CIA Concludes Study of UFO's Futile - No one would trust the findings.

CIA concludes study of UFOs futile — who'd trust findings?

A 17-page report available on the CIA's Web site acknowledges the futility of investigating UFOs by the government agency.

By Erik Lacitis

Seattle Times staff reporter

It's a 17-page report available on the CIA's Web site that acknowledges the futility of investigating UFOs by the government agency.
It concludes, "Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the Agency does or says.
"The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies of rational explanation and evidence."
Still, "CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90," makes for fascinating reading.
It was published in 2007 by Gerald K. Hines, the historian for the National Reconnaissance Office.
If you haven't heard of the NRO, it says it "designs, builds and operates the nation's reconnaissance satellites" and is staffed by Department of Defense and CIA employees. It lists its "vision" as "Vigilance from Above."
In the 17 pages, Hines has put together what reads as an objective, thorough history of the CIA and UFOs.

READ MORE

HAARP - High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

US: Military Scientists Study Ionosphere -- Signs of the Times News: "http://www.sott.net/articles/show/205721-US-Military-Scientists-Study-Ionosphere"

by Bob Freeman
US Air Force News - Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:17 EST

"Master Sgt. Yolanda Hernandez, left, and Staff Sgt. Stephen S. Ensminger, electronic systems maintainers, stand under the sweeping dipoles on a Solar Radio Spectrograph. The SRS measures radio wavelengths between 25-75 MHz.

Washington -- At a facility in a remote part of south-central Alaska, the largest radio transmitter on Earth sends high-frequency signals into the ionosphere to help scientists better understand the influence of charged particles on radio communications and satellite surveillance systems.

Surprisingly, it also is able to create a mini-ionosphere.

"The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, a program known as HAARP, is basically a joint Air Force-Navy program to investigate ionospheric physics and radio science," explained James Battis, HAARP program manager at the Air Force Research Laboratory, during a Feb. 24 interview on Pentagon Web Radio's audio webcast "Armed with Science: Research and Applications for the Modern Military."

Mr. Battis was joined in the interview by Craig Selcher, HAARP program manager at the Naval Research Laboratory, and Todd Pedersen, a senior research physicist at AFRL.

"The ionosphere is a region of the upper atmosphere where there are a significant number of charged particles," Mr. Pedersen said. He explained that energy from the sun, particularly in the ultraviolet wavelengths, strikes atmospheric gas molecules and atoms with enough force to dislodge electrons. This results in a field of negatively charged electrons and positively charged atoms and molecules (ions), maintained in a plasma state, which conducts electrical currents and responds to electric and magnetic fields.

Mr. Battis mentioned that radio waves passing through the ionosphere are affected by the charged particles. "This can affect things like the quality of the signal from a satellite to the ground, or short-wave communications from ground to ground," he said.

He added that the signals from satellite-based surveillance and positioning systems also can be affected by the ionosphere.

"When the signals from GPS come down (from the satellite), their paths are actually deflected by the structure of the ionosphere," he said, "and some GPS errors are due to distortions created by the ionosphere." He explained that while these errors may not be significant to the average user, they can be significant for precise military positioning. "That's one of the reasons (the Defense Department) is interested," he noted.

But the scientists all agreed that communications are the major reason for Defense Department interest.

"These are the transmissions which are used to communicate with aircraft and satellites, so the Air Force is interested largely in effects of the ionosphere on communications," Battis said.

Mr. Selcher agreed. "We have ships all over the globe that we want to be in contact with at all times, so any effect the ionosphere has on communications is something that we want to study," he said.

Mr. Battis noted that the research conducted by HAARP will benefit civilian communication systems as well, including those supporting civil aviation and ground communications.

"Satellite radio and satellite television can also be impacted by naturally occurring ionospheric conditions," Mr. Selcher added. "And trying to understand those is to begin to learn to predict, and maybe to (improve), the problem."

Mr. Battis described much of the previous ionospheric research as passive, with the evaluation of ionospheric effects based on the quality of reception of a normally transmitted radio signal.

"The radio waves we transmit from the array at our facility actively create processes and interactions with the particles in the ionosphere," he said. "Hopefully, we can learn what the responses are and how to use them to improve transmissions through the ionosphere."

"We have radio-wave sensors which send waves up to the ionosphere and listen for a reflection or an echo off something up there," Mr. Pedersen remarked. "And we have passive sensors that will listen to waves produced in the ionosphere, and also optical sensors."

Mr. Pedersen explained that when energy is directed at the ionosphere, some of it eventually comes back in the form of radio waves and some in the form of optical emissions.

"When these electrons get moved around by the electric field, they ultimately run into molecules up there, and when they have enough energy they'll become excited and give off light, just like the inside of a fluorescent light bulb," he said.

Mr. Battis and Mr. Selcher said that the radio waves emitted from the HAARP array create reactions that mimic natural processes in the ionosphere, but they are more controlled and their time and frequency input is measured, allowing the researchers to differentiate them from natural occurrences and better understand the processes at play.

"You can actually repeat the experiment again and again to verify that you're getting the right data and that the data means what you think it means," Mr. Selcher said.

Mr. Battis described the unique nature of the HAARP array, consisting of 180 transmitters distributed over 35 to 40 acres of land, with a frequency range of 2.65 to 10 megahertz.

"We can actually direct the signal within about 15 degrees of the zenith and move the signal in time," he said. "We can paint the sky. Similar facilities are typically restricted to three or four frequencies in that band, whereas we're able to do more continuous frequencies."

"That allows you to really expand the kind of experiments that you can do," Mr. Selcher added. "You can start sweeping the beam around in space, and you can change frequencies to determine if there's a frequency that has a stronger interaction with the ionosphere."

Continue Reading

Wikileaks Update - Russia Today Reports

More on this story here at the Raw Story.

"The Pentagon has been accused of spying on a whistleblower website that specialises in leaking top secret documents. The US Army has already labeled the website as a security threat. Now Wikileaks – which won Amnesty Internationals news media award last year – has issued a statement claiming its editors are being investigated: WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation, – the claim published on Tweeter said." - infowars.com

We Are Change Atlanta - Pink Elephant 9/11

 March 19, 2010 — We Are Change Atlanta, AE911Truth and the Pink Elephant Collective - Popular Atlanta Neighborhood Gets a Dose of 9/11 Truth



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Very nice. It's good to see something creative like this promote conversation about truth in a busy neighborhood. I do think the 9/11 truth cat has three paws out of the bag. Those who don't see it, aren't looking at the cat or the bag.

Jordan Maxwell - Project Camelot Interview

From Project Camelot:  Jordan Maxwell Interview - Sept.2009

"This is a long-awaited, long-requested blockbuster of an interview with one of the greatest alternative researchers of our time. Here Jordan Maxwell tells all: and builds, through the three hour video, to present his firm conclusions about what is happening on Planet Earth."

- Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassiday

-------------------------------------------------------
This really is a must see/hear interview. I think this was one of the most entertaining videos I've seen from Project Camelot to date.

Have A Nice World War, Folks

25 Mar 2010

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes the increasing American war front across the world: from Afghanistan to Africa and Latin America. This is the Third World War in all but name, waged by the only aggressive "ism" that denies it is an ideology and threatened not by introverted tribesmen in faraway places but by the anti-war instincts of its own citizens. Here is news of the Third World War. The United States has invaded Africa. US troops have entered Somalia, extending their war front from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen and now the Horn of Africa. In preparation for an attack on Iran, American missiles have been placed in four Persian Gulf states, and “bunker-buster” bombs are said to be arriving at the US base on the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. In Gaza, the sick and abandoned population, mostly children, is being entombed behind underground American-supplied walls in order to reinforce a criminal siege. In Latin America, the Obama administration has secured seven bases in Colombia, from which to wage a war of attrition against the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay. Meanwhile, the secretary of “defence” Robert Gates complains that “the general [European] public and the political class” are so opposed to war they are an “impediment” to peace. Remember this is the month of the March Hare. According to an American general, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is not so much a real war as a “war of perception”. Thus, the recent “liberation of the city of Marja” from the Taliban’s “command and control structure” was pure Hollywood. Marja is not a city; there was no Taliban command and control. The heroic liberators killed the usual civilians, poorest of the poor. Otherwise, it was fake. A war of perception is meant to provide fake news for the folks back home, to make a failed colonial adventure seem worthwhile and patriotic, as if The Hurt Locker were real and parades of flag-wrapped coffins through the Wiltshire town of Wooten Basset were not a cynical propaganda exercise. “War is fun”, the helmets in Vietnam used to say with bleakest irony, meaning that if a war is revealed as having no purpose other than to justify voracious power in the cause of lucrative fanaticisms such as the weapons industry, the danger of truth beckons. This danger can be illustrated by the liberal perception of Tony Blair in 1997 as one “who wants to create a world [where] ideology has surrendered entirely to values” (Hugo Young, the Guardian) compared with today’s public reckoning of a liar and war criminal. Western war-states such as the US and Britain are not threatened by the Taliban or any other introverted tribesmen in faraway places, but by the anti-war instincts of their own citizens. Consider the draconian sentences handed down in London to scores of young people who protested Israel’s assault on Gaza in January last year. Following demonstrations in which paramilitary police “kettled” (corralled) thousands, first-offenders have received two and a half years in prison for minor offences that would not normally carry custodial sentences. On both sides of the Atlantic, serious dissent exposing illegal war has become a serious crime. Silence in other high places allows this moral travesty. Across the arts, literature, journalism and the law, liberal elites, having hurried away from the debris of Blair and now Obama, continue to fudge their indifference to the barbarism and aims of western state crimes by promoting retrospectively the evils of their convenient demons, like Saddam Hussein. With Harold Pinter gone, try compiling a list of famous writers, artists and advocates whose principles are not consumed by the “market” or neutered by their celebrity. Who among them have spoken out about the holocaust in Iraq during almost 20 years of lethal blockade and assault? And all of it has been deliberate. On 22 January 1991, the US Defence Intelligence Agency predicted in impressive detail how a blockade would systematically destroy Iraq’s clean water system and lead to “increased incidences, if not epidemics of disease”. So the US set about eliminating clean water for the Iraqi population: one of the causes, noted Unicef, of the deaths of half a million Iraqi infants under the age of five. But this extremism apparently has no name. Norman Mailer once said he believed the United States, in its endless pursuit of war and domination, had entered a “pre-fascist era”. Mailer seemed tentative, as if trying to warn about something even he could not quite define. “Fascism” is not right, for it invokes lazy historical precedents, conjuring yet again the iconography of German and Italian repression. On the other hand, American authoritarianism, as the cultural critic Henry Giroux pointed out recently, is “more nuance, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent.” This is Americanism, the only predatory ideology to deny that it is an ideology. The rise of tentacular corporations that are dictatorships in their own right and of a military that is now a state with the state, set behind the façade of the best democracy 35,000 Washington lobbyists can buy, and a popular culture programmed to divert and stultify, is without precedent. More nuanced perhaps, but the results are both unambiguous and familiar. Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, the senior United Nations officials in Iraq during the American and British-led blockade, are in no doubt they witnessed genocide. They saw no gas chambers. Insidious, undeclared, even presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, the Third World War and its genocide proceeded, human being by human being. In the coming election campaign in Britain, the candidates will refer to this war only to laud “our boys”. The candidates are almost identical political mummies shrouded in the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes. As Blair demonstrated a mite too eagerly, the British elite loves America because America allows it to barrack and bomb the natives and call itself a “partner”. We should interrupt their fun.

Starchild DNA Reveals Father Not Human

Lloyd Pye Update: We finally have a recovery of nuclear DNA from the Starchild skull

We finally have a recovery of nuclear DNA from the Starchild!  

This past weekend I met with the geneticist working on the Starchild's DNA. He explained how he can now prove the Starchild is not entirely human, which has been our position for years. Now it is no longer a question of "if," but of "when" and "how" we spread this astounding new reality beyond the mailing list. First, though, let me bring the list's newcomers up to speed.

In 2003 we had a DNA analysis that used human-only primers to recover the Starchild's mitochondrial DNA, the DNA outside the nucleus, which comes from the mother and her genetic line. That meant its mother was human. But we could not recover its nuclear DNA, which comes from both mother and father, which meant its father was not a human. Unfortunately, with the recovery technology of 2003 we couldn't prove what he was, which left us in scientific limbo. The "no result" from the search for the nuclear DNA clearly meant Dad wasn't human, but we could not prove that fact beyond all possible doubt. 

Now, in 2010, there have been many improvements in the recovery process, and those improvements have been applied to the Starchild skull with the stunning result you see below. This is a gel sheet that shows a clear recovery of its nuclear DNA, which could not be done in 2003.  

 

The next two screen shots are taken from the national genetic database at the National Institute of Health, NIH. That public-access database is a centralized repository of all genetic information generated by geneticists all over the world, and now covers essentially all living organisms on Earth, from various kinds of viruses and bacteria, to various kinds of crustaceans and fish, to all kinds of animals and plants, including great apes and humans. 

For many species, humans included, there are already nucleotide sequences covering entire genomes. Therefore, sequences from the Starchild's DNA can be directly compared against this vast database to look for any matches. In one such comparison below, you see the text below the blue line at the bottom (if you can read it, sorry it's so fuzzy) that 265 base pairs (a good length) of recovered Starchild nuclear DNA matches perfectly with a gene on human chromosome 1. This verifies beyond any degree of doubt that some of the nuclear DNA seen in the gel sheet is from a human being.

Read More: Source: Exopolitics

More on this Starchild skull from Llyod Pye in the video below

Interesting.

 

The Great 9/11 Insurance Bonanza - Shady Insurance Policies Set Up Weeks Before WTC attacks on 9/11

by Gene Cappa
Source: OpEd News
March 26, 2010

“An Insurance Policy that had been set up for the WTC Complex only weeks before the Twin Towers went down” says Investigative Journalist Laurence De Mello.
Larry Silverstein – “The Harder I Worked The Luckier I Became”

De Mello continues, “In 1980, Jewish real estate tycoon Silverstein, won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center to the north of the WTC. Building 7 World Trade Center was situated above a (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints.”

When the building first opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building.

But this building was also losing money. Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. (he had waited over 20 years for this!).

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was initially outbid by $50 million by Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties with Vornado Realty, who were also competing for the lease”. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial lease applicant and the Port Authority fell through, Silverstein signed the lease on July 24, 2001, only weeks (48 days) before the towers were destroyed on 11th September of the same year.

Larry Silverstein had acquired what was considered a very expensive ”white elephant”. Here comes a Red Flag; After Silverstein closed his deal he stated; “This is a dream come true,” “We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights.” Yet this was a comment that was meant to make the public think this was a good investment. He didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that he was buying the dead asset which the WTC was immediately before 9/11. Why ? Because he already knew what was going to happen!

This was written in “‘Business week” with regard to the WTC before 9/11. From an economic standpoint, the Trade Center — subsidized since its inception — has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.

The Port Authority had made several attempts over the years to get the permits required to demolish the entire site but were always refused because of the “asbestos problem” and the serious danger that “asbestos” would cause to the local community should the buildings be “demolished” in the conventional manner.

His only consent to get around that risk to health was that the building could be literally dismantled “‘floor by floor”, which could never have been a viable operation. Other New York developers had apparently been driven to bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations and the prospect of $200 million to plug those losses, which represented an entire year’s worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers at full rental capacity.

So even after Larry Silverstein’s multi billion dollar acquisition in July of 2001 the Towers still required further funds of some $200 million in renovations and improvements to make the buildings rentable. Most of the 200 million renovation funds related to the removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

Here we see a Red Flag; Where would that money have come from if Silverstein already had to invest 14 million of his own money to close the deal? This 14 million of Silverstein’s personal funds being used in the deal tells us there was no more investors money available when he bought the lease in July 2002, so how would Silverstein have found another 200 million dollars to bring the WTC up to the standard for it to start to pay its own way?

Red Flag; One has to ask why would the biggest real estate developer in the USA acquire a group of buildings that were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per month? Especially as this new lease did not give him the right to redevelop the WTC site to make it a viable investment.
Now here’s the interesting clause to the 99 year lease that was “‘turning Silverstein on”; although Silverstein was not permitted to redevelop the site, HE DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES SHOULD THEY BE DESTROYED.

Now remember, Silverstein invested not only 3.2 billion dollars of other people’s money into the deal, but also 14 million dollars of his own money! Now that’s a very unusual investment step to take by a real estate genius, putting all that money into a site that was continuously a monumental financial loss.

A site that can never be developed in a way that was financially feasible! How does one justify that move to ones 3.2 billion dollar investors? I would love to have seen the Business Plan for that! We should certainly ask for those!

After closing the WTC deal in late July 2001, Silverstein immediately insured his “‘white elephant” buildings. The insurance coverage on the property ‘fortuitously’ covered acts of terrorism.

And more curiously, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein’s view, separate attacks.

The total potential payout was $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

From Forbes.com 6th Dec 2004, “A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes”.

The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. “That means Silverstein got his buildings demolished in hours, he gets his insurance payments giving him 1.3 billion dollars more than he paid for the WTC 99 year lease, he gets free rein to build a state of the art, healthy, cost effective complex in the centre of Manhatten.

And all only 48 days after he signed the contracts! No wonder he used his own 14 million dollars, he KNEW he was getting it back!

Here we also start to think, hold on, if so many BIG people knew that the buildings were not permitted to be demolished due to health risks from asbestos, why were the locals told the air was “safe to breath” immediately after the 9/11 collapse?

The Port authority had applied for years for permits and had been refused yet they lied saying the air was safe. Why?

Then we have those famous words of Silvestein days after the 9/11 horror, “I remember getting a call from the, uh, Fire Department Commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh…and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” ~ Larry Silverstein, owner of New York’s World Trade Center Building 7, which was demolished on 9/11/2001.
So they just pulled it, in just a couple of hours, just like that!

Hhmmm, go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and our very qualified friends will tell you just how many weeks of planning it takes to just “pull it”.

Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Support Criminal 9/11 Investigation-Use of Explosives/Insurance Fraud
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

FDA Warns Doctors/Parents Against Using Rotarix Vaccine (confirmed: it contains a pig virus)

FDA warns against using rotavirus vaccine

Rotarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline, is found to contain a pig virus that is not known to cause illness in humans. Merck's RotaTeq is recommended until more information can be gleaned.

March 23, 2010|By Thomas H. Maugh II

  

"The Food and Drug Administration on Monday warned doctors and parents against using the Rotarix rotavirus vaccine until further testing can confirm that it is safe. 

The warning follows an academic research group's discovery -- subsequently confirmed by the FDA and Rotarix manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline -- that the vaccine contains a pig virus called porcine circovirus 1, or PCV1. The virus is not known to cause illness in humans, and no adverse effects have been observed in children vaccinated with Rotarix, but the agency decided to err on the side of caution with the warning until more information can be obtained.

Advertisement

For the time being, the agency recommends that pediatricians use a competing vaccine, RotaTeq, manufactured by Merck. Preliminary tests have found no traces of PCV1 in this vaccine.

Rotavirus causes severe diarrhea and dehydration and is thought to cause more than 500,000 deaths in infants worldwide each year, primarily in low- and middle-income countries. Before the introduction of RotaTeq in the U.S. in 2006, the disease caused an estimated 50,000 hospitalizations and several dozen deaths each year. Rotarix was introduced in 2008. Most U.S. children who have been vaccinated against rotavirus as part of their normal vaccinations have received RotaTeq, the FDA said. About 1 million have received Rotarix."

Read The Rest: Source: LA Times

To "err on the side of caution" is a good thing. It would be terrible if a mass group of people took this vaccine without knowing whether or not it is harmful.

Tony Blair's Secret Deal With Multinational Oil Giant, UI Energy Corp.

Blair's Fight to Keep His Oil Cash Secret: Former PM's Deals Are Revealed As His Earnings Since 2007 Reach £20Million

Tony Blair waged an extraordinary two-year battle to keep secret a lucrative deal with a multinational oil giant which has extensive interests in Iraq.

The former Prime Minister tried to keep the public in the dark over his dealings with South Korean oil firm UI Energy Corporation.

Mr Blair - who has made at least £20million since leaving Downing Street in June 2007 - also went to great efforts to keep hidden a £1million deal advising the ruling royal family in Iraq's neighbour Kuwait.

In an unprecedented move, he persuaded the committee which vets the jobs of former ministers to keep details of both deals from the public for 20 months, claiming it was commercially sensitive. The deals emerged yesterday when the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments finally lost patience with Mr Blair and decided to ignore his objections and publish the details.

 News of the secret deals fuelled fresh accusations that Mr Blair is 'cashing in on his contacts' from the controversial Iraq war in what one MP called 'revolving door politics at its worst'.

They will increase concerns that Mr Blair is using his role as the West's Middle East envoy for personal gain.

The revelations also shed fresh light on his astonishing earnings, which include lucrative after-dinner speaking, consultancies with banks and foreign governments, a generous advance for his forthcoming memoirs, as well as the pension and other perks he enjoys as a former Prime Minister.

The full extent of his income is cloaked in secrecy because he has constructed a complex web of shadowy companies and partnerships which let him avoid publishing full accounts detailing all the money from his commercial ventures.

Critics also point out that a large proportion of his earnings comes from patrons in America and the Middle East - a clear benefit from forging a close alliance with George Bush during his invasion of Iraq.

Last night Tory MP Douglas Carswell said of Mr Blair's links to UI Energy Corporation: 'This doesn't just look bad, it stinks.

'It seems that the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been in the pay of a very big foreign oil corporation and we have been kept in the dark about it.

'Even now we do not know what he was paid or what the company got out of it. We need that information now.

'This is revolving door politics at its worst. It's not as if Mr Blair has even stepped back from politics, because he is still politically active in the Middle East. 

'I'm afraid I have no confidence at all in the committee that vets these appointments. It's no good telling us these deals may be commercially sensitive - we are talking about the appointment of our former Prime Minister and the public interest, rather than any commercial interests, must come first.'

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: 'These revelations show that our former Prime Minister is for sale - he is driven by making as much money as possible.

'I think many people will find it deeply insensitive that he is apparently cashing in on his contacts from the Iraq war to make money for himself.'

The committee said yesterday that Mr Blair had taken a paid job advising a consortium of investors led by UI Energy in August 2008. The exact nature of the deal is unknown, but UI Energy is one of the biggest investors in Iraq's oil-rich Kurdistan region, which became semi-autonomous in the wake of the Iraq war.

Mr Blair's fee has not been disclosed but is likely to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The secrecy is particularly odd because UI Energy is fond of boasting of its foreign political advisers, who include the former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and several prominent American politicians.

Mr Blair successfully persuaded the committee that the appointment was 'market sensitive' and could not be made public.

The committee agreed to suspend its normal practice and keep the deals secret for three months. Mr Blair then asked for a further extension.

When this ran out last year the committee repeatedly 'chased' Mr Blair about the issue without hearing anything. Eventually the committee's chairman, former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Lang, reviewed the papers and ordered the deal to be made public, along with a separate deal with Kuwait which had been kept secret at the request of the Kuwaiti government.

The decision to keep the deals secret will fuel concerns about the effectiveness of the committee, which has been repeatedly criticised for its failure to halt the revolving door between politics and industry.

The committee is supposed to ease public concerns about former public servants using their contacts for private gain.

Ministers have to have all jobs vetted within two years of leaving office. But the committee is packed with former politicians and Whitehall grandees and is thought never to have banned a former minister or senior civil servant from taking up a lucrative job in the private sector.

Earlier this month the Government quietly rejected calls for the committee to be beefed up with more figures from outside the world of politics.

Gordon Brown has so far refused to answer questions about whether Mr Blair's arrangements breach his responsibilities under the ministerial code.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said last night: 'Mr Blair gave a one-off piece of advice in respect of a project for UI Energy in August 2008.

'He sought, and received, approval from the Committee on Business Appointments before undertaking this project.

'It was UI Energy who requested of the committee that they delay public announcement, for reasons of market sensitivity.'

 Global Research Articles by Jason Groves

Hobbits Had Million-Year History On Island?

John Roach

for National Geographic News

Published March 17, 2010

"Newfound stone tools suggest the evolutionary history of the "hobbits" on the Indonesian island of Flores stretches back a million years, a new study says—200,000 years longer than previously thought.

The hobbit mystery was sparked by the 2004 discovery of bones on Flores that belonged to a three-foot-tall (one-meter-tall), 55-pound (25-kilogram) female with a grapefruit-size brain.

The tiny, hobbit-like creature—controversially dubbed a new human species, Homo floresiensis—persisted on the remote island until about 18,000 years ago, even as "modern" humans spread around the world, experts say.

Found in million-year-old volcanic sediments, the newly discovered tools are "simple sharp-edged flakes" like those found at nearby sites on Flores—sites dated to later time periods but also associated with hobbits and their ancestors—said study co-leader Adam Brumm, an archaeologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia, via e-mail.

The finding implies that a culture of stone tool wielding ancient humans, with origins in Africa, survived on the island for much longer than previously believed, according to the new research, published online today by the journal Nature.

"That's exciting," because it suggests that by a million years ago, early humans had covered more ground on their exodus from Africa than previously thought, said paleontologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum of London, who wasn't involved in the new study."

Read the Rest - Source: National Geographic

Wikileaks Makes The Pentagon's Naughty List

Pentagon Sees a Threat From Online Muckrakers

By STEPHANIE STROM 

Published: March 17, 2010

To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information and documents that governments and corporations around the world would prefer to keep secret.

The Pentagon assessed the danger WikiLeaks.org posed to the Army in a report marked “unauthorized disclosure subject to criminal sanctions.” It concluded that “WikiLeaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC and INFOSEC threat to the U.S. Army” — or, in plain English, a threat to Army operations and information.

WikiLeaks, true to its mission to publish materials that expose secrets of all kinds, published the 2008 Pentagon report about itself on Monday.

Lt. Col. Lee Packnett, an Army spokesman, confirmed that the report was real. Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the concerns the report raised were hypothetical.

“It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the Army but no concrete examples of any real harm being done.”

Read the Rest - Source: NY Times

Judge Rejects 9/11 Settlement - "Will Not Preside Over Settlement Based on Fear Or Ignorance"

Judge rejects 9/11 settlement

Deal 'not enough' for those ailing from dust and ash

Saturday,  March 20, 2010 2:52 AM

 

By David B. Caruso

Associated Press 

 

Louis Lanzano | Associated Press

New York City resident Lori Angelone, after leaving federal court, holds a banner describing husband Louis' ailments, which they contend should be covered as 9/11-related.

NEW YORK -- A federal judge yesterday rejected a legal settlement that would have given at least $575 million to people sickened by ash and dust from the World Trade Center, saying the deal shortchanged 10,000 ground-zero workers whom he called heroes.

"In my judgment, this settlement is not enough," said U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who delivered his pronouncement to a stunned gallery at a federal courthouse in Manhattan.

The 76-year-old jurist said he feared that police officers, firefighters and other laborers who cleared rubble after the 9/11 attack were being pushed into signing a deal that few of them understood.

Under the terms of the settlement, workers had been given 90 days to say yes or no to a deal that would have assigned them payments based on a point system that Hellerstein said was complicated enough to make a Talmudic scholar's head spin.

"I will not preside over a settlement that is based on fear or ignorance," he said.

Of the proposed settlement of $575 million to $657 million, workers stood to get amounts ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than $1 million.

Hellerstein said the deal should be richer. Too much of it would be eaten up by legal fees, he said.
A third or more of the money set aside for the workers was expected to go to their lawyers. Some plaintiffs had agreed at the start of the case to give as much as 40percent of any judgment to cover fees and expenses. That might have meant $200million or more going to attorneys.

Hellerstein, who presides over all federal-court litigation related to the terrorist attack, ripped into the agreement after hearing several ground-zero responders speak tearfully of their illnesses, and after receiving letters and phone calls from others expressing confusion about the deal.

It was unclear whether the judge's actions will kill the settlement. It took years to negotiate and was announced March 11, about two months before the first trials.

A spokeswoman for the law partnership that negotiated the settlement on behalf of the workers said she had no comment.

Hellerstein laid out a number of proposed fixes for what he saw as deficiencies in the settlement. He told the two sides to resume negotiations.

Hellerstein said workers should have ample opportunities to ask questions and get answers about the settlement, and he offered to go on a mini-speaking tour to get information to the plaintiffs.

He said more money should be set aside for people who later develop cancer that might be linked to ground-zero toxins. He said he wants to retain ultimate control over which workers are entitled to have claims paid.

Hellerstein acknowledged that he felt a personal connection to the case, calling it "the greatest burden in my life," but he insisted that his unusual intervention was legally and morally necessary, given the importance of 9/11 to the country.

"This is no ego trip for me. This is work," he said.

Congress has appropriated federal funds for the settlement.
 
Source: Associated Press

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Thank goodness for this man. I hope that more people with the power to change lives will learn something from his example. Compassion still exists in high places.

Follow Up: ABC Nightline coverage of Treason In America Conference

A few days ago I posted this video of an ABC reporter interviewing the creators of Loose Change at the Treason In America conference. It seems that he likes to use the term "lunatic fringe". In the video that they didn't air, he asks Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe (Loose Change creators) the same question using the "lunatic fringe" phrase.

As usual, ABC acts is if there is no real evidence coming from 9/11 truthers, only theories, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Wallace even goes so far as to state that the theories have been discredited. Well, that really depends on which exact theories he is referring to. Of course, there is no distinction so that really can't be refuted.

One only needs to look at the evidence presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and the evidence of thermite at ground zero, and the WTC Building 7 collapse to learn that there is indeed much evidence of a controlled demolition at the very least.

THIS is what was recorded.






and THIS is what ABC aired



Here is the link to the original story at the ABC Website. "The Truther Movement: Meet the people who don't believe the governments explanation of 9/11".

Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Speaks at Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth Conference

Erik Lawyer speaks at a conference held by Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth. He is the founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.

"An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past from a retired FDNY Lieutenant
Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon “evaporated”. There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT. Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!
-Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)

Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal."

VISIT Firefighters For 911 Truth.Org

The Vatican's Chief Exorcist - "Devil is Inside the Vatican"

Awhile back I watched a serious of videos that went into great detail about The Illuminati, Freemasonry, Secret Societies/Cults, etc. I am not certain where these originated, but from what I could tell, they appeared to heavily involve David Icke, whom is known for sharing his research and theories about the Illuminati amongst other things. When I read this article about demonic possession at the Vatican, I remembered hearing and reading that they (the illuminati) have infiltrated the most powerful and influential organizations in the world. The Vatican definitely would fall into that category. It's a little scary. I will post links to those documentaries at the end of this blog but be warned, there are some graphic images in all three of the 2 hour videos. (Yes, I watched them all). It was too interesting to pass up.

The next time you think there is no such thing happening at the Vatican and this is all just fictional conspiracy theory running wild in the minds of the easily influenced, remember the statements in the following article that came from the Vatican's Chief Exorcist himself. Bold, I tell you...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chief exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth says Devil is in the Vatican

March 11, 2010
Richard Owen - The Times Online

"Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy See's chief exorcist.

Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as "cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon".

He added: "When one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' [a phrase coined by Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true – including these latest stories of violence and paedophilia."

He claimed that another example of satanic behaviour was the Vatican "cover-up" over the deaths in 1998 of Alois Estermann, the then commander of the Swiss Guard, his wife and Corporal Cedric Tornay, a Swiss Guard, who were all found shot dead. "They covered up everything immediately," he said. "Here one sees the rot".

A remarkably swift Vatican investigation concluded that Corporal Tornay had shot the commander and his wife and then turned his gun on himself after being passed over for a medal. However Tornay's relatives have challenged this. There have been unconfirmed reports of a homosexual background to the tragedy and the involvement of a fourth person who was never identfied.

Father Amorth, who has just published Memoirs of an Exorcist, a series of interviews with the Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, said that the attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 had been the work of the Devil, as had an incident last Christmas when a mentally disturbed woman threw herself at Pope Benedict XVI at the start of Midnight Mass, pulling him to the ground.

Father José Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Rome-based exorcist, said that Father Amorth had "gone well beyond the evidence" in claiming that Satan had infiltrated the Vatican corridors.

"Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions and seek the glory of God," he said. Some Vatican officials were more pious than others, "but from there to affirm that some cardinals are members of satanic sects is an unacceptable distance."

Father Amorth told La Repubblica that the devil was "pure spirit, invisible. But he manifests himself with blasphemies and afflictions in the person he possesses. He can remain hidden, or speak in different languages, transform himself or appear to be agreeable. At times he makes fun of me."

He said it sometimes took six or seven of his assistants to to hold down a possessed person. Those possessed often yelled and screamed and spat out nails or pieces of glass, which he kept in a bag. "Anything can come out of their mouths – finger-length pieces of iron, but also rose petals."

He said that hoped every diocese would eventually have a resident exorcist. Under Church Canon Law any priest can perform exorcisms, but in practice they are carried out by a chosen few trained in the rites.

Father Amorth was ordained in 1954 and became an official exorcist in 1986. In the past he has suggested that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were possessed by the Devil. He was among Vatican officials who warned that J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels made a "false distinction between black and white magic".

He approves, however, of the 1973 film The Exorcist, which although "exaggerated" offered a "substantially exact" picture of possession.

In 2001 he objected to the introduction of a new version of the exorcism rite, complaining that it dropped centuries-old prayers and was "a blunt sword" about which exorcists themselves had not been consulted. The Vatican said later that he and other exorcists could continue to use the old ritual.

He is the president of honour of the Association of Exorcists.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I'm sorry, did I read that correctly? They spat out nails, finger length pieces of iron? Shards of glass and rose petals - which he then kept in a bag? Add Memoirs of an Exorcist to my list of books to read. I know very little about this and certainly wonder what else there is to learn about in this book.


Link to Documentaries: The Illuminati vol 1, 2, and 3

New Interviews With Jessie Ventura - American Conspiracies

Here are some new videos of interviews with former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura, talking about 9/11, and several other American Conspiracies (New book title), like the JFK assassination. Jesse is making the rounds to promote this new book. When questioned about his theories, he says that his book is factual although he adds his own opinions at the beginnings and ends of chapters. He states that he isn't making this up.  He is presenting information and evidence. The information comes from government documents, articles, and interviews.

Here he is on the Today Show - 3/9/10.  MSNBC 'Today Books' posted an article titled, 'Jesse Ventura claims gov't involved in 9/11'. These are fairly forthcoming interviews compared to what Fox & Friends (sort of) attempted to report. The cast of Fox & Friends (below) makes it clear they won't be talking about 9/11, though all of the other interviews do. The arrogant plasticity emanating from the screen in their video is so glaringly obvious it is difficult to take seriously.  I don't know why anyone would want to watch those people in the morning. What a terrible way to start the day. All jokes aside, it's nice that Jesse is able to go on the air and talk about these things. Here is a different interview from Fox News with Alan Colmes. They DO talk about 9/11.

Fox News Interview on 'Fox & Friends' 3/9/2010



The ladies at The View chimed in with their 3 cents. Here we have the usual, "that is a terrible accusation, how could you suggest such a thing" types of statements.  Notice the implication that it's terrible to even think it or suggest it, rather than looking at the evidence and research. Maybe, do some research yourself to find out why so many intelligent professionals, military, etc. are calling for a new independent investigation.

"We hate to disagree with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, but his conspiracy theories on 9/11 just seem a little, well, out there. Today on 'The View' (weekdays syndicated), Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Barbara Walters criticized Ventura for his assertion that the Bush administration was somehow involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.

"That the government would deliberately kill 3,000 people, to accuse the President of this, because ... he's protecting oil interests, Governor, that's a terrible accusation to make,' Walters said."

It may seem out there to people who've done no research. Merely suggesting that it's offensive to do so is not acceptable. That needs to stop. There is now enough evidence to conclude that a controlled demolition was involved at the Twin Towers and even more suspiciously, Building 7.  Unfortunately, anyone who has researched objectively can clearly see that the controlled demolition evidence is not preposterous at all.  How do they explain that? They don't.  In fact, with evidence of nano-thermite at ground zero, there is more evidence for controlled demolition than the impossible free-fall explanation. But, they don't mention any of that on Fox News.

If you're looking for a more in-depth interview you can listen to his interview with The Young Turks. It's about 20 minutes long.

Huffington Post Pulls Ventura 9/11 Article Shortly After Posting

Shortly after this Huffington Post article written by Jessie Ventura was posted, it was removed and replaced. Below is the original article that was removed. Reason given? They don't do "conspiracy theories".

""...this morning, Jesse had a front-page piece on 9/11 up at Huff Post: a front-page piece that quickly slipped off that front page — and then completely disappeared."-Infowars.com

Read the rest at: Infowars.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huffington Post/Jesse Ventura – Article #2 (”American Conspiracies”)

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?

You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 447 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.

This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies , published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:

Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.
Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:

“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.” [i]

Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”

Read the Entire Infowars Article

ABC Interviews Loose Change

This interview was filmed at the Treason In America conference on March 6th, 2010. ABC News interviews the creators of possibly the most well-known documentary about 9/11, Loose Change. Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe thoroughly impressed me with how well they fielded these, as Avery puts it, "loaded questions". I am sure they have had a lot of practice fielding questions. Loose Change is hugely popular on the internet. In fact, it is one of the most viewed videos of all time on Google Videos.

Loose Change has indeed gone viral and back with over millions of views on YouTube.  There are 3 versions if I am not mistaken,. The most recent version is titled Loose Change: An American Coup (09/09). I think Dylan and Korey set a positive example of how people should be responding to these kinds of questions about 9/11. I am looking forward to seeing what ABC does with it. It's a good thing we get to see these full videos. I would be surprised if they (ABC) kept it honest.

Washington's Blog Lists 9/11 Truth Supporters You May Not Expect

Great new post from Washington's Blog:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous

Most Americans don't know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can't figure out whether or not they are dangerous.
Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11.
The list proves - once and for all - that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.

Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases.
Senior intelligence officers:

• Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg 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 (see this and this).

• 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).

• 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)

• 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 (scroll down to 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.

Congressmen:

• According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)

• Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said "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

• Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 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

9/11 Commissioners:

• The Commission's co-chairs 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 (free subscription required)

• 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, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

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

• 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 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 . . . ."

• And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - recently said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also 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."

Other government officials:

• 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."

• Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), 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 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) says "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence."

• 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

• 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

• 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"

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

• 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: "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!"

Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government's version of 9/11."