Category Archives: Press & Reviews

Up to date discussion of “Unthinkable” in the press.

Movement to Declassify 9/11 Info Gathers Momentum

9/11 Commission Chairs and Congressmen Call for Declassification
August 31, 2014

Source: Blacklisted News – Washington’s Blog

The 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs – Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean – have called for the 28-page section of the 9/11 Commission Report which is classified to be declassified. Kean said that 60-70% of what was classified shouldn’t have been classified in the first place:

Congressman Thomas Massie read the 28 classified pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into 9/11 (the joint Senate and House investigation into 9/11) and immediately called for them to be released to the public:

A bipartisan bill – introduced by congressmen Walter B. Jones (Republican from North Carolina) and Stephen Lynch (Democrat from Massachusetts) – would declassify the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry which implicate the Saudi government.

Former Congressman Ron Paul is also demanding the 28 pages be declassified:

The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

Senator Graham has lobbied Obama for years to release the 28 pages and to reopen the investigation, but Obama has refused. The former Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and 9/11 investigator has even resorted to filing Freedom of Information requests to obtain information, but the Obama administration is still stonewalling:

Graham said that like the 28 pages in the 9/11 inquiry, the Sarasota case is being “covered up” by U.S. intelligence. Graham has been fighting to get the FBI to release the details of this investigation with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and litigation. But so far the bureau has stalled and stonewalled, he said.

And high-level former NSA official Thomas Drake provided testimony to the 9/11 investigations documenting that the “official story” of 9/11 makes little sense, as the intelligence agencies had all of the information they needed to stop it. Drake’s testimony has – for no real reason – been classified. Drake is seeking to declassify his testimony to the 9/11 Commission:
“I would argue for declassification and release because the 9/11 Commission asked for it in the public interest, my testimony was given to Congress via testimony (oral and written) to investigators as a material witness and whistleblower, because of NSA’s coverup of its accountability for 9/11, and the coverup committed by NSA to obstruct official Congressional investigations, plus declassification is timely in terms of ongoing efforts to reform NSA by Congress and the President.  I do know that my testimony and evidence was fully suppressed and censored as a deep state secret – so secret that it was not included in the classified report of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry.”

Indeed, the 9/11 Commission admits that it never got all of the facts … and many officials are eager to spill the beans about what they know.

Still Urgent Today
Ancient history, you say?  Graham notes:
“Although it’s been more than a decade ago when this horrific event occurred, I think [the questions of who supported the attacks] have real consequences to U.S. actions today.”

As Graham told PBS:
“We need to have this information now because it’s relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.”

Postscript: People may not remember now, but – at the time – the supposed Iraqi state sponsorship of 9/11 was at least as important a justification for the Iraq war as the alleged weapons of mass destruction. This claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even – long after they alleged such a link – Bush and Cheney themselves.  But 70% of the American public believed it at the time, and 85% of U.S. troops believed the U.S. mission in Iraq was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.”

Only last year, John Glaser noted:
“Significant portions of Americans still believe that Saddam and al-Qaeda were in cahoots and cooperated in the 9/11 attacks. The reason is simple: the administration told them this lie.”

An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified  “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.”

According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies.  Keeping this lie afloat took some work. The Bush administration, primarily Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, “applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime,” McClatchy reported in 2009.

According to Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Bush’s Secretary of State Powell, “the administration authorized harsh interrogation” in 2002, and “its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”

Wilkerson is right.
In other words, the failure to conduct a real 9/11 investigation contributed to the Iraq war, torture, and the failure to fix fundamental weaknesses in – and threats to – America’s national security.

Media spies put all journalists in danger

WAYNE MADSEN – 8/27/14 – Strategic Culture Foundation


The increasing tendency of the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies to disregard previous prohibitions against the use of journalists as agents puts every legitimate reporter around the world in jeopardy. The CIA has a checkered past in the use of journalists as intelligence agents. The practice was common in the 1960s and early 70s but was banned by Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. However, when President Ronald Reagan helped reignite the Cold War, the CIA again began using journalists as intelligence agents. The practice put a number of journalists in jeopardy, especially those taken captive by guerrillas groups during the Lebanese civil war. There is nothing to suggest any president since Reagan has discontinued the practice of using journalists as agents.
Intelligence agents operating under journalistic cover can take a number of forms:
– Journalists who openly work for media operations linked officially to past and current CIA operations. These include Radio Free Europe / Radio Free Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Radio and TV Marti, and to some extent, the Voice of America.
– Journalists who work for work for accredited news media companies who agree to work covertly for U.S. intelligence. Such journalists have been known to work for The Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, and President Barack Obama’s one-time employer, Business International Corporation of New York City, publisher of executive business and political newsletters. CIA director Richard Helms had previously worked as a reporter for United Press International.
– Journalists who work for start-up publications linked to the CIA or CIA fronts, including the many publications started and financed by global hedge fund tycoon and political and financial manipulator George Soros and his CIA media associates. Such publications include the Kyiv Post, Cambodia Daily, Burma Daily, Kabul Weekly, and Lidove Noviny of Prague.
– Freelance journalists who become embedded with U.S. military and paramilitary forces and work for one or more media operations having very low profiles.

Journalists working for media operations financed by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors have been known to leave legitimate media organizations, where they have already established strong journalistic credentials and high-level contacts, to join government operations like Radio Free Europe and the others to carry out assignments for U.S. intelligence.
One of the CIA’s favorite nesting grounds for its journalist-agents during the Cold War was the International Herald Tribune, formerly the Paris Herald Tribune, based in Paris. The paper was eventually jointly owned by The Washington Post and New York Times. The managing editor of the Herald Tribune News Service, Nathan Kingsley, left the paper’s Paris headquarters to be the head of Radio Free Europe’s news service in Munich. Kingsley replaced Gene Mater who became the public affairs spokesman for the Free Europe Committee in New York. Radio Free Europe and the Free Europe Committee were both connected to the CIA.
Publisher of the International Herald Tribune John Hay Whitney, a former U.S. ambassador to Britain, was involved in setting up a CIA media operation called Kern House Enterprises, a CIA proprietary firm registered in Delaware. The British branch of Kern House, not surprisingly located at Kern House in London, ran a CIA news service called Forum World Features (FWF), which, in turn, was linked to another CIA front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) in Paris. The CCF published, on behalf of the CIA, two periodicals, Encounter and Information Bulletin. FWF sold its news stories to 50 newspapers around the world, including 30 in the United States. FWF, which was established in 1965 and overseen by Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA’s architect of the overthrow of Iran’s democratic government in 1953, also published Conflict Studies, a scholarly journal that was among the first to hype the «threat» of global terrorism in the early 1970s. FWF could tap any of its agents as FWF journalists and send them on assignment. One such agent-journalist was assigned to the CIA station in Bangkok.
For years, the CIA operated the Rome Daily American in Italy. The English-language paper’s editor was a former reporter for the Associated Press. The paper was published by the same press that printed the small Italian-language newspaper representing the views of the Italian Social Democratic Party. The Daily American folded in 1986.
Another newspaper operated by the CIA was the South Pacific Mail, headquartered in Santiago, Chile and operated by CIA agent David Atlee Phillips. The English-language South Pacific Mail was distributed in Chile and several South Pacific nations and territories, from New Zealand and the Samoan isles to the New Hebrides and Tonga. Phillips, who would later be identified as a key facilitator of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, said that he and some 200 other journalists with whom he was familiar eagerly signed secrecy agreements with the CIA upon their recruitment as agents. Among those who signed such agreements was Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times.
Operation Mockingbird was a CIA operation to influence the coverage established news media organizations gave to news events. Included in the CIA news media influence operations were Time magazine, Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The Washington Post, The New York Herald-Tribune, Saturday Evening Post, The Miami Herald, The Washington Star, and Copley News Service.
Austin Goodrich was a freelance journalist who wrote for the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Paris Herald Tribune, CBS News, and the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor has become, over the past six years, an ardent supporter of the Obama administration’s and CIA’s «Responsibility to Protect» (R2P) interventionist foreign policy. Even after Goodrich was identified as a CIA agent he continued working as a journalist in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Bangkok, and West Berlin.
A manifestation of the R2P policy was the CIA’s training and arming of Syrian Islamist rebels who eventually kidnapped U.S. photo-journalist James Foley in 2012. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the group that kidnapped Foley, whose reporting experience included being embedded with U.S. military units in Afghanistan and Iraq and CIA-supported rebels in Libya and Syria, eventually executed him in a gruesome videotaped beheading. But questions remain over whether the CIA’s continued use of journalists as agents and the embedding of journalists with CIA-trained insurgents runs the risk of journalists being mistaken as CIA operatives, especially in war zones.
Stuart Loory, who worked as the New York Herald-Tribune’s correspondent in Moscow in the 1960s before joining the Los Angeles Times and CNN, has said that the CIA’s use of journalists as spies calls into question the status of every journalist. He said, «If even one American overseas carrying a press card is a paid informer for the CIA, then all Americans with those credentials are suspect». Loory emphasized that «journalists must be willing to focus on themselves the same spotlight they so relentlessly train on others».
However, the caution urged by Loory has, in some cases, fallen on deaf ears. In 2012, New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti forwarded an advance copy of a column written by his colleague, columnist Maureen Dowd, to the CIA’s spokesperson Marie Harf. Dowd’s column concerned a CIA leak to Hollywood that involved the production of a movie called «Zero Dark Thirty». Harf has since been promoted to deputy press secretary for the Department of State where she is undoubtedly still fronting for her old CIA colleagues in spotting willing journalists, particularly foreign correspondents, eager to cooperate with the CIA.
With a number of print publications folding their operations, there has been a mushrooming of web-based news outlets. The Global Post, based in Boston, was able to send freelancer Foley to costly assignments in Libya and Syria. A subscription-based news website, which once only had 400 subscribers, is not only able to send someone like Foley off to cover wars but is able to maintain an international correspondents’ staff of 65 in high-cost cities ranging from Moscow and Jerusalem to Tokyo and Nairobi. Some uncomfortable questions must be asked. For example, from where does Global Post actually receive its funding? And, why does it find it advantageous to embed its freelancers with U.S. military units and CIA-financed Islamist insurgent groups? Looking back over the last 65 years encompassing the CIA’s use of journalists as agents, the answers to these questions become all too apparent.

Barbara Honegger Comments on “Unthinkable”

Eric Stacey and the cast of ‘Unthinkable’ are heroes and have done an amazing service to our nation by making this riveting independent film based on the TRUE story of the triple assassination of 9/11 whistle-blower and former Iran/Contra drug-and-arms-running pilot Philip Marshall AND his two children which the local, state and federal authorities have conspired to cover up by falsely claiming that he committed suicide after killing his own family…AND their beloved dog.

Think of this film as the ‘JFK’ of September 11th — see it, buy it, and spread the word !!

Barbara Honegger, former White House Policy Analyst and author of “October Surprise,” the first book to reveal the true deep story behind the Iran side of the Iran/Contra scandal.

Cracking The “Conspiracy Theories’” Psycholinguistic Code: The Witch Hunt against Independent Research and Analysis

By James F. Tracy
Global Research, May 21, 2014

A new crusade appears to be underway to target independent research and analysis available via alternative news media. This March saw the release of “cognitive infiltration” advocate Cass Sunstein’s new book, Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas. In April, the confirmed federal intelligence-gathering arm, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), released a new report, “Agenda 21: The UN, Sustainability, and Right Wing Conspiracy Theory.” Most recently, Newsweek magazine carried a cover story, titled, “The Plots to Destroy America: Conspiracy Theories Are a Clear and Present Danger.”

As its discourse suggests, this propaganda campaign is using the now familiar “conspiracy theory” label, as outlined in Central Intelligence Agency Document 1035-960, the 1967 memo laying out a strategy for CIA “media assets” to counter criticism of the Warren Commission and attack independent investigators of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. At that time the targets included attorney Mark Lane and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who were routinely defamed and lampooned in major US news outlets.

Declassified government documents have proven Lane and Garrison’s allegations of CIA-involvement in the assassination largely accurate. Nevertheless, the prospect of being subject to the conspiracy theorist smear remains a potent weapon for intimidating authors, journalists, and scholars from interrogating complex events, policies, and other potentially controversial subject matter.

As the title of Newsweek’s feature story indicates, a primary element of contemporary propaganda campaigns using the conspiracy theory/ist label is to suggest that citizens’ distrust of government imperatives and activities tends toward violent action. The “conspiracy theorist” term is intentionally conflated with “conspiracist,” thus linking the two in the mass mind. Images of Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, and Osama bin Laden are subtly invoked when the magic terms are referenced. In reality, it is typically Western governments using their police or military who prove the foremost purveyors of violence and the threat of violence—both domestically and abroad.

In his Newsweek article, author and journalist Kurt Eichenwald selectively employs the assertions of the SPLC, Sunstein, and a handful of social scientists to postulate in Orwellian fashion that independent research and analysis of the United Nations’ Agenda 21, the anti-educational thrust of “Common Core,” the dangers of vaccine injury and water fluoridation, and September 11—all important policies and issues worthy of serious study and concern—are a “contagion” to the body politic.

In a functioning public, honest academics and journalists would uninhibitedly delve into these and similar problems–GMOs, state-sponsored terrorism, the dangers of non-ionizing radiation– particularly since such phenomena pose grave threats to both popular sovereignty and self determination. Such intellectuals would then provide important findings to foster vigorous public debate.

Absent this, segments of the populace still capable of critical thought are inclined to access and probe information that leads them to question bureaucratic edicts and, in some cases, suggest a potentially broader political agenda. In today’s world, however, such research projects carried out by the hoi polloi that are expressly reserved for government or foundation-funded technocrats “’distort the debate that is crucial to democracy,’” says Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan.

With the above in mind, a simple yet instructive exercise in illustrating the psycholinguistic feature of the conspiracy theory propaganda technique is to replace “conspiracy theories/ists” with the phrase, “independent research and analysis,” or “independent researchers.” Let us apply this to some passages from Eichenwald’s recent Newsweek piece.

For example, “Psychological research has shown that the only trait that consistently indicates the probability someone will believe in conspiracy theories independent research and analysis is if that person believes in other conspiracy theories independent research and analysis,” Eichenwald sagely concludes.

“One of the most common ways of introducing conspiracy theories independent research and analysis is to ‘just ask questions’ about an official account,’’’ says Karen Douglas, co-editor of the British Journal of Social Psychology and a senior academic … at Britain’s University of Kent.”

In fact, substituting the phrases accordingly throughout the article significantly neutralizes its overall propagandistic effect.

Researchers agree; independent research and analysis are espoused by people at every level of society seeking ways of calming the chaos of life, sometimes by simply reinforcing convictions.

While the growth in the number of news outlets has helped spread independent research and analysis, it doesn’t compare to the impact of social media and the Internet, experts say.

9/11 conspiracy theorists independent researchers protest outside the World Trade Center in 2011 [Photo caption]

“If you have social networks of people who are talking with one another, you can have independent research and analysis spread in a hurry,’’ says Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School … “It literally is as if it was contagious.”

While some may dismiss independent researchers as ignorant or unstable, research has shown that to be false. “The idea that only dumb people believe this stuff is wrong,’’ says Dartmouth’s Nyhan.

People who more strongly believed in independent research and analysis were significantly less likely to use sunscreen or have an annual medical checkup.

According to a just-released report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the independent research and analysis flowed in April at a hearing before Alabama’s Senate Education Committee about legislation to allow school districts to reject Common Core.

It’s true. Since September 11, 2001 the internet has increasingly allowed for everyday people to retrieve, study, and share information on important events and phenomena as never before. And as a recent study published in the prominent journal Frontiers of Psychology suggests, tendering “alternative conspiracy theories” to the government-endorsed explanations of September 11, 2001 is a sign of “individuation,” or psychological well being and contentment.

Such a condition is a clear danger to those who wish to wield uncontested political authority. Indeed, the capacity to freely disseminate and discuss knowledge of government malfeasance is the foremost counterbalance to tyranny. Since this ability cannot be readily confiscated or suppressed, it must be ridiculed, marginalized, even diagnosed as a psychiatric condition.

The recent abandonment of network neutrality may eventually further subdue the nuisance of independent research, thought, and analysis. Until then, the corporate media’s attempts to bamboozle and terrify the American public with the well-worn conspiracy theory meme will be a prevalent feature of what passes for news and commentary today.

CNN’s “Yellow Journalism” Rating Hits All-Time High — As Jake Tapper’s “The Lead” Dips to New Low with “Coverage” of AE911Truth’s 9/11 Museum Brochure

Written by Craig McKee
Thursday, 22 May 2014 00:32

The-Lead-With-Jake-Tapper—FrownCNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper It looked just like an infomercial, but with a lot more frowning.

In an example of Orwellian newspeak, the CNN show The Lead with Jake Tapper took on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth over its decision to distribute information pamphlets outside the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at Ground Zero in New York City. The pamphlets mimic the design of the “official” ones, but instead of the official story, they contain key scientific forensic evidence indicating that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down with explosives and incendiaries. Unlike the official version, the photo on the cover of the AE pamphlet shows the Twin Towers and Building 7.

The Tapper report is a hysterical compendium of all the empty slogans and anti-conspiracy-theory talking points that make up the mainstream media’s continuing attack on the 9/11 Truth Movement. It didn’t take more than a couple of seconds into the report to see how Tapper was going to play the story.

CNN Fake OutCNN attacksHe tells us that “the conspiracy group” AE911Truth plans to stand outside the museum and hand out fake museum pamphlets that look exactly like the real ones. The volunteers handing them out are described as “so-called truthers,” and the whole exercise is labeled an “affront to the victims’ families.”

“Can’t these people give it a rest for one day out of respect for the families?” an exasperated Tapper queries, adding that the 9/11 memorial is “sacred.” Indeed, since 9/11 itself, the grounds have been transformed from a place of truth-seeking to a pathologically sacred shrine to “not asking questions about 9/11.”

Tapper contends that truthers are using the opening of the museum as an opportunity to spread their lies about the attacks. He reads from the AE pamphlet: “Welcome to the other 9/11 story,” but then adds, “the false one.”

Of AE, he says: “Of course they don’t prove anything except for man’s capacity to believe crazy things and man’s insensitivity to, for instance, the families of the approximately 3,000 people killed at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania by Islamic terrorists with al-Qaeda, as every credible investigation has actually proven.”

CNN-brochure comparison scareBrochure comparison: Official vs UnofficialI’m not sure if he’s talking about the 9/11 Commission Report, which even commission members have called a “cover-up,” or the NIST report, which the 2,100 technical and building professionals with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have shown to be rooted in fantasy, not science.

Tapper had on the air as his guest Emily Bazelon, a senior editor of Slate magazine, whose job it was to help Tapper figure out just what is psychologically motivating all these “truthers.”

She says, “Usually, with a conspiracy theory, you imagine that people are trying to make sense of the senseless. But with 9/11, we have a real conspiracy called al-Qaeda. And so, one has to imagine that the anti-government motivation of the 9/11 truthers is really what’s driving this. Because if you could imagine the government made up 9/11 as a hoax, then the government is completely monstrous, and there’s no reason to believe anything any federal official says, and certainly no reason to pay your taxes.”

Wow. This “journalist” does a lot of imagining.

First, she admits that her pet theory about making sense of the senseless (which we hear regularly from the official story apologists) doesn’t fit the situation. But that doesn’t deter her, as her remarks then take a turn toward the surreal. In her world, if you don’t unquestioningly swallow whole the story of Islamic terrorists with box cutters, then you must think every government official is in on it, and therefore you don’t have to continue funding that government.

Perhaps Ms. Bazelon, who seems to pluck her theories out of thin air with absolutely no basis in fact or evidence, could provide us with even one example of a 9/11 truther whose views have their genesis in an anti-government sentiment or in a desire to avoid paying taxes. I wonder if either Bazelon or Tapper could come up with anything at all to back up anything they say in this report.

Still frowning, Tapper asks, “What happens when this nonsense hits the echo chamber of the Internet?” This prompts more incoherence from Bazelon:

“You see these dark corners of the Internet where people pile on, and there’s this minute parsing of the technicalities of the supposed evidence, and more and more detail gets added and accumulated, and it kind of feeds on itself,” she responds.

HCNN Bazelon NewspeakTapper and Bazelon, still frowninguh? Is that sort of like saying that people on the Internet examine all the evidence and accumulate and discuss their findings? Perhaps if the mainstream media did some examining of evidence, then the truth about 9/11 might be clearer to everyone by now, including their viewers. But that doesn’t appear to be their role in this scenario.

Not to be outdone, Tapper risks straining himself with some political analysis.

“Historically, we see that these conspiracies come after very upsetting events like the Kennedy assassination, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. – is there a pattern there?”

Could it be that people get upset by conspiracies to kill public figures for political reasons, and they get just as upset when the government and media collaborate in covering them up? And could it be that one of the reasons these events are so upsetting is that the conventional explanations for them are so transparently fraudulent?

Furthermore, these explanations are always wrapped in phony emotion so that the rational doesn’t have to be addressed. Do we all see that pattern? Our “journalist” friends would have us believe that the only appropriate way that we can and should react to an event like 9/11 is emotionally. The museum itself focuses on the heroism and the emotion of the day – whatever it takes to stay away from the facts, which overwhelmingly contradict the paper-thin official story.

Tapper attempts to clarify just what truthers are actually saying:

“And the idea here is not just that the three buildings were destroyed by explosives, but that it’s all part of this grand conspiracy where the U.S. government – and let me state, if I haven’t made it clear enough, none of this is true, this is all just crazy talk – that the U.S. government faked it, killed all these people intentionally, and it was just to start a war in Iraq and another one in Afghanistan. Is that the idea they’re going for here?”

Here’s where even Bazelon has to admit there were some problems with how the Iraq war started.

“That’s the idea, and just to state it is to show how horrifying it is. I suppose that given that the American government did put forward some false ideas to motivate going into Iraq – in particular the whole idea that there were weapons of mass destruction there – that’s the tiny, tiny kernel of truth that is in some way related to this completely crazy theory.”

“Some false ideas.” Bazelon can’t even bring herself to state that the government lied to the American people to go to war. She minimizes the importance of these “false ideas,” which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and she makes sure to get the word “crazy” in there to counter her subtle admission that the war was started under false pretenses.

Up to this point in the report, the really big gun hasn’t been brought out, but Tapper takes care of that with his predictable accusation that truthers are motivated by anti-Semitism.

“There’s also a lot of scapegoating with the 9/11 truther stuff,” he says. “There’s anti-Semitism, anti-Israel, anti-corporations.”

Anti-corporations? Is that exclusive to 9/11 truthers? Are we to understand that being critical of corporations now pegs one as a conspiracy theorist as well? From her place in the official story echo chamber, Bazelon responds:

“Exactly. And I think you see these virulent strains that are related to each other from familiar right-wing talk, and they all get weirdly braided together in this particular theory.”

The anti-Semitism charge is a common one, and it seems to be thrown at truthers more and more often as time goes on (the theme of “contagion” with the term “virulent strains” is also a part of this). The physics of 9/11 are not anti-Semitic; neither is anything else on the popular 9/11 Truth Movement website,

During his recent Canadian tour, AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, was interviewed by Sun News journalist Michael Coren, who accused truthers in general and Gage in particular of believing that all the Jews were told to stay away from the World Trade Center on 9/11. Coren even used the word “virulent.” Of course, Gage has never made such a comment (I covered this in two recent articles on my blog, Truth and Shadows, here and here). All the same talking points that we see in the CNN piece were there in Coren’s report.

This propaganda masquerading as news is actually a carefully crafted attack on anyone who questions what the media tell us and on anyone who is not satisfied with the official cover-up of 9/11, and it is far from the only recent example. Newsweek, for example, has just produced a cover story ominously entitled, “The plots to destroy America.” In this attack on “conspiracy theorists,” we are told that it goes beyond craziness and insensitivity – that public health and public policy are threatened by those who question the official line.

It seems that those of us who question 9/11 must be making progress if the mainstream media have to pull out this kind of propaganda against the Movement. It also seems that the purveyors of the 9/11 official story may have assumed enormous risk in deciding to enshrine their story in a museum of glass, steel, and concrete, because now they have given the Truth Movement a focal point on which to direct their efforts to expose the fraudulent events and criminal perpetrators of 9/11.

Craig McKee is a journalist and the creator of the blog Truth and Shadows


Former State Dept official: ‘No Easy Day’ is ‘cowardly’ fiction
DIGITAL JOURNAL:  Elliott Freeman, Sept. 4, 2012
Former senior State Department official Steve Pieczenik has blasted ‘No Easy Day’, the new book about the Osama Bin Laden raid, calling the publisher and military brass “cowards” who created the story to cover up Bin Laden’s death years ago.

Pieczenik, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Senior Policy Planner under Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, made the explosive remarks in an uncensored interview with radio talk show host Alex Jones. As the State Department’s International Crisis Manager and Hostage Negotiator, Pieczenik was also responsible for the rescue of over 500 hostages in a variety of terrorism incidents, and his real-life exploits became the inspiration for the Jack Ryan character in Tom Clancy’s best-selling spy novels.

When asked about ‘No Easy Day’, Pieczenik did not hold back his contempt for the book and its publisher, Dutton, a subsidiary of Penguin Group. “It’s not only fiction. Fiction can be detrimental. This is cowardly and greedy on all parts,” he stated. “I maintain that this has been a serious lie that has been the crux of corruption of both the intelligence and military community.” Pieczenik asserted that high-ranking military and intelligence officials who want to blow the whistle on the deception are being suppressed by their superiors. “There are military generals and CIA officers who have complained that this lie cannot continue, and they’ve been reprimanded repeatedly by General [Martin] Dempsey, who I confronted over a month ago,” he revealed. In addition, Pieczenik pointed to the Pentagon’s admission earlier this year that it had no visual or forensic evidence to prove that Osama Bin Laden was killed in the Navy Seal raid in Abottabad, Pakistan or that his body was buried at sea. He also addressed the Department of Defense’s claim that it did not review and edit ‘No Easy Day’ for classified material, as reported by The Daily Beast, even though books of this type normally go through an extensive government vetting process. “The fact that this book is being published without the consent of the Defense Department is disingenuous at best and at worst a lie,” Pieczenik declared. “General Dempsey is lying… [Secretary of Defense] Panetta is lying… [National Security Advisor] Donilon is lying… and Dutton is lying.” According to Pieczenick, who is also the author and co-author of numerous books, Dutton’s explanation that a lawyer chosen by the author vetted the book doesn’t add up. “There is no publisher that is stupid enough to allow the lawyer of an author… to vet it out,” he said. So, if Bin Laden was not killed in the raid, then what happened to him? Pieczenik maintains that he died in late 2001 of natural causes, echoing statements made by former foreign intelligence officer Angelo Codevilla, former FBI counter-terrorism chief Dale Watson, former CIA agent Robert Baer and Lt. Col. Oliver North. While Pieczenik focused his condemnation on the Obama White House, he also lambasted the Bush and Clinton Administrations for setting the stage for the false Bin Laden story. “What you have are men without integrity, without professional expertise, utilizing a political expediency: a narrative to manipulate the fears and concerns of our country while we have bigger issues,” he said. Despite the controversial nature of Pieczenik’s comments, he stood firm, saying that “the intelligence community, the State Department and the President of the United States never refuted my statements.” The Department of Defense and Dutton have yet to issue formal responses to Pieczenik’s latest remarks. In the end, Pieczenik believes that the story of the Bin Laden raid has done more than bring corruption into the highest levels of the military. “It insults the intelligence of the American people,” he explained. “I find this reprehensible… not because it’s just a lie, but it degrades the service of honorable men and women who serve in the field… whose lives are at stake.”



This is the Transcript of the Press Conference held on March 12th, 2014, on the Declassification of the excised 28 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry on the 9/11 attacks. The Press conference was held by Rep. Walter B. Jones, (R-NC), Stephen F. Lynch, (D-MA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), and several members of the group “9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism.”

REP. WALTER B. JONES: We’re going to officially start the press conference. I’m going to speak very briefly. Then I’m going to call on Congressman Stephen Lynch, and he will reintroduce himself for the press, and then Congressman Thomas Massie and then the families; but I’m going to read the order of the speakers and then make my brief comments and then turn it over to Stephen Lynch. The families that are here today, and they again will reintroduce themselves — Terry Strada, Alice Hoagland, and Sylvia Carver — these are family members who lost loved ones during 9/11, so therefore, I will let them explain why they are here today, and why they support H.Res. 428.

Several years ago, I read this book written by Bob Graham, it’s called Intelligence Matters. The subtitle tells you more than the title of the book and it’s The CIA, The FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America’s War on Terror. If you remember, Bob Graham was one of the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and he, for a number of years, has been outspoken on this issue of the 28 pages, of why the 28 pages in the report were classified. And he has been calling for a declassification of the 28 pages. I want to give him the credit today, because he is the one that got me interested in this issue. I’m from North Carolina, I have never met with so many families that have lost loved ones in the three tragedies that happened on 9/11.

After reading the information, the way the process works, very quickly, a member of the House has to write a letter to the Chairman, Mike Rogers (Ala.) and the Ranking Member, Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.) and ask permission to go down in a classified setting to read the information. So we write the letter, and mine took about three or four weeks before they responded back to say that we give you the authorization. The room is guarded, which we can understand, and it’s very much needed, probably. And then, when you go in to read the 28 pages, you have someone sitting with you, so you cannot take any notes; it’s whatever you might remember. And we cannot divulge, or we would be in serious trouble here as a member of Congress if we divulged any of the information that we read.

A couple of other points, very quickly: I do not think that a nation like America will remain strong if the nation does not demand the truth. And after reading the 28 pages, I can honestly say my opinion — I can’t speak for these two men — there’s nothing that deals with national security. There are other issues, but not national security issues. That’s why the call by the families across this nation, with three families being here today, the families have called on Congress for a number of years, along with Senator Bob Graham, to declassify the 28 pages.

And I want to thank the families for being here today; I will close this press conference and we will allow you to ask questions. But with that, I’m going to ask Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts if he will speak; and then Thomas Massie from Kentucky will follow him, and then the families will come up. So, thank you for being here today. And Stephen Lynch is a co-sponsor of this legislation; Thomas Massie has joined Stephen and myself, and four other members of the House in this legislation calling for the President to release this information. And so therefore, we need for you to put pressure on your Representative back home to join in this effort for the truth — Stephen Lynch.

REP. STEPHEN F. LYNCH: Okay, thank you Walter. Thank you, my friend. I want, first of all, to thank the families for being here. As much as we might encourage members to go and read the classified information and to join us, really the power of the families, and I have a lot of families in my district, and from Massachusetts that lost loved ones on those flights coming out of Boston, so I just want to thank you for turning your loss and your grief into a positive step, for all of our country. And I think it’s very important to have your support, we appreciate it.

I want to thank you all for being here. Today, we’re here to bring attention to House Res. 428, which Congressman Jones and I have jointly introduced, and which Congressman Massie has co-sponsored.

In December, we initially introduced this bill, and this important resolution calls for the declassification of the 28-page section of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September of 2001. It is important to remember that these were not simply sections that were redacted, which is quite common in these type intelligence reports. This 28 pages was excised. So the entire section, 28 pages, was removed from the body of work that was actually presented to the public.

I’d like to begin by thanking my dear friend and colleague Congressman Jones for all of his efforts on behalf of this issue, and for our families and for our country, and for working with me to craft this resolution; I’d also like to acknowledge former Senator and former Chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, for his work. He was unable to be here with us today, but he did send a message of support. And Senator Graham has worked tirelessly to see that these pages are made public. I’ve had the opportunity to maintain contact with him by phone. And also, here again today, are families of the victims of the tragic attacks on September 11th, 2001. Our nation suffered a terrible loss and we were all devastated by the horrific events on 9/11.

Another strange coincidence is that I was elected in the Democratic primary in Massachusetts on September 11th. That’s the day — I’m a first post-9/11 member of Congress. So the world changed, Washington changed, my responsibility changed, a lot of lives changed on that day, and that is not lost on me. But importantly, the families here today, men and women who lost sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters, their families and their lives were forever altered that day.

The American people, and the families of the victims in particular, deserve answers and deserve the opportunity to have a greater understanding of these events, and that has yet to happen, unfortunately. Twelve years after the attacks, many unanswered questions still remain. I strongly believe that these pages contain information that is vital to a full understanding of the attacks on 9/11, and the circumstances that led to them.

But this is not only a question of transparency, which Walter talked to. It’s not just that transparency is good in this case, and looking back and answering questions. I think also, these 28 pages, the nature of the disclosures here, I think is instructive to our foreign policy going forward. So it is not just looking backward, it is actually informing Congress to make sound, solid decisions going forward. That might be the most valuable. While there is certainly decency and justification for releasing these documents, there’s also, I think instructive value going forward.

I read the classified sections this past October, after being encouraged to do so by my friend Mr. Jones, and after reading them, it became clear to me that we owed it to the families of the victims, and to the American public, to work to make these pages available. I do want to just add a little of the details, as Walter correctly laid out sort of the situation; it’s a somewhat cumbersome process for a member of Congress that has 9,000 other things to do, but you’ve got to submit your letter down there, then you go down, and they sit with you, and you really don’t have an opportunity to answer questions. And you’re not allowed to take any notes.

But after reading the 28 pages, I only said one thing during the time that I was there, and at the end of the day, I informed both intelligence officers who were there with me that day, I said, “I need to be honest with you,” and I said, “When I get up from this table and I got out that door,” I said, “I am going to sponsor a resolution before the United States Congress to make this information public.” And they both scratched down notes of their own, they were allowed to keep notes, but I said, “that’s how important I think this is,” and I said, “I think it’s important that I be honest with you, because I feel so strongly about this.”

I’m pleased to be working with my colleagues from North Carolina, Congressman Walter Jones and Mr. Massie from Kentucky. I think Mr. Grimm from New York is on board. I know that — I’m trying to think — a Congressman from California…

REP. JONES: Alcee Hastings.

REP. LYNCH: Alcee Hastings from Florida; California — Dana Rohrabacher is also on board. And so we have growing interest, because of the involvement of the families of the victims. And we want to make sure that these pages see the light of day, and I want to take this opportunity just to urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to review these pages and to work with us to ensure that they are declassified, to encourage the President to take that step and declassify these documents.

Thank you: May God bless you, may God have mercy on the victims and their families, and may God continue to bless these United States of America. Thank you.

REP. JONES: Thank you, Steve. Thomas?

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: I’m going to be brief. I want to echo the statements of Congressman Jones and Congressman Lynch…

Q: Your name, Congressman?

REP MASSIE: I’m Thomas Massie from Kentucky. This is something that the families deserve to know, this information. It’s been a decade, over a decade, 13 years since this event happened, and we’ve had a narrative in the media and in the press, and in the collective American conscience, of what happened that day, but I don’t think it’s fully informed, and it won’t be fully informed until everybody gets to see these 28 pages.

And just to echo what Congressman Lynch said, I’m here for the families, but I’m also here for our country to look forward: We have to decide how to prevent another 9/11-type event from happening. Until you have the full picture of what actually happened, the intelligence picture, how can you participate in that debate? How can we know what we do will prevent another 9/11 from happening? And how can we know that some of the things that, maybe, we would otherwise endeavor to do, might be overreactions?

So, also, I want to talk about the experience of sitting down and reading these 28 pages: It’s in a room, where it’s soundproof and you’re escorted in there, you’re escorted out, and there are no notes. But this is something, this is sort of shocking when you read it. As I read it, and we all had our own experience, I had to stop every couple pages and just sort of absorb, and try to rearrange my understanding of history for the past 13 years and years leading up to that. It challenges you to rethink everything. And so, I think the whole country needs to go through that; it’s going to be difficult and it could be embarrassing, but that is no reason to keep the truth from the American people.

I want to finish with two challenges: I want to challenge all the Congressmen who have not read these 28 pages, who have the ability to go read these 28 pages, to do it for your constituents. There are 435 districts in this country: Every Congressman needs to see these 28 pages. Then, I challenge them to co-sponsor Congressman Jones and Congressman Lynch’s bill, like I have.

And finally, the final challenge I want to issue, is to those who would keep these pages secret: You need to have your own press conference, you need to be held to a standard to answer the questions, why do you want to keep these 28 pages secret? In my estimation, as shocking as the 28 pages are, and as much as they sort of rearranged my understanding of what happened, I don’t think it would hurt our national security to release this, and it would give families the answers they deserve, as well.

Thank you very much.

REP. JONES: Thank you, Thomas. Terry Strada, could you come up and introduce yourself again?

TERRY STRADA: Yes, I will. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Terry Strada. It is an honor and a privilege to be here today, and I thank you for your time. I co-chair the JASTA Action Committee with Sharon Premoli, and for the last 12 years, serve on the steering committee of 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism. I speak on behalf of over 6,000 family members and survivors. I am joined today with other members of the 9/11 community, and on behalf of everyone here, I would like to thank Congressmen Walter Jones and Stephen Lynch for introducing House Res. 428. I also thank former Senator Bob Graham, who has tirelessly advocated for disclosure of the section of the Joint Inquiry’s report that has been kept a secret for 12 long years.

I want to tell you why House Rev. 428 is so important and introduce to you fellow-9/11 family members who are also here to convey why we need this resolution to pass. Like all of them, I suffered a heart-breaking personal loss on September 11th. My husband, Tom, was killed while at work for Cantor Fitzgerald in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on the 104th floor. He was the love of my life. Our children were seven, four, and four days old. Tom was a devoted family man, and we miss him, each and every day.

Because of 9/11, my children are three amongst 3,000 children, who suffered the loss of a parent at the hands of terrorism, and are growing up today without a mother or a father. Ground Zero rescue workers are sick and dying to this day: Even after 12 long years, the death toll continues to rise.

I stand here, today, in support of House Res. 428, because I don’t believe people should get away with murder, and that is exactly what has happened. The people who gave financial, material, and logistical support to the 19 hijackers, though equally responsible along with the actual hijackers, have been held free from any accountability. No one has been held accountable in the eyes of justice for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, killed here, in America, in our country, on our soil.

One chief obstacle to accountability has been the fixation on obsessive secrecy afforded to protect those responsible for the murder of our friends and our family on 9/11. I say “our” because I recognize that on 9/11, we all lost someone we loved, and what brings us here today, should concern all Americans. While my children and I lost Tom in that attack, the secrecy that continues to protect the behind-the-scenes supporters of terrorists continues to threaten all Americans. For our own security, we cannot continue to allow our government to keep secret the most crucial facts of the worst terrorist attack on American soil.

I am not speaking hypothetically: The very subject of the 28 pages, torn from the Congressional Report investigating the 9/11 attacks is the specific sources of foreign support for the 9/11 hijackers. Incredibly, for over a decade, we have been denied the truth about who else was part of the planning and implementation of 9/11. In fact, on August 1st, 2003, Senators Chuck Schumer and Sam Brownback, joined by 44 other Senators, including now former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry, wrote a letter urging then President George W. Bush to declassify the 28 pages. Imagine that, 2003, ten years ago.

In that letter they said, and I quote, “unfortunately, because all but two pages of the entire section have been deemed too secret for public disclosure, the American people remain in the dark about other countries that may have facilitated the terrorist attacks.” End of quote.

In my book, deeming “too secret” equates to lying.

Why was the decision made to keep the keep the truth from my family and the American people? Sadly, the answer has become painfully clear. As I see it and I hear my views echoed by the honorable men here, who have read and even been involved in writing (which is Senator Bob Graham), the real concern is not about our security or protecting the American people from terrorist complicity, as much as it is about protecting the Saudi regime from embarrassment or any public penalty.

Sadly, concern for Saudi relationships has taken precedence over the safety over the American people. I am not here to advocate the public release of information that would place our nation’s security at risk, but I also cannot condone excessive secrecy, simply to appease the so-called allies while they plot against us. And as you heard today, the representatives here, they do not believe anything in this report jeopardizes national security. These are honorable public servants and I believe them.

In short, this is not an academic question: We don’t simply want to know the truth. The truth must be exposed. If our leaders are willing to navigate the thorny problems of an increasing dangerous world, al-Qaeda is pure evil and so are their bankrollers. And if Americans are generally are being to offer responsible guidance to their elected leadership, as we should be, we must be informed truthfully. In fact, isn’t that one of the purposes for which the Report on the Joint Inquiry was authored?

It is our responsibility as victims’ family members and survivors of 9/11, to fight for the truth to be told. It is our government’s responsibility to expose other criminals of 9/11, the bankrollers, no matter who they may be. And it is you, the press’s responsibility to report the whole truth, to report who funded the terrorist attacks that took place here, over a decade ago, and who continues to fund attacks taking place all over the world. The omission of such facts leaves us all less informed, more vulnerable, and less safe.

Today we have an opportunity to stop the secrets and tell the truth. I urge every Member of Congress to take the time and read those 28 pages. I ask every member to join us today in our request for support of Resolution 428.

I also ask the President of the United States, our President, Mr. President, please declassify these 28 pages now. Not next year, not in the future. Make good on your promise you made to 9/11 families in 2009 and allow the truth to be told.

I will leave you with one final thought: On 9/11, thankfully, you were very lucky. Only by the courageous actions of a few passengers on the doomed airline Flight 93, were your lives spared. You were the targets intended to be killed next, and had that occurred, it would be your family members here today, insisting that the truth be told.

Thank you.

ALICE HOAGLAND: Good morning everybody. My name is Alice Hoagland; I’m usually about four octaves higher, but I caught a cold on my way to Washington.

I’m very grateful this morning for the words of Congressman Massie and Congressman Lynch, and Congressman Jones. I’m so grateful that this horrible situation is finally going to come to an end.

As Terry alluded, Flight 93, according to its hijackers, according to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, so-called, Flight 93 was intended to smash into the Capitol dome. Instead, because of the action of a handful of guys onboard Flight 93, it smashed instead into the soft soil in southwest Pennsylvania, killing no one except those onboard: forty innocent people, and four loathsome, thuggish hijackers.

I join this group of 9/11 family members and these fine Congressmen in our effort to make sure that the full truth about 9/11 is brought forward. Before there was the 9/11 Commission, there was the Joint Inquiry into the intelligence community activities of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and that was published in December of 2002, and as Congressman Jones has said, Senator Bob Graham was one of the important writers of the 28 excised pages. Those pages are unavailable to us, and they’re just about unavailable to the Congressmen, I gather, from what they’re telling me. It would be a very intimidating thing to go down flights of stairs and read something and wish you could take notes, and not be allowed to because of the watchful gaze of a security officer.

I’m going to quote Senator Graham, why it’s important that the President of the United States Barack Obama reconsider this ill-advised notion that those 28 pages do not affect us today. Senator Graham says, “In this case, the Presidents have withheld aggressively and extensively, and by that have both kept the public from fully knowing what happened, because there has been no flow of information, that contributed to the issue now increasingly being looked upon as one of past history.” And if we look upon the lessons of 9/11 as past history, we do so at our peril. Because as we know, from this tragic news coming out of Malaysia, the specter of terrorism still lives with us; we still face it every day, and if we become complacent in the face of these 28 unavailable pages, and in the face of mounting evidence that we are still the targets of terrorism, we will be affected by terrorism.

My heart goes out to you all for making sure that this issue stays alive, as I sit in fellowship with the folks here who have lost their loved ones, at the Pentagon, at the World Trade Center, and on Flight 93. Thank you very much.

REP. JONES: Sylvia?

SYLVIA CARVER: Hello, my name is Sylvia Carver, I am one of the 9/11 families. My sister, our sister, Sharon Ann Carver, was murdered at the Pentagon on 9/11, along with 183 other loyal Americans. Today, I would like to thank the Congressmen for making it possible for us to speak today, here, and I would also like to thank the press for being here.

One of our purposes for being here is because we would like the 28 pages released, and we would like the support for all Congress members in supporting this, as well as the President of the United States to release the 28 pages.

On 9/11 we lost our sister, Sharon; she was 38 years old. She didn’t have a chance to fall in love, get married and have children, so we have nothing left of Sharon, except our memory. All that we ask is that we be given a chance to seek justice and told hold the murderers of 9/11 accountable for what they’ve done. As any family members who have lost someone to a crime, we deserve closure, we deserve the right to face these cowards in a court of law, and we deserve answers, and that’s all that we are seeking here today. We deserve answers, we have a right to know. And if Congress will support this declassification of the 28 pages, and if the President of the United States would just declassify these pages, we will have the answers that we have been seeking for more than 12 years now. We have the right to know the full story behind 9/11. We have the right to know what’s in the 28 pages, so please, declassify these pages, so our families and all the families of 9/11, as well as the American people, can have the full truth. We deserve this, so we can move on with our life, and have closure.

Thank you.

REP. LYNCH: Ms. Carver, thank you. I want to ask the families, are you willing to take a few questions? And we’re going to limit the questioning to about five, six- or seven, and then if you want to see a family member outside, certainly they would be glad to meet with you. Would you all come up? Is that okay? We’ll take about six of seven…

Q: Congressman, why — what does this missing section tell us? Why do we need to know about it? What is in it that we need to know?

REP. JONES: Excuse me. The families have stated much better than I…

Q: I didn’t hear that.

REP. JONES: Well, what the families have said, that this information that has not been declassified, which President Obama said in 2009, meeting with the families, one of them just stated this, that he would declassify this information. It is information that will help to bring closure, not totally, but closure to the tragedy of 9/11.

Q: Did President Bush…

REP. JONES: We cannot answer any more questions, because I am not, nor are these two members of Congress going to do anything that say we violated the oath that we’ve taken, so that with that, if you would like, let Stephen speak, or Thomas. But then I want the families to come up and we’ll take five or six questions, because they’ve been here, this is very painful.

REP. LYNCH: I think you all understand the nature of classified information and the obligations that we’re under. You’re free to ask questions, but please, don’t ask myself or the other Congressmen that have read the information to disclose classified information. That would not serve us or serve the country well. There’s a way to get this in the public, we’re taking those steps. This is the proper way to do it. We do believe it should be made public and that’s what this resolution would do; it would call upon members of Congress to ask the President to declassify. The President, it’s his order that keeps these pages hidden. So that’s the way it was classified, and we can undo that through a democratic process, and that’s what we’re going to cover.

Q: Congressman, what sort of feedback have you gotten from the leadership on this resolution? My understanding is, perhaps incorrectly, that it’s sitting in committee and there hasn’t been any action on it. That would seem to suggest there isn’t a whole lot of support.

REP. JONES: Real quickly, because I want the families to have their time with you, if they want to have that time: This is the beginning of a process. We have done radio shows nationally; we have great interest and newspapers have called: We are beginning to beat the drum today. That’s what this news conference is about, is beating the drum, and every beat of the drum says, “We want the truth! We want the truth!” And that’s what this is about, and it’s not going to go away. Today is not the end of this effort. Today is the beginning, and we’re going to win this for the families, and for the American people.

I’m going to let the ladies come up. If you got five or six questions, then we members of Congress can talk to you afterwards, but this is stressful for them, I know.

Q: What’s in the report that’ll help you? What do you need help on?

ALICE HOAGLAND: Well, there are two books I’d recommend to you, written by Senator Bob Graham. One of them is called Intelligence Matters. It’s a work of nonfiction, and he has gone into fiction by writing The Keys to the Kingdom, which is a suspense thriller, a fiction novel by Senator Bob Graham.

Q: What did he say?

HOAGLAND: Well, I’m in the middle of reading Keys to the Kingdom….

Q: Of what you read, what did he say?

HOAGLAND: Senator Graham has expressed that we need to more thoroughly look at the actions of Saudi Arabia, in the events of 9/11. He has said this freely, as we — I’ve listened to his interviews and I’ve tried to educate myself a little bit about what Senator Graham, what has triggered his extreme concern about this: That extreme concern which has brought the support of the other Congressmen. He helped write those 28 pages, and he is convinced that they need to be brought into the public eye, in spite of the excision by President Bush and the continuation, the sustenance of that excision by President Obama, in violation of his promise to the 9/11 families, that he would work to get those 28 pages…

Q: Could you give us the spellings of your names, and where you are from?

HOAGLAND: Sure if you want.

STRADA: Yeah, just a second, I’d like to…

Q: Could you spell it now?

STRADA: [Spells her name and those of the other two women.]

I think, maybe if I can explain to you for a moment, there is this other layer to 9/11 that really hasn’t been exposed. We know about the hijackers, and we know what happened. But we don’t know about, or what is now coming to light, are these cells that were out in California, Sarasota and Los Angeles, all the way down the Sarasota, Florida; Little Falls, Virginia: there were groups of Saudi Arabian nationals that were here, for years, before and during the 9/11 hijackers’ time in this country, giving them the financial support that they needed to carry out their crimes against us. It’s not cheap to live here, so if you’re here for two years, and you have apartments and you’re renting cars, and you are buying first-class airline tickets to practice your acts, where was that money coming from?

What we are being led to believe, it’s all or most of it was coming from Saudi Arabia. And that needs to come out, that truth needs to be told. It should scare the hell out of all Americans that they were living here, amongst us for two years, doing this before they actually carried out 9/11. And to me, that’s a big reason why these 28 pages need to be released. It speaks to the financial assistance that was given to some of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, while they were here, living in this country for nearly two years.


Q: [EIR] Two questions for the family members. Number 1, you referenced the meetings that took place, I believe in February 2009 in the Oval Office. What was the understanding that you got from President Obama, if, obviously it was a priority for him to meet with you, one of his very first weeks in office as President? What’s your understanding of what he actually promised to do, at the time? If you could say something about that?

HOAGLAND: Yes, well, I didn’t get invited. I was out in California. Did you?

SYLVIA CARVER: No, I wasn’t there.

STRADA: No. But I do know from a 9/11 family member that was there, who has told me herself, personally, that they asked him, “Will you declassify the 28 pages?” and he said, yes, that he would.

HOAGLAND: Good! That’s wonderful!

REP. JONES: We can take on or two more questions, and then we’ll bring it to an end. Anyone?

Q: Where are you from? I didn’t catch that?

HOAGLAND: I’m from Los Gatos, California.

STRADA: New Vernon, New Jersey.

CARVER: White Plains, Maryland.

Q: [EIR] I understand that the Federal courts have recently reinstated a lawsuit and have basically said that a number of named individual Saudi officials, and at least one private entity, Dallah Aviation, are now once again subject to Federal court. Could you say something about that action?

HOAGLAND: Well, we know that the release of those 28 pages would be very interesting, vital, for the pursuit of actions against Saudi Arabia by the 9/11 family members.

But beyond that, it’s important to release those 28 pages, because our national security is going to be threatened going forward. If we continue to think of Saudi Arabia as an ally, we will be led down the primrose path. There are things that Saudi Arabia has done to help us, but it’s remarkable, what I learned in this work of fiction by Senator Bob Graham, The Keys to the Kingdom! It’s remarkable, the role of Saudi Arabian, important, prominent families, called the “golden chain,” and how very much they helped to ensconce people, Saudi Arabian nationals into San Diego and into a town in New Jersey, and down in Sarasota, Florida — which especially rankles the Senator because that’s his hometown, his home state.

REP. JONES: All right, we’ll take a question back here, and this will be the last question, but you can see the ladies if they want to talk when we’ve finished the news conference. This’ll be the last question.

Q: But don’t you think there’s at least some national interest in the relationship with Saudi Arabia? Obviously, the administration and the State Department think that there is a value there. And also, therefore, in having the 28 pages classified for so long?

HOAGLAND: Are you asking me?

Q: Any…

HOAGLAND: I think that it is extremely valuable to maintain our relationship with Saudi Arabia. But I think that it is important for us to go into it with our eyes open, to understand Saudi Arabia’s sympathies and its past actions, to realize, that it is not innocuous, that the relationship is flawed! And it is political, in some respects.

Q: How do you know the 28 pages deal Saudi Arabia?

HOAGLAND: Well, because Senator Graham has said so….

STRADA: You will see his video. It will become available after this press conference. He has said it a number of times.

HOAGLAND: Yeah, he has said it.

Q: [inaudible 25:51]

STRADA: He has said it a number of times.

HOAGLAND: Well, if you accept the word of Senator Bob Graham, you’ll realize that Saudi Arabia plays a key role in 9/11, and is mentioned frequently in this 28 pages.

Q: I thought Senator Graham was going to be here?

REP. JONES: Senator Graham was going to give us a video, that he would be making a statement in support of this effort and in support of the families. There was a glitch in putting the technology together. They have told us, and announced before we got here, that they will get this video statement by Bob Graham to our office and we will disperse it to anyone in the press that would like to have it emailed to you. You will have it, if you’d like to have it.

Q: Could I pose one last question to members of Congress? And I understand this is classified and you get trouble if you reveal names and specifics: But is it fair to infer from what you’ve said that what is contained in the 28 pages deals with the activities of a foreign government that worked against the United States?

REP. JONES: As Stephen Lynch just whispered to me, that the pages speak for themselves, and if these pages are made public then you will have the answer you’re looking for.

Thank each and every one. The families get the biggest thanks: This pain has been with them for over 12 years, and we thank you. You are important to whether we get this declassified or not, so thank you for being here, and my colleagues in Congress, thank you so much.

HOAGLAND: We’re so glad you’re here. [applause]

Transcript of the Video Message from Senator Bob Graham (D-FL)

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Good morning, I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this conference, which is going to be discussing some of the most important issues affecting the relationships within Congress and the Executive, relationships between government and its people, and the national security of our nation. It’s very significant that this conference is being held, the day after Senator Feinstein made her statements relative to the relationship between the inquiry which has been conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA. Because what we’re going to be talking about today, raises many of the same fundamental issues.

Immediately after 9/11, the leadership of the House and Senate asked the Chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to do what Congress had never done in 200 years, and that is, to form a joint committee for purposes of conducting an inquiry as to what had happened in 9/11, with particular focus on the role of the United States intelligence community.

We spent the better part of 15 months, working on that inquiry. We had staff that represented persons who were knowledgeable in each of the intelligence community. We had persons who had experience in the Department of Justice, in other law-enforcement-related agencies of the Federal government. We conducted hundreds of interviews, read thousands of pages of documents, and in December of 2002, produced an 800-plus-page report. That report took over six months in the declassification process, and when the report was returned in publicly releasable form, there were a number of specific redactions. There were names and places and other specific pieces of evidence which were withheld.

But the most stunning thing, was an entire chapter, 28 pages, was censored, from word one to the last word of the chapter. That chapter dealt primarily with who financed 9/11. That was a very fundamental question, because it went to an even larger question. And that is: Did those who committed that heinous attack on September 11th, did they act alone, or were they supported by a network of individuals?

All of the people who have been in leadership positions of investigations into 9/11 have come away with the feeling that it was implausible to believe that these 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had only been in the United States for a — if any — a very brief period of time, could have carried out such a complex operation, which required completion of the planning, the practicing, and then, finally, the execution of the plot.

A key part of that question of whether they acted alone or had support, related to the financing of 9/11: How could these people have financed a project that was as expensive, in terms of the cost of the 19 individuals, without having some support network? That missing chapter provides evidence that would be important to answer the question: Did these people act alone?

That chapter has now been censored, since the summer of 2003, for over 10 years. Whatever reason there may have been for the initial censorship, has long since passed. At the time that we heard that it was being censored, Sen. Dick Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, who was the vice-chair of the Senate Committee, and myself as chair, both agreed that there was no reason to censor that 28-page, important chapter, no reason for national security reasons.

But here we are, 10 years later, and it continues to be censored.

I want to thank the members of the Congress who are taking the leadership in using the prerogatives, and I think, obligations that Congress has in our system, to demand that the Executive release this information. It is important for a number of reasons: It’s important for justice. There are thousands of Americans, who are currently litigating against countries like Saudi Arabia, and other entities, for their complicity in 9/11, and therefore, their responsibility to accept some of the horrific cost which have befallen those families because of the loss of a loved one. That justice to date has been denied, in part, because important information that would sustain their claims has been withheld, such as, this 28-page chapter.

Second, it’s important to set the historical record correct. If we are going to not repeat the past, but learn from the past, in order to avoid incidents such as 9/11 in the future, we need to know everything we can, as truthfully and fully as possible, about what actually happened on 9/11, and in the preparation for 9/11.

And finally, it’s a matter of current national security. If you feel, as I do, that there was a network of support for the 9/11 hijackers, what reason do we have to believe that that network was abandoned, immediately after 9/11? What reason do we have to believe that it’s not in existence today, ready to be used for a future attack against the United States?

These are the issues that are at stake in the question of whether the Executive branch, with concurrence and leadership of the members of Congress, will make this information available to the American public, so we will be a more just, a more informed, and a more secure nation in the future.

I again express my appreciation for those who are leading this effort, and I wish you well. Thank you.


WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 12: U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), right, with U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), speaks during a press conference on U.S. House bill H.R. 428 in the Cannon House Office Building on March 12, 2014 in Washington, DC. The bill would make public 28 pages, currently classified, that were removed from the congressional investigation’s report on the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. (Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images)

Members Of Congress Call For Release Of Intelligence Findings On 9/11 Attacks


New York Post – December 15, 2013
By Paul Sperry

After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.  It was kept secret and remains so today.  President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report.  Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.  Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution [H.R. 428] asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”  Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.  The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks,
making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.  The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing
the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast:

LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000. One of the advance men, Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, left the LA consulate and met the hijackers at a local restaurant. (Bayoumi left the United States two months before the attacks, while Thumairy was deported back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.)

SAN DIEGO: Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as private meetings with an American al Qaeda cleric who would later become notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki, at a Saudi-funded mosque he ran in a nearby suburb. They were also feted at a welcoming party. (Bassnan also fled the United States just before the attacks.)

WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. Though the Bandars claim the checks were “welfare” for Bassnan’s supposedly ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers’ hands.  Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy — so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.  The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.
“Our investigations contributed to the ambassador’s departure,” an investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington told me, though Bandar says he left for “personal reasons.”

FALLS CHURCH, VA.: In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a PentaMost suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11.  As I first reported in my book, “Infiltration,” quoting from classified US documents, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was briefly detained at JFK before being released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.” A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.

HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel. Did he meet with them? The FBI never found out. They let him go after he “feigned a seizure,” one agent recalled. (Hussayen’s name doesn’t appear in the separate 9/11 Commission Report, which clears the Saudis.)

SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd. FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched. Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”
Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.  Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with
the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.  Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads the Granted, it’s not easy to do. It took a month-long letter-writing campaign by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them access to the material.  But it’s critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White House to let all Americans read it. This isn’t water under the bridge. The information is still relevant today.  Pursuing leads further, getting to the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.  As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum  to their heavily redacted 2002 report, “State-sponsored terrorism substantially
increases the likelihood of successful and more lethal  attacks within
the United States.”  Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations.  If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.  Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.”