Saskatoon Peace Coalition Town Hall Meeting...
On Thursday June 8th I went to a town hall meeting here in Saskatoon, where we debated Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. The only political party represented were the NDP, Andrew Mason. The Green Party representative couldn't make it due to other obligations. Sadly, but typically, nobody from the Liberals or Conservative deigned to show up.
The first speaker was the Chairperson for the Saskatoon Peace Coalition. They stated that they believed this war is illegal and immoral. Then an Afghani-Canadian named Rahmath spoke and gave a brief history of Afghanistan, and the background to the events leading up to the invasion. His position was that Afghan citizens would welcome International troops if they were peacekeepers rather than war makers.
Then it was the politicians turn. Mason explained that although the NDP did not support the war morally, he could understand the legalities of it and brought up the oft-repeated excuse that Osama Bin Laden was being harbored by the Taliban. Basically the NDP position is that they don't know where to go from here because they want more open debate on the subject in Parliament.
They then opened up questions to the floor, and those wishing to express themselves filed behind a microphone in the audience. I was the third speaker and gave a stirring monologue about the 9-11 truth movement, and how 9-11 is the key to everything. I opened by noting that Andrew Mason was stating as fact that a "group in Afghanistan" was responsible for 9-11.
I remarked that there has been no finding of fact, and that the Bush administration had done nothing but try and block any independent investigation. I mentioned a few more of the many omissions and outright lies perpetrated by the Keane Commission. I also expressed the fact that all Fascist regimes use psychological warfare on their own people to strip them of their rights and legal protections and to justify illegal wars of aggression.
I ended by sounding a note of alarm, that fascism was now here in Canada. I brougt up the recent case of the 17 alleged terrorists rounded up in southern Ontario. Since 9-11 the Canadian government passed laws allowing secret evidence against suspects and security certificates are issued allowing detention without charge or rights to a lawyer. I said that I was mad as hell and I wasn't going to take the lies anymore. I told the room that if we were to avoid becoming a police state, we had to stop it here and now. I got a standing ovation.
Other people spoke, an older lady spoke of the bombing of her homeland. There was also an entire class of grade 10's, who asked very enlightening questions. It was clear from the mood of the room, that the politician was being judged harshly. Most people stood up and expressed dissappointment that the NDP wasn't more clear and visible in their oppositon to the conservative/liberal aggressive war agenda.
Mason actually tried to belittle my position about 9-11. We got into a heated exchange in which I was backed up by members of the audience, and before it got too crazy, the moderator stepped in to move the conversation, because Mason was addressing all the views expressed by the audience.
Afterwards as Steffi (my significant other) and I were leaving, many people came up to shake my hand and offer agreement of my views. I was surprised by how many of them have the same thoughts. The tide has turned, the people have my back.
I feel more hope tonight than I have for a long time.
RB Ham
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…therefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." -Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950
** Following is an e-mail exchange between RB Ham and Andrew Mason, federal NDP candidate ijn the next election:**
** My commentary:
*His commitment to the official story leads me to believe that he couldn't have fully researched and digested the voluminous information I sent him.
What? he doesn't have google video?
He agrees with my message regarding the War On Terror being used by the Globalists - but his unwilingness to see how 9-11 is the KEY - ( because it was the PRETEXT THE PNACers NEEDED...indeed, without 9-11, the neo-con's "PNAC" agenda could never have been realized) - well, it makes me realize how strong willfull disbelief is as a psychological defence mechanism.
Or he's mobbed up...
Plus, his attack on Fetzer as a "fraud" gives me pause. James Fetzer's excellent website "Assassination Science" is one of my fovorites. Fetzer is now one of the co-chairs of Scholars For 9-11 truth. As such he is a target.
Another thing - at the town hall meeting, when he and I got into a heated exchange regarding conspiracy theories, Mason had started to say that "people DIDN'T believe that Oswald killed Kennedy either..." before the moderator stepped in.
So he's apparently a believer in the "magic bullet" theory. Hmmm.
Now I'm not sayin' anything here, I'm just sayin'...
RB Ham***
Andrew,
We agree more than we don't. I will take into consideration all you've said, you have shown yourself willing to do more than just indulge in platitudes and insults. Thank you.
I will continue to advocate for 9-11 truth, there are just so many unanswered questions and I have to show solidarity with them (especially the 9-11 widows)...
I will leave you with one last thought.
It is my contention that this Orwellian "War On Terror" could not have been possible without 9-11.
Leonid Brzezenski, a commited military industrialist and political operative, in his book "The Grand Chessboard" (1998) alluded to the fact that the American people would not go along with a War of aggression for Eurasia's resources unless a calamitous event like Pearl Harbor took place.
So they instituted a plan.
To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.
This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.
But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.")
The Bush Administration used those acts of terrorism -- and the fear generated in the general populace -- as their cover for enacting all sorts of draconian measures domestically (the Patriot Act, drafted earlier, was rushed through Congress in the days following 9/11; few members even read it) and as their rationalization for launching military campaigns abroad.
That's all I've got for now. Please feel free to contact me in the future, if event warrant it.
My guess is, they probably will.
RB Ham
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Mason
To: RB Ham
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
Richard,
I agree with you that we should be very skeptical about what a government tells us, particularly when it is trying to justify use of military force. Truth is the first casualty of war.
But I disagree with your blanket conspiracy hypothesis. If you are tying the Bush administration's immoral war mongerers, opposition to which is in every way justified, to a belief in a monstrous conspiracy, you will end up weakening your case. The WTC buildings fell because they were hit by airplanes. We all saw it. To suggest that at the same time, the buildings were demolished in a controlled explosion on the basis of a few snippets of ambiguous evidence is simply poor advocacy.
My bit of friendly advice: Don't listen to Fetzer. He is a fraud. You risk turning people off your message which is that the war against terror is wrong, ineffective and is being driven for other reasons (eg. ideology of the New American centurions). I agree with your message. I disagree with your 'evidence' re: 9-11. (see further comments below)
Andrew Mason
RB Ham wrote:
Andrew,
The fact that there is scientifically verifiable forensic (see again BYU's Steven Jones) and video evidence (ever wonder why the mainstream media never shows the actual collapse anymore, just the planes hitting and then people running away from debris?) not to mention hundreds of eyewitnesses "Sept. 11th oral history" (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/oral/sept11.html), that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings trumps my need to present the ultra-loyal Black Ops unit that wired it for demolition.
As to HOW the WTC buildings could have been surrepitiously prepared for the demolitions - here are some more facts to chew on...
SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11 SECURITY
http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html
And then there is Larry Silverstein, owner of the Trade Center complex, who stated in a PBS video that WTC 7 was "pulled". Pulling is the industry-speak for a controlled explosion, which without prior planning and setup far beyond the 8 or so hours between Plane #1's impact and the implosion of WTC 7. In an amazing coincidence, WTC 7 was the headquarters of the branches of virtually every agency, covert and overt, local state and federal, which would have wanted to bury any information regarding a conspiracy. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.ht... )
Why should we disbelieve Silverstein's own explanation which is that he used "pulled" in relation to removing the firemen as he did not want any more loss of life. That was what Silverstein said he meant. I understand that firemen typically use the term "pulling a building" in relation to pulling firemen out of a building. Why give it a sinister connotation when Silverstein says he did not intend it? If a journalist did that to you, you would be upset.
More suspiciously, Mayor Rudy Giuliani also appears to have a hand in the cover up. It was under his orders that the WTC rubble collected was was immediately sold off to Far Eastern recyclers.
Maybe he just wanted to avoid having to double handle the steel. Seems like a reasonable thing to do, if you ask me. Why create an enormous space to store the steel, transport it there, unload it, load it back up later, transport it to a ship and load it on the ship? I can't imagine why you would want to examine all the steel in the building. We know how the building was built. I am sure there was enough steel saved from the building to do testing on failure analysis. The didn't need it all.
October 2001: Steel Debris From WTC Shipped Out of US for Recycling
In the month following 9/11, a significant amount of the steel debris from the WTC collapses is removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the US. [US Congress, 3/6/2002] Each of the twin towers contained 78,000 tons of recyclable steel. Much of this is shipped to India, China, and other Asian countries, where it will be melted down and reprocessed into new steel products. Asian companies are able to purchase the steel for just $120 per ton, compared, for example, to a usual average price of $150 per ton in China. Industry officials estimate that selling off the steel and other metals from the WTC for recycling could net a few tens of million dollars. [New York Times, 10/9/2001; Reuters, 1/21/2002; Reuters, 1/22/2002; Eastday, 1/24/2002; CorpWatch, 2/6/2002] 9/11 victims’ families and some engineers are angered at the decision to quickly discard the steel, believing it should be examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. A respected fire fighting trade magazine comments, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” [Fire Engineering, 1/2002] Rep. Joseph Crowley (D) will later call the loss of this evidence “borderline criminal.” By March 2002, 150 pieces of steel from the WTC debris will have been identified by engineers for use in future investigations (see March 6, 2002). [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. D-13] A study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which commences in August 2002 [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 8/21/2002; Associated Press, 8/21/2002] , will have 236 pieces of recovered steel available to it. Of these, 229 pieces are from WTC 1 and 2, representing “roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 85 ] New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg defends the decision to quickly get rid of the WTC steel, saying, “If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that’s in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn’t tell you anything.” Officials in the mayor’s office decline to reply to requests by the New York Times regarding who decided to have the steel recycled. [New York Times, 12/25/2001; Eastday, 1/24/2002]
When so many powerful people are all in on it, and the consequences for "whistleblowing" may result in your career being destroyed or worse , it's no wonder they keep silent.
That such incredible secrets can be kept so long is not that far fetched. Just recently, author James Bamford wrote a book called "Body of Secrets". In the book he exposes a 40 year old secret plan to invade Cuba.
"Operation Northwoods"
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
When the leaders of a country have to act in secret, and keep their own citizens constantly on edge by using disinformation and misinformation to manipulate them, how can they call themselves a Democracy?
I agree. And the biggest deception and manipulation was the allegation of WMD in Iraq. They did a similar thing in the first Gulf War alleging that babies were being killed in incubators. We don't have to draw a long bow on those deceptions. The evidence is all there.
Andrew Mason
Thank you so much for your time,
RB Ham
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Mason
To: RB Ham
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
Richard,
Thanks for the very thoughtful arguments. My point about the whistleblowers relates to the actual planting of explosives. Do you have someone credible who contends that they helped pack demolition explosives in the WTC or Pentagon?
Andrew Mason
RB Ham wrote:
Andrew,
This will be the last e-mail I'll send you, unless you e-mail me back for any reason.
You have all the info needed to find the truth, if you so choose. My belief that exposing the truth behind 9-11 is the only thing between us and World War III remains firm, however. I hope you keep an open mind and question EVERYTHING the Harper Government does. His closest advisors are neo-cons pushing for foreign military adventures and cracking down on dissent domestically - and, though I know you're not even close to being convinced, I hope you continue to keep an open mind in the future.
One last round of info follows - just thought I'd mention that there HAVE been whistleblowers, many of them.
From Morgan Reynolds, who was Bush's chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.htm... )to Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.,( http://www.justacitizen.com/ ), to Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer, who revealed that an operation called "Able Danger" which had identified and were tracking Mohammed Atta and his "Brooklyn Cell", was shut down by the Pentagon a full year before 9-11. ( http://www.abledangerblog.com/ )...not to mention former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher, "This war on terrorism is bogus" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,103...
) and former German Defence Minister Andreas von Buelow, "Derman Ex-Minister Rips 9-11 Case Open" ( http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/articles/buelo... )...
Finally, as far as "Skeptic" or "Popular Mechanics" goes, it's a shame that they would pervert their scientific ethics to publish such a shoddy, cover up piece for their political masters.
Below, in red you'll see the claims that the Popular Mechanics article makes, followed by countering arguments.
http://www.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes.
Where are these "subsequent studies"? The FEMA report about the collapse of the buidings admits that they could not figure out why Building 7 collapsed. The FEMA report is proof that there are still unsolved mysteries. Therefore, Popular Mechanics is foolish to claim that the issue has been resolved.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
What is this "rest of the stuff" that was burning? The floors were concrete, and the frame was steel, so what was burning? Carpeting, styrofoam cups, and office paper?
The fire in the South Tower was so small that it did not even spread from one side of the floor to the other. This issue is covered in detail in Chapter 4 of Painful Questions. Figure 4-1 on page 27 even shows a woman standing in the hole created by the airplane. How hot could these fires have been if people are walking around in the crash zone? (click the photo for more perspective)
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
If the floors slid down like pancakes, then there should be a large pile of flooring on the ground, with office furniture, people, and carpeting squashed between the floors. Figure 5-4 is a diagram to show this dilemma. There is nothing in the rubble that suggests any floor fell down in one piece. The reports from the firemen and the photos, such as Figure 5-19, prove that every floor disintegrated into tiny pieces, and the pieces were scattered hundreds of feet.
Besides, the diagram in Figure 5-22 shows even if a floor fell down like a pancake, it would create a corresponding vacuum above it. Therefore, the air that was pushed out the windows would be sucked up through the windows above. The air would be displaced, it would not be thrown hundreds of feet out the windows at extreme velocity. The explusion of dust and the lack of a corresponding suction implies that gas was being created, such as from explosions. The floors were not simply falling down.
Another serious problem with the Pancake Theory is that photos, such as Figure 5-10, show that the top of the South Tower broke off and tipped over, and fell onto Building 4. None of the government reports mention that the top of the South Tower broke off, nor do they explain why the entire base of the South Tower would disintegrate after the top fell off.
Are the editors of Popular Mechanics getting their information from the government? If so, it is no wonder that they are naïve about the 9-11 attack. They should get the packet of books and DVDs that Jimmy Walter offers before they write any more articles.
Since nobody has explained the mysteries of the South Tower, only a fool would say that this issue has been resolved.
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped out? The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet do not show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken windows.
Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper, traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According to his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would he ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research.
Where is evidence that there was an intense fire in Building 7? The photos taken in the afternoon do not show intense fires. Just because a few investigators believe something, that does not make it true. They need evidence to support their beliefs.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
How can a fire burn for seven hours without spreading to other offices or other floors? Perhaps some diesel fuel was dripping from a supply pipe. Since the fire was small, and since the building had a steel frame with concrete floors, the fire could not travel to other offices. So how could such an insignificant fire bring down an entire skyscraper?
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.
Where is a photograph that shows a hole 75 feet wide? All the photos available in reports and the Internet show only small holes. What are we to believe, one person's wild speculation, or the photographs?
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings.
Nobody expects an airplane to create a cartoon-like outline of itself when it hits a building. However, if one wing hit the ground, where are the photographs of that wing? The photographs do not show anything resembling a wing.
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.
Did the passengers and their luggage also turn into a liquid state and flow into the building? After they got into the building, did they solidify back into a solid state? What sort of physics is this? How were they able to identify human parts when metal melts at temperatures far beyond that necessary to reduce flesh to nothing buy carbon ash?
When airplanes crash in other locations, every piece of the plane can be found, even if it is in small pieces. Pieces of the passengers and their luggage can also be found. How is it that when a plane hits the Pentagon, everything suddenly changes and the plane is liquefied?
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Mason
To: RB Ham
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
Richard,
Thanks for the links to the 9-11 information.
In am not persuaded, however. The contention that the buildings were planned demolitions is unbelievable, in my view. The explanation as to why the buildings collapsed is quite understandable.
I am familiar with James Fetzer. He is a proponent of every government conspiracy that has ever been concocted and he is never able to back up what he says in evidence. He has been widely discredited. I wouldn't use him as a reference if you want to be persuasive.
I know you strongly feel that there is something to these theories, and I don't want to discourage you from persuing the truth. I would just suggest that you keep a critical mind and look carefully at what the other side is saying. They are, by and large, independent of government (e.g Skeptic, Popular Mechanics, 2005 March). The possibility that the government could have orchestrated such an enormous fraud and not have even one whistleblower come forward with the truth (just think of the money they would make on the book and magazine rights) seems pretty unbelievable!
Andrew Mason
RB Ham wrote:
Andrew,
Thank you for replying to my e-mail. I don't have all the answers, I am a mere foot soldier in the 9-11 truth movement. I will give you information from and about far smarter people than I. However, it is quite clear that their is absolutely no evidence supporting the "official story" that would stand up in a court of law. Otherwise, Colin Powell would have delivered that white paper he promised the UN back in October 2001 - the white paper that would categorically prove bin Laden and "Al Qaeda's" guilt.
As to who Osama bin Laden really is I suggest Michel Chossoduvsky's work (University Of Ottawa, professor of economics). Here is a great overview, "Who is Osama bin Laden?" http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
I earnestly ask you to download google video and watch this one video by Vision TV's Barrie Zwicker. He's a respected Canadian media critic who has been ignored by the mainstream media. He woke up to the truth when he started to look into the FAA's standard operating procedure and how the Air Force had been effectively "stood down" by a full hour on the fateful day. The name of the video is "The Great Conspiracy" and here's the link :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-652981397...
I am not alone. I am just a small voice in a huge and growing movement. A recent Zogby Poll taken in the States, and furiously ignored by the mainstream media, revealed "Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation", http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/pr... .
Widespread skepticism about the 9-11 "official story" is even more rampant in New York City itself..."Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals" http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Another litttle tidbit you may not have seen is this : "Spanish court throws out 9/11 conviction". Frame ups are very hard to keep credible in Europe - where their justice system has dealt with this issue for a century or more. Spain‘s Supreme Court on Thursday threw out an al-Qaida suspect‘s conviction for conspiracy to commit murder in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, weeks after prosecutors acknowledged the evidence against him was weak.
http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stories/news-001935...
Here are just some links to the truth, this e-mail would run for pages if I didn't keep it simple.
I highly recommmend getting in touch, via e-mail with Professor James Fetzer (jfetzer@d.umn.edu) at "Scholars For 9-11 Truth" (http://st911.org/) - he could elucidate and illuminate the issue far better than I ever could.
Also, for iron clad evidence that explosives were used in the World Trade Centers, e-mail BYU Professor Steven E. Jones at HardEvidence@gmail.com . His paper is linked below, but I know he'd gladly tell you everything he knows.
The truth awaits, our future as a free society depends on it...
VIDEO EVIDENCE:
TJE GREAT CONSPIRACY - Barrie Zwicker
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-652981397...
LOOSE CHANGE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-513758199...
EVERYBODY'S GOTTA LEARN SOMETIME
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008...
9-11 EYEWITNESS
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-349898043...
IN PLANE SITE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224...
ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTION SITES
SCHOLARS FOR 9-11 TRUTH
http://st911.org/
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
ABSTRACT
In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC
7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and
fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the
official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact
damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I
present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is
suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not
been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht...
More...
http://www.911truth.org/
http://911blogger.com/
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?pro...
http://www.reopen911.org/links.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
http://globalresearch.ca
Thank you for everything,
RB Ham
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Mason
To: RB Ham
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
Richard,
Thanks for the interesting email. If Bin Laden was not involved, who was behind 9/11? It was some very well funded and committed organization. How would you explain Al Moussaoui and his admissions? Did the FBI make up the hijackers? There may not be iron clad evidence on all the issues but there would appear to me to be much more evidence against OBL than there is to suggest that it was an FBI/CIA plot.
Andrew Mason
RB Ham wrote:
Mr. Mason,
I was the "conspiracy theorist" who spoke at the SPC meeting Thursday night.
This is some truth straight from the much heralded Canadian web site globalresearch.ca.
I entreat you to research the web site thoroughly and fully inform yourself about the Truth Train rumbling down on all of us.
Thank You,
RB Ham
Lifelong NDP voter.
FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”
In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?
The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?
Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?
No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.
[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.h... [Accessed May 31, 2006]
[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b12132001... [Accessed June 5, 2006]
[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.... [Accessed June 5, 2006]
[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.lade... [Accessed June 5, 2006]