“They came in the dark, shining bright flashlights while my family was asleep, keeping me from milking my cows, from my family, from breakfast with my family and from our morning devotions, and alarming my children enough so that the first question they asked my wife was, ‘Is Daddy going to jail?’”
That’s how Amish farmer Dan Allgyer described an early morning visit last week from two FDA agents, two U.S. Marshals, and a Pennsylvania state trooper. Apparently, investigating a single farmer for possibly trafficking raw milk across state lines requires a show of force.
“I became aware of the cars as soon as I walked out on the sidewalk as part of my morning routine around 4:30 a.m. and immediately said to myself something is going on,” Allgyer wrote in a statement for the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association. “I was watching and noticed three cars were cruising down right behind each other, and immediately thought, hey, that looks like trouble. I watched and pretty soon one car came back and parked on my neighbor’s farm, on private property.”
After tooling around, the cars showed up Allgyer’s property. “They all got out of their vehicles – five men all together–with big bright flashlights they were shining all around. My wife and family were still asleep. When they couldn’t find anybody, they prepared to knock on the door of my darkened house. Just before they got to the house I stepped out of the barn and hollered at them, then they came up to me and introduced themselves.”
Without telling him what is was, one of the agents handed Allgyer an FDA warrant that allowed the agents to inspect Allgyer’s farm. The warrant read: “You are authorized to take all necessary actions, including, but not limited to, the use of reasonable force, to effectuate entry to the above-named premises, the land and buildings located there, at reasonable times during ordinary business hours and to remain thereon to inspect within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner all portions” of Allgyer’s farm.
Allgyer isn’t the criminal that the FDA is making him out to be. “When Americans first began pasteurizing milk at the turn of the last century, testing was rudimentary and farms were far less hygienic,” Katherine Mangu-Ward wrote in February, the first time inspectors showed up to raid Allgyer’s farm. “Today, the situation is different. Testing for the presence of such pathogens is much more precise, and farms are far cleaner. While processing milk remains a good choice for milk shipped to the population as a whole, there are a group of food rebels who would rather drink their milk straight from the cow.”
When Allgyer asked why the agents wanted to inspect his farm, FDA investigator Joshua C. Shafer said, “We have credible evidence that you are involved in interstate commerce.”
“I went to go talk to my wife,” Allgyer said in his statement. “As I walked away, they held a quick excited conversation and I heard one of them say, ‘I’ll take care of him.’ At that point, apparently, they had designated one of the marshals to stick close to me and dog my footsteps. He followed me as I walked toward the house. I went in the house quickly and told my wife a few words to let her know the situation, then immediately came back out of the house before the marshal had time to follow me in. When I came back out, they were inspecting all the coolers sitting out. They spent about a half hour digging through the packed coolers filled with milk and other food – all private property – taking pictures.”
After watching the agents root through his barn, open his freezers, and dig through his dumpster, Allgyer set about milking the cows, hours behind schedule.
“When I was just about done milking, Schafer and the other agent came in the barn and wanted me to answer some more questions. I told them I would not. The second agent said, ‘Are you gong to deliver those coolers to Bethesda and Bowie Maryland?’ I just looked at him. Then Schafer made a gesture and said, ‘The stickers with those towns names are on the coolers,’ as through to say, you might as well tell me.”
Allgyer refused to say anything and the agents left. Several days later, Allgyer received a letter from the Food and Drug Administration that read, “An investigation by the u.s. Food and Drug Administration has determined that you are causing to be delivered into interstate commerce, selling, or otherwise distributing raw milk in final package form for human consumption.”
The letter does not list the evidence against Allgyer, nor does it name specific violations. In fact, the letter from the FDA says exactly the opposite: “This letter is not intended to provide an all-inclusive list of violations.” Two paragraphs later, the letter instructs Allgyer to report within 15 days “the specific steps you have taken to correct the noted violations.”
“Failure to make prompt corrections could result in regulatory action without further notice. Possible actions include seizure and injunction.
Boy, I really feel blessed to have the federal government protecting me from raw milk, don't you?
http://www.infowars.com/raw-milk-crackdown/
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
NBA & NFL?
NBA or NFL....Unreal
36 - Have been accused of spousal abuse
7 - Have been arrested for fraud
19 - Have been accused of writing bad checks
117 - Have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 - Have done time for assault
71, REPEAT, 71 - Cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 - Have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 - Have been arrested for shoplifting
21 - Currently are defendants in lawsuits
84 - Have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
NBA Or NFL?
Give up yet?
NEITHER,
It's the MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN OTTAWA
The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line!
36 - Have been accused of spousal abuse
7 - Have been arrested for fraud
19 - Have been accused of writing bad checks
117 - Have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 - Have done time for assault
71, REPEAT, 71 - Cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 - Have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 - Have been arrested for shoplifting
21 - Currently are defendants in lawsuits
84 - Have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
NBA Or NFL?
Give up yet?
NEITHER,
It's the MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN OTTAWA
The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line!
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Unthinkable: Propaganda for False Flag Nuclear Terrorism and Torture
Special Agent Jack Bauer has competition. His name is “H” and he is a black-ops interrogator and an FBI agent. He is played by Samuel L. Jackson, not Keifer Sutherland. The film is Unthinkable.
A terrorist — not a Muslim but a white guy, sort of like all those militias you’ve heard about lately — has placed nuclear bombs in three American cities and it is up to “H” to “interrogate” the terrorist and find out where they are hidden.
In the trailer, we see the terrorist (played by Michael Sheen) strapped to a chair. Mr. “H” is shown preparing a syringe of some presumably evil substance to inject the terrorist with (maybe something like Jack Bauer’s notorious hyoscine-pentothal, a fictional pain inducing drug).
Agent Helen Brody, played by Carrie-Anne Moss, objects to the torture. It’s unconstitutional, she complains. One of her colleagues insists if the bombs go off there will be no Constitution. In other words, torture will save the Constitution.
Maybe General Tommy Franks had a part in writing the script. In 2003, Franks told Cigar Aficionado magazine that “the worst thing that could happen” would be terrorists acquiring and then using a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon. If that happens, Franks warned, “the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks was the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be sent to the memory hole in favor of a military dictatorship.
Franks didn’t speculate about when or where such an event might take place. That’s what Fox television and Hollywood are for.
Unthinkable is simply big screen propaganda to get you accustomed to the prospect of a false flag terror attack and Frank’s assertion that a military dictatorship will be required in response. It is predictive programming. It is also an excuse to permit torture.
Our rulers love this sort of stuff. In the The Long Kiss Goodnight 9/11 was foretold by five years.
In the Matrix, released in 1999, the character Neo’s passport expires on 9/11/2001 and has an issue date of 9/12/1990, the day after George Bush’s famous New World Order speech.
The Lone Gunmen, a spin-off of the X-Files that aired 6 months prior to September 11, 2001, featured a plot by rogue government agencies to hijack a commercial jet by remote control and crash it into the World Trade Center. The plotters planned to blame the terrorist event on Muslims and then start a war.
Dean Haglund, who starred in “The Lone Gunmen” series, told Alex Jones in 2004 that the CIA regularly attends Hollywood parties and submits ideas to be planted in film and TV scripts.
Unthinkable arrives as Obama tells us al-Qaeda might acquire nuclear bombs. “This is something that could change the security landscape of this country and around the world for years to come,” Obama said Sunday.
A terrorist — not a Muslim but a white guy, sort of like all those militias you’ve heard about lately — has placed nuclear bombs in three American cities and it is up to “H” to “interrogate” the terrorist and find out where they are hidden.
In the trailer, we see the terrorist (played by Michael Sheen) strapped to a chair. Mr. “H” is shown preparing a syringe of some presumably evil substance to inject the terrorist with (maybe something like Jack Bauer’s notorious hyoscine-pentothal, a fictional pain inducing drug).
Agent Helen Brody, played by Carrie-Anne Moss, objects to the torture. It’s unconstitutional, she complains. One of her colleagues insists if the bombs go off there will be no Constitution. In other words, torture will save the Constitution.
Maybe General Tommy Franks had a part in writing the script. In 2003, Franks told Cigar Aficionado magazine that “the worst thing that could happen” would be terrorists acquiring and then using a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon. If that happens, Franks warned, “the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks was the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be sent to the memory hole in favor of a military dictatorship.
Franks didn’t speculate about when or where such an event might take place. That’s what Fox television and Hollywood are for.
Unthinkable is simply big screen propaganda to get you accustomed to the prospect of a false flag terror attack and Frank’s assertion that a military dictatorship will be required in response. It is predictive programming. It is also an excuse to permit torture.
Our rulers love this sort of stuff. In the The Long Kiss Goodnight 9/11 was foretold by five years.
In the Matrix, released in 1999, the character Neo’s passport expires on 9/11/2001 and has an issue date of 9/12/1990, the day after George Bush’s famous New World Order speech.
The Lone Gunmen, a spin-off of the X-Files that aired 6 months prior to September 11, 2001, featured a plot by rogue government agencies to hijack a commercial jet by remote control and crash it into the World Trade Center. The plotters planned to blame the terrorist event on Muslims and then start a war.
Dean Haglund, who starred in “The Lone Gunmen” series, told Alex Jones in 2004 that the CIA regularly attends Hollywood parties and submits ideas to be planted in film and TV scripts.
Unthinkable arrives as Obama tells us al-Qaeda might acquire nuclear bombs. “This is something that could change the security landscape of this country and around the world for years to come,” Obama said Sunday.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Nuclear Blast Victims Would Have to Wait
The White House has warned state and local governments not to expect a "significant federal response" at the scene of a terrorist nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast, according to a planning guide.
President Obama told delegates from 47 nations at the Nuclear Security Summit on Tuesday that it would be a "catastrophe for the world" if al-Qaeda or another terrorist group got a nuclear device, because so many lives would be lost and it would be so hard to mitigate damage from the blast.
A 10-kiloton nuclear explosion would level buildings within half a mile of ground zero, generate 900-mph winds, bathe the landscape with radiation and produce a plume of fallout that would drift for hundreds of miles, the guide says. It was posted on the Internet and sent to local officials.
SUMMIT: Nuclear agreement hailed as step forward
ON THE WEB: Read the planning guide (pdf)
The document is designed to help local officials craft plans for responding to a nuclear blast. The prospect is anything but far-fetched, says Rick Nelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Do I think in my lifetime I'll see the detonation of a nuclear device? I do."
One challenge he says, will be to persuade survivors to stay indoors, shielded from dangerous radiation until they're given the all-clear or told to evacuate. "In all likelihood, families will be separated," he says. "It's going to be scary to sit tight, though it's the right thing to do."
The government's planning scenarios envision a terrorist strike in an urban area with a 10-kiloton device, slightly smaller than the roughly 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb. A 10-kiloton device packs the punch of 10,000 tons of TNT.
The chaos that would inevitably follow such a blast would make it difficult for the federal government to react quickly. "Emergency response is principally a local function," the document says, though "federal assistance will be mobilized as rapidly as possible."
The "Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation" was developed by a task force headed by the White House Homeland Security Council. It was circulated to state and local government officials and first responders in January 2009.
The report has never been formally released to the public, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro says.
It offers practical guidance to first responders and advice on radiation measurement and decontamination.
Disaster experts say local governments aren't prepared for a nuclear attack. "There isn't a single American city, in my estimation, that has sufficient plans for a nuclear terrorist event," says Irwin Redlener of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
The message for families is simple, he says: Stay put. Wait for instructions. If you've been outside, dust off, change, shower. "What citizens need to know fits on a wallet-sized card," Redlener says. "A limited amount of information would save tens of thousands of people."
The government sure likes to tell people what they're planning, don't they?
President Obama told delegates from 47 nations at the Nuclear Security Summit on Tuesday that it would be a "catastrophe for the world" if al-Qaeda or another terrorist group got a nuclear device, because so many lives would be lost and it would be so hard to mitigate damage from the blast.
A 10-kiloton nuclear explosion would level buildings within half a mile of ground zero, generate 900-mph winds, bathe the landscape with radiation and produce a plume of fallout that would drift for hundreds of miles, the guide says. It was posted on the Internet and sent to local officials.
SUMMIT: Nuclear agreement hailed as step forward
ON THE WEB: Read the planning guide (pdf)
The document is designed to help local officials craft plans for responding to a nuclear blast. The prospect is anything but far-fetched, says Rick Nelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Do I think in my lifetime I'll see the detonation of a nuclear device? I do."
One challenge he says, will be to persuade survivors to stay indoors, shielded from dangerous radiation until they're given the all-clear or told to evacuate. "In all likelihood, families will be separated," he says. "It's going to be scary to sit tight, though it's the right thing to do."
The government's planning scenarios envision a terrorist strike in an urban area with a 10-kiloton device, slightly smaller than the roughly 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb. A 10-kiloton device packs the punch of 10,000 tons of TNT.
The chaos that would inevitably follow such a blast would make it difficult for the federal government to react quickly. "Emergency response is principally a local function," the document says, though "federal assistance will be mobilized as rapidly as possible."
The "Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation" was developed by a task force headed by the White House Homeland Security Council. It was circulated to state and local government officials and first responders in January 2009.
The report has never been formally released to the public, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro says.
It offers practical guidance to first responders and advice on radiation measurement and decontamination.
Disaster experts say local governments aren't prepared for a nuclear attack. "There isn't a single American city, in my estimation, that has sufficient plans for a nuclear terrorist event," says Irwin Redlener of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
The message for families is simple, he says: Stay put. Wait for instructions. If you've been outside, dust off, change, shower. "What citizens need to know fits on a wallet-sized card," Redlener says. "A limited amount of information would save tens of thousands of people."
The government sure likes to tell people what they're planning, don't they?
Thursday, April 1, 2010
National Guard Trainees in Funny Blue Helmets
Infowars.com
March 30, 2010
In the photo below, taken from the National Guard’s Photos – Michigan Recruit Sustainment Program page on Facebook, we see a group of Michigan National Guard trainees wearing blue helmets.
United Nations soldiers also wear blue helmets.
The fellows in the photo (and two young women) are not wearing UN helmets, though. They are Black Diamond helmets. Black Diamond manufactures sports gear, not equipment for the United Nations.
However, the color of the helmets is awfully strange, some would say coincidental.
Is it coincidental? You decide.
March 30, 2010
In the photo below, taken from the National Guard’s Photos – Michigan Recruit Sustainment Program page on Facebook, we see a group of Michigan National Guard trainees wearing blue helmets.
United Nations soldiers also wear blue helmets.
The fellows in the photo (and two young women) are not wearing UN helmets, though. They are Black Diamond helmets. Black Diamond manufactures sports gear, not equipment for the United Nations.
However, the color of the helmets is awfully strange, some would say coincidental.
Is it coincidental? You decide.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Let Me Know When You See Fire: The Flaming Inferno Story on 9/11
AE911Truth
You Tube
March 12, 2010
Major Reginald Shinn USAF (Ret.) gives commentary based on the radio intercepts of the first responders.
The presence of multiple rescue teams moving throughout the building is inconsistent with the raging inferno that would have been necessary to weaken the steel structure enough to initiate collapse, as the official explanation suggests. Instead, there were two isolated pockets of fire that fire fighters believed could be put out with two lines.
The audio proves the following about the 10 minutes prior to the South Tower collapse:
1) Firemen were working throughout the building
2) Battalion 7 had reached the 79th floor.
3) Battalion 15 had reached the 78th floor
4) Battalion 7 Alpha had reached the 55th floor
5) Rescue teams encountered only small, isolated pockets of fire
6) Rescue operations were finding numerous wounded survivors
7) The structure of the tower was NOT melted, or deformed.
Rescue teams were climbing on uncompromised staircases.
9) Elevators were operational and in use up to the 40th floor.
During the period that the Official story states that the South Tower building was consumed with raging office fires, fire fighers were up to the 79th floor; the stairs and elevators were operational, and they were “looking out” for fires—proving once again that the official story was a lie.
You Tube
March 12, 2010
Major Reginald Shinn USAF (Ret.) gives commentary based on the radio intercepts of the first responders.
The presence of multiple rescue teams moving throughout the building is inconsistent with the raging inferno that would have been necessary to weaken the steel structure enough to initiate collapse, as the official explanation suggests. Instead, there were two isolated pockets of fire that fire fighters believed could be put out with two lines.
The audio proves the following about the 10 minutes prior to the South Tower collapse:
1) Firemen were working throughout the building
2) Battalion 7 had reached the 79th floor.
3) Battalion 15 had reached the 78th floor
4) Battalion 7 Alpha had reached the 55th floor
5) Rescue teams encountered only small, isolated pockets of fire
6) Rescue operations were finding numerous wounded survivors
7) The structure of the tower was NOT melted, or deformed.
Rescue teams were climbing on uncompromised staircases.
9) Elevators were operational and in use up to the 40th floor.
During the period that the Official story states that the South Tower building was consumed with raging office fires, fire fighers were up to the 79th floor; the stairs and elevators were operational, and they were “looking out” for fires—proving once again that the official story was a lie.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
"Crazy" People Who Question the Government's 9/11 Story
Washington’s Blog
March 8, 2010
Most Americans don’t know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can’t figure out whether or not they are dangerous.
Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11.
The list proves – once and for all – that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.
Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases (hahaha).
Senior intelligence officers:
• Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).
• A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
• A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this).
• A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)
• 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
• A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job
• The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”
• Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.
• According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)
• Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”
• Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”
• Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11
• Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11
• Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11
• Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation
• Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”
• Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
9/11 Commissioners:
• The Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)
• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access....”
• And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
Other government officials:
• U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”
• Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
• Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.”
• The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
• President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11
• Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt”
• The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission
• Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: “If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!”
Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government’s version of 9/11.
March 8, 2010
Most Americans don’t know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can’t figure out whether or not they are dangerous.
Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11.
The list proves – once and for all – that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.
Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases (hahaha).
Senior intelligence officers:
• Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).
• A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
• A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this).
• A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)
• 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
• A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job
• The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”
• Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.
• According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)
• Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”
• Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”
• Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11
• Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11
• Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11
• Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation
• Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”
• Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
9/11 Commissioners:
• The Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)
• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access....”
• And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
Other government officials:
• U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”
• Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
• Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.”
• The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
• President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11
• Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt”
• The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission
• Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: “If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!”
Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government’s version of 9/11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)