9/11 Oddities Probe Petition

Tarun · April 16, 2002

>To all,

>This is a petition demanding full investigation of oddities

>associated with September 11 attacks. It has received more

attention

>than any petition I have seen to date - already over 10,000

signatures.

>http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html

>Thanks for what I hope is your involvement in seeing that hundreds of thousands

>of signatures are added.

>ed

>Supporting Liberty, not increased terrorism.

>

>"We must be the change we wish to see." Gandhi

>Super information on State citizenship compiled by Richard James,

McDonald

>- Researcher and Educator on State Citizenship

>http://state-citizen.org/

Tarun · April 19, 2002

It's as if no one really wants to know what actually happened.

Too bothersome. Like that Phil Ochs song:

"Maybe I should call the cops & try to save the dame,

But monopoly is so much fun I'd hate to spoil the game,

And it really wouldn't matter to...

anybody, outside of a Small Circle of Friends."

Now 9/11 Pennsylvania blackbox + Bin Laden video r in question.

Manufactured in mystic factory? Would it be their 1st time?

Tarun · April 27, 2002

>There is not the slightest chance that the Bush administration is

telling

>the truth about the September 11 "terrorist" attacks. George Bush and

his

>cohorts are guilty of treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder.

If any

>of you still insist on believing otherwise, please follow the enclosed

link

>and read the attached article. Yours truly, Ed Safra

>http://www.rense.com/general24/adv.html

Tarun · April 27, 2002

Leave out last letter 'l' in url link, id est, adv.htm

sha · April 27, 2002

http://www.truthout.com/poll/911Probe.htm

t r u t h o u t 911 Probe | Petition / Poll

The Question :

"Do you support a thorough public investigation of the events leading up to the September 11th attacks that would include but not be limited to, what warnings and information the executive branch of our government received about the attacks prior to September 11th., and full disclosure of all contracts awarded to all private entities with direct contacts to the executive branch as a result of the attacks?"

Tarun · April 27, 2002

Yes. Jawohl. Ja wel. Oui oui. Si. Sicuro. Da. Ken. Om Tat Sat.

Tarun · April 29, 2002

Congresswoman McKinney Presses for Investigation of Bush Administration Links to 9-11

April 12, 2002

The need for an investigation of the events surrounding September 11 is as obvious as is the need for an investigation of the Enron debacle. Certainly, if the American people deserve answers about what went wrong with Enron and why (and we do), then we deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why.

Are we squandering our goodwill around the world with what many believe to be incoherent, warmongering policies that alienate our friends and antagonize our allies? How much of a role does our reliance on imported oil play in the military policies being put forward by the Bush Administration? And what role does the close relationship between the Bush Administration and the oil and defense industries play, if any, in the policies that are currently being pursued by this Administration?

We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why. After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened and to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects when they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our nation?

News reports from Der Spiegel to the London Observer, from the Los Angeles Times to MSNBC to CNN, indicate that many different warnings were received by the Administration. In addition, it has even been reported that the United States government broke bin Laden's secure communications before September 11. Sadly, the United States government is being sued today by survivors of the Embassy bombings because, from court reports, it appears clear that the US had received prior warnings, but did little to secure and protect the staff at our embassies.

Did the same thing happen to us again?

I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which, have soared since September 11.

On the other hand, what is undeniable is that corporations close to the Administration, have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11. The Carlyle Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton certainly stand out as companies close to this Administration. Secretary Rumsfeld maintained in a hearing before Congress that we can afford the new spending, even though the request for more defense spending is the highest increase in twenty years and the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion.

All the American people are being asked to make sacrifices. Our young men and women in the military are being asked to risk their lives in our War Against Terrorism while our President's first act was to sign an executive order denying them high deployment overtime pay. The American people are being asked to make sacrifices by bearing massive budget cuts in the social welfare of our country, in the areas of health care, social security, and civil liberties for our enhanced military and security needs arising from the events of September 11; it is imperative that they know fully why we make the sacrifices. If the Secretary of Defense tells us that his new military objectives must be to occupy foreign capital cities and overthrow regimes, then the American people must know why. It should be easy for this Administration to explain fully to the American people in a thorough and methodical way why we are being asked to make these sacrifices and if, indeed, these sacrifices will make us more secure. If the Administration cannot articulate these answers to the American people, then the Congress must.

This is not a time for closed-door meetings and this is not a time for se crecy. America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions. The world is teetering on the brink of conflicts while the Administration's policies are vague, wavering and unclear. Major financial conflicts of interest involving the President, the Attorney General, the Vice President and others in the Administration have been and continue to be exposed.

This is a time for leadership and judgment that is not compromised in any fashion. This is a time for transparency and a thorough investigation.

***************

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34565-2002Apr11.html

Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot

By Juliet Eilperin

Friday, April 12, 2002

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."

In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

Bush spokesman Scott McLellan dismissed McKinney's comments.

"The American people know the facts, and they dismiss such ludicrous, baseless views," he said. "The fact that she questions the president's legitimacy shows a partisan mind-set beyond all reason."

In the radio conversation, McKinney delivered a stinging attack on the administration. In 2000, she charged, Bush forces "stole from America our most precious right of all, the right to free and fair elections." With the September attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, McKinney said, "an administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power."

She suggested that the administration was serving the interests of a Washington-based investment firm, the Carlyle Group, which employs a number of high-ranking former government officials from both parties. Former president George H.W. Bush -- the current president's father -- is an adviser to the firm. McKinney said the war on terrorism has enriched Carlyle Group investors by enhancing the value of a military contractor partly owned by the firm.

Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman asked: "Did she say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?"

During her five terms in office, McKinney has often given voice to radical critiques of U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East. She defied the State Department to investigate assertions that international sanctions are brutalizing innocent Iraqis.

With her comments concerning Sept. 11, McKinney, 47, seems to have tapped into a web of conspiracy theories circulating during the past six months among people who believe that the government is partially -- or entirely -- to blame for last year's attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people.

"What is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th," McKinney charged. "America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions."

None of McKinney's colleagues has embraced her allegations, but a few said they are familiar with the theories.

"I've heard a number of people say it," said Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), who quickly added, "I can't say that it would be a widely held view" among lawmakers.

Some lawmakers have a less charitable view of McKinney's penchant for publicity. Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said McKinney is simply trying to impress her constituents.

"She's demonstrated at home an ability to win," he said, "and she's demonstrated in Washington a total lack of responsibility in her statements."

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a friend of McKinney's, said the Georgia Democrat is adept at seizing on "red-meat" issues that resonate with her political base and have helped her fend off a series of GOP challengers.

"She's not as random as people think," Kingston said. "People always want to hear a political conspiracy theory."

Tarun · May 12, 2002

Go To Original

May 9, 2002

Senator Bob Grahm : On 911 DOJ, CIA Uncooperative

By Associated Press | New York Times

Filed at 12:28 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional investigators examining how preparations for the Sept. 11 attacks went undetected by the nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been receiving less than full cooperation from those agencies, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., told reporters Wednesday that some requested documents weren't being turned over, and interviews of potential witnesses were taking place in intimidating environments. He declined to go into specifics.

Graham's comments pointed to just the latest troubles in Congress' investigation, being conducted jointly by the Senate and House intelligence committees.

Its director, former CIA Inspector General L. Britt Snider, resigned after little more than two months on the job, apparently forced out over a personnel dispute with the Senate Intelligence Committee's vice chairman, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

Graham acknowledged Snider's departure had caused some interruption in the investigation.

The tumult has forced back the beginning of public hearings on the issue, once promised to take place as early as April. They now won't begin before June.

After hearing of Graham's comments, CIA spokesman Bill Harlow described the agency's cooperation with the investigation as ``extensive, extraordinary and unprecedented.''

``We've given them access to thousands of highly classified documents,'' he said. ``We've given them briefings. We've given them information we have assembled, which, without our efforts, they would be unable to find. We've housed members of their staff in our headquarters. We've done all these things while we're fighting a war.''

Justice Department spokesman Mark Carallo said, ``The department has been cooperating to the fullest extent possible with the congressional committees, and we will continue to do so. We are always willing to discuss concerns of members of Congress in hopes of resolving any perceived problems.''

Graham acknowledged Justice officials told the committee that disclosing some documents could interfere with criminal investigations, but Graham said the committee regularly deals with classified materials and there's no chance those documents will be made public.

Graham said committee officials intend to take their complaints personally to Attorney General John Ashcroft and CIA Director George Tenet.

``We thought we had from those highest levels the kind of assurances we would get cooperation,'' Graham said.

One official familiar with the investigation said some committee requests for information have required the compilation of hundreds of thousands of documents. But the investigation has uncovered no single missed piece of intelligence that would have allowed U.S. authorities to stop the attacks.

Graham said the committee may exercise its subpoena power to force cooperation.

The Democratic senator suggested the reluctance to cooperate reflected a tendency in the Bush administration, noting the administration's refusal to let Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge testify before Congress and its resistance to turning over documents relating to the administration's consultations on national energy policy.

Also Wednesday, Graham's committee approved an intelligence budget for 2003. Graham and committee officials declined to provide details. Shelby said it contained a ``meaningful'' increase in funding for the nation's intelligence community.

The total intelligence budget is kept secret, although open-government advocates managed to get the government to disclose its total in 1998: $26.7 billion. Since, it has been estimated to be around $30 billion.

Last year, the intelligence budget went up by about 8 percent. Officials said revitalizing the CIA's spy networks and improving the computers that analyze signals intelligence remain key goals in this year's budget.

This year, President Bush was believed to have proposed increasing the CIA's budget, which only makes up a portion of the total intelligence budget, from about $3.5 billion to between $5 billion and $5.5 billion for 2003.

Much of that would pay for expanding CIA's corps of overseas case officers, hiring allies and equipping counterterrorism teams in foreign countries averse to having U.S. military advisers on their soil.

Other intelligence agencies included in budget are National Security Agency, which conducts electronic wiretapping and signals gathering for foreign intelligence purposes; National Reconnaissance Office, which designs and operates spy satellites; and National Imagery and Mapping Agency, which interprets satellite imagery and makes military maps.

Caitanyachandra · May 12, 2002

It seemed the terrorists planned this attack for 9-11 after the emergency hotline 911.

[This message has been edited by Caitanyachandra (edited 05-12-2002).]

Tarun · May 27, 2002

CCji: Yes 9/11 ~= 911, but who r the REAL terrorists?

Y were these Saudis being trained in Venice, Florida?

Y do they all come from Saudi Arabia's poorest geo-section?

Y from Talahassee Jebeliah personally showed up to remove their records above & beyond local police authority?

Y Minneapolis FBI/police investigation was thwarted? By whom?

=================

More Than Just His Location Remains Undisclosed:

Why Dick Cheney's Secrecy Scheme For Pre-9/11 Info Makes No Sense

By John W. Dean

Friday, 24 May, 2002

Vice President Dick Cheney is at it again: More secrecy.

Now he wants to bury intelligence information given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 - over a month before the terrorist attacks. Indeed, Cheney wants Congress, far more generally, to keep its investigative nose out of issue of what intelligence the Bush Administration did, or did not, have about terrorism prior to September 11.

Nor does Cheney want Congress creating a high-level commission to look into this issue. In resisting any investigation, the Vice President advised Congress threateningly,

"Be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions." Furthermore, Cheney has even gone so far as to warn the Democrats that they could be aiding the enemy by going where the Administration does not want them. The accusation takes aim not just at the wisdom, but at the purported lack of patriotism of such an investigation.

According to The Washington Post, White House political types have been putting the word out to their network of conservative radio talk show hosts throughout the country to rally the troops, set the dogs loose, and shout the Democrats down. Secrecy, however, is a tough sell, so they're going to have to attack some of their own as well.

Even Some Republicans Are Sharply Critical of Secrecy Policy

Increasingly, stalwart conservative supporters of Bush and Cheney have become critical of what columnist Robert Novak calls their "passion for secrecy," noting that they only have themselves to blame for public and Congressional reaction.

After all, Bush and Cheney could have revealed at the time, rather than keeping secret, that the White House had pre-9/11 intelligence warnings from the CIA and FBI about potential terrorist hijackings, and about the unexplained influx of middle-Eastern men in pilot training. Had they done so, reaction would have been very different. No one expected the Administration to be psychic and the information, thus far, does not seem to rise to the level of a warning of the type of attacks that actually occurred, in which planes were used as missiles.

Secrecy itself has risen to the level of a policy of the Bush administration - and threatens to achieve status of an end in itself. National security is only one of the policy's rationalizations.

Conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly has been quite blunt about this secrecy business. In March, she blasted the White House for the Vice President's refusal to turn over records of his energy task force. (I agree with her criticism, as I discussed in a recent column .) She finds Cheney's "pursuit of secrecy" comparable to "Clinton's refusal to disclose documents revealing who attended the meetings of Hillary's task force on health care."

Ms. Schlafly declared correctly that:

"The American people do not and should not tolerate government by secrecy." And she told the Bush White House that no one's "going to buy the sanctimonious argument that the Bush Administration has some sort of duty to protect the power of the presidency."

Meanwhile, Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department official whose Republican credentials and constitutional scholarship are exemplary, has recently reacted to the claims of the Bush White House about the need for secrecy. The loss of secrecy, the Administration has contended, is eroding presidential power. Yet according to Fein, "What the president is claiming is legally and historically absurd and politically stupid."

Fein added, "I've been around this town a long time, almost 30 years, and I've never encountered one individual who told me he's not going to the Oval Office unless he's promised confidentiality. It's the biggest hoax in the world. Why he's making up all this stuff is utterly and completely baffling."

Why The Secrecy? Claims of Eroding Presidential Power Are Implausible.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and all their aides claim that - contrary to any impression they might be giving - they seek to hide nothing. They are keeping secrets for either national security reasons, or to protect the functions of the presidency.

This is only about fundamental principles, they say. It concerns nothing less than preserving and redeeming the power and authority of the presidency. In brief, just as Ms. Schlafly said, they are resting their claim on the "sanctimonious argument" that they are "protect[ing] the power of the presidency."

For example, in January of this year, Dick Cheney told NBC's Campbell Brown during an interview: "For 35 years that I've been in town, there's been a constant, steady erosion of the prerogatives and the powers of the President of the United States. And I don't want to be a part of that."

Most recently, according to the New York Times, Cheney repeated his comment about the last three decades of "continual encroachment by Congress in the executive branch, a weakening of the presidency." Specifically, he mentioned matters like the Congress investigating abuses by the CIA, and the Iran-contra scandal, as encroachments.

Cheney didn't like those investigations either at the time, back in 1987. He was in Congress then, and as the Times reports, he disagreed with the majority of the committee's Iran-contra investigation that accused the Reagan administration of "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law." Cheney also thought Reagan should never have let Congress exert control over his Central American policy in the first place - by using an Executive Order to make it illegal for Congress to ban sales of weapons to Nicaraguan rebels.

President Bush recently said, "I have an obligation to make sure the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn't end up running the executive branch." Surely he is jesting.

Ari Fleischer sings the same tune. The president's press secretary claims presidential powers have been diminishing

"in multiple ways" as part of a "long-standing, gradual process." For instance, the president has little say in how the nation's budget is devised, and constraints exist with regard to the ways in which he may use the military.

In addition, Congress has placed additional restrictions on the president in military matters with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Fleischer also observed that the spate of congressional investigations into presidential activities - particularly during the Clinton era - that involved "the sharing, the yielding of information by the executive branch to the Congress," have tended to weaken the office.

Remarkably, Ari Fleischer may actually believe what he is saying. In fact, however, these claims of presidential power eroding are high-grade, industrial-strength, poppycock. This White House is apparently unaware of Napoleon's maxim:

"The tools belong to the man who can use them."

Misreading Nixon's Shadow, and Misinterpreting His Legacy

President Bush and Vice President Cheney are, without being explicit, saying that the presidency was weakened by Watergate, which commenced 30 years ago this June 17th. But they are misreading the Nixon legacy.

No one has watched the impact of Watergate on government more closely than yours truly. I wrote a book, Lost Honor , examining the impact of Watergate ten years after the events. And I do not believe Watergate can possibly justify secrecy arguments that are being made now. If anything, it justifies openness.

More Watergate lessons can be garnered from the work of Bob Woodward, who launched his career at The Washington Post and as a best-selling author based on his Watergate reporting. Woodward's recent book, Shadow: Five Presidents and The Legacy Of Watergate, written 27 years after Watergate, gives an excellent account of what Nixon's real legacy may be.

Woodward's "Epilogue" to Shadow is edifying. Unfortunately, he points out many presidents have ignored the obvious lessons of Watergate. Recent events suggests that George W. Bush is readying his own place on Woodward's list.

Woodward writes, "Nixon's successors, I thought, would recognize the price of scandal and learn the two fundamental lessons of Watergate. First, if there is questionable activity, release the facts, whatever they are, as early and completely as possible. Second, do not allow outside inquiries, whether conducted by prosecutors, congressmen or reporters, to harden into a permanent state of suspicion and warfare."

Woordward reports that, rather than learn from Nixon's mistakes, however, in varying degrees all the presidents since Nixon have repeated them. Men of widely varying temperaments and politics - Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton - have uniformly failed to understand the need to make information available, rather than hiding it. Now Bush and Cheney are making the same mistakes.

Woodward believes he knows why, and I think he's correct. "They have become victims of the myth of the big-time president," he explains. "As successors to George Washington and Franklin Roosevelt, they expect to rule. But after Vietnam and Watergate, the modern presidency has been limited and diminished."

Does that mean Woodward, too, believes in the "eroding power" argument the White House has recently retailed? I do not believe so. Rather, the loss of power Woodward describes is not a loss of power to Congress, as suggested by Bush and Cheney, but a loss of power to openness itself. Thus, it is a praiseworthy loss of a kind of power that was unhealthily insular and absolute - similar to the loss of power that occurs when a monarchy or dictatorship gives way to democracy.

Woodward says the difference is that the "inner workings" of the presidency "and the behavior of presidents are [now] fully exposed." As I read Woodward, he is simply telling presidents that they cannot operate in secret in today's information age.

Woodward is correct. Accordingly, I believe Bush and Cheney have confused the issues: a lost of presidential secrecy does not mean a loss of presidential power vis-a-vis Congressional power. To the contrary, the institutional powers of the presidency all but overwhelm those of Congress. They are, in fact, stronger today than 30 years ago. Bush and Cheney are ignoring the basics: Congress is still weaker than the President, and secrecy has only weakened the President vis-a-vis the People, the press, and the process of finding the truth.

Why Presidential Power Dominates Congressional Power Now

Ask any constitutional scholar, political scientist, or presidential historian, and they will tell you that the congressional powers and presidential powers are no longer even comparable. During our early history, the Congress and the President vied for dominance, with the Congress more often prevailing. But that is no longer true.

Since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the executive branch has been the dominant governing power. In truth, Congress has willingly delegated most of its legislative powers to the executive branch. Our system might be better off if, in fact, Congress reclaimed some of the powers it voluntarily gave away - by, for example, allowing powerful administrative agencies to effectively make law under the aegis of broad statutes that empowered them to do so.

But that is unlikely - as the late and learned professor Philip Kurland, who devoted 43 years to teaching law at the University of Chicago, showed in a 1986 essay addressing the institutional differences between the Congress and the presidency. There, Kurland nicely summarized why a president is Gulliver among the congressional Lilliputians, remarking that:

... there is an absence of discipline among the 535 members of Congress. It is a huge body without a head. Most of its legislation does not originate within Congress but is a response to demands or instructions from executive authorities. Too much congressional time is spent as agents of constituents seeking relief in the myriad of government agencies that Congress has created but does not control. The rest of its time seems to be spent in trying to oversee the execution of the laws by way of investigatory hearings which, in theory, are held to help frame legislation but which, in fact, are more devoted to exposure than to cure.

In contrast, he explains, the executive branch has burgeoned, and continues to grow stronger. Professor Kurland found the explanation of the differences in the branches well stated by Justice Jackson in the landmark Steel Seizure Case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:

Executive power has the advantage of concentration in a single head in whose choice the whole Nation has a part, making him the focus of public hopes and expectations. In drama, magnitude and finality his decisions so far overshadow any others that almost alone he fills the public eye and ear. No other personality in public life can begin to compete with him in access to the public mind through modern methods of communications. By his prestige as head of state and his influence upon public opinion he exerts a leverage upon those who are supposed to check and balance his power which often cancels their effectiveness.

It seems that President Bush and Vice President Cheney want to remove the last vestiges of congressional power - the power to expose. But that will not solve their problem, because it has been the so-called fourth estate, the news media, that has collaborated with Congress in preventing the Executive Branch from operating in secrecy. The news media, as Woodward makes clear, are never going to return to the pre-Watergate days when a president's actions were not questioned. Nor should they, even in a time of war.

Of course, there should not be exposure for exposure's sake - as is the case with too many Congressional investigations, past misguided Independent Counsel investigations, and occasional sensational news coverage. But nor should there be secrecy for secrecy's sake, as appears to be the case now with the Bush Administration.

To claim a need for secrecy to restore presidential power is disingenuous at best, and a deliberate falsehood at worst. Secrecy is the way of dictatorships, not democracies.

-------

John Dean, FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Print This Story E-mail This Story

Tarun · July 9, 2002

Ruppert/Chossudovsky Draw Crowd of 1,200

U. of Ottawa Professor Says Evidence Shows U.S. Helped Plan Attacks

Ruppert Kicked Out of Canada -- But He Was Leaving Anyway

U.S. COMPLICITY IN 9-11 ATTACKS WIDELY ACCEPTED AT G6B SUMMIT IN CANADA

June 27, 2002, 16:00 PDT (FTW) -- An estimated crowd of 1,200 turned out on June 25 at the University of Calgary's MacEwan Hall to hear FTW Publisher Mike Ruppert and University of Ottawa Professor Michel Chossudovsky present evidence of and a rationale for U.S. government complicity in last September's terrorist attacks. (See photos at www.fromthewilderness.com). Their two-and-a- half-hour presentation, including documentary evidence, was greeted with a standing ovation.

In a question and answer session after the lecture, not one audience member questioned that the Bush Administration needed the attacks in order to mobilize public support for a war to control Central Asian oil reserves and the cash from the Afghani opium trade. Traditionally, Afghanistan has been the world's largest producer of opium.

The G6B -- standing for a global population of six billion people whose interests need to be balanced against the corporate interests of the industrialized world -- was a three-day event sponsored by, among others, the government of Canada, Amnesty International and the University of Calgary. It brought delegates and activists together from 60 countries. The counter summit was timed and located in Calgary, Alberta so as to juxtapose it with the G8 meeting in nearby Kananaskis of the world's eight largest industrialized nations starting on June 26.

The first-ever joint presentation involving Ruppert and Chossudovsky, an economics professor, presented the strongest evidence to date that not only did the Bush Administration have complete foreknowledge of the attacks and allow them to happen, but also that the CIA had a direct hand in financing the attacks. Chossudovsky presented documentary evidence from ABC news, citing FBI sources, confirming a report that Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, then-chief of the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI), ordered for $100,000 to be wired to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta just weeks before the attacks. The new corroboration from U.S. media, using FBI sources, gave considerable weight to earlier press stories originating in India linking the ISI to 9/11. [These new revelations will be the subject of an upcoming story in FTW].

"General Ahmad arrived in Washington on Sept. 4 and met with, among others, his good friend [CIA Director] George Tenet, [Deputy Secretary of State] Richard Armitage, [sen.] Joe Biden, [D-Del.,] and the heads of the two intelligence committees," Chossudovsky said.

"To me the issue of foreknowledge is a red herring. Osama bin Laden is and remains to this day a CIA asset. Even now his Al Qaeda operatives are working with the Kosovo Liberation Army who are U.S. allies and with U.S.-backed forces in Macedonia. Members of Al Q'aeda have been protected as they moved into Kashmir where they are now fomenting conflict between India and Pakistan.

"The evidence is becoming clearer every day that the U.S. government helped to plan and fund the Sept. 11 attacks," said Chossudovsky.

In addition, Chossudovsky has uncovered what may be complicity on the part of the major media in hiding the smoking gun. Using transcripts from the Federal Records Service (FRS), Chossudovsky obtained the transcript of a question posed to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rica at a May 16 press conference, in which she was asked if she had met with the "ISI chief" while he was in Washington. The CNN transcript of the event indicated that the words "ISI chief" were "inaudible" when, in fact, they were quite audible to the FRS. Rice's response was a troubled, "I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me."

Chossudovsky painted a broad picture of globalization pushing events toward a possible nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan by noting that one U.S. company with strong intelligence and military connections, MPRI of Vienna, Va., was acting as adviser to both governments. He also noted the strong links between CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to the leaders of both countries. Chossudovsky also pointed out that George W. Bush receives daily "personal" intelligence briefings from the CIA Director -- a custom that has never previously been followed by any sitting president. Previously most CIA briefings have been delivered in written format.

Ruppert, using new evidence of U.S. government foreknowledge disclosed by major media sources and through recent press conferences, established that by using only open source material, the U.S. government had warnings that multiple airliners, most likely from United and American Air Lines would be hijacked during the week of Sept. 9 and crashed into the twin towers. Using revelations of intelligence intercepts and a Pentagon drill responding to an attack from a hijacked airliner staged prior to Sept. 11, Ruppert established that the Bush Administration's position, which held it had no hint that aircraft would be used as weapons, was false. Pointing to last year's G8 summit in Genoa, Italy, Ruppert noted that extensive precautions had been taken there (including anti-aircraft guns) to prevent just such an attack. A Los Angeles Times story disclosed that President Bush was the target of the suspected attacks in Genoa.

"Bush ought to be having some interesting conversations with the leaders of Italy, Germany, France and Russia since it was their intelligence services who forwarded detailed advance warnings to the CIA throughout the summer of 2001," said Ruppert. "And they referred specifically to suicide attacks with airliners."

Ruppert also debunked the notions that the 9-11 attacks were caused by a lack of cooperation between agencies, and that great numbers of people would have had to be involved in the U.S. end of the operation. Citing a BBC TV report by Gregg Palast which showed an FBI report stating that the Bush administration had ordered the FBI to curtail investigations into bin Laden relatives, Ruppert demonstrated that orders were coming from levels above FBI and CIA leadership. Additionally, referring to the recent memorandum from FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley and a press conference given by FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, Ruppert popped the government's position that somehow the so-called intelligence "failures" of 9-11 were the result of negligence.

"If you look at the text of Rowley's message and listen to what Wright said at his press conference you hear and see words like, ‘obstruct,' ‘ deliberately thwart,' ‘intimidate,' ‘block,' ‘harass,' ‘dishonest,' ‘rewrite,' ‘omit,' ‘undermine,' ‘suppress,' ‘punish,' ‘retaliate' and ‘prevent.' These are not words describing negligence. These are words describing deliberate and willful actions.

"And if you note from both the Rowley memo, and apparently from the Wright press conference, it was only one supervisory special agent at FBI headquarters who did all of the deliberate work to stop investigations that could have prevented the attacks. And what did Rowley tell us? Right after Sept. 11 the agent who had blocked the investigations was promoted!"

The $64,000 question remains unanswered: Was the agent in Rowley's case also involved in blocking Wright's Chicago-based investigations into money-laundering for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda? In any event, the Rowley memorandum proves that just a few officials in key positions could have carried out the 9-11 conspiracy successfully.

LEAVING ANYWAY BUT KICKED OUT JUST THE SAME -- A CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH AIR FORCE ONE

On entering Canada Ruppert was questioned first by Canadian Customs officials and then by immigration officers. Upon learning that Ruppert was a journalist and publisher of FTW the immigration officer typed Ruppert's name into a computer and asked specifically if he was going near the G8 conference. Ruppert stated that he was only planning on attending the G6B conference and had plans to return to Los Angeles on June 25. Nonetheless, the immigration officer stamped Ruppert's passport with a visa dated to expire on June 26, requiring that he not be in the country when the conference began. This highly unusual practice was offensive to many Canadians who pointed out that there are no visa requirements between the two countries.

After the lecture, as he was hurrying to the airport, Ruppert was questioned by the local press who photographed his passport as evidence of the Canadian government's desire to censor coverage and public access to the conference.

Ruppert's departure coincided with the arrival of President George Bush and two identical 747 aircraft painted with Air Force One markings. He was able to photograph the arrival of the president and a heavy deployment of support and security aircraft. Ruppert's flight home was delayed by more than an hour. He returned safely to Los Angeles while his suitcase was forced to spend the night in San Francisco. The Calgary lecture was Ruppert's eighth stop in a month in his "Truth and Lies of 9-11" lecture series. He plans to spend the next six weeks working on new stories.

Photographs of the lecture, Ruppert's passport and the arrival of George W.