently arrested, claiming (on The Forward's authority) that the "FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives" but had no advance knowledge of 9/11.

The Forward had reported the five as a possible Mossad surveillance operation conducted not against the US but against "radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism." Mossad was known to have been infiltrating Al Qaeda at the time. Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari, the five Israelis who were kept in custody in the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Sunset Park for approximately two months were eventually deported back to Israel on November 20-21, 2001. [148] Ellner and others in the prison have complained of abuse by prison guards. [149]

The claim was revived by the Scotland-based Sunday Herald's article (Nov 2, 2003.)

Israel advance knowledge

An ambiguous claim was made that the Mossad had been shadowing the perpetrators and had advance warning of these attacks but failed to share it. ^{[citation needed]}

Supporters of this claim sometimes cite a Washington Post article of September 28, 2001, according to which "Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks."^{[citation needed]} CNN also reported this but added that "Alex Diamandis, vice president for sales and marketing with Odigo Inc., said there was nothing specifically about the attacks in the message, but he said it was suspicious in nature, especially because of its timing."^{[citation needed]} The Israeli newspaper Haaretz also published reports regarding these warnings. ^{[citation needed]}

According to a September 16, 2001 story in The Daily Telegraph, Israel had sent two Mossad agents to Washington in August to warn both the FBI and CIA in August of an imminent large-scale attack involving a large cell of up to 200 terrorists. An unnamed senior Israeli security official was quoted as saying "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement."[150]

Less common theories

• NewsMax.com  [lie-filled GOP rag, home of Jeff Gannon criminal fraud]  reported that people within and outside the U.S. government believed that then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein conspired in the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City Bombing ^[31]. The theory extended from the one advanced by investigative journalist Jayna Davis in her book The Third Terrorist linking Hussein to the Oklahoma City Bombing. It was discussed in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal ^[32].
• Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press suggested the possible involvement of the mafia. ^[33]

Media reaction

Le Monde Diplo Norway July 2006

While discussion and coverage of these theories is mainly confined to internet chat sites, a number of mainstream news outlets around the world have covered the issue.

In the July 2006 edition of the Norwegian version of Le Monde diplomatique, the headline story asked, "11 September : An Inside Job?" and recensed the various theories discussing the official US version of 9/11, withholding any truth judgment on them ^[34].

Public opinion

• In an August 2004 Zogby International poll, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall believe the US Government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." [151]
• In a May 2006 Zogby International poll, 44% of Americans believe Bush exploited the Sept. 11th attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq; 42% of Americans believe the US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up certain events of 9/11; 43% of Americans are not aware that 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11; 45% of Americans believe "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success"; 45% of Americans believe the US's media are doing a negative job, "including their coverage of victim families' unanswered questions" [152]
• A July 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that 36% of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East. The poll found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosive brought down the Twin Towers and that 12 percent speculate that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. [153][154]

Criticism

Critics of these alternative theories claim they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003).

The German magazine Der Spiegel summarily dismissed all skeptical accounts of the 9/11 attacks as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."^[35]

Both Scientific American [155] and Popular Mechanics^[36] published articles that challenge and discredits various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

See also

• September 11, 2001 attacks
• New World Order (conspiracy)
• Conspiracy theory
• Media manipulation
• Osama bin Laden tapes
• Operation Northwood
• Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
• The Lone Gunmen (pilot episode)

Videos

• 9/11 Revisited by BYU Professor Steven E. Jones
• Pentagon Strike
• 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands
• 911 In Plane Site
• Loose Change

References

1. ^ Bush, George W. "Remarks by the President to United Nations General Assembly". November 10, 2001.[1]
2. ^ PrisonPlanet.com. "In July 2001, Alex Jones Warned of Globalist Plan to Use Bin Laden to Attack America". August 26, 2004 [2]
3. ^ Sales, Nancy Jo. "Click Here For Conspiracy", Vanity Fair July 9, 2006 [3]
4. ^ Eggen, Dan. "9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon", Washington Post, Wednesday, August 2, 2006, page A03.[4]
5. ^ Sales, Nancy Jo. "Click Here For Conspiracy", Vanity Fair July 9, 2006 [5]
6. ^ Meacher, Michael (2003). This war on terrorism is bogus. The Guardian Unlimited - Comment. Guardian Newspapers Limited. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
7. ^ Crogan, Jim (2002). Another FBI Agent Blows the Whistle. LA Weekly News. LA Weekly, LP. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
8. ^ Grigg, William Norman (2002). Did We Know What Was Coming?. The New American magazine. American Opinion Publishing Incorporated. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
9. ^ The Associated Press (2005). More remember Atta ID’d as terrorist pre-9/11. MSNBC News - US Security. MSNBC.com. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
10. ^ Kirk, Michael; Jim Gilmore (2002). The Man Who Knew. Transcript of Frontline program #2103. WGBH Educational Foundation. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
11. ^ Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel. Matier and Ross. San Francisco Chronicle (2001). Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
12. ^ Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing (Macromedia Flash video). CameraPlanet 911 Archive/Google Video (2001).
13. ^ McAllister, Therese, ed. (2002). "World Trade Center Building Performance Study" (PDF). Retrieved on 2006-07-03.Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34.
14. ^ ShyamSunder, S. (2003). Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (pdf). National Institute of Standards and Technology.Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43, cited in Greening, Frank (2006), unpublished. Available at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-06.
15. ^ Barnett, Jonathan; Ronald R. Biederman, R.D. Sisson, Jr. (2002). Limited Metallurgical Examination (pdf). FEMA 403 -- Appendix C.6, Suggestions for Future Research. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Retrieved on 2006-07-04. - "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
16. ^ http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
17. ^ Killough-Miller, Joan (2002). The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel. WPI Transformations. Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved on 2006-07-04. - "Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? 'We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up,' Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. 'All of these things have to be explored,' he says."
18. ^ Toreki, Rob (2006). The Thermite Reaction. The General Chemistry Demo Lab. Interactive Learning Paradigms Incorporated.. Retrieved on 2006-07-04.
19. ^ FEMA report on Bankers Trust Building (pdf). Columbia University Civil Engineering & Engineering Mechanics Department (2003).
20. ^ Video about ejected girders by David Chandler of 911SpeakOut.org (Macromedia Flash video). Google Video (2003).
21. ^ [6]
22. ^ anonymous. "Sheen: What 9/11 Hijackers?", The New York Post, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc., 2006-03-23, p. 10. Retrieved on 2006-06-01.
23. ^ Popular Mechanics, March 2005 [http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y 9/11: Debunking The Myths ] Accessed August 14, 2006
24. ^ McAllister, Th. (2002). World Trade Center Building Performance Study (pdf) pp. 19. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Retrieved on 2006-07-04.
25. ^ Glanz, James (2001). Diesel suspected in 7 WTC collapse. Across the nation. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved on 2006-07-06.
26. ^ Blanchard, Brent (2006, August 8). A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and controlled demolition industry viewpoint. ImplosionWorld.com.
27. ^ FOIA request. Judicial Watch.
28. ^ Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building. Associated Press.
29. ^ The Day the FAA Stopped the World. Time.
30. ^ Paltrow, S. (2004) "Day of Crisis: Detailed Picture of U.S. Actions on Sept. 11 Remains Elusive." Wall Street Journal March 22
31. ^ http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/9/111622.shtml
32. ^ http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217
33. ^ http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover071105.htm
34. ^ http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-07-21-bredesen-en.html
35. ^ Cziesche, Dominik; Jürgen Dahlkamp, Ulrich Fichtner, Ulrich Jaeger, Gunther Latsch, Gisela Leske, Max F. Ruppert (2003). Panoply of the Absurd. Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel. Retrieved on 2006-06-06.
36. ^ Popular Mechanics, March 2005 [http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y 9/11: Debunking The Myths ] Accessed August 14, 2006

Books

• The 9/11 Commission Report
• The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions - David Ray Griffin
• 9/11: The Big Lie - Thierry Meyssan
• 9/11 Revealed : The Unanswered Questions - Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall
• Crossing the Rubicon - Michael Ruppert
• Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York's World Trade Center
• The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11 - James Ridgeway
• Inside 9-11 : What Really Happened - Der Spiegel Magazine
• Pentagate - Thierry Meyssan
• Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City - Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, ISBN 9430960512
• Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press. ISBN 0520238052.
• Laurent, Eric (2004). La face cachée du 11 septembre. Plon. ISBN 2259200303.
• 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, by Webster Griffin Tarpley
• The New Pearl Harbor - David Ray Griffin
• Der Spiegel (2002). Inside 9-11: What Really Happened. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312306210.
• Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts - The Editors of Popular Mechanics. ISBN 158816635X

External links

Final report of the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (9-11 Commission), chaired by Thomas H. Kean

• Kean Report

Cynthia McKinney's July 2005 Congressional Briefing on 9/11

• McKinney Briefing

June 1, 2001, directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff changing rules on intercepting hijacked planes

• Joint Chiefs Directive

Conspiracy theories

Descriptions of and evidence for various conspiracy theories

Mainstream news organizations

• Conspiracy Theories. CBC Television. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• 9/11 conspiracy theorists energized Five years later, purveyors claim academic momentum. CNN.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.

Webpages

• 9-11 Research An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• Alex Jones Infowars. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• Former Top German Minister Rejects Official Story Of 911 Attacks. www.ratical.org. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• Bush: The Ignored Warning That Will Come To Haunt Him. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. by Gordon Thomas
• Information on 9/11 Wargames. oilempire.us. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• 9/11 Conspiracy: Finding Truth. RINF. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• Free-Falling Bodies Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check. 911blimp.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?. BYU.edu. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• The 911 Movement. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• NIST and the World Trade Center. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• 911 investigations. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Document base dedicated to the September 11th 2001 attacks
• Charlie Sheen talks about September 11th. CNN, Your Tube. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Charlie Sheen talks about September 11th
• Question911.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Free DVD movie downloads discussing September 11th attack evidence
• 9/11 Mysteries The show went to Hollywood!. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Movie on 9/11 questions
• The WTC Conspiracy. Telepolis. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. (German)
• Loose Change. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Film questioning the official story
• The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View by Ernest Partridge. The Crisis Papers, commondreams.org. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Article sympathetic to LIHOP theories but skeptical of MIHOP theories
• Picking Up Where Partridge Leaves Off:Researchers Address a 9/11 Skeptic by Victoria Ashley and Jim Hoffman. Retrieved on 2006-08-07. Pro MIHOP rebuttle to above article

Flight 93

• How Did United Flight 93 Crash?. flight93crash.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• Flight 93 Ordered Shot Down. dcdave.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
• Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story. bedoper.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.

Blogs

• 911blogger. 911Blogger.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Latest news and research
• American-Freedom.org. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. News, research, information, blog, links, and a vast video library

Debunking conspiracy claims

• Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Evidence against Controlled Demolition and its most widely held myths.
• Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories The Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories is a free online publication dedicated to educating the public on the events surrounding 9/11.
• Mike J Wilson's Flight 77 Case Study Computer animation with photos and videos. You can also download the 3D models used.
• U.S. Department of State "How To Identify Misinformation"
• U.S. Department of State refutes 9/11 conspiracy book.
• U.S. Department of State links to refutations of various 9/11 conspiracy theories.
• Scientific American 9/11 Article Skeptical of Conspiracy Theories by Michael Shermer
• Snopes.com answer to the rumors about the Pentagon attack Skeptical review of David Ray Griffin book, The New Pearl Harbor (and Griffin's response)
• Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the WTC Disproves Controlled Demolition Theory 9/11 Controlled Demolition Theory Debunked
• Refutes various elements. Strong focus on refuting Mike Ruppert's timeline
• David Ray Griffin and Chip Berlet debate 9/11 issues on Democracy Now!
• 911 Myths articles by UK software developer and freelance writer Mike Williams on a wide range of topics
• Jacobson, Mark (March 27,2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine.
• Flight 77 Did Hit The Pentagon - Attempted debunking from AboveTopSecret.com
• Anti-Defamation League, "Unraveling anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories"
• Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
• Op ed piece from April 28th edition of Newsday by James P. Pinkerton debunking alternative theorists while supporting Incompetence Theory [156]
• The 9/11 X-Files article from The Nation
• When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad by David Corn
• 9/11 Denial by James S. Robbins
• "The Truth About 911" - editorial cartoon mocking conspiracy theories
• "There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons" - An argument against 9-11 conspiracy theories by the popular internet humorist Maddox (writer).

9-11 Crushed Chile, the Treachery in 1973

www.globalresearch.ca

Centre for Research on Globalisation

Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation

Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup

by  Michel Chossudovsky

Unpublished paper written in September 1973

www.globalresearch.ca   11 September 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO309A.html

---

Forward

Thirty years ago on September 11, 1973, the Chilean military led by General Augusto Pinochet, crushed the democratically elected Unidad Popular government of Salvador Allende.

The objective was to replace a progressive, democratically elected government by a brutal military dictatorship.

The military coup was supported by the CIA. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a direct role in the military plot. (For details see http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KOR309A.html    and references below).

In the weeks leading up the coup, US Ambassador Nathaniel Davis and members of the CIA held meetings with Chile's top military brass together with the leaders of the National Party and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad.  While the undercover role the Nixon administration is amply documented,  what is rarely mentioned in media reports is the fact that the military coup was also supported by a sector of the Christian Democratic Party.

Patricio Aylwin, who became Chile's president in 1989,  became head of the DC party in the months leading up to the September 1973 military coup (March through September 1973). Aylwin was largely instrumental in the break down of the "Dialogue" between the Unidad Popular government and the Christian Democrats. His predecessor Renan Fuentealba, who represented the moderate wing of the Christian Democratic (PDC), was firmly against military intervention. Fuentealba favored a dialogue with Allende (la salida democratica). He was displaced from the leadership of the Party in May 1973 in favor of Patricio Aylwin.

The DC Party was split down the middle, between those who favored "the salida democratica", and the dominant Aylwin-Frei faction, which favored "a military solution".(See Interview with Renan Fuentealba,   http://www.finisterrae.cl/cidoc/citahistoria/emol/emol_22092002.htm )

On 23 August, the Chilean Camera de Diputados drafted a motion,  to the effect that the Allende government "sought to impose a totalitarian regime". Patricio Aylwin was a member of the drafting team of this motion. Patricio Aylwin believed that a temporary military dictatorship was "the lesser of two evils." (See http://www.fjguzman.cl/interiores/noticias/tema_se/2003/julio/Patricio%20Aylwin%20y%20la%20dictadura%20transitoria.pdf , See also: El acuerdo que anticipó el golpe, http://www.quepasa.cl/revista/2003/08/22/t-22.08.QP.NAC.ACUERDO.html ).  This motion was adopted almost unanimously by the opposition parties, including the DC, the Partido Nacional and the PIR ( Radical Left).

The leadership of the Christian Democratic Party including former Chilean president Eduardo Frei, had given a green light to the Military. 

And continuity in the "Chilean Model" heralded as "economic success story" was ensured when, 16 years later, Patricio Aylwin was elected president of Chile in the so-called transition to democracy in 1989.

At the time of the September 11 coup, I was Visiting Professor of Economics at the Catholic University of Chile. In the hours following the bombing of the Presidential Palace of La Moneda, the new military rulers imposed a 72-hour curfew.

When the university reopened several days later, I started patching together the history of the coup from written notes. I had lived through the tragic events of September 11, 1973 as well as the failed June 29th coup. Several of my students at the Universidad Catolica had been arrested by the military Junta.

In the days following the military takeover,  I started going through piles of documents and newspaper clippings, which I had collected on a daily basis since my arrival in Chile in early 1973. Some of this material, however, was lost and destroyed in the days following the coup.

This unpublished article was written thirty years ago. It was drafted on an old typewriter in the weeks following September 11, 1973.

This original draft article plus two carbon copies were circulated among a few close friends and colleagues at the Catholic University. It was never published. For 30 years it lay in a box of documents at the bottom of a filing cabinet.

I have transcribed the text from the yellowed carbon copy draft. Apart from minor editing, I have made no changes to the original article.

The history of this period has since then been amply documented including the role of the Nixon administration and of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the plot to assassinate Allende and install a military regime.

Chicago Economics: Neoliberal Dress Rehearsal of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP)

The main objective of the US-supported military coup in Chile was ultimately to  impose the neoliberal economic agenda.  The latter, in the case of Chile, was not imposed by external creditors under the guidance of IMF. "Regime change" was enforced  through a covert military intelligence operation, which laid the groundwork for the military coup. Sweeping macro-economic reforms (including privatization, price liberalization and the freeze of wages) were implemented in early October 1973.

Barely a few weeks after the military takeover, the military Junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet ordered a hike in the price of bread from 11 to 40 escudos, a hefty overnight increase of 264%. This "economic shock treatment" had been designed by a group of economists called the "Chicago Boys."

While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen to ensure "economic stability and stave off inflationary pressures." From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty; in less than a year the price of bread in Chile increased thirty-six fold (3700%). Eighty-five percent of the Chilean population had been driven below the poverty line.

I completed my work on the "unpublished paper' entitled "The Ingredients of a Military Coup" (see text below) in late September.  In October and November, following the dramatic hikes in the price of food,  I drafted in Spanish an initial "technical" assessment of the Junta's deadly macro-economic reforms. Fearing censorship, I limited my analysis to the collapse of living standards in the wake of the Junta's reforms, resulting from the price hikes of food and fuel, without making any kind of political analysis.

The Economics Institute of the Catholic University was initially reluctant to publish the report. They sent it to the Military Junta prior to its release.

I left Chile for Peru  in December. The report was released as a working paper (200 copies) by the Catholic University a few days before my departure. In Peru, where I joined the Economics Department of the Catholic University of Peru, I was able to write up a more detailed study of the Junta's neoliberal reforms and its ideological underpinnings. This study was was published in 1975 in English and Spanish.

Needless to say, the events of September 11 1973 also marked me profoundly in my work as an economist. Through the tampering of prices, wages and interest rates, people's lives had been destroyed; an entire national economy had been destabilized. Macro-economic reform was neither "neutral" --as claimed by the academic mainstream-- nor separate from the broader process of social and political transformation.

I also started to understand the role of military-intelligence operations in support of what is usually described as a process of "economic restructuring". In my earlier writings on the Chilean military Junta, I looked upon the so-called "free market" reform as a well-organized instrument of "economic repression."

Two years later, I returned to Latin America as a visiting professor at the National University of Cordoba in the northern industrial heartland of Argentina. My stay coincided with the 1976 military coup d'État. Tens of thousands of people were arrested; the "Desaparecidos" were assassinated. The military takeover in Argentina was "a carbon copy" of the CIA-led coup in Chile. And behind the massacres and human rights violations, "free market" reforms had also been prescribed, this time under the supervision of Argentina's New York creditors.

The IMF's deadly economic prescriptions under the "structural adjustment program" had not yet been officially launched. The experience of Chile and Argentina under the "Chicago boys" was "a dress rehearsal" of things to come.

In due course, the economic bullets of the free market system were hitting country after country. Since the onslaught of the debt crisis of the 1980s, the same IMF economic medicine has routinely been applied in more than 150 developing countries. From my earlier work in Chile, Argentina and Peru, I started to investigate the global impacts of these reforms. Relentlessly feeding on poverty and economic dislocation, a New World Order was taking shape. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky,The Globalisation of Poverty and the New World Order, Second Edition, Global Outlook, Shanty Bay, 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/GofP.html )

 

Michel Chossudovsky,

Terrasse-Vaudreuil, Quebec, 11 September 2003

---

 The Ingredients of a Military Coup

 

 

Original 1973 draft: click to enlarge

 

 

 

 

The transition to a right-wing military regime in Chile on September 11 [1973] has resulted after a lengthy and drawn-out process of economic boycott, subversion within the Armed Forces and political opposition to Allende's Popular unity government.

In October 1970, General René Schneider was assassinated in a plot of the ultra-right together with seditious elements of the Armed Forces led by General Roberto Viaux. The assassination of General Schneider was part of a coordinated plan to prevent Parliament from ratifying Allende's victory in the September 1970 presidential elections.

Last year's [1972] October strike which paralyzed the economy for over a month, was organized by the gremios (employers' organizations together with opposition labor and self employed organizations), the Partido Nacional and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad. Some sectors of the Christian Democratic Party were also involved.

The October Strike had initially been planned for September 1972. "Plan Septiembre"  was apparently postponed due to the sudden dismissal of General Alfredo Canales from the Armed Forces. Canales together with Air Force General Herrera Latoja had earlier been in touch with Miguel Ubilla Torrealba of the nationalist front Patria y Libertad. Ubilla Torrealba was said to have been closely connected to the CIA. Despite General Canales premature retirement from the Armed Forces, Plan Septiembre was implemented in October beginning with a transport strike. The Right was hoping that those elements of the Armed forces, which had been inspired by General Canales would intervene against Allende. The October "Patronal" strike (employers and self-employed) failed due to the support of the Armed Forces headed by General Carlos Prats, who had integrated Allende's cabinet as Minister of the Interior.

The June Failed Coup

On June 29, 1973, Coronal Roberto Souper led his tank division in an isolated attack on La Moneda, the Presidential Palace, in the hope that other units of the armed forces would join in. The June coup had initially been planned for the morning of September 27 by Patria y Libertad as well as by several high ranking military officers. The plans were found out by Military Intelligence and the coup was called off at 6pm on the 26th. A warrant for the arrest of Coronal Souper had been issued. Confronted with knowledge of his impending arrest, Colonel Souper in consultation with the officers under his command, decided to act in a most improvised fashion. At 9 am, amidst morning rush hour traffic, Tank Division Number Two drove down Bernardo O'Higgins, Santiago's main down-town avenue towards the Presidential Palace.

While the aborted June Coup had the appearance of an insolated and uncoordinated initiative, there was evidence of considerable support in various sectors of the Navy as well as from Air Force General Gustovo Leigh, now [September 1973] member of the military junta [on 11 September General Leigh integrated the military Junta headed by General Pinochet]. According to well-informed sources, several high ranking officers in the aero-naval base of Quintero near Valparaiso had proposed the bombing of State enterprises controlled by militant left wing groups, as well as the setting up of an air corridor to transport navy troops. The latter were slated to join up with the forces of Colonel Souper in Santiago.

The June trial coup was «useful» indicating to the seditious elements within the Chilean Armed Forces that an isolated and uncoordinated effort would fail. After June 29, the right-wing elements in the Navy and the Air Force were involved in a process of consolidation aimed at gaining political support among officers and sub-officers. The Army, however, was still under the control of Commander in Chief General Carols Prats, who had previously integrated Allende's cabinet and who was a firm supporter of constitutional government. Meanwhile in the political arena, the Christian Democrats were pressuring Allende to bring in members of the Military into the Cabinet as well as significantly revise the programme and platform of the Unidad Popular. Party leaders of the government coalition considered this alternative [proposed by the Christian democrats] as a « legalized military coup» (golpe legal) and advised Allende to turn it down. Carlos Altamirano, leader of the Socialist Party had demanded that an endorsement of the programme of the Popular Unity coalition by the military be a sina qua non condition for their entry into the Cabinet. Upon the impossibility of bringing in the Military into the Cabinet on acceptable terms, Allende envisaged the formation of a so-called "Cabinet of Consolidation" composed of well known personalities. Fernando Castillo, rector of the Catholic University and a member of the Christian Democratic Party, Felipe Herrera, President of the Inter-|American Development Bank and other prominent personalities were approached but declined.

"The Dialogue"

Pressured by economic deadlock and the transport strike, inflation of more than 15 percent per month and mounting political opposition, Allende sought in the course of July [1973] to resume the political dialogue with the Christian Democratic Party.  After the March [1973] parliamentary elections, Patricio Aylwin had replaced Renan Fuentealba [May 1973] as leader of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC). Fuentealba, who represented the progressive wing of the Christian Democratic (PDC), was known to be in favor of a rapprochement with Allende. In other words, this rightward shift and hardening of the Christian Democrats in relation to the Unidad Popular, contributed to reinforcing their tacit alliance with the ring wing National Party. This alliance was initially intended as an electoral pact in the March [1973] parliamentary elections in which the Unidad Popular obtained 43 percent of the popular vote.

The Dialogue between Allende and Alwyin was a failure. Aylwin stated :

"I have no trust in the democratic loyalty of the Marxist parties because they do not believe in Democracy. They have an inherent totalitarian conception. We are convinced that the democratic path will not solve the underlying economic problems…"

The Communist Party Senator and prominent intellectual Volodia Teitelbaum response was:

"The Christian Democrats are not that innocent. Basically they are in favor of a coup d'Etat because it constitutes a means to conveniently obtaining political power. The Christian Democrats have moved to the Right. They are not interested a Dialogue which implies a consolidation of revolutionary changes"

While the Right was becoming more cohesive, a political split of the Left was imminent. The Communist Part sided with Allende's constitutional strategy while a section of the Socialist Party (Allende's own Party) led by Carlos Altamirano and the MAPU (Movimiento de Accion Popular Unitaria -initially a group of Christian Democrats which joined the Unidad Popular in 1969) led by Oscar Garreton, signified their distrust in "bourgeois legality" and the constitutional process and moved increasingly closer to the leftist revolutionary front Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR). MIR maintained ideological and strategic relations with Cuban revolutionary groups as well as with the Bolivian and Uruguayan Tupamaros. While endorsing many features the programme of the Unidad Popular, the MIR rejected Allende's "Chilean Road to Socialism" :

"We must create popular power (poder popular) based on the industrial belts (cordones industriales)" .

The cordones industriales were organized and politicized labor groups. Together with MAPU, MIR was in the process of developing the Grupos de Accion Urbana (Urban Action Groups), with the task of educating and preparing the masses for armed resistance in the case of a military coup.

Purges in the Armed Forces

In August [1973], the Armed forces initiated a series of violent search and arrests directed against the MIR and state enterprises integrated by the industrial belts (cordones industriales). These searches were conducted in accordance with the Fire Arms control Act, adopted by [the Chilean] Congress after the October [1992 employers] strike and which empowered the Armed Forces [bypassing the civilian police authorities] to implement (by Military Law) the control of fire arms. [The objective of this measure was to confiscate automatic weapons in the members of the industrial belts and curb armed resistance by civilians to a military coup]. Meanwhile, right-wing elements in the Navy and Air Force were involved in actively eliminating Allende supporters by a well organized operation of anti-government propaganda, purges and torture. On August 7 [1973], the Navy announced that a "subversive left wing group" integrated by MIR had been found out. Meanwhile, according to reliable sources, a seditious plan of the Right with the intent to bring down Allende's government, using the Navy to control the entry of supplies into the country, had been discovered. Sailors and officers [within the Navy], who knew about these plans, were tortured and beaten.

The Role of the Political Right

[In August 1973], high ranking military officers and members of Patria y Libertad, met with Senator Bulnes Sanfuentes of the National Party. Admiral Merino now [September 1973] a member of the Junta participated in meetings with members of National Party, senators of the Christian Democratic Party and staff of the US embassy. In fact towards mid-August [1973], In FACT, towards mid-August, a motion declaring US ambassador Nathaniel Davis as persona non grata was drafted by a parliamentary committee of the Unidad Popular. Furthermore, the Armed Forces were colluding with the Ultra-Right by setting up a so-called Base operacional de Fuerzas especiales (BOFE) (Operational Base of Special Forces). BOFE units were integrated by member of the nationalist front Patria y Libertad.

BOFE units were paramilitary divisions receiving material and financial support from the Armed forces. They were intended to undertake subversive and terrorist activities, which the Armed Forces could not openly undertake. BOFE was responsible for the many bomb attacks on pipelines, bridges and electric installations in the months preceding the military coup of September 11 [1973].

General Prats' Resignation from the Armed Forces

On August 9, Allende reorganized his cabinet and brought in the three joint chiefs of staff, Carlos Prats (Army), Cesar Ruis Danyau (Air force) and Raul Montero (Navy) into a so-called "National Security Cabinet". Allende was only intent upon resolving the Transport Strike, which was paralyzing the country's economy, he was anxious to gain whatever support was left within the Armed Forces.

The situation was not ripe for a military coup as long as General Carol Prats was member of the cabinet, commander in Chief of the Army and Chairman of the Council of Generals. Towards mid-August, the armed forces pressured Allende and demanded Prats' resignation and retirement " due to basic disagreements between Prats and the Council of Generals". Allende made a final attempt to retain |Prats and invited General Prats, Pinochet (now [September 1973] head of the Military Junta), Bonilla now Minister of the Interior), and others for dinner at his private residence. Prats resigned officially on August 23, both from the Cabinet and from the Armed Forces: "I did not want to be a factor which would threaten institutional discipline.. or serve as a pretext to those who want to overthrow the constitutional government"

The Generals' Secret Meeting

With General Carlos Prats out of the way, the road was clear for a consolidated action by the Army, Navy and Air Force. Prats successor General Augusto Pinochet convened the Council of 24 generals in a secret meeting on August 28. The purpose and discussion of this meeting were not made public. In all likelihood, it was instrumental in the planning of the September 11 military coup. The reshuffle of Allende's National Security Cabinet took place on the same day (28 August). It resulted after drawn out discussions with party leaders of the Unidad Popular coalition, and in particular with Socialist Party leader Carlos Altamirano.

The following day, August 29, Altamirano in a major policy speech made the following statement:

"We hope that our Armed Forces have not abandoned their historical tradition, the Schneider Doctrine … and that they could follow a course leading to the installation of a reactionary Brazilian style [military] dictatorship … We are convinced that our armed forces are not prepared to be instrumental in the restoration of the privileges of the financial and industrial elites and landed aristocracy. We are convinced that if the Right wing golpe (coup) were to succeed, Chile would become a new Vietnam."

On the weekend preceding the military coup, leaders of the National Party and Christian Democratic Party made major political statements, declaring Allende's government illegal and unconstitutional. Sergio Onofre Jarpa of the National Party declared:

"After the Marxist downfall, the rebirth of Chile! … We will continue our struggle until we see out of office those who failed to fulfill their obligations. From this struggle, a new solidarity and a new institutional framework (institucionalidad) will emerge."

A few days later, the Presidential Palace was bombed and Allende was assassinated. The rebirth of Chile, and a new institutional framework had emerged.

 

Michel Chossudovsky

Santiago de Chile, September 1973

---

Selected References on the Role of Henry Kissinger in the 1973 military coup

Articles

Christopher Hitchens, The Case against Henry Kissinger, Harpers Magazine, February 2001,  http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1809_302/69839383/p1/article.jhtml?term=kissinger

Henry Kissinger, US Involved in 1970 Chilean Plot, AP, 9 Sept 2001,  http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2001/0909cbskiss.htm

Kissinger May Face Extradition to Chile, Guardian,  June 12, 2002, http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/wanted/2002/0614kiss.htm

Marcus Gee, Is Henry Kissinger a War Criminal? Globe and Mail, 11 June 2002,  http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0611-03.htm

Jonathan Franklin, Kissinger may face extradition to Chile, Guardian, 12 June 2002,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/pinochet/Story/0,11993,735920,00.html

Kissinger's Back...As 9/11 Truth-Seeker, The Nation, 2003, http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=176

Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

30th anniversary of Chile coup; Calls for justice, scrutiny of United States role, Santiago. 11 Sep 2003, http://www.newsahead.com/NewWNF/ChileCoup.htm

USA Regrets Role in Chile's September 11 Tragedy: US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, admitted Washington's participation in Chile coup of 1973, Pravda, 17 March 2003, http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/9766_chile.html     [this statement was made barely a week after the military occupation of Iraq by US and British troops.]

Larry Rohter, NYT, 13 Feb 2000, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDallende.htm

Websites

ICAI, Kissinger Watch, http://www.icai-online.org/45365,45370.html

The Kissinger Page, Third World Traveler, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/HKissinger.html

Wanted for War Crimes, http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html

Remember Chile.org,  http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/

War Crimes Bio of Augusto Pinochet http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.htm

Chile Information Project -- "Santiago Times" http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/chip/h98/chip.19981116.html

 

Salvador Allende and Patricio Aylwin

Carta de Salvador Allende al presidente del Partido Demócrata Cristiano, señor Patricio Aylwin, publicada el día 23 de agosto de 1973
en el diario La Nación de Santiago. http://www.salvador-allende.cl/Textos/Documentos/cartaAylwin.pdf

Andrés Zaldívar, presidente del Senado: "Allende no divide a la Concertación", Mercurio, 13 August 2003 http://www.mercuriovalpo.cl/site/apg/reportajes/pags/20030831030907.html

Salvador Allende Archive http://www.salvador-allende.cl/

Michel Chossudovsky's Writings on the Chilean Military Junta's Economic Reforms

Capital Accumulation in Chile and Latin America", Yale University Lecture Series on Post-Allende Chile, North South, Canadian Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. IV, vol. XIII, no. 23, 1978, also published in Economic and Political Weekly. 

"Acumulación de Capital en Chile", Comercio Exterior, vol. 28, no. 2, 1978 (Spanish version of above article)

"Chicago Economics, Chilean Style", Monthly Review, vol. 26, no. 11, 1975, in Spanish in a book published in Lima, Peru,

"Hacia el Nuevo Modelo Economico Chileno, Inflación y Redistribución del Ingreso, 1973-1974", Cuadernos de CISEPA, no. 19, Catholic University of Peru, 1974, Trimestre Economico, no. 166, 1975, 311-347.

"The Neo-Liberal Model and the Mechanisms of Economic Repression: The Chilean Case", Co-existence, vol. 12, no. 1, 1975, 34-57.

La Medición del Ingreso Minimo de Subsistencia y la Politica de Ingresos para 1974, documento de trabajo no. 19, Institute of Economics, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, 1973, p. 37. (Initial  text on the economic reforms of the Chilean Military Junta published in December 1973)

---

 © Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, CRG 2003  For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .

Amy Goodman talks with ARUNDHATI ROY ~25May06

http://website.lineone.net/~jon.simmons/roy/tgost4.htm

The Title

"To me the god of small things is the inversion of God. God's a big thing and God's in control. The god of small things...whether it's the way the children see things or whether it's the insect life in the book, or the fish or the stars - there is a not accepting of what we think of as adult boundaries. This small activity that goes on is the under life of the book. All sorts of boundaries are transgressed upon. At the end of the first chapter I say little events and ordinary things are just smashed and reconstituted, imbued with new meaning to become the bleached bones of the story. It's a story that examines things very closely but also from a very, very distant point, almost from geological time and you look at it and see a pattern there. A pattern...of how in these small events and in these small lives the world intrudes. And because of this, because of people being unprotected.. the world and the social machine intrudes into the smallest, deepest core of their being and changes their life."

"This novel didn't have a title until the very last minute. I didn't know what to call it, there were lots of ideas and suggestions but I just remember printing out the manuscript and just printing out the title at the last minute.

"One of the chapters was called The God of Small Things, I don't know how that happened, I just remember Ammu's dream, who was the one armed man, the God of loss, the God of Small Things? When I read the book now I can't believe the amount of references there are to small things, but it was absolutely not the case that I started with the title and built the novel around it. At the last stage they knew they had to put their faith in fragility and stick to the small things, and I just can't believe how appropriate the title is."

Emotional texture

"My fiction is an inextricable mix of experience and imagination."

"The book is a very sad book and somehow the sadness is what stays with me. It took five years to write and I keep finding myself making an effort to be happy. A lot of people ask is it autobiographical ? It's a very difficult question to answer because I think all fiction does spring from your experience, but it is also the melding of the imagination and your experience. It is the emotional texture of the book and the feelings which are real."

"Even though I think of myself as a writer, I can't write unless it comes from within. I couldn't write a column for instance. Even if somebody came to me and said 'Here's five million pounds for writing a screenplay based on this theme' I would probably say no. So I couldn't be a writer for hire."

Method

"People keep asking me why I don't practice architecture and I think, what do you think this is? This is exactly that. It's really like designing a book for me."

"The only way I can explain how I wrote it was the way an architect designs a building. You know, it wasn't as if I started at the beginning and ended at the end. I would start somewhere and I'd color in a bit and then I would deeply stretch back and then stretch forward. It was like designing an intricately balanced structure and when it was finished it was finished. There were no drafts. But that doesn't mean I just sat and spouted it out. It took a long time."

"When I write, I never re-write a sentence because for me my thought and my writing are one thing. It's like breathing, I don't re-breathe a breath... Arranging the bones of the story took time, but it was never painful. Everything I have - my intellect, my experience, my feelings have been used. If someone doesn't like it, it is like saying they don't like my gall bladder. I can't do anything about it."

"Only about two pages were rewritten. I don't rewrite. It was just a lot of arranging."

"As a very young child my mother gave me a book called Free Writing and we were encouraged to write fearlessly. The first coherent sentence I ever wrote, which is actually in this book, was written when I was five. It was about an Australian missionary who taught me. Every day she would say, 'I can see Satan in your eyes.' So, the first sentence I ever wrote was: 'I hate Miss Mitten and I think her knickers are torn.'"

Language

"Language is a very reflexive thing for me. I don't know the rules, so I don't know if I've broken them."

"There are more people in India that speak English than there are in England. And the only common language that we have throughout India is English. And it's odd that English is a language that, for somebody like me, is a choice that is made for me before I'm old enough to choose. It is the only language that you can speak if you want to get a good job or you want to go to a university. All the big newspapers are in English. And then every one of us will speak at least two or three - I speak three - languages. And when we communicate - let's say I'm with a group of friends - our conversation is completely anarchic because it's in any language that you choose."

"For me, the way words and paragraphs fall on the page matters as well - the graphic design of the language. That was why the words and thoughts of Estha and Rahel were so playful on the page... Words were broken apart, and then sometimes fused together. "Later" became "Lay. Ter." "An owl" became "A Nowl". "Sour metal smell" became "sourmetalsmell".

"Repetition I love, and used because it made me feel safe. Repeated words and phrases have a rocking feeling, like a lullaby. They help take away the shock of the plot ."

	Arundhati Roy: Back In the U.S.A.             http://www.alternet.org/story/36643/ Democracy Now!. Posted May 25, 2006. Author/activist Arundhati Roy discusses President Bush's embarrassing trip to India, the war in Iraq, and why she avoids America. 44 COMMENTS
	2nd half: AG: President Bush in Chicago. Arundhati Roy from India here in New York, your response? AR: Well, you know, how can one respond? I just keep wishing there would be a laugh track, you know, on the side of these speeches. But obviously, you know, the elections in Palestine, where you had a democratic government, now Palestine is being starved because they have a democracy, under siege because they have a democracy. But in Iraq, this fake business is called democracy. Forget about what's happening in Saudi Arabia. So it's just -- you know, I think the issue is that people like President Bush and his advisors, or what's happening in India, the Indian government, they have understood that you can use the media to say anything from minute to minute. It doesn't matter what's really going on. It doesn't matter what happened in the past. There are a few people who make the connections and fall about laughing at the nonsense that is being spoken. But for everybody else, I think the media itself, this mass media has become a means of telling the most unbelievable lies or making the most unbelievable statements. And everybody sort of just imbibes it. It's like a drug, you know, that you put straight into your veins. It doesn't matter. And it keeps going. But what can you say? What kind of democracy is this in Iraq? AG: What do you think has to happen in Iraq? AR: I think that the first thing that has to happen is that the American army should leave. That has to happen. I have no doubt about that. Similarly, I mean, I keep saying this, but, you know, America, Israel and India, and China in Tibet, are now becoming experts in occupation, and India is one of the leading experts. It's not that the American army in its training exercise is teaching the Indian army. The Indians are teaching the Americans, too, how to occupy a place. What do you do with the media? How do you deal with it? The occupation of Kashmir has taken place over years. And I keep saying that in Iraq, you have 125,000 or so American troops in a situation of war, controlling 25 million Iraqis. In Kashmir, you have 700,000 Indian troops fully armed there -- you know? -- and creating a situation, making it worse and worse and worse. So the first thing that has to happen is that the army has to come out, you know? AG: I remember when you were last here, you were headed off to an interview with Charlie Rose. And so I looked to see you on Charlie Rose, and I waited and I waited, and I never saw you. What happened? AR: Oh, it was interesting. He -- well, when the interview began, I realized that the plan was to do this really aggressive interview with me, and so the first question he asked was, "Tell me, Arundhati, do you think that India should have nuclear weapons?" So I said, "I don't think India should have nuclear weapons. I don't think the U.S. should have nuclear weapons. I don't think Israel should have nuclear weapons. I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons. It's something that I have written a lot about." He said, "I asked you whether India should have nuclear weapons." So I said, "Well, I don't think India should have nuclear weapons. I don't think the U.S. should have nuclear weapons. I don't think Israel should have nuclear weapons." Then he said, "Will you answer my question? Should India have nuclear weapons?" So I said, "I don't think India should have nuclear weapons. I don't think the U.S. should have nuclear weapons. I don't think Israel should have nuclear weapons." And I asked him, I said, "What is this about? Why are you being so aggressive? I have answered the question, you know, clearly. And I think I made my position extremely clear. I'm not some strategic thinker. I'm telling you what I believe." So after that it just sort of collapsed into vague questions about world poverty and so on, and it was never shown. I mean, I wouldn't have shown it if I were him either, but -- because it was, you know, I don't know, treating me like I'm some kind of politician or something. AG: Has he invited you back on in this new trip that you have had? AR: No more, no, no. I don't think. AG: Have you found that through your celebrity, through your writing, that you're invited into forums, into various places where when you talk about what you think, you're then shut down? AR: No. I think what happens is that -- well, I don't come to, you know, the U.S. that often, and like, for instance, this time I came to do an event with Eduardo Galeano, but I really wasn't -- I didn't want to do any -- except for this, I made it clear that I didn't want to be working on this trip, because I want to think about some things. But I think it's the opposite problem that I have. I think that there are many ways of shutting people down, and one is to increase the burners on this celebrity thing until you become so celebrity that all you are is celebrity. For example, I'll give you a wonderful example of how it works, say, in India. I was at a meeting in Delhi a few months ago, the Association of Parents for Disappeared People. Now, women had come down from Kashmir. There are 10,000 or so disappeared people in Kashmir, which nobody talks about in the mainstream media at all. Here were these women whose mothers or brothers or sons or husbands had -- I'm sorry, not mothers, but whatever -- all these people who were speaking of their personal experiences, and there were other speakers, and there was me. And the next day in this more-or-less rightwing paper called Indian Express, there was a big picture of me, really close so that you couldn't see the context. You couldn't see who had organized the meeting or what it was about, nothing. And underneath it said, "Arundhati Roy at the International Day of the Disappeared." So, you have the news, but it says nothing, you know? That's the kind of thing that can happen. Actually, I'm somebody who is invited to mainstream forums, and I'm not shunned out. You know, I can say what I have to say. But the point is, Amy, that there is a delicate line between just being so far -- you know, just being so isolated that you become the spokesperson for everything, and this kind of person that it suits them to have one person who's saying something and listen to it and ignore what is being said, and I don't want to move so far away from everybody else, that if you want to listen to me, then why don't you listen to so and so? Why don't you speak to so and so? Why don't you get some other voices, because otherwise it sounds like you're this lone brave, amazing person, which is unpolitical. AG: I'm just looking at a KMS newswire story -- that's Kashmir Media Service -- May 23, just after you spoke here in New York. It says, "A human rights activist and prominent Indian writer, Arundhati Roy, has said India is not a democratic state. The 1997 Booker winner, Arundhati Roy, addressing a book-reading function in New York, said India is not a democratic society." Can you talk about that idea? AR: Well, I do think that we are really suffering a crisis of democracy, you know? And the simplest way I can explain it is that in 2004, when the general elections took place in India, we were reeling from five years of rightwing communal BJP politics, the rightwing Hindu party. AG: Would you make any parallels to political parties in the United States? AR: Very, very much so. I mean, it was very similar to the Republicans versus the Democrats, and in fact -- AG: The Congress Party being the Democrats. AR: The Congress Party being the Democrats, and the Republicans being the rightwing Hindu BJP. And, of course, in a country -- like in America, their politics, apart from affecting Americans to a great deal, also affects the rest of the world. But in India, India not being a world power, however much it wants to claim it is, turns those energies on its own people. So in Gujarat, you had in 2002 this mass killing of Muslims on the streets, a bloodbath where people were burnt alive, women were raped on the streets, dismembered, killed in full public view. What happened after that, there were elections, and the man who engineered all this won the elections. So you're thinking, "Is it better to have a fascist dictator or a fascist Democrat who has the approbation of all these people?" Continues to be in power in Gujarat. Nothing has happened. It's a Nazi type of society, where hundreds of thousands of people are still economically boycotted Muslims, something like 100,000 driven from their homes. Police won't register cases. One or two important cases are looked at by the Supreme Court, but the mass of it is still completely unresolved. That's the situation, anyway, and while you're orchestrating this communal killing, you're also selling off to Enron and to all these private companies, and so on the one hand you're talking about Indian-ness and all this, and this nationalism in this absurd way, and on the other, you're just selling it off in bulk. But during the elections, all of us were waiting with bated breath to see what would happen. And when the Congress came to power, supported by the left parties from the outside, obviously we allowed ourselves a huge gasp of relief, you know, walked on our hands in front of the TV for a bit. But the Congress campaigned against the neoliberal policies that it had brought in, actually. But before even we knew whether Sonia Gandhi was going to be the prime minister or what was going to happen, there was an orchestrated drop in the stock market. The media's own stocks began to drop. The cameras that had been in all these villages, saying look at this wonderful democracy, and the camels and the bullock carts and everyone that's coming to vote was outside the stock market now. And before the government was formed, both from the left and from the Congress, spokesmen had to come out and say, "We will not dismantle this neoliberal regime." And today we have a prime minister who has not been elected. He is a technocrat who has been nominated. He is part of the Washington Consensus. AG: I want to ask in our last 30 seconds: the role you see of the artist in a time of war? AR: Well, I think the problem is that artists are not a homogenous lot of people, and some of them are as rightwing and establishment as they can get, you know, so the role of the artist is not different from the role of any human being. You pick your side, and then you fight, you know? But in a country like India, I'm not seeing that many radical positions taken by writers or poets or artists, you know? It's all the seduction of the market that has shut them up like a good medieval beheading never could. AG: And what do you think artists should do? AR: Exactly what anyone else should do, which is to pick your side, take your position, and then go for it, you know?
	Editor's Note: This is an edited transcript of an interview with Arundhati Roy, from Amy Goodman's syndicated radio show, Democracy Now! Amy Goodman: Today, we spend the hour with acclaimed author and activist Arundhati Roy. Her first novel, The God of Small Things, was awarded the Booker Prize in 1997. Since then, Roy has devoted herself to political writing and activism. In India, she is involved in the movement opposing hydroelectric dam projects that have displaced thousands of people. In 2002, she was convicted of contempt of court in New Delhi for accusing the court of attempting to silence protest against the Narmada Dam project. She received a symbolic one-day prison sentence. She has also been a vocal opponent of the Indian government's nuclear weapons program, as she is of all nuclear programs around the world. Arundhati Roy has also become known across the globe for her powerful political essays. In June of 2005, she served as chair of the Jury of Conscience at the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul. AG:What does it feel to be back in the United States? A different perspective on the world from here. AR: Well, I think the last time I was here was just before the elections, you know, when we were hoping that Bush wouldn't come back. But the point was that whoever came back seemed to have been supporting the war in Iraq in some way, so there was a crisis of democracy here, as much as anywhere else in the world. It's, I think, you know, when you don't come to the United States often, from the outside, the most important thing is that it's easy to forget. It's easy for us to forget that there is dissent within this country against the system that its government stands for. And it's important and heartening for me to remind myself of that, because outside there is so much anger against America, and obviously, you know, that confusion between people and governments exists, and it was enhanced when Bush was voted back to power. People started saying, "Is there a difference?" AG: Well, of course, the way you see America and Americans outside the United States is through the media... Which channels do you access in India? What do you get to see? And what do you think of how the media deals with these issues? AR: Well, in India, I think you get FOX News and CNN and, of course, the BBC. But also a lot of newspapers in India do publish American columnists, famously Thomas Friedman. And, of course, recently George Bush visited India, which was a humiliating and very funny episode at the same time, you know, what happened to him there and how he came and how the media reacted. AG: I want to get your reaction to that visit, and actually play a clip of President Bush when he went to India in March. He promised to increase economic integration with the U.S. and signed an agreement to foster nuclear cooperation between the two countries: President George W. Bush: We concluded an historic agreement today on nuclear power. It's not an easy job for the Prime Minister to achieve this agreement. I understand. It's not easy for the American president to achieve this agreement, but it's a necessary agreement. It's one that will help both our peoples. AR: Well, the strange thing was that before he came, they wanted him to address a joint house of Parliament, but some members of Parliament said that they would heckle him and that it would be embarrassing for him to come there. So then they thought they would ask him to address a public meeting at the Red Fort, which is in Old Delhi, which is where the Prime Minister of India always gives his independence day speech from, but that was considered unsafe, because Old Delhi is full of Muslims, and you know how they think of all Muslims as terrorists. So then they thought, "Okay, we'll do it in Vigyan Bhawan, which is a sort of state auditorium, but that was considered too much of a comedown for the U.S. President. So funnily enough, they eventually settled on him speaking in Purana Qila, which is the Old Fort, which houses the Delhi zoo. And it was really from there that -- and, of course, it wasn't a public meeting. It was the caged animals and some caged CEOs that he addressed. And then he went to Hyderabad, and I think he met a buffalo there, some special kind of buffalo, because there is a picture of Bush and the buffalo in all the papers, but the point is that, insulated from the public. There were massive demonstrations, where hundreds of thousands of people showed up. But it didn't seem to matter either to Bush or to the Indian government, which went ahead and signed, you know, deals where this kind of embrace between a poorer country or a developing country and America. We have such a litany of the history of incineration when you embrace the government of the United States. And that's what happened, that the Indian government, in full servile mode, has entered into this embrace, has negotiated itself into a corner, and now continues to do this deadly sort of dance. But I must say that while Bush was in Delhi, at the same time on the streets were -- I mean apart from the protests, there were 60 widows that had come from Kerala, which is the south of India, which is where I come from, and they had come to Delhi because they were 60 out of the tens of thousands of widows of farmers who have committed suicide, because they have been encircled by debt. And this is a fact that is simply not reported, partly because there are no official figures, partly because the Indian government quibbles about what constitutes suicide and what is a farmer. If a man commits suicide, but the land is in his old father's name, he doesn't count. If it's a woman, she doesn't count, because women can't be farmers. AG: So she counts as someone who committed suicide, but not as a farmer who committed suicide. AR: Exactly. AG: Tens of thousands? AR: Tens of thousands. And then, anyway, so these 60 women were there on the street asking the Indian government to write off the debts of their husbands, right? Across the street from them, in a five-star hotel were Bush's 16 sniffer dogs who were staying in this five-star hotel, and we were all told that you can't call them dogs, because they are actually officers of the American Army, you know. I don't know what the names were. Sergeant Pepper and Corporal Whatever. So, it wasn't even possible to be satirical or write black comedy, because it was all real. AG: Didn't President Bush visit Gandhi's grave? AR: He visited Gandhi's grave, and first his dogs visited Gandhi's grave. Then, you know, Gandhians were, like, wanting to purify it. And I said, "Look, I don't mind the dogs. I mind Bush much [more] than the dogs." But Gandhi's -- you know, obviously one can have all kinds of opinions about Gandhi. It's not universal that everybody adores and loves him, but still he stood for nonviolence, and here it was really the equivalent of a butcher coming and tipping a pot of blood on that memorial and going away. It was -- you know, there was no room left, as I said, for satire or for anything, because it was so vulgar, the whole of it. But I have to say the Indian mainstream media was so servile. You know, you had a newspaper like the Indian Express saying, "He is here, and he has spoken." I'm sure he doesn't get worshipped that much even by the American mainstream press, you know. It was extraordinary. AG: Let me play another clip of President Bush. I think in this one he's talking about trade in India: President Bush: The markets are open, and the poor are given a chance to develop their talents and abilities. They can create a better life for their families. They add to the wealth of the world, and they could begin to afford goods and services from other nations. Free and fair trade is good for India. It's good for America. And it is good for the world. In my country, some focus only on one aspect of our trade relationship with India: outsourcing. It's true that some Americans have lost jobs when their companies move operations overseas. It's also important to remember that when someone loses a job, it's an incredibly difficult period for the worker and their families. Some people believe the answer to this problem is to wall off our economy from the world through protectionist policies. I strongly disagree. AG: President Bush speaking in India. Arundhati Roy, your response? AR: Well, look, let's not forget that this whole call to the free market started in the late 19th century in India. You know, that was what colonialism was all about. They kept using the words "free market."I mean, after 15 years of economic liberalization, we have more than half of the world's malnutritioned children. We have an economy where the differences between the rich and the poor, which have always been huge, has increased enormously. We have a feudal society whose feudalism And we know how free the free market is. Today, India has -- has just been reinforced by all of this. And, you know, it's amazing. Just in the wake of Bush's visit, you can't imagine what's happening, say, in a city like Delhi. You can't imagine the open aggression of institutions of our democracy. It's really like courts, for instance, who are an old enemy of mine, are rolling up their sleeves and coming after us. You have in Delhi, for example -- I have just come from being on the streets for six weeks, where all kinds of protest are taking place. But you have a city that's been just -- it's just turned into a city of bulldozers and policemen. Overnight, notices go up saying tomorrow or day after tomorrow you're going to be evicted from here. The Supreme Court judges have come out saying things like, "If the poor can't afford to live in the city, why do they come here?" And basically, behind it all, there are two facades. One is that in 2008, Delhi is going to host the Commonwealth Games. For this, hundreds of thousands of people are being driven out of the city. But the real agenda came in the wake of Bush's visit, which is that the city is being prepared for foreign direct investment in retail, which means Wal-Mart and Kmart and all these people are going to come in, which means that this city of millions of pavement dwellers, hawkers, fruit sellers, people who have -- it's a city that's grown up over centuries and centuries. It's just being cleaned out under the guise of sort of legal action. And at the same time, people from villages are being driven out of their villages, because of the corporatization of agriculture, because of these big development projects. So you have an institution like -- you know, I mean, how do you subvert democracy? We have a parliament, sure. We have elections, sure. But we have a supreme court now that micromanages our lives. It takes every decision: What should be in history books? Should this lamb be cured? Should this road be widened? What gas should we use? Every single decision is now taken by a court. You can't criticize the court. If you do, you will go to jail, like I did. So, you have judges who are -- you have to read those judgments to believe it, you know? Public interest litigation has become a weapon that judges use against us. So, for example, a former chief justice of India, he gave a decision allowing the Narmada Dam to be built, where 400,000 people will be displaced. The same judge gave a judgment saying slum dwellers are pickpockets of urban land. So you displace people from the villages; they come into the cities; you call them pickpockets. He gave a judgment shutting down all kinds of informal industry in Delhi. Than he gave a judgment asking for all India's rivers to be linked, which is a Stalinist scheme beyond imagination, where millions of people will be displaced. And when he retired, he joined Coca-Cola. You know, it's incredible. AG:Thomas Friedman, the well-known, much-read New York Times columnist and author, talks about the call center being a perfect symbol of globalization in a very positive sense. AR: Yes, it is the perfect symbol, I think, in many ways. I wish Friedman would spend some time working in one. But I think it's a very interesting issue, the call center, because, you know, let's not get into the psychosis that takes place inside a call center, the fact that you have people working, you know, according to a different body clock and all that and the languages and the fact that you have to de-identify yourself. AG: And just for people who aren't familiar with what we're talking about, the call center being places where, well, you might make a call to information or to some corporation, you actually are making that call to India, and someone in a call center is picking it up. AR: But, you know, the thing is that it's a good example of what's going on. The call center is surely creating jobs for a whole lot of people in India. But it comes as part of a package, and that package, while it gives sort of an English-speaking middle or lower middle class young person a job for a while, they can never last, because it's such a hard job. It actually is also part of the corporate culture, which is taking away land and resources and water from millions of rural people. But you're giving the more vocal and the better off anyway -- the people who speak even a little bit of English are the better off among the millions of people in India. So, to give these people jobs, you're taking away the livelihoods of millions of others, and this is what globalization does. It creates -- obviously it creates a very vocal constituency that supports it, among the elite of poor countries. And so you have in India an elite, an upper caste, upper class wealthy elite who are fiercely loyal to the neoliberal program. And that's exactly, obviously, what colonialism has always done, and it's exactly what happened in countries in Latin America. But now it's happening in India, and the rhetoric of democracies in place, because they have learned how to hollow out democracy and make it lose meaning. All it means, it seems, is elections, where whoever you vote for, they are going to do the same thing. AG: You mentioned the dams, and a judge just in the last week has ruled that one of the major dam projects is allowed to continue. Just physically on the ground, what does it mean, and who are the people who are resisting, and what do they do? AR: I mean, that actually is something that reached fever pitch in the last few weeks in India, because, you know, the movement against dams is actually a very beautiful political argument, because it combines environmental issues, issues of water, of resources and of displacement, with a political vision for a new kind of society. No political ideology, classic political ideology has really done that properly. Either it's only environmental or it's only about people. Here somehow, that's why I got so drawn into it. But this struggle was against the notion of big dams, and it's been a nonviolent struggle for 25 years. But now, the dams are still being built, and the argument has been reduced merely to displacement. And even there, the courts are now saying you build a dam and just give people cash and send them off. But the fact is that these are indigenous people. You know, you can't just give -- lots of them are indigenous people. The others are farmers. But you can't -- the levels of displacement are so huge. This dam, the Sardar Sarovar dam displaces 400,000, but just in the Narmada Valley you're talking about millions of people. All over India, you're talking about many millions who are being displaced. So where are they going to go? Well, the court came out with a judgment [which] with marked a different era in India, where they even stopped pretending that they were interested in resettlement or rehabilitation. They just said, "Build the dam." So it's very interesting that people were watching this nonviolent movement unfold its weapons on the streets, which is the activists who went on indefinite hunger strike. People paid attention, but then they got kicked in the teeth. Meanwhile, across India, from West Bengal to Orissa, to Jharkhand, to Chhattisgarh, to Andhra Pradesh, the Maoist movement has become very, very strong. It's an armed struggle. It's taking over district after district. The administration cannot get in there. And the government's response to that is to do what was done in Peru with the Shining Path, which is to set up armed defense committees, which is really creating a situation of civil war. You know, hundreds of villages are being emptied by the government, and the people are being moved into police camps. People are being armed. The Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh says, "You're either with the Maoists and Naxalites or you're with the Salva Judum," which is this government-sponsored resistance, and there's no third choice. So it's you're with us or against us. And what has happened, which is something I have been saying for a long time, that this whole war on terror and the legislation that has come up around it is going to conflate terrorists with poor people. And that's what's happened. In India, in January -- I don't know if you've read about it, but it was a terrible thing that happened -- in Orissa, which is a state where all these corporations have their greedy eyes fixed, because they have just discovered huge deposits of bauxite, which you need to make aluminum, which you need to make weapons and planes. AG: And where is Orissa in India? AR: Orissa is sort of east, southeast. And it's got a huge indigenous population. If you go there, it's like a police state. You know, the police have surrounded villages. You can't move from one -- villagers are not allowed to move from one village to another to organize, because, of course, there's a lot of resistance. The Maoists have come in. And in Orissa in a place called Kalinganagar, where the Tata, which used to be a sort of respected industrialist, but now I can't say, are setting up a steel factory. So they, the government, took over the lands of indigenous people. The trick is that you only say about 20% of them are project-affected. The rest are all encroachers. Even these 20% are given -- their land is taken from them at, say, 35,000 rupees an acre, given to the Tatas for three-and-a-half lakhs, you know, which is ten times that amount. And the actual market price is four times that amount. So you steal from the poor; you subsidize the rich; then you call it the "free market." And when they protested, there was dynamite, you know, in the ground. Some of them were blown up, killed. Six of them, I think, were injured, taken to hospital, and their bodies were returned with their hands and breasts and things cut off. And those people have been blocking the highway now for six months, the indigenous people, because it became a big issue in India. But it's been happening everywhere, and they are all called terrorists. You know, people with bows and arrows are called terrorists. So, in India, the poor are the terrorists, and even states like Andhra Pradesh, we have thousands of people being held as political prisoners, called Maoists, held as political prisoners in unknown places without charges or with false charges. We have the highest number of custodial deaths in the world. And we have Thomas Friedman going on and on about how this is an idealistic -- ideal society, a tolerant society. Hundreds -- I mean, tens of thousands of people killed in Kashmir. All over the northeast, you have the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, where a junior noncommissioned officer can shoot at sight. And that is the democracy in which we live. AG: And the Maoists, what are their demands? AR: Well, the Maoists are fighting on two fronts. One is that they are fighting a feudal society, their feudal landlords. You have, you know, the whole caste system which is arranged against the indigenous people and the Dalits, who are the untouchable caste. And they are fighting against this whole corporatization. But they are also very poor people, you know, barefoot with old rusty weapons. And, you know, what we -- say someone like myself, watching what is happening in Kashmir, where -- or in the northeast, where exactly what America is doing in Iraq, you know, where you're fostering a kind of civil war and then saying, "Oh, if we pull out, these people just will massacre each other." But the longer you stay, the more you're enforcing these tribal differences and creating a resistance, which obviously, on the one hand, someone like me does support; on the other hand, you support the resistance, but you may not support the vision that they are fighting for. And I keep saying, you know, I'm doomed to fight on the side of people that have no space for me in their social imagination, and I would probably be the first person that was strung up if they won. But the point is that they are the ones that are resisting on the ground, and they have to be supported, because what is happening is unbelievable. AG: Speaking of Iraq, let me play a clip of President Bush in Chicago Monday, where he addressed a gathering organized by the National Restaurant Association. In his remarks, the President talked about Iraq, which has just formed a new unity government: President Bush: For most Iraqis, a free democratic and constitutional government will be a new experience. For the people across the broader Middle East, a free Iraq will be an inspiration. Iraqis have done more than form a government. They have proved that the desire for liberty in the heart of the Middle East is for real. They have shown diverse people can come together and work out their differences and find a way forward, and they have demonstrated that democracy is the hope of the Middle East and the destiny of all mankind. The triumph of liberty in Iraq is part of a long and familiar story. The great biographer of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote, "Freedom is ordinarily born in the midst of storms. It is established painfully among civil discords, and only when it is old can one know its benefits." Years from now, people will look back on the formation of a unity government in Iraq as a decisive moment in the story of liberty, a moment when freedom gained a firm foothold in the Middle East and the forces of terror began their long retreat. AG: President Bush in Chicago. Arundhati Roy from India here in New York, your response?

ubject(s): Bigotry, Faith, First Amendment Religion, Founders of America, Religion, Religion as Govt Policy, Religion Church-State Theocracy, Religion Fundamentalism    
Local Area(s): South Carolina, United States of America

September 15, 2006 at 23:52:39 Christian America? Think Again by Timothy Gatto http://www.opednews.com

I have had a number of conversations with people about the separation of church and state since moving to South Carolina. I suspect that the notions I have heard expressed are not endemic to this state only, I believe that some of the opinions that I have heard go beyond this state's borders. The statements that people have made to me are so outrageous and so offbeat as to seem ludicrous. I talked it over with some people I know well, and have found out that what I thought was an accepted part of our country's heritage and political standard, is not. I have found to my chagrin, my views seem to be in the minority in this day and age, and frankly, it scares the hell out of me.

When I was in my formative years, it was taught in school (American History) that the pilgrims came to this country to escape religious persecution. I remember the puritans settled in Massachusetts and the New England area to better practice their beliefs. Throughout our early colonization, different religious groups came to America to escape the Church of England. The memories of the persecution they suffered while in England were passed down to generations of colonists until we finally separated from Great Britain and formed our own Union.

When The Continental Congress was convened to put together a new government in an experiment unprecedented in modern history to that time, it mulled over the question of religion and government. I may be wrong, but I was taught that the Continental Congress decided that religion was a personal issue, and that everyone was entitled to believe, or to not believe in a spiritual power, or God as some prefer, and that the state was not to interfere with those beliefs. They called it freedom of worship, or freedom of religion. At the same time, and in almost the same context, because of the myriad beliefs that people held, even in those times, our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, also decided there should be a separation of church and state. Precisely because different people have different beliefs, the inclusion of religion in the political life of our country, would indubitably lead to differences of opinions and along with the very nature of politics, lead to such a difference of opinion, that the best way to reach a consensus between people of differing faiths, was to take religion out of the political equation; thus the separation of church and state.

Could you imagine the confusion in the House of Representatives if every bill introduced had to pass scrutiny of every representative's religion? True, at times members of the House and the Senate will let their religious views dictate the way they vote, but rarely will you hear a lawmaker use a tenant of their particular religion be used as a way to endorse or oppose a bill. Think of it this way; a bill comes before the House proposing that all businesses should close on Sunday because it says in the Ten Commandments to keep the Sabbath holy. The people of the Jewish faith have a problem. Their religion says that Saturday, not Sunday is the Sabbath. Many shoppers would have a problem with that because the only day they get off work is Sunday. The list would go on and on. Here's another example; Catholics, Lutherans and other Christian religions want Good Friday to be a National Holiday. Now here come the Jewish Americans, the Muslim Americans, The Hindu Americans, The Buddhist Americans and a host of other religous people demanding that their holidays be observed also. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, correct? I could sit here and write thousands of pages of why our founding fathers wanted to separate church and state, but the main reason, and here it is; because of the way people were persecuted in "merry old England" that caused them to emigrate to America in the first place. Our nation's founders did not want to emulate the government that they were seceding from. It makes sense too. This separation of church and state has worked well for our nation, enabling America to become a haven for people of all religions. This is one of the foremost reasons why America has become the greatest nation on the planet.

This is what I have tried to tell my fundamentalist Christian friends in South Carolina. They tell me that their pastors have told them that this is not what our founding fathers meant by separation of church and state, that they really wanted the United States to become a "Christian" nation, and that God should be the centerpiece of this nation. I disagree. I will probably make many enemies by saying this, but I feel that our constitution was not designed to make the United States a "Christian" nation, but rather a nation where any person may believe as they see fit. It's called religious freedom; it is not an evil thing, quite the opposite. This is precisely what makes this country so great. It also allows Americans to be who they are. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, Mormon, whatever, we are all Americans, no matter what our religious beliefs.

 

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com

Chairman, Liberal Party of America. Retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

 

-----------

Great article, Tim, and here's my 2¢ worth. I really irritate people when I say this here in Montana. Try this:
(Before, I said 'google.' Since the news yesterday that google is finalizing a dastardly plan, I'll never say "do google" again.) I just did it on a web search, but I'm certain other sites carry the info.
Type,in the search bar, "Founding Fathers, and religion."
Our Founding Fathers were nearly all Deists.
Makes the "right-on" religious angry when you point out that the USA was probably not intended to be secular. This is the opposite of what that lady in Florida, who stole the 1st bush presidency claims. But it's the truth. It's freedom of religion, not faith based.

by pattyaitch (0 articles, 45 comments) on Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 11:41:29 AM

---

Christian America

Mr. Gatto, a very good article and very close to the point. After one thousand years of Roman Catholic dictorship (500-1500) and two hundred years of religious wars after the Reformation (1500-1700), with Roman Catholics killing Lutherans, Presbyterians and Congregationalist killing Anabaptist, Puritans and Church of England killing each other in one religious war after another, Jefferson, Madison, Baptist and Quakers banned together to make sure there was no connection between government and religion. If you wish to read the Baptist position on Church and State, just Google in Roger Williams or Rhode Island; read Roger Williams' Colony Charter and the Rhode Island State Constitution based on that charter.

I am a full time Southern Baptist minister and have been for forty-four years. It breaks my heart to see us make a complete reversal of our Separation of Church and State position. This reversal began in 1980. Southern Baptist have drank at the fountain of Jerry Falwell (Fundalmental/Independent Baptist), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), James Kennedy (Presbyterian), Ralph Reed, Pat Robinson (who says he is a Baptist but is really a Pentecostal). The right wing has used the abortion issue to throw the whole Southern Baptist Convention in becoming a caucus of the Repulican Party. Abortion has little to do with it if the truth were known. As in all things political, "Follow the MONEY." Money is like the strings of controlling the puppet. God up the string far enough. You will find the power that moves the Relgious Right Wing. It is no wonder that Pat Robinson is worth 100 million dollars, a real imitation of Christ. Is it not? NOT.

My hope is eternal that the Convention will eventually decide to return to be the protector of "the poor, the fatherless, the widow, and the helpless (no representation in law)."
Thanks,
Phil Ratliff, pastor

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 37 comments) on Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 3:28:57 PM

Israelis Hold Keys to NSA and U.S. Government Computers *PIC*

Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, 15 June 2006, 11:39 p.m.

CRITICAL U.S. GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY COMPUTER
NETWORKS USING ISRAELI "SECURITY" SOFTWARE

Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press

The most critical computer and communication networks used by the U.S. government and military are secured by encryption software written by an Israeli "code breaker" tied to an Israeli state-run scientific institution.

The National Security Agency (NSA), the U.S. intelligence agency with the mandate to protect government and military computer networks and provide secure communications for all branches of the U.S. government uses security software written by an Israeli code breaker whose home office is located at the Weizmann Institute in Israel.

A Bedford, Massachusetts-based company called RSA Security, Inc. issued a press release on March 28, 2006, which revealed that the NSA would be using its security software:

"U.S. Department of Defense Agency Selects RSA Security Encryption Software" was the headline of the company's press release which announced that the National Security Agency had selected its encryption software to be used in the agency's "classified communications project."

RSA stands for the names of the founders of the company: Ronald L. Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard M. Adleman. Adi Shamir, the lead theoretician, is an Israeli citizen and a professor at the Weizmann Institute, a scientific institution tied to the Israeli defense establishment.

"My main area of research is cryptography – making and breaking codes," Shamir's webpage at the Weizmann Institute says. "It is motivated by the explosive growth of computer networks and wireless communication. Without cryptographic protection, confidential information can be exposed to eavesdroppers, modified by hackers, or forged by criminals."

The NSA/Central Security Service defines itself as America’s cryptologic organization, which "coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. government information systems and produce foreign signals intelligence information."

The fact that the federal intelligence agency responsible for protecting the most critical computer systems and communications networks used by all branches of the U.S. government and military is using Israeli-made encryption software should come as no surprise. The RSA press release is just the icing on the cake; the keys to the most critical computer networks in the United States have long been held in Israeli hands.

AFP inquired with the NSA about its use of Israeli-made security software for classified communications projects and asked why such outsourcing was not seen as a national security threat. Why is "America’s cryptologic organization" using Israeli encryption codes?

NSA spokesman Ken White said that the agency is "researching" the matter and would respond in the coming week.

American Free Press has previously revealed that scores of "security software" companies – spawned and funded by the Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence agency – have proliferated in the United States. The "security" software products of many of these usually short-lived Israeli-run companies have been integrated into the computer products which are provided to the U.S. government by leading suppliers such as Unisys.

Unisys integrated Israeli security software, provided by the Israel-based Check Point Software Technologies and Eurekify, into its own software, so that Israeli software, written by Mossad-linked companies, now "secures" the most sensitive computers in the U.S. government and commercial sector.

The Mossad-spawned computer security firms typically have a main office based in the U.S. while their research and development is done in Israel. The Mossad start-up firms usually have short lives before they are acquired for exaggerated sums of money by a larger company, enriching their Israeli owners in the process and integrating the Israeli directors and their Mossad-produced software into the parent company.

RSA, for example, an older security software company, acquired an Israeli-run security software company, named Cyota, at the end of 2005 for $145 million.

In January 2005, Cyota, "the leading provider of online security and anti-fraud solutions for financial institutions" had announced that "security expert" Amit Yoran, had joined the company's board of directors. Prior to becoming a director at Cyota, Yoran, a 34-year old Israeli, had already been the national "Cyber Czar," having served as director of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cyber Security Division.

Yoran had been appointed "Cyber Czar" at age 32 by President George W. Bush in September 2003.

Before joining DHS, Yoran had been vice president for worldwide managed security services at Symantec. Prior to that, he had been the founder, president and CEO of Riptech, Inc., an information security management and monitoring firm, which Symantec acquired in 2002 for $145 million.

Yoran and his brother Naftali Elad Yoran are graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at Westpoint. Elad graduated in 1991 and Amit in 1993. Along with their brother Dov, the Yoran brothers are key players in the security software market. Amit has also held critical positions in the U.S. government overseeing computer security for the very systems that apparently failed on 9/11.

Before founding Riptech in 1998, Yoran directed the vulnerability-assessment program within the computer emergency response team at the US Department of Defense. Yoran previously served as an officer in the United States Air Force as the Director of Vulnerability Programs for the Department of Defense's Computer Emergency Response Team and in support of the Assistant Secretary of Defense's Office.

In June 2005, Yoran joined the board of directors of Guardium, Inc., another Mossad-spawned "provider of database security solutions" based in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Guardium is linked with Ptech, an apparent Mossad "cut out" computer security company linked with the 9/11 attacks.

Ptech, a computer software company in Quincy, Mass., was supposedly a small start-up company founded by a Lebanese Muslim and funded by a Saudi millionaire. Yet Ptech's clients included all the key federal governmental agencies, including the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Naval Air Command, Congress, the Department of Energy, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, NATO, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service and even the White House.

The marketing manager at Ptech, Inc. when the company started in the mid-1990s, however, was not a Muslim or an Arab, but an American Jewish lawyer named Michael S. Goff who had suddenly quit his law firm for no apparent reason and joined the Arab-run start-up company.

Goff was the company's information systems manager and had single-handedly managed the company's marketing and "all procurement" of software, systems and peripherals. He also trained the employees. Goff was obviously the key person at Ptech.

In the wake of 9/11, during the Citizens' Commission hearings in New York, Indira Singh, a consultant who had worked on a Defense Advanced Research Project, pointed to Ptech and MITRE Corp. being involved in computer "interoperability issues" between the FAA and NORAD. At this time Ptech's ties to Arabs was the focus, and Goff was out of the picture.

"Ptech was with MITRE Corporation in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11," Singh said. "Their specific job is to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency. If anyone was in a position to know that the FAA – that there was a window of opportunity or to insert software or to change anything – it would have been Ptech along with MITRE."

The Mossad-run Guardium company is linked with Ptech through Goff Communications, the Holliston, Mass.-based public relations firm previously run by Michael S. Goff and his wife Marcia, which represents Guardium. Since being exposed in AFP in 2005, however, Michael's name no longer appears on the company website.

Photo: Amit Yoran, the Israeli "Cyber Security Czar" appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003. Yoran has held various positions since the 1990s in which he oversaw computer security for the Dept. of Defense computers.

Although he and his brother reportedly grew up in Pound Ridge, New York during the 1970s and 1980s, the heads of the Jewish community told AFP that they had never heard of him. One said that she had conducted a survey of the Jews living in the small village of Pound Ridge in the 1970s and she would have remembered if a wealthy Israeli family named Yoran had been found.

Why did the locals in Pound Ridge NOT remember the Yorans?

Probably because they were NOT in Pound Ridge - but in Israel. The Pound Ridge address was used to give the appearance that the Yorans were Americans. I spoke with Elad and he has a distinctive Israeli accent - not what you would expect for a guy who grew up in a posh Yankee village.

So who are the Yorans? Who are their parents and why did they come to the United States? To raise a couple high-level moles to infiltrate the most sensitive U.S. computer networks? How could they have lived for 20 years in Pound Ridge and NOT be remembered.

It ain't PENTA-LAWN! Wow!  Did you see reports of that untidy business jet crash in New Jersey on Feb. 2nd '05?

Teterboro airport had instant press and, luckily, lots of nosy photographers taking shots of what seems to be a real life plane crash. Not like the weird but sanitary 'object' that slammed into the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. Thanks to the Penta-Lawn, the fortress of American armed might had an ultra clean landscape.

The Teterboro crash was typically untidy!

All about the scene were bashed in brick wall where the wings hit big round hole in the building, bigger than the plane body nearby cars damaged sheared off wings remained on the site the plane body and tail remained intact a tree near the wreck was burned the gate on the way to the place the plane stopped was crashed through the lawn on the way to the place the plane stopped had deep skid marks gashed in it the snow, grass, asphalt and everything nearby disturbed (to say the least) and some of it burnt Be your own detective! Check these Pentagon 2001 photo resources - Penta-Lawn 2000! Rense.com l   l   l   l   l   l Check these Teterboro 2005 photo resources - Yahoo News slideshow photo of plane in the wall - by Shannon Stapleton for The New York Times New York Times' slideshow

---

July 31, 2000   http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst073100.htm   [wHx ms

The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police

The House of Representatives recently approved a massive appropriations bill that will fund various Treasury Department agencies at record spending levels. The bill appropriates nearly 30 billion dollars, an increase over last year's already huge Treasury budget. More disturbing, however, is the whopping 23% increase in funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) contained in the Treasury bill.

ATF gets more than $730 million dollars for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $166 million over its 2000 budget. Why the increase? The administration wants the agency to hire 600 new federal police officers to enforce ever-expanding gun laws. Never mind the obvious failures of gun control legislation and the clear Second Amendment prohibition against such laws. The politicians in Washington are determined to slowly abolish gun rights, and they are determined to use federal police to accomplish the task.

The American public gradually has become aware of the disturbing trend toward federal policing of our nation. Many Americans do not support ATF, especially after the disastrous events at Waco. I was widely attacked in the media and by members of Congress for questioning the government's actions at Waco, and for merely suggesting that many Americans were concerned by the possibility of federal agents taking violent action against American citizens. Now we have Congress spending more money to increase the budget for ATF, despite its highly questionable actions and the resulting public mistrust of the agency.

It is important to recognize that our federal constitution lists only three federal crimes, namely counterfeiting, treason, and piracy on the high seas. The founding fathers never envisioned a federal police force, knowing that such a force would trample on the right of each state to enact and enforce its own criminal laws. Hence there is no provision for the creation of a general federal police force in the enumeration of congressional powers. Furthermore, the 10th amendment explicitly reserves the general police power to the states individually. Washington politicians, however, have no interest in constitutional limitations when they seek to expand and consolidate their power by federalizing whole areas of criminal activity. They have consistently expanded federal criminal laws, particularly in the areas of drugs and firearms. The result of this expansion is the inevitable call for more federal police to enforce the new laws. We are told we need more ATF agents to monitor firearms, and more DEA agents to wage the "war on drugs." Congress is not concerned with its lack of constitutional authority to create, much less expand a national police force.

Washington politicians have successfully used recent excessive-force allegations against local police to further their goals. It is convenient to portray local police as violent or racist, and therefore in need of federal oversight and restraint. The question, however, is whether we should trust a federal police force more than we trust our own local authorities. I believe there is a growing recognition that our founding fathers were correct when they prohibited federal government involvement in law enforcement. In Waco, Americans had a vivid ex

The Illuminati and the Counsel on Foreign Relations,
by Myron C. Fagan

Below are the notorious transcript and mp3 audio files titled, "The Illuminati and the Counsel on Foreign Relations" by MYRON C. FAGAN. His dissertation was written and recorded sometime in the 1960's. Obviously the assassinations which took place in the 60's on JFK, his brother Robert, Martin Luther King and also Malcolm X made Fagan publish his knowledge. I first listened to this some time after the Sep 11, 2001 WTC attacks. As time has passed by and i read many more pages on this subject, the more astounding Myron Fagan's audio lecture becomes. After reading/listening you will discover many more important leads, which all seem to have become hard fact and reality. It gives an excellent overview and introduction.

The transcript has now been corrected from a couple of rather disturbing misspellings. A few examples : its of course Ingolstadt University, instead of Engelstad University where Adam Weishaupt was teaching. It was of course Alger Hiss instead of Alger Hess who was the founding Secretary General of the United Nations!

The most astounding correction is this sentence :

"Do you know that the U.N. Charter was written by traitor Alger Hess, Mulatoff, and Vyshinsky?"

which i corrected to:

"Do you know that the U.N. Charter was written by traitor Alger Hiss, Molotov [Vyacheslav Molotov], and Vyshinsky [Andrey Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky] ?"

Coincidence? Well read the transcript, maybe you can figure out more misspelled names :)

In other works its reveiled that "The Illuminati" is actually the secret organization from and by the black nobility bloodlines, who go way back to the old times of babylon, see also "The Curse of Canaan, A Demonology of History" and "The protocols are for real". Together with the Vatican militia called "The Jesuits" and its Jesuit General "The Black Pope" they rule our World. Watch the documentary "Who Controls The World" for some more details. Eric Jon Phelps wrote a frequently quoted reference work about this called "Vatican Assassins".

total 197676 -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant     2994320 Jan  9 05:07 fagan1.mp3 -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant     2909236 Jan  9 05:07 fagan2.mp3 -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant     2725678 Jan  9 05:07 fagan3.mp3 -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant     3187439 Jan  9 05:07 fagan4.mp3 -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant     3316138 Jan  9 05:07 fagan5.mp3 -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant     3278723 Jan  9 05:07 fagan6.mp3 -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant      139224 Jan 10 05:16 fagan.html -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant         483 Mar 31 21:15 MD5SUM -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant       22607 Jan  9 06:12 myronfaganbio.shtml -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant    57881427 Mar 31 21:12 VaticanAssassins.pdf -rw-r--r--    1 crashrec klant    125666116 Mar 31 20:09 WhoControlsTheWorldI.avi 

---

Issues concerning the Desire of a New World Order

"The Curse of Canaan, A Demonology of History"
"The protocols are for real"
"Benjamin Freedman warns America"
"The Illuminati and the Counsel on Foreign Relations"
"Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M."
"To Eliminate the Opiate"
"The NWO : a Tarnung by Teutonic Knights?"
"A pre Jesuit history"
Louis Madelin, "La Revolution"
"Report from IRON MOUNTAIN"
"The History of Mind Control"
"911 was a Mossad Operation"
"The Infowar Techniques of the Rendon Group: a possible theory "
"U.S. Patent No. 4,686,605 : H.A.A.R.P."
EU Software Patent Directive
"Susan Lindauer -- Reporter Held Political Prisoner"
"HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL."

Subject(s): Race, Sexism, Womens Issues    
Local Area(s): Arizona, Montana, Planet Earth The World, Washington

September 16, 2006 at 22:39:59 Why is "Girly-Man" acceptable, and "Macaca" not? by Bill Wetzel http://www.opednews.com

"She maybe is Puerto Rican or the same thing as Cuban. I mean they are all very hot. They have, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that, together, makes it." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


With those comments, Arnold has joined a growing list of Republican lawmakers who have recently made racially insensitive, if not downright racist comments. However, unlike George "Macaca" Allen and Conrad "Little Guatemalan Man" Burns, Schwarzenegger's comments have another disparaging tinge to them. One that is made even worse when you look at his own personal history.

You see, anybody can make a stupid comment. In fact, anybody can do a stupid thing or two. We all have. And, in today's media frenzied climate, a public figure is in constant danger of stepping on his tongue for almost any comment on any subject, however innocuous their intentions may be. It happens.

Although, the problem with Arnold is that he has one consistent running theme in his background. He has problems in dealing with women. His past is littered with unwelcome advances and misogynistic quotes. He has famously devalued women as a way of attacking men, because in his world associating femininity with masculinity (girly-men) is a horrible affliction.

Unfortunately, hardly anybody ever notices or cares about these issues.

Witness the reaction to his comments, which were made about a Republican female legislator, Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, who has condoned them. They almost exclusively were related to the RACIAL aspects of his comments and not the sexual objectification of women.

This makes me wonder if the problem is not so much Arnold Schwarzenegger as it is the position of women in society as whole. Because guys like Arnold would not have gotten a free pass for so long if we were not a society of like-minded enthusiasts and woeful enablers.

For one thing, men are practically raised as chauvinists. It is not only okay, it is ideal for us to sexual objectify women. From before we are even at a sexual age, we are bombarded with advertisements, pornography and entertainment, all with sexual overtones. Of course, sex is not only thrown at us, it is also somewhat taboo. Sex is portrayed as both pleasurable and dirty, so, by proxy, women are shed in this light as well. It dehumanizes women, and downplays their emotions. Women become little more than sperm receptacles, although at some point in time they are needed to cook, clean and bear children.

They live their lives as servants, in some way, shape or form, for men.

Our language is also filled with female denigration. In music, on television, in film and in our daily lives. Observe how terms associated with women are utilized to disparage men. Remember the "Girly-men" comment referenced earlier? Well, that type of negative confluence is commonplace in our vernacular. How many times have you heard a man/boy denigrate another by calling them a "pussy" or a "bitch?" How often is all of this considered a joke? Dismissed as one?

Too often.

As a Blackfeet Indian, I habitually study literature, history, film and pop culture from a certain perspective. Most accounts of American Indians, and other minorities, are viewed through a Eurocentric prism, meaning that the history and portrayals of people of skin color are recorded through the eyes of Europeans and European descendents. Women face a similar situation, in that their history and societal roles are perpetuated by a white male power structure. Furthermore, women are raised and educated within this hostile power structure. They have to see the gendering of discourse in all aspects of their lives.

Women live in a world where femininity is weak. Masculinity is strong. Where being sexist is laughed off as a joke. Where Senators can make stupid comments on race and get excoriated, but a known misogynist can make a sexist comment which is virtually invisible to the world.

Is the race aspect of what Schwarzenegger said important? Yes, it is. Partly because he is dumb enough to look at race from that point of view, the notion of racial characteristics, explicitly inherent in the "blood" of someone of skin color. But, it's more important to understand the sexuality of minority women. There is a white male fetish for the
"dirtiness" of a minority woman. They are dehumanized. Willing and unrapeable. Female promiscuity and skin color are conflated in the eyes of men. Hood rats. Ghetto booty. Border Banger. It all means minority women are lascivious, sexual creatures.

Amerigo Vespucci used to write about the New World, in order to encourage adventurous men to come and colonize this far off and foreign place. He portrayed indigenous women as uncontrollably lustful. Naked and animal-like. These women would defile and prostitute themselves at the opportunity to copulate with Christians. He specifically noted that while they were immodest and libidinous, they were still clean and beautiful. This is a typical male fantasy. The sexy, dirty, yet somehow clean and beautiful brown woman.

Do not think men are all that much different nowadays.

We aren't.

Unless we recognize this and quit ignoring the problem five hundred years from now we will still be in the same place.

 

http://www.myspace.com/billwetzel

Bill Wetzel is a Blackfeet Indian and a coauthor of the short story collection The Acorn Gathering: Writer's Uniting Against Cancer. He has written for the Arizona Daily Wildcat and Red Ink Magazine. His latest essay about Blackfeet Indian author James Welch will be in the Studies In American Indian Literature series.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

Corporatism: Death To America [shh! subversive truths] Rob Kall @OpEdNews.com

The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class -- And What We Can Do About It , Thom Hartmann talks about how tariffs were the primary source of income for the US. Primary!!!. But Reagan, Bush sr. and Clinton totally screwed us by joining the WTO and NAFTA and Dubya signed on the CAFTA-- all good for a few hundred transnational mega corporation, but lousy for US industry and throwing out a major source of income for the US. I say Dump these trade gifts to megacorporations and bring back tariffs. Charge the highest tariffs to the countries that we owe the most to and charge us the most interest on our debt-- and let them help us pay off our debt to them with tariffs.

Sure, we live in different times and there is a need to face the realities of a gobal economy. But that doesn't mean we should just bend over and allow our butts to be kicked and our native industries destroyed, or that we should allow rampant outsourcing of labor. Now, if a company outsources labor, they can report it as contract cost. They should have to report it as exported labor and pay duty on it. Then, they'll have no reason to outsource and we'll keep jobs here.

The temptation to outsource is great. I know. I've been guilty of it. Back in 1993, I travelled to Russia seeking programmers to hire for software development. The idea was to find people over there to do contract work for a tiny fraction of the cost of paying a programmer in the US, where programmers were making $60-$100,000 a year, or $60- $100 an hour.

I ended up bringing over a programmer from Siberia on an H1-b visa. He was making $200 a month in Russia. Now he drives a Mercedes, not because of me though. He went on to apply for a green card and left my employment as soon as he got it. Then HE started doing outsourcing.

When I was looking at doing outsourcing as a small businessman, my goal was to be more competitive, so my small business could earn enough to support my family. The guy I brought over never really worked out and the software project died on the vine, never making a penny, actually costing me tens of thousands of lost dollars. If I'd invested the money I spent on my Russian project in other, US-based projects, I may have come out way ahead.

Since then, I've found plenty of people in the US who will work for me at affordable rates. But times were different then. It may be that I can find programming help more affordably now because outsourcing has already hurt the US market.

The advocates of outsourcing say that they need to outsource to stay competitive. I don't buy it. If we use tariffs to even the costs, the outsourcing becomes unnecessary. If I know that when I send money overseas, or pay a contractor a flat fee, that I must report an explanation of that expense and pay a duty on it, why would I bother?

Signing on to treaties like WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA totally strips the US bare of protections. It subjects the US to rule by secret councils, literally. It is unnatural to exist without some kind of a "skin." I've written about the idea that every living entity must have a "skin" and even nations must have a kind of economic "membrane" that allows some products and services in, while keeping others selectively out.

Congress and a series of presidents have sold out the American economy and core, bedrock US industries by signing on to these globalist treaties. Yes, we need to deal with globalization. No, we should not just nakedly open our borders.

It is time to reinstate tariffs-- to look at them as protections for US jobs and industries and as a serious source of income. It's a way to pay down the debt without raising taxes. Truthfully, a price will be paid. Walmart loyalists will pay more for the cheap Chinese-made consumer goods they've been lining up at the trough to buy at bargain prices. The alternative will be to buy goods made by US workers who these predominantly right wing consumers have been screwing.

These consumers-- probably the same ones who scream for building a 700 mile border fence-- are happy to allow millions of tons of foreign goods to flood the border. The Zogby polling group routinely looks at who Walmart shoppers are. And the answer is, they are the most conservative voters. It's ironic that they would block foreign workers from coming into the US, but they are happy to buy the goods produced by foreign slave labor pay earning workers.

Globalist treaties like WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA are anti-democratic, forcing the US to obey rules that contradict democratically determined US laws and regulations. They subject the US to destruction of our industries. This is an issue that only the cheapest, most unpatriotic, disloyal Americans, who care nothing of their neighbors' jobs. I'm guessing these are the same leeching people who will do anything to pay their fair share of taxes to support the commons-- our shared costs for roads, quality education, law enforcement, a judicial system that supports robust business, open spaces and clean environments, regulations that protect humans from corporations, international diplomacy...

It's time to make the cancellation of these globalist treaties a major issue that candidates are judged upon. Any candidates who support them are either embarassingly ignorant (I've met them) or more loyal to big corporations than to the people who elect them.


Just as those on the right talk about "tax and spend liberals," we on the left should start talking about globalist corporation lovers who are bleeding the US to death and forcing us to raise taxes because we're bleeding to death because of corporate welfare.

It's time to start making tariffs a major part of US income. This could be a very powerful tool. How do you cut taxes? Create tariffs!! This is good for citizens, but bad for foreign owned corporations. It might even be a wedge issue that Republicans can't endorse. Of course there will be a fair share of Democrats who are owned by corporations who won't support it either.

Those who say we live in global times requiring global policies are telling half the truth when they advocate policies that eviscerate US industries. It's time to call them on their distortions and take back the USA's economic power, which was given away by the signers of these onerous treaties overdue for cancellation.

Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, The art, science and power of story, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.

: Corporatism, Corp Personhood, Globalization, Outsourcing, Tariffs