Saturday, December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 31, 2011

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.


December 31, 2011.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Bailing Out European Banks: Bernanke and Fed Deceived Congress

Kurt Nimmo
December 29, 2011

Earlier this month, Federal Reserve boss Ben Bernanke told senators the cartel has no intention of bailing out European banks. Bernanke told lawmakers that “he doesn’t have the intention or the authority” to bail out countries or banks.

Former Fed official Gerald O’Driscoll says Federal Reserve is covertly bailing out Europe.

Now we learn that the Fed is indeed in the business of bailing out European banks. It is secretly using a “temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap arrangement” with the ECB and the central banks of Canada, England, Switzerland and Japan.

“The Fed’s latest actions in cooperating with foreign central banks to undertake liquidity swaps of dollars for foreign currencies is another reason why Congress needs enhanced power to oversee and audit the Fed,” writes Ron Paul. “Under current law Congress cannot examine these types of agreements. Those who would argue that auditing the Fed or these agreements with central banks harms the Fed’s independence should reevaluate the Fed’s supposed independence when the Fed bails out Europe so soon after President Obama promised US assistance in resolving the Euro crisis.”

The Fed has a reputation for secrecy. Bloomberg News sued the cartel to obtain information on its emergency programs during the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis. Bloomberg, however, excluded foreign-currency liquidity swaps because names of commercial banks that borrowed under the program were disclosed to the public.

The latest action by the Fed reveals that fiat money created out of thin air is the problem. “Fiat money caused this European crisis and the financial crisis before it. More fiat money is not the cure. The global fiat currency system has proven itself a failure, we need real monetary reform. We need sound money,” Ron Paul concludes.

Bernanke refuses to tell the American people where the money went:

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Friday, December 16, 2011

‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Heads To Obama’s Desk As White House Drops Veto Threat

Establishment media and neo-cons still pretend NDAA doesn’t apply to American citizens

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, December 14, 2011

UPDATE: Obama has dropped his threat to veto the bill and is now expected to sign it into law. Remember – it was Obama’s White House that demanded the law apply to U.S. citizens in the first place.

The bill which would codify into law the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens is about to be passed and sent to Obama’s desk to be signed into law, even as some news outlets still erroneously report that the legislation does not apply to U.S. citizens.

“The House on Wednesday afternoon approved the rule for the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), setting up an hour of debate and a vote in the House later this afternoon,” reports the Hill.

Mainstream news outlets like The Hill, as well as neo-con blogs like Red State, are still pretending the indefinite detention provision doesn’t apply to American citizens, even though three of the bill’s primary sponsors, Senator Carl Levin, Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham, said it does during speeches on the Senate floor.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

As Levin said last week, it was the White House itself that demanded Section 1031 apply to American citizens.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Senator McCain also told Rand Paul during a hearing on the bill that American citizens could be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely, “no matter who they are.”

Quite how those still in denial could even entertain the notion that the bill would not apply to American citizens when the Obama administration is already enforcing a policy of state assassination and killing American citizens it claims are “terrorists,” without having to present any evidence or go through any legal process, is beyond naive.

With the White House having largely resolved its concerns with the bill, which had nothing to do with the ‘indefinite detention’ provision, Obama could put pen to paper as early as tomorrow on a law that if recognized will nullify the bill of rights – ironically tomorrow is “Bill of Rights Day”.

RELATED: The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

Friday, December 02, 2011

‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Passes Senate 93-7

Americans completely stripped of all rights under Section 1031

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, December 2, 2011

The Senate last night codified into law the power of the U.S. military to indefinitely detain an American citizen with no charge, no trial and no oversight whatsoever with the passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

One amendment that would have specifically blocked the measures from being used against U.S. citizens was voted down and the final bill was passed 93-7.

Another amendment introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein that attempted to bar the provision from being used on American soil, an effort to ensure “the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists,” also failed, although Feinstein voted in favor of the bill anyway.

Feinstein was able to include a largely symbolic amendment which states that “nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens,” but this measure is meaningless according to Republican Congressman Justin Amash, a fierce critic of the bill.

“Some have asserted that Sen. Feinstein’s amendment, S Amdt 1456, protects the rights of American citizens and preserves constitutional due process. Unfortunately, it does not. It’s just more cleverly worded nonsense,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

Though the White House has threatened to veto the bill, the fact that Obama administration lawyers yesterday reaffirmed their backing for state sponsored assassination of U.S. citizens would suggest otherwise. Not voting for the bill, or in other words upholding the oath to protect the Constitution, has been described over and over again as “political suicide”.

“The bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial,” said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

As Spencer Ackerman highlights, the bill completely violates the sixth amendment in that it allows American citizens to be locked up indefinitely, including in a foreign detention center, without any burden of proof whatsoever. An American merely has to be declared a terrorist and they can be abducted off the streets and never seen again.

“The detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority,” writes Ackerman.

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Monday, November 21, 2011

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Gorightly and His Go Go Dancers Done Gone Apache!

Get r Done!!

Raving and Drooling

Uploaded by on Nov 8, 2011

Sunday, November 06, 2011

SMiles Lewis at the Austin Center for Spiritual Living 10/25/2011: UFOs and Consciousness

Uploaded by on Nov 2, 2011

INACS (Institute for Neuroscience And Consciousness Study) and the Anomaly Archives present:
Exploring UFOs and Consciousness with SMiles Lewis
Austin, Texas -- Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

What can we learn about UFOs from studying such diverse arenas of consciousness exploration as shamanism and drugs like DMT? What about Carl Jung's collective unconscious and parapsychology? What about near death and out of body experiences? What have human agencies (governmental, corporate, aboriginal and esoteric) discovered about the UFO phenomenon's effects on consciousness? Has humanity interacted with Alien Others throughout history? Could we be communicating with CryptoTerrestrials or a Gaian Mind? What do we really know about these diverse and exceptional experiences and those who've had them? Come discover the fantastic facts about UFOs, Altered States of Consciousness, and Mind-at-Large!

Video by:
Floyd Anderson

Audio by:
Robert Price

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Welcome to the Occupation

Uploaded by on Nov 3, 2011

Uploaded by on Oct 23, 2011

Uploaded by on Oct 18, 2011

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Prince Charles Admits He's Related to Dracula

Uploaded by on Oct 27, 2011

Blue bloods: Prince Charles joins campaign to save Transylvania's forests - because of his family connections to 'Count Dracula'

By Damien Gayle
Mail Online
October 27, 2011

Prince Charles is campaigning to save the forests of Transylvania, inspired by his ancestral links to Vlad the Impaler, the 15th century nobleman better known by his patronym, Dracula.

Rapid economic growth in Romania - which is now part of the EU - means that the forests of the Carpathian Mountains are under threat from development and logging.

The Prince is calling for the forests, some of the last untouched wilderness areas in Europe, to be protected before they are lost, like the woodland that once covered Britain.

He claims a family connection to the area through Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, who earned the sobriquet Vlad the Impaler thanks to his favoured method of torture and execution.

The 15th century nobleman, notorious for his bloodthirsty campaigns against the Ottomans and fierce repression of his people, is a distant ancestor of Charles's great-grandmother, Queen Mary.

The total number of his victims is estimated in the tens of thousands, many killed by being impaled on huge metal stakes.

His reputation for cruelty is said to have helped inspire Bram Stoker's diabolical villain, Count Dracula.


Is There A Connection Between Reptilians and Vampires?

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Magical Egypt - Episode 1: The Invisible Science

Uploaded by on Apr 5, 2011

The Falling Pawns on the Illuminati Chessboard

By David Icke
October 21, 2011

The little boy in short trousers and school cap who claims to be US president says that the demise of the man who took Libya from one of the poorest countries in the world to the highest standard of living in Africa is a ‘momentous day’ for Libyans as they survey the mass death and destruction in their country wreaked by their NATO ‘liberators’ (new colonialists).

Gadaffi was no ‘angel’, but what will follow will be far worse. It already is.

No words suffice to describe this man who is so dark of eye and dark of soul.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Federal Reserve Banks are Not Federal Buildings

Uploaded by on Oct 9, 2011

Isn't it incredible?
Federal Reserve Banks are not federal.

Uploaded by on Jul 22, 2010

The Federal Reserve is an independent agency and that means basically that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take."
-Alan Greenspan

Monday, October 17, 2011

PsiOp TV by Mack White: Occupy Austin Day One 10/6/11

Uploaded by on Oct 7, 2011

Occupy Austin begins in a celebratory mood with music, flower power, teach-ins, and activists from across the political spectrum. Police Chief Art Acevedo and Fire Chief Rhoda Mae Kerr pay a friendly visit. Radio host Jack Blood and other activists are interviewed on the challenges ahead.

Anomaly Television Presents: Robert Larson Interviewing Mack White & Robert Sterling 10/13/2011 – Occupy Wall Street Movement

Uploaded by on Oct 14, 2011

Anomaly Television Presents: Out the Rabbit Hole with Robert Larson – Interview with Mack White & Robert Sterling Discussing Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Austin, The Left-Right Paradigm, Fascism in America, and more…

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

The Joe Rogan Experience with Graham Hancock, Podast #142

Uploaded by on Oct 5, 2011

WeAreChangeOklahoma - Occupy The FED 10/7/2011 at the Dallas Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank

Uploaded by on Oct 9, 2011

Alex Jones urges supporters to take to the streets outside branches of the private Federal Reserve bank at locations across the country-- not just to protest, but to "occupy" the source of real monetary tyranny in the U.S. The intent is to focus media attention not just on vague calls to 'reform' capitalism but to attempt to reign in the shadow banking cartel itself. The corruption of Wall Street is but a symptom of this unaccountable entity that holds a grip over finance, politics and freedom everywhere.

Thursday, October 06, 2011

UFO Hypotheses - Alex Collier Volume Four

Uploaded by on Aug 30, 2011

In the fourteenth DVD of the UFO Hypotheses series, made in September 2009, but held for release until late summer 2011, you may enjoy a one-half hour stroll through an orchard with Alex Collier as he recalls specific details from several of his extra-terrestrial contact experiences, and then shares more of his views with Rick and Maritza Keefe about our current precarious times, from Collier's rare perspective.

Saturday, October 01, 2011

Bob Dylan Song of the Month - Simple Twist of Fate

Uploaded by on Jul 25, 2011

Obama Provides Terrorists a Safe Haven While Hailing Death of Al-Awlaki

The hypocrisy is staggering, even by Obama’s standards

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, September 30, 2011

President Barack Obama has triumphantly hailed the death of Anwar al-Awlaki as a crushing blow to Al-Qaeda’s hopes of acquiring a safe haven, even as the US-backed NATO bombardment of Libya provides terrorists with a safe haven in North Africa.

Responding to the news that Al-Awlaki, who received an upgrade in his role after death to “chief of external operations” for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, had been killed, Obama labeled it “another significant milestone” in the war on terror, adding, “This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will have no safe haven anywhere in the world.”

Aside from the fact that Al-Awlaki was a confirmed double agent, having dined at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 despite being declared the spiritual leader of the hijackers, and going on to become chief patsy handler for intelligence agency entrapment operations, the hypocrisy here is staggering even by Obama’s standards.

If Obama was so concerned about not providing safe havens to terrorists, then why has he just helped hand an entire country over to them in Libya?

As we have previously highlighted, shortly after the start of the conflict in March, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of the anti-Gaddafi rebel army, admitted that the rebel ranks include Al-Qaeda terrorists who have killed U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These terrorists are part of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), led by Abd Al-Hakim Belhadj, designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department, yet now being hailed by the establishment media as liberators even as they round up, imprison, and slaughter innocent black people en masse.

A 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report noted how the LIFG provided more fighters per capita to combat US troops in Iraq than any other nation, or in other words was primarily responsible for killing American soldiers.

Leaders of the LIFG have now seized key strongholds in Tripoli and other areas, refusing to hand over control to the western-backed National Transitional Council.

Going back on Obama’s promise that no U.S. ground forces would be sent to Libya, the administration has justified its decision to send troops into the country by citing the missing shoulder-launched missile weapons that were looted by NATO-backed rebel forces.

White House spokesman Jay Carney announced earlier this week that the United States is preparing to deploy additional forces on the ground in Libya to “secure conventional arms storage sites” as well as to try to track down missing surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).

On March 18, Obama vowed that “The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya.” Aside from the fact that western special forces were on the ground advising the rebel fighters from the very beginning and were later involved in the siege on Tripoli, earlier this month it was officially announced that U.S. service members would be dispatched to rebuild the U.S. Embassy.

The Obama administration’s support for the NATO intervention has provided the US government with the very pretext necessary to now go in and occupy the country in the name of protecting against terrorists gaining a safe haven, the very terrorists armed, trained and funded by the US and NATO in the first place.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Ahmadinejad at the UN September 2011

Uploaded by on Sep 22, 2011

Thursday, September 22, 2011

John Lennon - Instant Karma

Uploaded by on Oct 16, 2010

Monday, September 19, 2011

We Are Change Interview with Lupe Fiasco on Building 7, 9/11 Truth and the New World Order

Uploaded by on Sep 19, 2011

We Are Change

September 19, 2011

Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change was recently at the Occupy Wall Street event and noticed Lupe Fiasco hanging out with the crowd of protesters. Lupe wanted to know who Luke was and after talking for 20 minutes about the past work of We Are Change and our mission, Lupe gladly agreed to do the interview. Lupe gets into great detail about 911 truth, the new world order and most importantly solutions to the problems we face today. We thank Lupe for not only his words but positivity and knowledge he shares with millions of people through his music.

Apologizes for the audio cutting out in the last two minutes, we are working with a $10 mic and no budget. Also be aware strong language is used during the interview.

Help We Are Change produce more videos like this! (with better audio)

Music: Lupe Fiasco – Words I Never Said ft. Skylar Grey

Learn More About Lupe Fiasco Here

Monday, September 12, 2011

Charlie Hodge and Matt Sadler Silenced by KLBJ FM

By Floyd Anderson
September 12, 2011

Charlie FN Hodge and Matt Lil' Beefer Chicken Wing Sadler, Austin's dynamic duo of radio hilarity, have been kicked off the air by Emmis Communications / KLBJ 93.7 FM.

In a breathtaking display of draconian censorship, the once loved bastion of laid-back rock KLBJ FM has now gone the route of the Johnny Dallas / L.A. Dumbfaces that Hodge has long warned us about. These types of corporate boot lickers are like evil snails that leave a slimy trail of homogenization and hair gel wherever they go.

Visit Charlie's website for more information.

Hodge and Chicken Wing were on the air weekdays from 10 am to 2 pm on the Charlie Hodge Rock and Roll Halftime Show, a genius blend of midday rock, news, contests, and belly shaking, unapologetic snortin', laugh out loud comedy that was the bright spot of many Austinites work day.

Scott Gillmore, VP Market Manager for Emmis Communications, gave a ludicrous statement about the show's cancellation, stating that “Charlie and Matt are both incredibly talented individuals and we wish them the absolute best in their future endeavors. Unfortunately, the ‘Halftime Show’ never did what we needed in the ratings to be truly successful and, although Charlie has many fans, there is no station playing all the great rock music that is part of KLBJ-FM’s heritage during the workday.”

Here's the problem Scotty boy. Charlie Hodge was voted the best radio host in Austin by the Austin Chronicle's 2010 Readers Poll. Kinda scum-a-pults your excuse right out of here now don't it? You can't trick us with your smooth talking mind control.

Hodge is the real deal and on his show he would tell it like it is. I personally have FN Hodge up there with the greats like Bill Hicks, Kinky Friedman, Doug Stanhope, and Joe Rogan. The Rock and Roll Halftime Show would feature phone calls from local personalities including the Buda redneck Leon, and alternative media giant Alex Jones.

The show was a soul warming display of brilliantly down-to-earth comedians who have a pair and like to rock. It reminds me of a nice meal at Threadgill's. Feels good and right, and it rocks. The spirit of Austin...silenced by someone out there. Someone decided this must come to an end.

Here is an Alex Jones Freedom Nugget to help you remember the good old days of Charlie FN Hodge fielding the weekly call of news updates from Alex Jones.

That's some real stuff ain't it? Alright, here is a recent segment from Charlie and Chicken Wing just before they were silenced. I still can't believe what's happened. Somebody somewhere has caused mass misery.

Remember those Amazon Olympics? Tall ladies in bikinis at a Charlie Hodge Rock and Roll Show competition full of Dos XX beer? It's the thing of genius. This must live on. The Rock and Roll Halftime Show must continue.

Just look at the comments from real people outraged by this tyranny:

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Public Awakens to WTC Building 7 Hoax, Richard Gage Discusses 9/11 on Infowars Nightly News

Uploaded by on Sep 10, 2011

Infowars nightly news reporter Darrin McBreen talks to UT Students in Austin, Texas about building 7.

Uploaded by on Sep 10, 2011

1,559 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 13,012 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

KVUE Austin 9/11 Tenth Anniversary Coverage

Uploaded by on Sep 10, 2011

What about World Trade Center 7?

The Bloody Rothschilds

Uploaded by on Sep 9, 2011

The wealth of the Rothschilds could feed, clothe and shelter every human being on this earth. Bloody murdering genetic hybrids...I give you the Rothschilds.

Goodnight Rothschild by Fish Hat Pope

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Establishment Prepares 9/11 Official Story Onslaught

The system is still in a blind panic over the flimsy credibility of the government-approved fable

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, August 31, 2011

One look at your TV guide over the next 10 days will tell you everything you need to know about how petrified the establishment is over the flimsy credibility of the official 9/11 fable.

Naturally, the 10-year anniversary of the attacks would be expected to merit a deluge of media coverage, but what sticks out is the overbearing emphasis on countering so-called “conspiracy theories” about the events of that day, or in other words, reinforcing the official “conspiracy theory” that 19 poorly trained Arab hijackers were able to cripple America’s air defenses and make three giant steel-framed structures crumble to the ground at near free fall speed.

The BBC couldn’t even wait until the month of September itself to air their latest 9/11 truth hit piece earlier this week, and another is planned for next weekend. The damage done by the Building 7 fiasco, where BBC reporter Jane Standley is seen reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happens, a clip seen by millions, prompted the public broadcaster to launch a sustained dogmatic assault on anyone who dared question either 9/11 or 7/7.

Unfortunately for the BBC, the endless stream of smear attacks against so-called “conspiracy theorists” have largely backfired. Doctor Rory Ridley-Duff of Sheffield Hallam University conducted a study of the BBC’s “Conspiracy Files” documentary on 7/7 in comparison with the “conspiracy” documentary 7/7 Ripple Effect. His conclusion – the “conspiracy” documentary was more “coherent with available evidence”.

But conspiracy hit pieces are not about evidence, they’re about strawman attacks, character assassination, and emotional manipulation. This only works as a tool of persuasion on people who have little or no capacity for critical thinking, or on those who are already fully invested in a belief system. Such individuals are of no consequence in the “infowar,” as Hillary Clinton herself termed it, that continues to be won by the “conspiracy theorists” no matter how many hit pieces are produced and endlessly repeated by television networks that have lost a great deal of credibility.

Despite the establishment backlash, polls have consistently shown that the majority of people suspect a cover-up regarding 9/11, which is not surprising given the fact that the majority of 9/11 Commissioners tasked with investigating the events by the U.S. government itself also believe the same thing.

For those who doubt the impact left by the legacy of the 9/11 truth movement, just flip through your cable listings for the next week or two for a visual record of how desperate the establishment is to reinforce its official 9/11 fable.

What are they so scared of? The fact that the public may entertain the subject long enough to discover for themselves the fact that countless highly credible people question the official 9/11 story and have gone on record to express such doubts.


Highly Credible People Question 9/11

The following people question the government’s version of 9/11, or the government’s openness in providing information about the September 11 attacks.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This isn’t about party, it isn’t about Bush Bashing. It’s about our country, our constitution, and our future. …

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

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

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can’t handle it? …”

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

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

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

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

Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia

Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado

David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland

Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California

Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona

David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

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

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

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

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

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

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

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

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

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser


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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Minnesota Governor (Jesse Ventura) questions the government’s account of 9/11 and asks whether the World Trade Center was demolished

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