Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

By JM Talboo and Steve W. people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issuesconcerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rouge criminal elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth Debunkers.


The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.

We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

[The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.

And it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fight fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.

Unsurprisingly, they hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth 'Debunkers' and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public.

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.


National Security Notice via Washinghton's Blog:

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

Friday, October 31, 2014

War is A Lot Scarier Than Halloween

On a lighter note, here is a 9/11 was an inside job Monster Mash parody song produced for the "Stew's Conspiracy Funhouse" podcast, as well as an interactive zombie film, both made by blog contributor Stewart Bradley. The film features yours truly as one of the undead. I'm the one who smacks his head off a metal car wash dryer in the bloopers at the end.

Latest News From

We Are The Terrorists

Thursday, October 30, 2014

KBR Iraq Fraud Case Gets to Supreme Court

Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court

Our Tabke Box
Robert MacLean isn’t the only reason the Project On Government Oversight is closely watching the Supreme Court this term. (MacLean’s oral argument is on Tuesday, November 4.) Another case on the Court’s calendar has major implications for federal whistleblowers and the ability of the government to recover defrauded funds—a nearly nine-year-old False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit accusing Halliburton and KBR of defrauding the government and endangering the health of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Benjamin Carter, who worked for KBR (then a subsidiary of Halliburton) in Iraq in 2005, claims the company falsely billed the government by instructing employees to submit timesheets showing they worked 12-hour days on water testing and purification services when no such work had been done. As a result, he contends, troops and other personnel were exposed to contaminated potable and non-potable water.

Carter made news when he testified before Congress about his experiences in Iraq. “Our men and women overseas deserve the best our taxpayer dollars can buy, and it saddens me to report that we’re falling short on something as simple and essential as providing them with clean, safe water,” he told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee at a January 2006 hearing.

Carter’s lawsuit, originally filed in 2006, kept getting dismissed for procedural reasons. Finally, in March 2013, a federal appeals court ruled the case could go forward, setting up the Supreme Court showdown. The specific issues the Supreme Court will decide are: Whether Carter filed his lawsuit within the legally mandated time limit, and whether his lawsuit is barred because another lawsuit making similar allegations had been filed earlier.

The latter issue involves the FCA’s first-to-file rule, which bars lawsuits that raise the same facts as a previously filed lawsuit. The rule is intended to encourage whistleblowers to promptly alert the government of wrongdoing and to discourage the filing of meritless, copycat lawsuits. A few weeks before Carter filed his lawsuit, another former KBR employee who worked in Iraq, Todd Thorpe, filed a lawsuit alleging employees at other bases performing different services were similarly instructed to bill the government for 12-hour days regardless of the actual number of hours they worked. Thorpe’s lawsuit was dismissed in 2010 before the court could rule on the merits. Nonetheless, KBR and Halliburton would like the Court to broadly interpret the first-to-file rule so that Thorpe’s lawsuit bars later actions filed by Carter, Peter Duprey, and others alleging timecard fraud by KBR or Halliburton.

The Carter, Thorpe, and Duprey cases involve the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III support services contract, about which POGO has written extensively over the years. The far-reaching LOGCAP III contract has been mired in controversy ever since it was awarded to KBR in December 2001. At the time, it was pointed out that KBR/Halliburton’s former chairman and CEO was Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, there have been repeated allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse on the LOGCAP III, on which the government has spent $38 billion.

Not under consideration by the Supreme Court, but an issue worthy of discussion, is government intervention in FCA lawsuits. The government declined to intervene in the Carter, Thorpe, and Duprey lawsuits. Government intervention in FCA cases means a smaller monetary recovery for the plaintiff whistleblower, but it also greatly increases the government’s ability to hold contractors accountable.

Furthermore, the law states that lawsuits must remain under seal (not publicly disclosed) “for at least 60 days” while the government decides whether to intervene, but in practice it usually takes longer—much longer in some cases. For Thorpe and Duprey, it was more than four years after they filed their lawsuits when the government notified them it would not intervene. Incredibly, the government informed Duprey that, after all that time, it had not completed its investigation into his claims and thus was “not able to make a fully informed decision regarding intervention.”
While sealing and delays are often necessary, at a certain point these measures become an unnecessary restriction on the public’s right to know about potential health or safety threats—like the water contamination problem Carter alleges in his lawsuit. POGO also worries about the effect these measures have on the continued viability of the False Claims Act, which is already under unrelenting attack from the business community. As of January 2011, more than 1,300 False Claims Act lawsuits were stuck in legal limbo awaiting the government’s intervention decision. (The Justice Department has not yet responded to POGO’s request for more recent False Claims Act/qui tam lawsuit statistics.)

Even though it declined to intervene in his case, the government has assisted Carter in the form of two amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs submitted to the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Back in May, Verrilli urged the Court to reject KBR and Halliburton’s appeal. Last week, he petitioned the Court to uphold the appellate court’s ruling and allow Carter’s lawsuit to proceed. Verrilli also requested to take ten minutes of Carter’s time at oral argument, scheduled for January 2015.

For the better part of a decade, Ben Carter has been trying to get the merits of his case before a judge and jury. We hope the Supreme Court finally gives him that chance.

Image from Flickr user Pete Jordan.
By: Neil Gordon
Investigator, POGO
Neil Gordon, Investigator
 Neil Gordon is an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight. Neil investigates and maintains POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database.