See the British Police State Page
See the Fluoride In Your Drinking Water Page
 

Louis D. Krauss
"Truth Doesn't Fear Investigation No Matter Who It Offends"
 

Supporting The '9/11 Truth Movement'
Exposing the Lies and Deceit Behind the Attacks of 9/11

It is paramount that the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 become known. And no, I do not mean the fictional tale that is passed off as �truth� in what is the 9/11 Commission Report � a book that is now widely acknowledged and regarding as being a fraudulent narrative, full of distortions, omissions and outright lies.

It is important for everyone to know the truth and for many reasons. Not least of which are those that have suffered in the years since that fateful day through the direct loss of loved ones; or the families whom have had loved ones perish in the subsequent and equally fraudulent �war on terrorism.�

Regrettably, there are those that think it is an �American� thing and an �American� problem. But it is not. Britain is a case in point in which every citizen should be concerned. Not least because it was used as a pretext for illegal wars � both of which were launched without any justifiable evidence: The existence of WMD�s still does not exist and the U.S. and U.K. couldn�t prove then nor now that bin Laden was involved when asked to do so by the Taliban. You may not know, but bin Laden isn�t even wanted on his FBI �most wanted� poster for 9/11.  FBI spokesman Rex Tomb has stated "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on America".

But equally because it is the single biggest event that the Government has used to tear apart our civil liberties and build on-top of the already totalitarian democratic-dictatorship police state that we now live under. Gordon Browns Oct 25 2007 �Speech on Liberty� is now a horrendous joke: see Dominic Raab�s �Assault on Liberty�. And I thought it was the fanatic terrorists that hated our freedom and wanted to change our way of life!

The evidence to support the belief that 9/11, at the very least was let happen, let alone that it was an inside job, is now staggeringly and overwhelmingly evident. Neither incompetence nor gross neglect stands up to scrutiny. If only the actual evidence is looked at, as opposed to mindlessly believing the state and controlled media � neither of which have really questioned the facts, but have done the complete opposite.

As Prof. Dr. David Ray Griffin has pointed out, nearly everyone who looks at the evidence regarding 9/11 with an open mind ends up being convinced that it was an inside job. Wiki �Big lie�, the Government isn�t stupid.

Only no-body loners in the �9/11 Truth Movement�? No, today it consist of professors, scholars, former senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials, fire-fighters, physicists, architects & engineers, medical professionals, lawyers, pilots, survivors, victims family members and celebrities. See patriotsquestion911.com

If a real, independent investigation takes place there is simply no doubt of what the verdict will be because now the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is as devastating as that fateful day itself.

Doubts? If there is only one book that you read regarding the events of 9/11, then make it New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Expos�, and make it now. I implore and dare you to do so.

This single book could provide the basis for the UN� International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the US, caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.

�Truth Does Not Fear Investigation No Matter Who It Offends� Honour the fallen by the relentless pursuit of truth.

Louis D. Krauss
Shrewsbury, Shropshire - February 26th 2009

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

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, see also [1]
Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Fire Fighters for 9-11 Truth
Physicists for 9-11 Truth (also known as S.P.I.N.E. (The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven))
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth - see also [2] (Pilots and Aviation Professionals)
Veterans For 911 Truth - see also [3] (Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials)
Religious Leaders for 911 Truth - see also [4]
Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth - see also [5]
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth - see also [6], [7] (Politicians for 9/11 Truth - Andreas von Bulow, Michael Meacher, Yukihisa Fujita etc)
Survivors and Family Members for 9/11 Truth
Celebrities for 9/11 Truth (Actors, Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals)
Marines for 9/11 Truth
Musicians for 9/11 Truth
Artists for 9/11 Truth
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Republicans for 9/11 Truth
Medical Professionals 9/11 Truth
Worldwide Coalition for 9/11 Truth
Mainstream Media Journalists for 9/11 Truth... Coming soon?
Government for 9/11 Truth... Coming soon?
Sibel Edmonds
William Rodriguez
Cynthia McKinney
Norman Mineta

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

 

��Not another conspiracy theory!�" ... "It will be heard, especially from the smart commentators and senior politicians, who will exude an air of experienced superiority over the naive and gullible who dare to give the time of day to anything the politicos sneeringly call a conspiracy theory. It is the new insult from the established classes. It is also bad journalism and bad politics. A conspiracy theory, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, is 'a belief that some covert but influential agency or organisation is responsible for an unexplained event'. Does such a concept deserve to be dismissed out of hand? History teaches us otherwise."[1]

The examples below are now accepted historically and academically.

* Look into the Reichstag fire of 1933 - blamed on the Communists, subsequently giving the Nazis the opportunity to seize more power. Now accepted historically and academically.
* Look into 'Operation Ajax' - CIA archives show that in 1953 the US and UK governments used this 'false flag' operation to overthrow the regime in Iran led by Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, a western education and pro-American, but nationalised the oil fields so it was concluded he had to be removed. The tactics employed in Operation Ajax were to carry out acts of terror and blame them on Mossadeq. The included attacking a mosque, machine-gunning civilians and distributing phoney handbills. Now accepted historically and academically.
*
Look into the 1962 'Operation Northwoods' - The US government planned terrorist-type activity under its banner to provoke a war with Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were to 'indicate brief but precise description of pretexts which they consider would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba. The 'cover and deception plan' suggested incidents which would provide this justification. The included blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba; developing a 'Communist Cuban terror campaign' on the US mainland and causing the destruction of a US plane in the air, amongst others. The US has long had an obsession with Cuba and the assassination of Fidel Castro.
* Look into the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' lie used as a pretext for war.

"But that was then and this is now. Such things don't happen today, do they? Especially not in Britain. It's not as though a Bulgarian could be murdered at a London bus stop with a ricin-tipped umbrella, an Italian with close links to the Vatican be found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge, or a Russian dissident be poisoned with radioactive polonium-210 in a Japanese restaurant on Piccadilly, is it?

Yet people seem - illogically - to assume that the  explanation of a dramatic event will inevitably  be obvious and simple, even if tracing the history of that event may well reveal highly complex social and political processes. So the person offering anything other than a two-dimensional explanation for the end point of a three-dimensional explanation for the end point of a three-dimensional explanation for the end point of a three-dimensional sequence is called a conspiracy theorist - just as in the USA Robert Parry was, by colleagues, political opponents and the media alike, when he began uncovering the Iran-Contra affair.

Naturally, if a so-called conspiracy theory is validated, the term is dropped in respect of that particular event. A conspiracy theory must by definition be absurd, and if it turns out to be true, it must be reclassified. It goes without saying that it is enormously helpful to governments to make any challenge to orthodox official explanations politically difficult. Of course this certainly does not mean that every event has a sinister explanation, that every wild theory must be right. Most will be wrong. But it does mean that those who dismiss so-called conspiracy theories out of hand without even examining the evidence are as sloppy  and unprofessional in their approach as those who soak up every such theory without question." [1]

You need to accept neither the official version of events nor any alternative explanation - but you do need to examine the facts, to test the evidence, and only to accept that which can be substantiated. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Those questioning the events of 9/11 are not bored 'conspiracy theorist' Joe-citizen-no-body-loners spending their day tapping away at alternative or kooky news websites on the internet or teenagers with too much time on their hands. No, today the 9/11 Truth Movement is a powerful force made up of not only your everyday Bob-public but also high ranking professionals (see links above) - professors, scholars, student scholars, intelligence officers, military men, fire fighters, physicists, architects & engineers, politicians (Andreas von Bulow, Michael Meacher, Yukihisa Fujita, as a very tiny traction of an example), 9/11 commissioners (Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton (chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission- see Stonewalled by the CIA. as an example)), lawyers, policemen, generals (Lt. Col Robert M. Bowman, Ph.D. (USAF, ret) and Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, as a very tiny traction of an example), veterans (Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials), religious leaders, pilots, survivors and family members and celebrities (Charlie Sheen as a famous example) etc. and not just 1 or 2 of them, but hundreds and hundreds. If you actually look into it for yourself rather than what people or the controlled media tell you about it you'll be rather surprised I can assure you.

You can laugh, joke, mock and ridicule but unless you actually look at the evidence, and both sides of a story, you can never make an educated, intelligent, unbiased and informed opinion.

'As David Ray Griffin has pointed out, nearly everyone who looks at the evidence regarding 9/11 with an open mind ends up being convinced that it was an inside job. Any prosecution related to 9/11 will force people to look at the evidence.' The '9/11 Commission Report' is so full of holes it isn't taken seriously by anyone.

"If we do get a real investigation or a trial there is simply no doubt of what the verdict will be because now the evidence that 9/11 is an inside job is now overwhelming." - Prof. Dr. David Ray Griffin, (source)

"I'm fearful that many people will say, 'okay, the criminals are out of office now and so let's not work on [9/11]'. But the more hopeful possibility is people will say, 'now there may be a real chance for an investigation.'" - Prof. Dr. David Ray Griffin, (source)

This is not just an American issue but from day one a British one too, and is becoming even more increasingly so - 9/11 was used as one of the biggest pretexts for curtailing our liberties, even more so than the Government (now a democratic-dictatorship) do already, turning Britain into an ever increasing militarized police state and surveillance society - what we live in now is not a democracy nor a free country that our parents and grandparents died for in WW2.

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

Please, read some of the below articles, view the above links and watch some of these recommended documentaries and lectures:

DOCUMENTARIES

*
9/11: Ripple Effect (2007) by William Lewis and Dave vonKleist
* David Ray Griffin - New 9/11 Evidence (Part 1, 2 and 3) - 6/4/2008
* 9/11 Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction (2008 Edition) by Architect Richard Gage, American Institute of Architects
* 9/11 Contradictions interview with Prof. Dr. David Ray Griffin
* 9/11: Let's Get Empiral (May 18, 2007) (Q&A) by Prof. Dr. David Ray Griffin
* Alex Ansary (of Outside the Box) Interviews Prof. Dr. David Ray Griffin (May 21, 2007)
* 9/11: In Plane Site (2004) by William Lewis and Dave vonKleist

ARTICLES

* The 9/11 Interview with Michael Hess: Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued by Prof. Dr. David Ray Griffin - The Canadian, September 17, 2008
*
Stonewalled by the C.I.A. by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton (chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission) - New York Times, January 2, 2008
* New Evidence that the Official Story about 9/11 is Indefensible by Prof. Dr. David Ray Griffin - The Canadian, October 9, 2007
* The Disbelievers: 9/11 Truthers Are Building Their Case Against the Government From Ground Zero by Michael Powell - Washington Post, September 8, 2006 (also see 9/11 Theorists Multiply - Washington Post/MSNBC Report)
* Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job' by Jaya Narain - Daily Mail, September 6, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] - Opening paragraph of the Preface in �The Strange Death of David Kelly� by Norman Baker MP

 

Still think Ryan Mackey's so called 'white paper', that purports to examine David Ray Griffin's chapter on the NIST report on the Twin Towers and allegedly shows it to be 'completely off base' and others reviews of it to have their 'analysis [turned] inside out', to be reliable? See Chuck Thurston's 'My Response...', Kevin Ryan's 'The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey' and Jim Hoffman's 'Critique...'.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302889/pg2

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread313448/pg1

 

Although, Im not sure how researching "Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft" makes you an expert on the physics of the WTC towers collapse.
by

Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and others are risking their careers, credibility and livelihood for the sake of finding out the truth about these important matters. It takes courage to make a principled commitment to truth based upon one's own convictions -- particularly if your conclusions are going to be politically unpopular. These individuals should be honored and respected for what they are doing (regardless of their conclusions), not ridiculed and slandered with cheap shots the way Mr. Rothschild seems to enjoy so much.

Griffin doesn't put forward comprehensive theories of his own, let alone "peddle" any. His skills in philosophy qualify him to apply logical analysis to a comparison of what is known and documented about 9/11 versus what we've been told about 9/11. One doesn't have to look far before almost everything we've been told falls apart. He has also provided a service by compiling the numerous unanswered questions along with the conclusions of many other researchers. His efforts have provided a significant overview of this large and complex body of documented fact, government claims and ongoing speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laden denies responsabiliy: 16 September 2001 but praises.

 

On December 9, 2001 (Fake? now widely accepted as fake) U.S. military forces in Jalalabad found a video tape of bin Laden [1]. On December 13, 2001, the United States State Department released a video tape apparently showing Osama bin Laden speaking with Khaled al-Harbi and other associates, somewhere in Afghanistan, before the U.S. invasion had driven the Taliban regime from Kandahar. The State Department stated that the tape was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan during a raid on a house in Jalalabad.[2] The tape was aired with an accompanying [3] English translation. In this translation, Osama bin Laden displays knowledge of the timing of the actual attack a few days in advance [4]; the translation attributes the following lines to bin Laden:

"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."[5]

On December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be not only inaccurate, but also manipulative saying "At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original Arabic. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."[6] Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini stated: "This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."[87]

December 27, 2001 - PRAISES

 

Laden claims responsability:

October 29, 2004 (Fake?)

May 23, 2006 (5 minute audiotape)

September 7, 2006

Regardless, FBI do not have sufficient evidence to charge. Even when he claims responsability.

 

 

 

 

Found this and it needs answering:

PLEASE READ THIS. THE BIT ON THE FBI AT THE END IS VERY INTERESTING BUT ONLY WHEN TAKEN IN CONTEXT WITH THE BELOW:

On September 16, 2001 bin Laden denied responsability but praised the attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_16
He says: �I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.�

On December 9, 2001 video he claims responsability in this most controversial video: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html

Regarding the controversial above tape, on December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be not only inaccurate, but also manipulative saying "At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original Arabic. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it." Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini stated: "This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden#December_13.2C_2001

On December 27, 2001 video he praises the attacks

October 29, 2004 video he claims responsability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video (some see as fake: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape2.html)
He says: "I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.� The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him.� Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year.� They needed an enemy.� Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks."

On December 26, 2001, Bin Laden releases a tape that says the U.S.'s invasion of Afghanistan is "a vicious campaign based on mere suspicion."

On May 23, 2006 audio tape he claims responsability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden#May_23rd.2C_2006

On September 7, 2006 he claims responsability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Osama_bin_Laden_video Some see this as fake aswell.

On September 10, 2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino will be asked a question. "But Osama bin Laden is the one that � you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 �" Her response is to say that "No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he�s sitting in jail right now." Interesting page: http://www.911blogger.com/node/17949

THE INTERESTING PART:

Now, it is interesting to note that on most of these video tapes he claims direct responabilty. He has admitted this under no duress or torture. On 10/4/2001, Tony Blair presented a paper that makes the case for Osama Bin Laden's involvement before Parliament. It says, "this document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law.� Nevertheless, it continues, �on the basis of all the information available [Her Majesty�s Government] is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document." On 6/6/2006, FBI spokesman Rex Tomb will say, "the reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden�s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." This according to Ed Haas of the Muckraker Report.

NO HARD EVIDENCE? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE TAPES ABOVE? WITH ALL THIS THE FBI STILL DOESN'T LIST 9/11 ON BIN LADEN'S MOST WANTED POSTER.

 

Additionally, this site says they're fake: http://911lies.org/fake_bin_laden.html

and this site says it's real: http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html

This shows how easy it is to fake: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/12/video-fauxtography-made-even-easier/

I really do not know what to believe now.

1
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws