26 July, 2009

911 book - free download - Judy Wood must hear

Dr Judy Wood - WTC Destruction - Truth Quest - 14 Jul 2009.mp3 (19.4 MB) (Modified: Jul 19 2009 09:21:57 PM)


What really happened on 9/11? What can the evidence tell us? Who is covering up the evidence, and why are they covering it up? This book attempts to give some answers to these questions and has been written by someone who has become deeply involved in research into what happened on 9/11. A study of the available evidence will challenge you and much of what you assumed to be true. "Now we are discovering that there is a highly-sophisticated black-ops weaponization of free energy technology and it was responsible for the bizarre, low-temperature pulverization of the Twin Towers. Dr. Judy Wood has pieced together the physical evidence and Andrew Johnson has highlighted who is working to silence or smear whom, as the powers that be rush to impede or at least contain the dissemination of these startling findings." - Conrado Salas Cano, M.S. in Physics ** NOTE: Book is sold at cost price and the cover price pays for printing - no money goes to the author or Dr Judy Wood. **

Download the entire book for free:

9/11 Finding the Truth by Andrew Johnson
10 Jul 2009
by Peter Taylor-Wood
9/11 Finding the Truth shows there is more to the Truth about 9/11 than meets the eye. Like most people I kept watching the Towers “come down” at free fall speed & it did not sit right. Then I discovered drjudywood.com & my eyes where opened. Andrew Johnson certainly achieves his objectives - which are to expose another level of intrigue beyond the official explanations of 9/11. Dr.Wood has set out what actually happened & provides a powerful case through her investigation presenting clear evidence. Her point is to establish WHAT happened before we can begin to explore any further. AJ exposes that many concerned with 9/11 are ignoring the most relevant facts & the hostility towards Dr.Wood by many "Gurus" of the truth movement leads to the conclusion that the "Truth Movement" itself has been hijacked by those who wish to hide the Truth from us. I was astounded by Dr. Wood's work & amazed that her evidence was being derided by so many. The Truthers are drawing the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside Job from an assumption that it was a controlled demolition. Dr.Wood demonstrates that this was not the case & I see no evidence to support the Demolition Theory only personal assaults on Dr.Wood & AJ . This book includes transcriptions of interviews with the Gurus of the "Truth Movement". One realises that setting it down on the page gives one a better chance to review. It is revealing that these respected Scientists are trying to “muddy the water” and create confusion in a most unscientific way. Hard not to think “Are these people really scientists.” even “Are these people really Adults” Of particular relevance is the portion dealing with 9/11 Truther Ace Bakers attempts to discredit the “Hutchison Effect”. Setting up a bogus video & dismissing all other criteria of a scientific experiment could have no meaning other than to cast doubt on the credibility of Ace Baker... The Hutchison Effect would not be taken seriously if it was just based on videos. That would be like saying Ghosts are real as we have video evidence of them or conversely that Ghosts can't be real because someone once faked a video. Bakers attitude seems unhinged yet what is astounding is that Jim Fetzer, a principal "Guru" of the "Truth movement", sees Bakers fake video as proof that the Hutchison effect is fake.
All of the work contained in this book confirms that something is very wrong within the Truth movement. Jim Fetzer's dismissal of the Hutchison Effect is crucial to understanding the meaning of the deception as the Hutchison Effect is central to an understanding of what went on on 9/11. Most are aware of the basic Tenets of the 9/11 truth movements “Inside Job” theory and it's implications. Dr.Wood's evidence reaches very different - perhaps graver conclusions. The extent of the distortions that AJ reveals show a very real problem within the “Truth Movement” & that perhaps the Whole world has been Hijacked by the perpetrators of this act. 9/11 Finding the Truth is an exciting read. It involves the reader in a very personal way. It was helpful also in demonstrating the skills of those who set out to discredit Dr.Wood's work and reputation. Part of the Book deals with an anonymous bet sent to AJ. It is uncomfortable to read and yet helpful in relation to dealing with a “disinfo” agent with a very high degree of training in Psychology.
In conclusion this book is immensely valuable to anyone who takes the Future of this planet seriously. It is obvious that 9/11/01 was the most significant day in the History of the “Modern World”. It is not just an event in the past but an event of which the Truth is only just dawning.


If you've ever wondered why the "9/11 Truth" movement hasn't made more headway and why there's so much disagreement on how the crime was committed, here's your answer. Author, Andrew Johnson, introduces us to the work of former professor of mechanical engineering, Dr. Judy Wood, and inventor, John Hutchison, to reveal how free energy technology and weather manipulation was used to destroy the World Trade Center towers in mere seconds on 9/11/01. He then explains how many luminaries of the "9/11 Truth Movement" are leading devoted followers astray with false theories to disguise the true nature of the crime.

Through Johnson's compilation of articles we learn about Dr. Wood's lawsuit accusing NIST contractors, such as Applied Research Associates and Science Applications International Corp., of using Directed Energy Weapons to create the event now known as "9/11". We further discover how John Hutchison's 1979 "Hutchison Effect" invention was investigated by the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin Skunkworks, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and NASA and how it fits into this diabolical picture.

This was Bill Biggart's final photograph. He was killed when the second World Trade tower
collapsed on top of him. He was 53 years old. WHERE IS THE DEBRIS OF 110 STORIES? It looks like the buildings were DEMATERLIALIZED? http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart21.htm

Johnson presents his evidence in a carefully-reasoned, dispassionate manner, inviting us to reassess everything we thought we knew about this world-changing event. As Dr. Wood explains it, "We stand today at the dawn of an entirely new age. Man has in his hands a method of disrupting the molecular basis for matter and the ability to split the earth in half on a moment's notice. (It gives the term, "scorched-earth policy" a new significance.) The technology that was demonstrated on 911 can split the earth in half or it can be used to allow ALL people to live happily ever after with free energy.

However, he who controls the energy, controls the people. Control of energy leads to destruction of the planet.

But we have a choice. And this choice is real. Live happily ever after or destroy the planet. This is why I have been studying the evidence of what happened on 9/11. This evidence is central to it all. 9/11 was a demonstration of a new technology; free energy. It can be used for good, but we need to make that choice and help others to as well.

We have a choice."

Kathy Roberts
Berkeley, CA

Steel disolves in mid air on the way down. Watch the VIDEOS and be amazed.
Many thanks to you Andrew for your fine work. If folks would simply investigate for themselves the excellent research of Dr. Judy Wood (http://drjudywood.com/), they would have an understanding of what really happened on 9-11, as shocking as it may be. When we love the truth, we will not be deceived.


Cathy Palmer

Andrew Johnson has been working to self-publish a number of the articles posted on http://www.checktheevidence.com/
The result is a 300-page 6x9 book with a cover graphic design by Nick Buchanan. The cover price (the entirety of which goes to Lulu.com) is £6.55 - probably around $9 or $10. There is a button where you can download the whole thing for free though (partly why I decided to use lulu).
Feel free to re-post this on blogs, websites etc.

14-15 July 2009
Judy Wood is the guest of Eric Karlstrom and Melodee on "Truth Quest," on KHEN 106.9

Archived: (mp3)(25.8 MB)],

Webpages of Eric Karlstrom: here, and here. Show archives
Related Links

Figure D. Notice how straight the vertical holes were that cut down through WTC6.While there is abundance of aluminum cladding on the roofs of buildings 5 and 6, there is little or none in the holes.
(9/??/01) source ["Bullet Holes"]
Figure E. A view over the dome of WFC2 shows the damage to WTC6 in the center of the photo. To the left is the remains of WTC7. To the right is the remaining north wall of WTC1 which leans toward WTC6.

Figure 40a. Car 2723 was toasted inside and out... and rusted.
(9/12?/01) Source
["Wax Job"]
Figure 40b. There is extensive damage to the front of car 2723, including no door handle on the driver's door. There is an unusual, unburned circular area on the rear door. Note the open trunk.
(9/12?/01) Source

Figure 49.
(after 9/11/01) source:
["Swiss-cheese truck"]
Figure 50.
(after 9/11/01) Source

["Century-21 Street Windows"]

Figure 95. A toasted mail truck faces westward, parked behind the Postal building on the north side of Barclay Street. City Hall Park can be seen in the distance, across Church street. This damage does not appear to have been caused by a "normal" fire. There is no obvious sign of burned paper. The appearance of the back wheel area of the mail truck looks as if something radiated outward from the wheel. It is very unlikely this mail truck was hit by debris, unless this debris did not follow the laws of physics and made several right-angle turns along its path to the mail truck. Curiously, the mail truck parked behind it looks OK.

The paper still has its color, indicating this filing cabinet did not shrivel due to conventional heat. http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm

For students progressing through academic studies and disciplines, one of
the key skills that is developed is the one of critical thinking. In order to
develop our understanding of a subject, we should question what we are
being told and, sometimes, how the information is being presented. Only
when we can answer questions we have about a subject to our satisfaction
can we say that we understand that subject. However, perhaps we should
pause and consider, can we usefully apply similar critical thinking skills
more widely?
For example, when considering daily news reports, how often do we stop
and think "How accurate is this information? What is the source?" or
"How has this or that conclusion been drawn?" “Is the information
complete?” There are two expressions that are pertinent to the thrust of
what I am saying: "Don't believe what you read in the papers!" and
"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied." The latter saying
is attributed to the writers of "Yes Minister", Jonathan Lynn & Antony
In recent years I have found I have to apply critical thinking much more
widely to news reports, following a realisation I had, some time in 2004,
that the Official Story of the attacks on 9/11 could not be true. A video I
watched clearly showed how the World Trade Centre Towers in New
York could not have been destroyed solely as a result of jet impacts and
burning jet fuel. It seems strange to some people that anyone should
question any of the essential elements of the official story of 9/11, which
is now widely recognized as the trigger for the global "War on Terror" - a
basis for many significant elements of foreign policy, and even domestic
Discussing the topic of what really happened on 9/11 is not an easy task –
not least because of the trauma it caused for the people who were killed,
injured or affected by it. The profoundly troubling nature of the event
alone is a powerful deterrent to people who wish to re-examine the
official accounts of what happened, and question the conclusions the
official enquiries have drawn. To date, no criminal prosecutions have been
successfully brought against anyone – in relation to the crimes committed
on 9/11 or the crimes committed in its cover up.
As an event, 9/11 is mentioned almost daily in news reports, though in
reality we have not really had all that much analysis of what actually
happened. The "run up" to 9/11 has been the subject of a significant BBC
documentary series called The Power of Nightmares, which first aired in
2004. This BAFTA award winner, made by Adam Curtis, exposes the real
history of Al Qaida and concludes that stories of this group's ability to
commit acts of terrorism on a large scale have been grossly exaggerated, if
not completely fabricated.
In this book, readers who are unhappy with the official account and have
questions about how and why certain things happened on 9/11 should
find many threads to follow. These threads will lead them to a wider
understanding of what happened then, and those same threads may
ultimately lead them to an understanding of a much, much larger tapestry
of reality.
The articles herein are more concerned with the criminal cover up of
9/11, rather than trying to identify the real perpetrators of atrocities
committed on the day itself. Readers, therefore, who are comfortable with
the “Al Qaida did it” story need not read any further than this paragraph.
Scope of 9/11 Evidence Concerned
This work is mainly concerned with the evidence related to what
happened at the World Trade Centre Complex – as exposed through the
research (primarily) of Dr. Judy Wood. Therefore, matters related to what
happened at the Pentagon, at Shanksville and the details of what
happened to WTC 7 are not discussed here. It is therefore primarily
aspects of physical evidence that are covered (inasmuch as the very
presentation and most likely explanation of this physical evidence is what
has been the target of attacks on this research).
Who is Covering Up 9/11?
It is difficult to accept how deep and wide the cover up of 9/11 actually
is. The very magnitude of this cover up is enough to make many people
scoff, roll their eyes or utter a sentence including a phrase such as
“conspiracy theorist”. Typically, they may then dismiss, deny or simply
ignore any evidence presented which proves the official story of 9/11
cannot be true. Some people, whilst acknowledging that the official story
cannot be true, then assume that not enough information is available to
say anything else with a sufficient degree of certainty.
However, we must remember that US Government bodies and private
contractors took public money to fund research which was supposed to
explain what happened on 9/11. As informed citizens, I think we should
try to be sure that what they are telling us in their official (and very
lengthy) reports is true.

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), was tasked with
analysing the cause of the destruction of WTC towers 1,2 and 7. When
studied objectively, their report for WTC 1 & 2 fails to answer how the
“pancake” collapse theory explains the evidence observed on the day –
such as the complete pulverisation of most of the towers - including
hundreds of steel girders – in about 10 seconds each. Readily available
photos also illustrate the glaring lack of any “pancakes” in the WTC
rubble pile.
Elements of the final NIST WTC reports have been the subject of a Legal
Challenge by Professors Morgan Reynolds (Emeritus, Texas A & M
University) and Professor of Mechanical Engineering Judy Wood
(formerly of Clemson University, South Carolina). Their challenge was
first made as a “Request for Correction” and then in two “Qui Tam”
cases. These cases, unsealed in 2007, outlined how, as it is framed, the
NIST study of the WTC collapse was fraudulent and deceptive. Indeed,
the very title of the main report “The Collapse of the World Trade Centre
Towers” is itself misleading, because the towers did not collapse, they
turned to dust.
How is it that the World’s media chose to completely ignore Press
Releases, which described the initiation of legal cases against NIST’s
contractors by two American Professors?
A Layered Cover Up
The bulk of these articles have been written in the period 2007-2009, in an
attempt to document the history of what may become known as the
“Second Layer” of the 9/11 Cover Up. The first layer of the 9/11 Cover
Up is the official and physically impossible “Al-Qaida-centred” fantasy,
accompanied by the significantly fraudulent NIST reports. The second
layer of the cover up includes supposedly more scientific analysis by some
researchers/scientists which suggests that bombs and/or thermite (or
some variant thereof) were placed in the WTC. A number of higher
profile “9/11 Sceptic” figures claim there is good evidence for the use of
thermite and/or bombs (but those same researchers have failed to
compile any of this evidence into a legal case against NIST or anyone
else). The same figures typically still go-along with the TV-reality of real
Boeing planes hitting the WTC towers, even though this story is
demonstrably impossible (largely because of Newton’s third Law). The
difficulty for most people here is that it takes time to digest the evidence -
and undo the effects of years of media/TV programming. In my own
case, even though by about August 2004, I knew the official story of 9/11
was false, it was not until about 2 years later that I realised the plane
crashes at the WTC could not have been real (even though it seems that
something hit the WTC towers). Articles in this work discuss and explain
this conclusion more fully.
On the internet, I have posted a report detailing the previous 2 years of
campaigning efforts1 – completed before I realised there was an ongoing
effort to discourage and discredit certain threads of 9/11 research.

So, what is the truth? How do you find it? Can anything be proved? Well,
before becoming too philosophical, let me offer you something –
evidence. My own way of establishing what is true and what is not is to
constantly examine evidence – and try to re-evaluate my own conclusions
whenever new evidence appears (and at the same time, we must be wary
of falsified evidence and even the timing of its revelation). I might point
out that court cases, investigations etc. are sometimes re-opened and
appeals are initiated when new evidence comes to light.
The Importance of Establishing What Did Not
Happen on 9/11
By studying the evidence carefully, we can have a better chance of saying
with certainty what did not happen even if we cannot always say exactly
what did happen.
In some cases, laws of physics can be used to establish what can and cannot
have happened – we can check the consistency of a set of evidence. This
includes the use of things like the Law of Gravity – and also the
properties of materials (hardness/softness) and limits of their behaviour.
As well as evidence of physical events, witness testimony and behaviour is
also important. In relation to the development of 9/11 research, I have
tried to watch carefully for instances of “attacking the messenger” rather
than explaining the data, discouraging study of certain topics or evidence,
mis-direction, inconsistent or false statements, reluctance to answer
questions relating to evidence (when relevant). My goal in the majority of
this work is not necessarily to “judge” those people who are helping the
9/11 cover up. I am trying to illustrate how the “psychology of the cover
up” has unfolded and how subtle (and not so subtle) tactics are used to
influence people’s views and conclusions.
Truth, Authority, Power and Corruption
Presentation, discussion and analysis of evidence is (or should be) the
guiding principle behind real scientific progress and discovery. It should
also be the guiding principle behind a fair legal/justice system. However,
it can be strongly argued that both these systems are only as fair and
honest as those who become figures of “authority” within them. When
people are given authority, they have power over others (by definition).
And therein is the rub – power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Perhaps it is true that only when some entities have absolute
power do operations like 9/11 – and its successful cover up – become
Education and “Academic Excellence”
It is said, by some, that going through the educational system hampers
one’s ability to think freely (though this seems to be in contradiction to
the idea of being able to think critically) – perhaps this is due to the
process of being “spoon fed” information. Most students, especially in
their formative years, either implicitly assume the information is truthful
and/or valid, or they are chastised if they persistently question or

challenge the “prevailing view” about a topic. In higher (university level)
education, however, one is expected to be able to think freely – to
perform research, to analyse, compare and contrast information and to
draw conclusions. The problem is, perhaps, not so much the educational
system itself, but the interests it serves – and the institutionalisation of the
system itself, as well as the system of awards – both in the form of grants
and for “academic excellence” and the various prizes that are given.
Relying on sources of funding creates a vested interest and it was this that
President Eisenhower seemed to be referring to in his landmark 1961 final
address to the American Nation, before he left office. He said
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes
virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the
nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of
money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Also, winning awards tends to build up egos and it can constrain the
boundaries in which those award-winners feel comfortable operating –
and perhaps makes them less willing to challenge established paradigms. I
would argue this, therefore, makes them more dogmatic and unwilling to
review new evidence. Again, I would contend that President Eisenhower
wanted to highlight this issue in the same speech…
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we
must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself
become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
For this reason, I included audio segments of this speech at the beginning
of a presentation I compiled which summarises some of the main research
and evidence discussed in this collection of articles.

In all of this, my prime message and statement would be “Don’t let
anyone give you your opinion – check and validate as much as you can
and continually question authority”. Questions should be asked of both
recognized authorities (such as a scientific, governmental or nongovernmental
institutions) and of “unofficial authority” such as an
experienced researcher or research group, speaker or author.
I strongly contend that because no organised institution of any significant
size (such as the Church, The Legal System, any Major Government etc),
after over 7 years, has publicly spoken out to significantly disagree with
the official story of 9/11, it is clear the institutions cannot “handle” the
truth of what really happened on 9/11. Therefore, the future is in our
hands – yours and mine - we have the power to create and transform our
future – with every action we take and every word we say.

Now weep.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Sunday, July 26, 2009 1 comments

24 July, 2009


What the CIA.s Panetta told President Arroyo

By Ramon J. Farolan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:08:00 07/20/2009

Filed Under: Politics, Foreign affairs & international relations, Elections, Diplomacy

JUST TO refresh our memories. Sometime in October 1985, Sen. Paul Laxalt, one of President Ronald Reagan.s closest advisers, was sent to Manila on a special mission for talks with President Marcos. In the words of Laxalt: .My mission was to communicate President Reagan.s concerns about the future of the Philippines. The President was concerned about the general political instability and whether President Marcos still enjoyed the support of the people ... I delivered to Marcos a handwritten letter from President Reagan..

At these meetings, the idea of calling a snap presidential election was broached to Marcos. A few weeks later, after Laxalt had returned to Washington, Marcos announced the holding of snap elections and set Feb. 7, 1986 as the polling day. On Feb. 24, in the wake of growing unrest and a possible outbreak of violence, Reagan issued a statement calling on Marcos, in effect, to resign. The next day Laxalt received a call from Marcos who was not sure if the statement represented Reagan.s personal views or that of the Washington bureaucracy. (Secretary of State George Schultz and Adm. William Crowe, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted Marcos to step down.) Laxalt.s reply was: .You should cut, and cut cleanly. I think the time has come.. After a long silence, Marcos said, .I am so very, very disappointed.. The rest is history.

Fast track to 2009. Last week, the director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Leon Panetta, suddenly arrived in Manila for what some news reports called a .social visit.. CIA directors don.t make social visits to any place, and frankly, I can.t recall any CIA director ever visiting the Philippines. If one did, it was probably under wraps with no public announcements made. The travels of a CIA chief are generally kept secret, but Panetta.s visit to Manila was well-covered by the media. However, where he proceeded after Manila is not known.

Panetta is the 19th director of the CIA, which was established in 1947, during the time of President Harry Truman, for intelligence-gathering and coordination. Just for clarification, in 2005 the Office of the Director, National Intelligence (DNI) was created with the chief, currently Adm. Dennis Blair, former commander of the Pacific Command, as head of the 16-member US Intelligence Community. Before 2005, the director of the CIA was the head of this community.

Prior to his appointment as CIA director, Panetta served as chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, and also was head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Earlier, he had been a California congressman dealing primarily with budgetary issues. He is also a co-director along with his wife of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, a non-profit center that seeks to instill in young men and women the virtues and values of public service.

Panetta.s appointment as CIA chief raised concerns because of his lack of intelligence experience but one report describes him as a .Washington heavyweight with political clout to protect and rebuild the CIA.. In fact, recently he was involved in a high-profile verbal tussle with former Vice President Dick Cheney over past practices of the CIA concerning interrogation methods.

According to press reports, the Malacañang meeting dwelt on national security concerns, with National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales assuring Panetta not to worry about the spate of bombings in Mindanao. (I wonder why Gonzales is not worried about the situation in the South. Does he know something we don.t?)

While circumstances now are not the same as in 1985-1986, it is likely that Mr. Panetta came on a similar mission as Sen. Paul Laxalt.

This is my take on the meeting.

After the amenities and briefings were done with, Panetta and Arroyo retired to another room for private talks.

Panetta: President Obama sends his best wishes. He extends an invitation for you to visit Washington. You will be the first leader from Southeast Asia to be so honored. The date has been set for July 30. The President.s schedule is quite full and we hope that you will be able to adjust, considering the short notice. It will be a .no frills. type of visit.an Oval Office meeting and possibly, coffee with Mrs. Obama. Our economy is in bad shape and we are operating under austerity conditions.

Arroyo: I.ll be there.

Panetta: President Obama has also asked me to convey to you his concerns about the future of the Philippines. (Does that sound familiar?) It is important that elections next year push through as scheduled, and we see no need for the imposition of any kind of emergency rule. We are aware of the sudden and unexplained changes in the AFP leadership (a reference to the sacking of Generals Yano and Luna, AFP chief of staff and vice chief of staff, respectively). We hope that the military remains focused on the insurgency and terror threats and not get involved in politics.

Also, Madam President, any changes in the Constitution can wait until after the elections. In the meantime, it is best to observe term limits.

Arroyo: You leave me few options.

Panetta: As someone once said, we should cut, and cut cleanly.

Just as Panetta is about to leave the room, he turns toward Mrs. Arroyo and says: President Obama is concerned about the delicate health of Mr. Arroyo. Perhaps he should stay home.

* * *

My crystal ball shows that presidential elections will push through in May 2010. How credible they will be is another matter. There will be no emergency rule, and no Charter change under the present administration. Both moves will be opposed by civil society organizations supported by significant elements of the Armed Forces.

* * *

During the incumbency of AFP finance chief Commodore Cornelio dela Cruz Jr., military pensioners have been blessed with several increases in their benefits not always from additional budgetary allotments, but from initiatives of Dela Cruz to generate more funds for retirees by cleaning up pension rolls nationwide.

We congratulate Commodore Dela Cruz and his hardworking staff, including his secretary Mrs. Margarita (Garet) Olarte, a civilian employee of 24 years who has never missed a day of work at the Finance Center. She is the wife of Dean A. Olarte of the Philippine Tourism Authority. Both are full-blooded Ilocanos from Agoo, La Union.


Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Friday, July 24, 2009 0 comments

15 July, 2009

Happy Twin Towers Day - Rock Creek Free Press

Happy Twin Towers Day!

The above american humor -- making jokes about killing - was NOT published in the Rock Creek Free Press, a fine newspaper that one should reprint everywhere!

Here an example of their brilliant journalism, an article from the July 2009 print edition:

Researchers Release 9/11 Pentagon Attack Report

CIT Pentagon 9/11 Attack By Sheila Casey / RCFP

Among 9/11 truth activists, there is little disagreement about what happened at the World Trade Center and at Shanksville. Although it’s not possible to know all the details of what transpired until there is an independent, impartial investigation, there is wide agreement among 9/11 researchers that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition and that the hole in the ground that was presented to us as the crash site of flight 93 in Shanksville does not contain the remnants of an airplane.

But when it comes to the Pentagon, the truth community has yet to reach a consensus, and 9/11 forums are filled with bitter arguments from proponents of one view or another. It is assumed by most savvy 9/11 activists that the truth movement has been infiltrated by intelligence agents tasked with crippling activists in any way possible, and that many of the most strident arguments come, not from sincere researchers, but from disinformation agents intent on spreading confusion and discord. These agents are in a position to know the truth about what happened and can be expected to mount vigorous arguments against that truth, the better to keep the movement divided and to prevent a clear, cogent message about the false flag attack at the Pentagon from reaching the masses.

To many activists, the Pentagon attack stands as the single most incriminating feature of 9/11. The official conspiracy theory (OCT) would have us believe that the world’s only superpower, with the most powerful military that has ever existed, was unable to defend its own headquarters 51 minutes after the north WTC tower had been hit, 34 minutes after the south WTC tower had been hit, and 41 minutes after the FAA knew that there was an emergency aboard flight 77 (the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon). Regarding flight 77, Wikipedia states:

“By 08:56, the flight was turned around, and the transponder had been disabled. The FAA was aware at this point that there was an emergency aboard the plane. By this time, American Airlines Flight 11 had already crashed into the World Trade Center, and United Airlines Flight 175 was known to have been hijacked and within minutes of also striking the World Trade center.”

Where was America’s air defense during the 41 minutes after it was known that flight 77 was hijacked and before the Pentagon was attacked? In highly incriminating testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta stated that while he was in the bunker with Dick Cheney:
Cheney Bush junta and US military evil stratgists - milking 911

“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’”

A few minutes later, the Pentagon exploded in flames, killing 125 unsuspecting workers in the building. No evacuation order had been given.

Norman Mineta’s testimony was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Given these facts, plus many other anomalies about the OCT, it is no surprise that millions of people have concluded that the government is lying about what happened at the Pentagon. With the scene of attack completely controlled by the military, and with all video of the attack confiscated from nearby businesses by the FBI within minutes of the attack, for years 9/11 researchers speculated about what had actually transpired at the Pentagon, with little hard evidence to guide them.

Frustrated with idle conjecture, two men from southern California, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, joined forces to form Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). They traveled to the Pentagon and sought out eyewitnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon. They interviewed each eyewitness, on camera, at the exact location where he had been standing on the morning of 9/11 when he saw the plane, and had each eyewitness draw the plane’s flight path on a map and sign it.

A pattern began to emerge, and the more witnesses CIT interviewed, the clearer the pattern became: the plane had not taken the path claimed by the government, and the path that it did take proves that the plane did not hit the building.

CIT interviewed three Pentagon police officers (Officer William Lagasse, Officer Chadwick Brooks and Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.); five Arlington National Cemetery workers (Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton Sr. and George Aman); auto mechanic Edward Paik; Citgo gas station attendant Robert Turcios; air traffic controller Sean Boger (who was at the Pentagon Heliport at the time of the attack); Terry Morin, a project manager for Sparta (saw the plane from the Navy Annex); courier Levi Stephens (saw the plane from the Pentagon’s south parking lot); and Maria de La Cerda, a career musician with the Army band, who saw the plane from Arlington National Cemetery.


Every one of these people clearly recalls seeing the plane take a path that disagrees with the government’s story. None of them report seeing the plane fly south of the Citgo station, where it would have had to have been to have caused the damage at the Pentagon.

One witness, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., saw the plane after the explosion, banking low over the parking lot.

There is a zone of destruction heading towards the Pentagon, and into the building, that corresponds with a south side flight path. Five light poles were destroyed, and the damage in the building lines up perfectly with those five light poles.

Under most circumstances, physical evidence would trump eyewitness testimony. But in this case, the crime scene was controlled by the primary suspect, tainting the credibility of the evidence under their control. In addition, there are many anomalies with the physical evidence.

Right from the beginning, questions arose. Where was the plane debris? Photos taken immediately after the attack show no wings, tail or fuselage. No luggage or bodies. No damage to the pristine green lawn, even though the Boeing 757 was supposedly piloted into the first floor of the Pentagon at 530 mph by rookie pilot Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a small Cessna. The damage to the building is inconsistent with the crash of an airliner with a 44 foot tall tail and 125 foot wingspan, with unbroken panes of glass where the tail section should have hit.

Even the downed light poles are suspicious. Compared to a light pole that was knocked down by wind, and has a jagged edge where it broke at the base, the five downed light poles on 9/11 appear to have been cut, neatly and cleanly.


On top of this suspicious crash scene, we now have 14 eyewitnesses who have stated unequivocally on camera that the plane was not where it would have needed to be to down the light poles and hit the Pentagon.

CIT is not the only group concluding that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group of 200 aviation professionals who all agree that, according to the data released by the government, the government story is not correct.


In August 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the Flight Data Recorder data for flight 77. According to Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the last recorded altitude for the plane (one second before the alleged impact) shows an altitude of 480 feet above sea level. The top of the Pentagon is 112 feet above sea level. Given this data, the plane cleared the building with 368 feet to spare. The NTSB has repeatedly refused to comment on this.


For the contingent within the 9/11 truth movement that is convinced that a plane did hit the Pentagon, the most compelling evidence comes from the dozens of witnesses who believe they saw the plane hit the building. Six of these witnesses are editors or reporters for USA Today, and all claim to have been on the same quarter mile stretch of Rt. 27, heading the same way at the moment of the attack, late to work at the USA Today building in Rosslyn, three miles away.

In a ten minute clip available on Google video called “The USA Today Parade,” CIT has demonstrated that the Pentagon is not visible for most of that quarter mile stretch of Rt. 27. With video taken in a car driving that same route, it is clear that the Pentagon only becomes visible at the point at which the plane would have been over or behind the car. For much of the route, the Pentagon is obscured by large, bushy trees. CIT interviewed alleged witness to the Pentagon impact and USA Today editor Joel Sucherman on camera in his office. Sucherman insists that he saw the Pentagon at a location which CIT’s video clearly shows does not have a view of the Pentagon.

USA Today is owned by the Gannett company, which also owns Army Times, Air Force Times, Marine Corps Times and Navy Times.

In the 9/11 truth movement, CIT’s work has been controversial. They are banned from posting on the largest 9/11 truth forum, 911blogger.com. Recent threads demonstrate that 911blogger has a pronounced preference for the “yes, a plane hit the Pentagon” version of events, with frequent anonymous contributors angrily defending that point of view.

The primary criticism of CIT’s work is that all of their witnesses believe the plane impacted the building. As I wrote in my story about CIT in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press:

“All of CIT’s witnesses also believe that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, although this cannot be possible. This fact has been used to dismiss CIT’s work as irrelevant, but it’s not a compelling argument.
“Less than an hour earlier, America had been treated to the sight of the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball. Most people were aware that an attack was underway. If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball. To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now.”


For those who actually saw the plane fly over the building, there was a convenient cover story: media reports of a second plane that came along 30 seconds after the first. Anyone who saw a plane still flying after the fireball would most likely conclude that they had seen that second plane.

The attack at the Pentagon is best understood as a gigantic magic show. How many of us have ever seen a fireball exploding hundreds of feet in diameter? I am sure that if I were to see one, my eyes would be riveted on it and for at least a few moments I’d be completely unaware of anything else in my environment. This is the essence of the magician’s trade – with flourishes and fanfare, he makes you look where he wants you to look, so you never see him slip the card behind his ear or up his sleeve. With the news media batting clean-up, only witnesses that confirmed the OCT were given airtime, and any doubters who were interviewed were simply edited out of the evening newscast.

In an effort to hold media and government officials responsible for their evidence, CIT has produced a new film, National Security Alert, which is available as a free download at citizeninvestigationteam.com. This video compresses all of the CIT interviews into a concise 80 minutes (sans music) that summarizes their evidence clearly and soberly. Their site will also contain a section where citizens can record which officials have received a copy of the DVD, and their response (or lack thereof).

CIT will be showing excerpts of National Security Alert and addressing the implications of their findings at a free conference in Arlington, VA called Deconstructing the Pentagon Attack. The conference will also feature Shelton Lankford, Lt. Col. USMC (retired), a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions, 10,000 hours of flight time, and a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross. As of publication, attendance by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth is unconfirmed.

Held at the NRECA Conference Center at 4301 Wilson Blvd, in Arlington, the event will run from 10 am to 2:30 pm on Saturday, July 11, and is sponsored by The Wisdom Fund. Both the conference and parking are free.

Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams.


Every month we print the stories other papers won't touch and we put them on the streets of Washington DC.

Click for machine locations

The Creek is available at most Metro subway stations and many other locations all over the Washington, DC area.

The Rock Creek Free Press is a new monthly newspaper with a completely novel take on the news. In contrast to established, corporate controlled, "main stream" press outlets, our focus will be on reporting the truth; no corporate spin, no pulling punches, no parroting of administration propaganda.

The Creek is an experiment in Community Supported Publication. We take no corporate advertising. We rely primarily on reader donations, small business advertisers and subscription sales. Your generous donation will help assure that this new experiment in alternative publishing is a success. Thank you.

Read Articles
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Wednesday, July 15, 2009 0 comments

11 July, 2009

Very FUNNY quotes by Bill Hicks

"I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."

"Pick up the gun."

(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)

"You all saw him - he had a gun."


I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.


A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant.


Watching television is like taking black spray paint to your third eye.


People say "Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world". Yeah, maybe, but you know what, after the first 3 largest armies, there's a REAL big fucking drop-off. The Hare Krishnas are the 5th largest army in the world, and they've already got all our airports.


People are bringing shotguns to UFO sightings in Fife, Alabama. I asked a guy, "Why do you bring a gun to a UFO sighting?" Guy said, "Way-ul, we didn' wanna be ab-duc-ted." If I lived in Fife, Alabama, I would be on my hands and knees every night praying for abduction.


It's really weird how your life changes. Tonight I'm drinking water. Four years ago? Opium. Night and day, you know?


I don't do drugs anymore... than say, the average touring funk band.


"This is your brain." I've seen a lot of weird shit on drugs. I have never ever ever ever EVER looked at a fucking egg and thought it was a brain.


If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs.


The musicians today who don't do drugs and in fact speak out against it? "Rock Against Drugs?" BOY do they suck.


Children are smarter than any of us. Know how I know that? I don't know one child with a full time job and children.


Childbirth is no more a miracle then eating food and a turd coming out of your ass.


I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument.


We gotta come to some new ideas about life folks ok? I'm not being blase about abortion, it might be a real issue, it might not, doesn't matter to me. What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your fucking love-list? Fuck your children, if that's the way you think then fuck you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut the fuck up.


Because you know if you play New Kids on the Block albums backwards they sound better. "Oh come on, Bill, they're the New Kids, don't pick on them, they're so good and they're so clean cut and they're such a good image for the children." Fuck that! When did mediocrity and banality become a good image for your children? I want my children to listen to people who fucking ROCKED! I don't care if they died in puddles of their own vomit! I want someone who plays from his fucking HEART!


I was in Nashville, Tennesee last year. After the show I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, I was hungry. And I'm alone, I'm eating and I'm reading a book, right? Waitress walks over to me: " Hey, whatchoo readin' for?"

Isn't that the weirdest fucking question you've ever heard? Not what am I readING, but what am I reading *for*? Well, godammit, ya stumped me! Why do I read? Well... hmmm... I dunno... I guess I read for a lot of reasons, and the main one is so I don't end up being a fucking waffle waitress.


Supreme Court says pornography is anything without artistic merit that causes sexual thoughts, that's their definition, essentially. No artistic merit, causes sexual thoughts. Hmm... Sounds like...every commercial on television, doesn't it? You know, when I see those two twins on that Doublemint commercial? I'm not thinking of gum. I am thinking of chewing, so maybe that's the connection they're trying to make.


Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet? ******

Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... unnatural? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the fucking law?


I can speak for every guy in this room here tonight. Guys, if you could blow yourselves, ladies, you'd be in this room alone right now. Watching an empty stage.


I dunno how much AIDS scares y'all, but I got a theory: the day they come out with a cure for AIDS, a guaranteed one-shot cure, on that day there's gonna be fucking in the streets, man.


I believe that God left certain drugs growing naturally upon our planet to help speed up and facilitate our evolution. OK, not the most popular idea ever expressed. Either that or you're all real high and agreeing with me in the only way you can right now. (Starts blinking)


They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.


You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks liked He rushed it.


I love talking about the Kennedy assasination. The reason I do is because I'm fascinated by it. I'm fascinated that our government could lie to us so blatantly, so obviously for so long, and we do absolutely nothing about it. I think that's interesting in what is ostensibly a democracy. Sarcasm - come on in. People say "Bill, quit talking about Kennedy man. It was a long time ago, just let it go, alright? It's a long time ago, just forget it." I'm like, alright, then don't bring up Jesus to me. As long as we're talking shelf life here...


No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs. I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day.


Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It's a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it -- and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist -- is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me."


It's just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.


One of my big fears in life is that I'm gonna die and my parents are going to come to clean out my apartment and find that porno wing I've been adding on to for years.


We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.


I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.


I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are.


The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question: "Is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we kill those people.


We all pay for life with death, so everything in between should be free.


That's an act, that's a frying pan, that's a stove, you're an alcoholic! Dude, I'm tripping right now, and I still see that that's a fucking egg, alright? I see the UFO's around it, but that's a goddamn egg in the middle. There's a hobbit eating it, but goddammit that hobbit's eating a fucking egg! He's on a unicorn. But, no, th-th-th-that's a fucking egg. How dare you have a wino tell me not to do drugs!


It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious.


It's great to be here. I thank you. Ah, I've been on the road doing comedy for ten years now, so bear with me while I plaster on a fake smile and plough through this shit one more time.


By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.

"You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing."

Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!


I've learned a lot about women. I think I've learned exactly how the fall of man occured in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, and Adam said one day, "Wow, Eve, here we are, at one with nature, at one with God, we'll never age, we'll never die, and all our dreams come true the instant that we have them." And Eve said, "Yeah... it's just not enough is it?"


Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your goverment is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!


I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had, cause I love you. And you feel it. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead -- just play with this -- if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world -- and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded -- we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever in peace. Thank you very much. You've been great, I hope you enjoyed it.


The worst kind of non-smokers are the ones that come up to you and cough. That's pretty fucking cruel isn't it? Do you go up to cripples and dance too?


If the FBI's motivating factor for busting down the Koresh compound was child abuse, how come we never see Bradley tanks smashing into Catholic churches?


I love the Pope, I love seeing him in his Pope-Mobile, his three feet of bullet proof plexi-glass. That's faith in action folks! You know he's got God on his side.


See we just had a misunderstanding. I thought we lived in the U.S. of A., the United States of America. But actually we live in the U.S. of A., the United States of Advertising. Freedom of expression is guaranteed? If you've got the money!

-- Bill Hicks, on being censored from "The Late Show with David Letterman"


Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."

Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?

"That's right."

Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?



You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.

"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.

"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.

"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."


People ask me what I think about that woman priest thing. What, a woman priest? Women priests. Great, great. Now there's priests of both sexes I don't listen to.

Here is Hicks on stage talking about the JFK assassination:

Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Sun May 31st 2009, 11:31 PM
I walked into El Presidente’s office two days after he was elected and congratulated him… I said “Mr. President, in here I got a couple hundred million dollars for you and your family, if you play the game – you know, be kind to my friends who run the oil companies, treat your Uncle Sam good.” Then I stepped closer, reached my right hand into the other pocket, bent down next to his face, and whispered, “In here I got a gun and a bullet with your name on it – in case you decide to keep your campaign promises.” I stepped back, sat down, and recited a little list for him, of presidents who were assassinated or overthrown because they defied their Uncle Sam: from Diem to Torrijos – you know the routine. He got the message. – John Perkins, quoting an anonymous source in his new book, “The Secret History of the American Empire – Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption”.

No matter what promises you make on the campaign trail, blah blah blah, when you win (the U.S. Presidency), you go into this smoky room with the 12 industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down...and its a shot of the JFK assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously like the grassy knoll, and then the screen comes up and the lights go on, and they ask the new president "any questions? – Comedian Bill Hicks


In past posts I’ve speculated about the “Powers That Be” (PTB), the unelected but powerful and shadowy elite who seem to exercise influence over national and world events far more than a lot of people realize. Though most DUers – if not most Americans – seem to recognize their existence, because of their shadowy nature they are very difficult to talk about with much confidence.

In my most recent post I talked about excessive obedience to authority as one of the greatest sources of evil in the world. Of course, the most important “authority” of relevance to a political discussion of obedience would be the PTB.

Despite their minimal visibility, they seem to have their fingerprints over much of our nation’s history. Their ultimate purpose and motives can only be guessed at, but two aspects of our nation’s current condition seem to stand out above most others: 1) Rampant militarism manifested by a military budget almost equal to that of the rest of the world combined, a philosophy of perpetual war, more than 700 military bases scattered throughout all parts of the world, and imperialistic behavior and attitudes in relation to the other nations of the world; and 2) Obscenely unequal distribution of wealth.

Clearly, an understanding of this issue is of great importance to our attempts to understand how the world operates. Yet, the shadowy nature of the PTB greatly hampers our attempts to understand it. James Douglass’s book, “JFK and the Unspeakable – Why he Died and Why it Matters”, goes farther than any book I’ve previously read in concretely describing the conflict between the PTB and a U.S. President. Consequently, I find it to be one of the most enlightening books I’ve ever read:

Show down with the steel industry

Concerned about the rising price of steel, President John F. Kennedy brokered an agreement] between the United Steelworkers union and the United States Steel Company, signed on April 6, 1962, with the understanding that U.S. Steel would not raise steel prices. Four days later the president of U.S. Steel, Roger Blough, asked to meet with Kennedy. At their meeting he handed Kennedy a copy of a press release announcing that U.S. Steel would be raising steel prices.

In response to Blough’s double-cross, JFK told Blough “You’ve made a terrible mistake”, began immediately to shift Defense Department contracts from U.S. Steel to smaller companies that had not raised the price of steel, and had his Attorney General convene a grand jury to investigate price fixing among the largest steel companies. He then gave a press conference to the nation on April 11th, in which he said:

Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest… The American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans…

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer.

Under attack by the President, and facing massive public resentment, the steel companies then tried to negotiate a compromise with Kennedy, but he refused to compromise. On April 13, 1962, the six largest steel countries in the country surrendered, reducing their steel prices to their previous levels. Douglass explains the upshot of JFK’s actions against the steel companies:

John and Robert Kennedy had become notorious in the ranks of big business. JFK’s strategy of withdrawing defense contracts and RFK’s aggressive investigating tactics toward men of power were seen as unforgivable sins by the corporate world. As a result of the president’s uncompromising stand against the steel industry – and implicitly any corporation that chose to defy his authority – a bitter gap opened up between Kennedy and big business, whose most powerful elements coincided with the MIC…

When Roger Blough handed U.S. Steel’s provocative press release to the president, he did so on behalf of not only U.S. steel but also these other financial giants… The president was acting too much like a president, rather than just another officeholder beholden to the powers that be… His unswerving response served to confirm the worst fears of corporate America… The steel crisis defined John and Robert Kennedy as Wall Street enemies…

JFK’s four refusals to invade Cuba

In a previous post I discussed JFK’s four refusals to let his military and CIA draw him into war with Cuba. So I won’t repeat that here. But to summarize:

Following the April 15-19, 1961, CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs by a Cuban Expeditionary Force, Kennedy’s military and CIA attempted to pressure him into committing to a full-scale invasion, in order to avoid the imminent defeat of the Cuban Expeditionary Force. Kennedy refused.

On March 16, 1962, Kennedy’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by their Chief, Lyman Lemnitzer, presented a plan called “Operation Northwoods” to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The plan involved a false flag terrorist operation that was meant to draw the United States into a war against Cuba. The idea was shot down. Kennedy told Lemnitzer that “there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.”

In his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis, Kennedy repeatedly resisted advice from his military advisors to escalate the situation by invading Cuba. On October 19th, 1962, Air Force Chief of Staff, General Curtis LeMay, contemptuously said of the President, “This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.... I just don't see any other solution except direct military intervention right now.” But Kennedy instead decided upon a naval blockade, paired with intense back-channel diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis. On October 22, despite the urging of Senate leaders for air strikes, he addressed the American public to announce his resolve to implement the naval blockade only.

On March 19, 1963, the CIA-sponsored Cuban exile group Alpha 66 announced at a press conference that it had raided a Soviet “fortress” and ship in Cuba, causing a dozen casualties. Kennedy eventually had to undertake vigorous action in order to stop the continuing attacks, as described in a April 6, 1963 article in the New York Times, which stated that the U.S. government intended to ‘take every step necessary’ to halt the raids.

Refusal to go to war in Laos

As Kennedy took office in January 1961, he was confronted with advice from outgoing President Eisenhower and from his military that he should intervene militarily in Laos against Communist forces seeking control of the government. Kennedy preferred a non-military solution if possible – negotiating a coalition Communist and non-Communist government in Laos. He made that policy official at a March 23 news conference, stating that he supported:

strongly and unreservedly… the goal of a neutral and independent Laos, tied to no outside power or group of powers, threatening no one, and free from any domination.

His military was adamantly against that solution. Admiral Burke told him “We should go in to win, and that means bombing Hanoi, China, and maybe even using nuclear weapons.” Air Force General Curtis LeMay stated in front of a room full of national security advisors that “The military had been unable to back up the President’s statements.” And General Lemnitzer told him “If we are given the right to use nuclear weapons, we can guarantee victory.”

But Kennedy persisted in trying to devise a non-military solution. Douglass describes how that turned out:

On July 23, 1962, the United States joins thirteen other nations at Geneva in signing the “Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos.” CIA and Pentagon opponents regard Kennedy’s negotiation of the Laotian agreement as surrender to the Communists. They undermine it by supporting General Phoumi’s violations of the cease-fire.

Plans for withdrawal from Vietnam

Early in his presidency Kennedy encountered strong determination from his military to get more deeply involved in the Vietnam War by sending in combat troops. Kennedy repeated refused to do that, though in November 1961 he compromised by sending in support units and “advisors” – though some of them did participate in combat.

After that he repeatedly requested a plan from his military for withdrawal from Vietnam. Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers and partially wrote them, discussed the reason for JFK's desire to withdraw from Vietnam against the unanimous advice of his military, with JFK’s brother Bobby. Douglass relates the following conversation on this issue:

Robert Kennedy answered that his brother was absolutely determined never to send ground combat units to Vietnam, because if he did, the U.S. would be in the same spot as the French -- whites against Asians, in a war against nationalism and self-determination.

Ellsberg pressed the question: Was JFK willing to accept defeat rather than send troops?

RFK said that if the president reached the point where the only alternative to defeat was sending ground troops or withdrawing, he intended to withdraw. "We would have handled it like Laos," his brother said.

Douglass describes the eventual outcome of JFK’s withdrawal plans

On May 6, 1963, the Pacific Command finally presents President Kennedy’s long-sought plan for withdrawal from Vietnam. However, McNamara has to reject the military’s overextended time line. He orders that concrete plans be drawn up for withdrawing one thousand U.S. military personnel from South Vietnam by the end of 1963.

Several reliable sources explain that Kennedy’s intentions to withdraw from Vietnam were firm and would have been carried out had he lived much longer.

Aspiring to an independent Congo

Again, against the advice of his military, Kennedy aspired to an independent Congo. Douglass explains Kennedy’s intentions and the friction that caused with his military and CIA:

Kennedy and (Edmund) Gullion promoted (UN Secretary-General) Hammarskjold’s vision of a united, independent Congo, to the dismay of multinational corporations working ceaselessly to carve up the country and control its rich resources. After Kennedy’s death, the corporations would succeed in controlling the Congo with the complicity of local kingpins. While JFK was alive, a Kennedy-Hammarskjold-UN vision kept the Congo together and independent.

Seventeen years after JFK’s death, Gullion said, “Kennedy, I think, risked a great deal in backing this operation (of UN forces in the Congo)…” The risk came from within his own government. Kennedy rejected his State Department’s and Joint Chiefs’ proposals for “direct U.S. military intervention in the Congo in September 1961 and December 1962.”… His Congo policy was also being subverted by the CIA, which had been arming the Congo’s secessionist regime in Katanga in order to promote Belgian mining interests… Kennedy’s policy, carried out by Gullion, was to support the UN peacekeeping operation. The President often quoted the statement his UN ambassador Adlai Stevenson made to the Security Council, that the only way to keep the Cold War out of the Congo was to keep the UN in the Congo. But the CIA wanted the Cold War in the Congo.

Plans to end the Cold War

Douglass presents a great deal of evidence on Kennedy’s intentions to end the Cold War, accompanied by frequent communication with Nikita Khrushchev towards the attainment of that goal. Perhaps the best evidence of Kennedy’s intention is provided by his peace speech at American University on June 10th 1963 (which I discuss in more detail in this post), just a little more than four months before he died. He began:

… I have, therefore, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived – yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war… I am talking about genuine peace – the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living – the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women – not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

He talked about how the presence of nuclear weapons meant that that we MUST make peace a priority:

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn.

In marked contrast to the prevailing tough anti-Communist rhetoric of the day, Kennedy spoke of the need for Americans to examine their own attitudes:

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament -- and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitude – as individuals and as a Nation – for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward – by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace… Too many of us think it is impossible… But that is dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable – that mankind is doomed – that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…

Six weeks later, Kennedy announced to the American people the first nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. With an extensive public campaign and help from his Secretary of Defense… Kennedy prevailed upon the Senate to ratify the treaty. Kennedy then undertook secret negotiations with Fidel Castro in an attempt to come to an accommodation with him.

Implication for today’s World

Could the circumstances of JFK’s death have created a chilling effect on future U.S. presidents with otherwise independent or liberal tendencies? Could these considerations explain some of President Obama’s right turns? My tendency is to answer yes to both questions, though I have no way of knowing for sure.

Most important is the question of how to reduce the influence of the PTB on the world, our country, and our own lives. The key to that question lies in the fact that they are vastly outnumbered. Because they are vastly outnumbered, their success depends upon securing the allegiance and obedience of vast numbers of people. Because their violent and depraved methods and selfish goals are so out of synch with the good majority of Americans, the key to securing their allegiance and obedience is to create an alternate reality that people can believe in. That alternate reality hides much of the violence and depravity from our awareness, as it creates an elaborate system of rationalizations for what it cannot hide. Thus it is that we’re told that the purpose of our wars is to protect us against terrorists or to bring freedom and democracy to the poor uncivilized peoples who can’t carry on without our help.

That is why the PTB could not tolerate, for example, prosecuting the Bush administration for war crimes, and why it gets apoplectic at the mention of releasing pictures that depict those war crimes. A thorough investigation of those crimes could go a long way towards destroying the foundation for belief in their alternate reality. It could force Americans to confront some very inconvenient and unpleasant truths. In short, it could undermine the whole basis for their power.

Let me be more specific about this. The power of the PTB in the United States depends above all else on maintaining the widespread belief that the United States is – as “super-patriots” are so fond of claiming – “the greatest force for good in the world”. What kind of person would be willing to volunteer to risk his life fighting in his country’s war if he didn’t have great confidence in the benevolence and motives of his country? Convicting the highest leaders of the U.S. government for war crimes would shatter that confidence to hell and would therefore go a long way towards undermining the power of the PTB. And that would radically change the fabric of American society.
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Saturday, July 11, 2009 0 comments

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites