http://www.rense.com/general54/thankt.htm


Informant: Gary Kohls

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf


Informant: ranger116

Fahrenheit 9/11 has touched millions of viewers across the world. But could it actually change the course of civilisation?

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1289516,00.html


Informant: Friends

LewRockwell.Com

by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

08/24/04

These hearings amount to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! The current and past architects of the very bureaucracy that failed Americans so badly on September 11th three years ago are now meeting to recommend more bureaucracy. ... Does this surprise anyone?...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul200.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

http://tinyurl.com/5v3rz

"9-11 In Plane Sight" Video Shocks Sacramento Citizens

(Download and watch the video)

August 13, 2004

From: NewsWithViews.com

A new 9-11 video was screened last night in Sacramento, California, leaving the audience stunned. '911 in Plane Site' is basically presented in two parts. The first segment is 52 minutes and designed for showing on television with the balance of a one hour time slot reserved for commercials. Part II continues with more film and analysis. This video is digitally mastered making details sharp and clear.

'911 in Plane Site' presents actual film from that fateful day and careful analysis focusing on the Pentagon and the two World Trade Center buildings. By slowing down the actual news feeds that day from networks like CNN, FOX, the BBC and others, what you see is quite different from what most people saw in "real time" that day. Live footage from the Pentagon and what was missed by most because of the smoke and confusion was captured up close by the media.

Following the showing, a retired vet remarked, "How did we miss this all this time? I've seen media clips of the front of that building [the Pentagon] many times, but I wasn't really seeing what was there. I feel sick."

One particular interview that brought gasps from the audience and many looking around with shock etched on their faces was an interview conducted - live at the time - by FOX News. This intense interview with Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News, contains the following narrative, paraphrased: Burnback was close to the path of the second plane and had a good long look at what he describes was not a commercial airliner. The plane that hit the second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here or anything you'd see take off from the airport."

Other footage includes several women who had a very clear view watching the second plane hit were yelling, "That wasn't American Airlines....It wasn't American Airlines going into the building." These interviews were played that morning once on FOX News, never to be replayed again, despite the massive saturation and repetition by the media for many days to come.

Other extremely disturbing segments of this video are the clear, slow motion shots of the second plane going into the towers which show a flash right before the nose of the plane hits the building and a pod attached to the bottom of the plane. This strange flash is clearly recorded from four different angles from four different cameras. While there is only one known piece of film showing the first plane hitting the first tower, in slow motion one can clearly see - as with the second plane - a flash from the nose section right before impact. What caused this?

This video raises extremely disturbing questions about the planes that hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers, but no conclusions or accusations are made by the commentator. To date, only one piece of film has been released by DvD of the front of the Pentagon. The question raised in the video is where is all the other film footage from the Pentagon? The heart beat of America's military and security, with a building and perimeter loaded with cameras, but no film for the public to view of events as they unfolded except from one camera?

According to the producers, the purpose of '911 in Plane Site' is to demonstrate that Americans saw one thing that morning that was so shocking, so horrific and so massive, the finer details weren't really being picked up. The producer reinforces to the viewer that after one broadcast of many very controversial interviews live on the spot, these particular interviews were never broadcast again, i.e. firefighters on the spot talking about the explosions and bombs inside the towers. Since 9-11, it has been reported that "Building Seven" collapsed because of the two World Trade Center towers collapsing. However, the footage on this video tells a different story and raises more questions.

'911 in Plane Site,' distributed by Power Hour Productions (866-773-9469), leaves one with many questions as demonstrated by a very upset senior citizen who requested her last name be withheld. Mary asked, "If these weren't commercial airliners, where are those flights? Where are the passengers? My, God what really happened that day?" Indeed, this seemed to be the biggest question expressed by viewers after the lights came back on, but for which there were no answers. Some viewers were visibly upset, angry and "want damn answers" from the Bush Administration. Others just walked out the door in silence. One upset man commented on the way out of the viewing, "It's time to get this on PBS and every investigative news program on TV. We need answers."

For more information on this video or to purchase a full copy of both part I and part II on VHS or DVD (Total Length: DVD: Approx. 75 min. VHS: Approx. 65 min.), please visit http://www.policestate21.com/

Download and watch the first segment of this video on your computer.

Windows 911_In_Plane_Sight.zip
Macintosh 911_In_Plane_Sight.sit

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

Length: 52 Minutes
Length: 52 Minutes

Size: 104 MB
Size: 129 MB

DL Time:
56k Modem - 6 hour
(approx)
128k Dual ISDN - 2.5 hours
256k DSL - 1 hour
512k Cable - 30 minutes
DL Time:
56k Modem - 7 hours
(approx)
128k Dual ISDN - 3 hours
256k DSL - 1.5 hour
512k Cable - 45 minute
Instructions: Download file from above and extract video file from archive to play it.

Format: Windows AVI file that has DivX 5.1 format Video and MP3 format audio. (Playback will require a DivX decoder to be installed in Windows. If you are not sure that you have one, you can download one below.)

Format: Macintosh Quicktime MOV format file that has MPEG4 encoded video and audio tracks. (may require an upgrade to Quicktime 6.5 for playback)

Optional: Download DivX codec for Windows or Mac at
http://www.divx.com/divx/download

Optional: Download Quicktime 6.5 for Mac or Win at
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download

http://www.warfolly.vzz.net/nowweknowforsure.html


Informant: Friends

by Julian Borger

The Guardian

Friday 20 August 2004

The CIA has taken much of the blame for the security lapses that led to 9/11 and the false intelligence on Iraq's WMDs. But now one spy has broken ranks to point the finger at the politicians - and warn that the war on terror could plunge the US into even greater danger.

These are not happy times at the CIA. In the space of a few short months, two official reports have found the agency principally to blame for failing to prevent the September 11 al-Qaida attack and for claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt there is a lot of blame to go round. The twin fiascos rank as the worst intelligence failures since the second world war. But the two reports, by the September 11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee respectively, were also testaments to political expedience. Both panels were made up of Republican and Democratic loyalists who reached a political compromise by going relatively easy on both Clinton and Bush administrations, and focused on institutional culprits. The CIA, without a defender after the resignation in July of its long-serving director, George Tenet, presented the easiest target.

Yet most of the agency's rank and file believe they have done little wrong. They were the first to raise the alarm over the danger posed by Osama bin Laden, long before the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa. In 1996 they set up a unit called the Bin Laden Issue Station, codenamed "Alex", dedicated to tracking him down, only to have one operation after another aborted as too politically dangerous.

There are a lot of angry spies at Langley, and one of the angriest is Mike Scheuer, a senior intelligence officer who led the Bin Laden station for four years. While some of his colleagues have vented their frustrations through leaks, Scheuer has done what no serving American intelligence official has ever done - published a book-length attack on the establishment. His book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, is a fire-breathing denunciation of US counter-terrorism policy. In it, Scheuer addresses the missed opportunities of the Clinton era, but he reserves his most withering attack for the Bush administration's war in Iraq.

He describes the invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage". He even goes so far as to call on America's generals to resign rather than execute orders that "they know [...] will produce more, not less, danger to their nation". Bin Laden, he believes, is not a lonely maverick, but draws support from much of the Islamic world, which resents the US not for what it is, but for what it does - supporting Israel almost uncritically, propping up corrupt regimes in the Arab world, garrisoning troops on the Saudi peninsula near Islam's most holy sites to safeguard access to cheap oil.

"America ought to do what's in America's interests, and those interests are not served by being dependent on oil in the Middle East and by giving an open hand to the Israelis," Scheuer argues. "If we're less open-handed to Israel over time we can cut down Bin Laden's ability to grow. Right now he has unlimited potential for growing." What makes these comments the more challenging to the Bush administration is that they come from a self-described conservative and instinctive Republican voter.

It seems extraordinary that Scheuer's bosses allowed him to publish his book at all. They had already permitted him one book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes, written anonymously, but that was a more analytical work on Bin Laden and al-Qaida. Imperial Hubris is altogether different: a bitter polemic against orthodoxy and the powers that be.

Scheuer was given the green light only on condition that he stuck to a set of ground rules: he would continue to write as Anonymous, he would not reveal his job or employer, and he would refer only to information that is already "open source" - ie in the public domain. Inevitably, however, given the controversy surrounding the book, his identity has been leaked (first by a liberal weekly, the Boston Phoenix, then this week by the New York Times). Even now, he sticks closely to his employers' guidelines, refusing formally to confirm his identity, while describing his employers vaguely as "the intelligence community". (It is for this reason that he is not permitted by the CIA to be photographed except in silhouette.) Having initially been allowed to give media interviews to promote his book, Scheuer was told earlier this month that he has to ask permission for every interview and to submit an outline of what he is going to say. So far, no interviews have been granted under the new guidelines.

His interview with the Guardian is one of Scheuer's last before being gagged. Burly, bearded and in jeans and a loose shirt, his forceful vocabulary is a far cry from the cautious obfuscation that is the native tongue in Washington. Not that he minds rocking the boat a little. "If getting in somebody's face [helps] prevent the death of 3,000 Americans in New York or the sinking of the Cole in Yemen, or two embassies in East Africa, then I'm in your face," he says.

His bosses at the CIA have not confronted him over the book, other than to tell him what he can or cannot do with the press. "I don't think they get it yet. I still think there's a large group in the American intelligence community who talk about the next big attack but really believe 9/11 was a one-off," he says. "I think they believe their own rhetoric that they've killed two-thirds of the al-Qaida leadership, when they killed two-thirds of what they knew of."

Scheuer says that nearly three years after the September 11 attacks the US intelligence team dedicated to tracking down Bin Laden is still less than 30 strong - the size it was when he left in 1999. The CIA claims that the Bin Laden team is hundreds strong, but Scheuer is insistent that the apparent expansion is skin-deep. "The numbers are big, but it's a shell game. It's people they move in for four or five months at a time and then bring in a new bunch. But the hard core of expertise, of experience, of savvy really hasn't expanded at all since 9/11."

The morass in Iraq, meanwhile, is a "big factor in not allowing us to develop much expertise" on Bin Laden. "I think [director of central intelligence George Tenet] said we had enough people to do two wars at once, and clearly that was a fantasy."

The conclusion of the September 11 Commission - that the al-Qaida plot might have been broken up if the intelligence agencies had cooperated better and shared more information - was accompanied by recommendations for the creation of a national counter-terrorist centre and a national director of intelligence to coordinate the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Scheuer believes this is a classic bureaucratic fix. "I've never known a dysfunctional bureaucracy made better by being made bigger." His answer to the al-Qaida threat, unsurprisingly, is to give his old unit at the CIA, the Bin Laden station, more resources and more firepower.

It is a solution forged by the accumulated bitterness of missed opportunities. In one year under his watch, from May 1998 to May 1999, Scheuer reckons the US had up to a dozen serious chances to kill or capture Bin Laden. Only one was taken - a missile attack on an Afghan training camp in August 1998 - but either the al-Qaida leader was not there, or he had left before the missiles landed.

Months earlier, however, Scheuer believes there was a far better opportunity to grab Bin Laden. The CIA had made a deal with a group of Afghan tribesmen to raid Bin Laden's headquarters near Kandahar and then take him to a desert landing strip, where a US plane would take him either to America or another country for trial. The plan, rehearsed several times over many months, was in Scheuer's view "almost a perfect operation in the sense that there was no US hand visible". But on May 29 1998, according to the narrative in the September 11 Commission's report, Scheuer was informed that the operation had been cancelled because of the risk of civilian casualties.

The pattern was repeated on December 20 the same year, when Scheuer's agents were virtually certain that Bin Laden would be staying the night at a guest house in the Kandahar governor's compound. President Clinton's principal national security advisers once more decided that the danger of collateral damage was too high. Afterwards Scheuer wrote to the top CIA agent in the region, Gary Schroen, saying that he had been unable to sleep after this decision. "I'm sure we'll regret not acting last night," he predicted. Yet another opportunity, in Afghanistan, was missed in 1999.

Other intelligence veterans are more sympathetic to the policymakers' dilemma, pointing out that if the US had shot and missed Bin Laden, while killing others, the country would have been condemned around the world, potentially winning more recruits for al-Qaida. "Mike's is the viewpoint of the soldier versus the viewpoint of a general," argues Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA's Counter-Terrorist Centre. "There are political judgments made at a higher pay grade. I've been at both sides of that equation and they are difficult judgments to make."

Scheuer counters that the policymakers are just not asking the right questions. "The question is always what happens if we do this and we fail. The question is never what happens to Americans if we don't try this," he says. "When I took my oath of office, it was to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of the US. It wasn't 'to preserve and protect and defend as long as you don't kill an Arab prince, as long as you don't offend the Europeans, as long as you don't hit a mosque with shrapnel'." Scheuer's constant complaints eventually got him removed from his position at the head of the Bin Laden unit and shifted to a more nebulous training role.

To his detractors in the administration, Scheuer is no more than a rogue spy whose career did not turn out the way he had hoped. Certainly he is bitter at being "sidetracked for the past five years without any sort of explanation from my employers", but he insists that the issues he raises are far more important than his career. He says his recent adoption of a child deepened his anxiety about the future of the next American generation if the country sticks to its present course.

But even if the US scores some significant victories against al-Qaida, Scheuer believes the conflict with Islamic extremism will continue to spiral without a fundamental rethink of US priorities in Iraq and a relationship with Israel that "drains resources, earns Muslim hatred and serves no vital US national interest". It is a depressingly pessimistic assessment. Ultimately, "we only have the choice between war and endless war".


From ECOTERRA Intl.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/703179.html


Informant: littlebrit1961