Monday, May 30, 2011

Pat Curley Insinuates That Anthony J. Hall and Joshua Blakeney are Anti-Semites


After listening to this interview on Australian TruthNews radio where it is noted that Blakeney is promoting very bad 9/11 info and categorically blaming Israel for 9/11, I went back and revisited this post. In my original blog below, I express how I thought the case against Blakeney was being overstated, as admitted by ScottSummers, who first raised the issue at the JREF forum, and I thought Pat Curley from the Screw Loose Change blog should have followed suit in adapting this more reserved approach. It's easy to accidentally align ones self with individuals possessing such views through social networking sites and as Blakeney said, "the fact that an article of" his "is on a website next to the wife of a Holocaust revisionist" does not equal "having lots of connections to...Holocaust Deniers." That said, ScottSummers makes several good points about Blakeney's failure to distance himself from his anti-Semitic associations in posts published on the JREF thread after this blog was published.

Pat Curley Insinuates That Anthony J. Hall and Joshua Blakeney are Anti-Semites

As summarized by Blakeney, "According to [Pat Curley at] Screw Loose Change the fact that an article of mine is on a website next to the wife of a Holocaust revisionist equates to me 'having lots of connections to...Holocaust Deniers'"

The article Blakeney posted was a review of National Post columnist Jonathan Kay's new book Among the Truthers written by his professor at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada, Anthony J. Hall.

Pat's blog was inspired by a post by Scott Sommers at the JREF forum who initially wrote:

Another Connection between 9/11 Truth and Holocaust Denial


it's widely know that 9/11 Truth personalities and groups are well-connected with Holocaust Denial. Here's another one for you.

As I have posted many times before, I watch the Facebook accounts of people who say they are advocates for a 9/11 Truth-sort-of-thing. Joshua Blackeney, a well-known Canadian 9/11 nut case, is connected through Facebook to Bradley Smith, the 'founder' of the Committee for Open Debate and the Holocaust. Yes, it is a Holocaust Denial kind of thing. Here's its webpage

God, these guys are disgusting.
However, another poster calling himself Walter Ego stated that he has "seen no evidence that Blakeney is a Holocaust denier" and asked Sommers if he had "a quote where Blakeney specifically denies there was a Holocaust?"

Sommers replies, "No I don't. I doubt he is one. You're right that I have overstated the case and if Mr. Blakeney reads this, I apologize to him for my carelessness."

Pat, however, did not follow suit and say that he overstated his case, but rather moved along to quote from another of Hall's articles where he states that "many intelligence services had prior knowledge that something very drastic was about to happen in the days and weeks leading up to 911. One of those intelligence services was indeed that of Israel."

As Pat notes "Hall's review is extremely long." Jonathan Kay commented on this as well at his website for the book stating:

Dear lord: An *11-thousand*-word review... I doubt anyone will read the whole thing — though I do recommend fast-forwarding to the part where the author describes “Kay’s preference for Wendy’s bacon cheeseburgers over the [9/11 Truth] food for thought that the author could have ingested had he opened his mind and come out of his self-imposed isolation.”
Well, I finally got around to reading the whole thing and I'm going to hazard a guess and say that Pat did as Kay predicted and did not, or else he would have caught the following from Hall, "...It cannot be denied that there are some wild and unsupported and even anti-Jewish, anti-Jesuit, or anti-UN theories about who did 9/11..."

As George Washington's Blog has also pointed out:

There are admittedly a very small number of people claiming that they are for 9/11 truth but making anti-semitic remarks. However, they are shunned by the overwhelming majority of 9/11 activists who abhor anti-semitism. People who say "the Jews did it" and then use a bunch of anti-semitic and derogatory language are probably government infiltrators. Again, however, debating factual evidence one way or the other concerning the possible involvement of people affiliated with an allied intelligence service -- British or Israeli -- is not anti-semitic ... it is Constitutionally-protected free speech."
Hall further writes:

Kay diagnoses the mental ailment he claims to have discovered to be so menacing that the malady must be combated through the deployment of a universal regime of public education to take effect before the so-called conspiracists “have a chance to [further] infect our thinking.”

Kay proposes that the basis of this new initiative in mass education should be “a Protocols-centered curriculum.”... The Protocols to which Kay refers are, of course, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. This notorious forgery was distributed by its disgruntled and soon-to-be-dethroned czarist disseminators with the aim of stimulating anti-Jewish hatred among its readers. Kay rightfully sees the Protocols as a toxic stimulant for many surges of anti-Jewish thought and action over the years. But Kay does not leave it there. He goes further, much further.

The author advances the view of Daniel Pipes in characterizing the Protocols as the primary archetypal source informing the thinking of virtually every individual and group, including Marx and Marxists, that has put forward any theory whatsoever concerning the alleged abuse of power by any elite minority said to dominate any allegedly subjugated majority. As Kay sees it, “the Protocols would remain ensconced as a sort of universal blueprint for all successor conspiracist ideologies that would come to infect Western societies over the next nine decades,– right up to the modern-day Truther and Birther fantasies of the twenty-first century.”

There are huge leaps of illogic in Kay’s identification of one of the primary texts used to incite Nazi hatred of Jews as a “universal blueprint” extending even to those who study, say, the science of how World Trade Center 7 was downed through controlled demolition. The extremism entailed in such outrageous overreach of the evidence surely confirms the extremity of Jonathan Kay’s zeal to nail the so-called Truthers to the cross of so-called “Trutherdom.”
Huge leaps of illogic, indeed. It is clear that Hall is not an anti-semite or holocaust denier.

As notes, "The association of challenges to the official myth of 9/11 with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust of Jews is one of the more potent weapons in the arsenal of the apologists for the official myth." Of course the potency is diminshed when "debunkers" pull this card so tenuously.

On a final note, Pat states that "Hall's review... largely boils down to griping that Kay doesn't engage in a point-by-point debunking of 9-11 nuttery. Of course, point-by-point debunking doesn't impress the Truthers anyway, as can be seen by their reaction to the Popular Mechanics book."

Reaction to? How about debunking of! You really oughta know better, Pat


Editor's note: Kay has responded to this article. Here is my end-all be-all response to Kay.

James Hufferd
May 30, 2011

Recently, Canadian establishmentarian Jonathan Kay’s new mock-anthropological book, Among the Truthers, has caught a lot of deserved flak online on a lot of Truther web sites and in reader reviews and attendant blogs on its web page. Its great sin, we find, is its very m.o.: simply bad-mouthing a whole plethora of prominent Truthers for alleged nuttiness in their past and in current statements, and for alleged failure as a class to listen to “reason” (his official, name-brand type). This blanket denunciation Jonathan Kay offers without either stating or disputing a single bit of the embarrassingly ample evidence our movement relies on to make the case in multiple ways that the persistent, sacrosanct official narrative of 9/11 is an obvious and transparent cover-up, easily disprovable on a hundred counts. Mr. Kay’s fig-leaf excuse for writing a whole, full-size book lambasting us for being immune to reason and absurd without specifying any reasoning or disputing any evidence? His editor told him that debunking books don’t sell. But vacuous, name-calling ones do? The best thing about Mr. Kay’s opus, Among the Truthers, is that it’s so easy to dismiss as simply meaningless and argumentatively worthless. Enough said.

Thus, name-calling and ridicule based on that is one weapon used by detractors to bludgeon us.

The other fearsome bomb-in-print often used to blow us asunder and restore the equanimity of the reading or listening public is defaming mischaracterization. Some of us have recently blown a gasket over comedian Chris Matthews’s determined go at employing that one on his evening show on MSNBC, dismissing us as imbeciles and “nutcases” who obnoxiously claim that “George W. Bush blew up the Twin Towers by pushing a button under his desk.” Make us sound absurd and we’ll go away, he assumedly thinks. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever have any of us on to even set the record straight as to what we’re really about. Thus, in effect, continue what must be the official policy of benignly ignoring us and our bothersome claims of physical laws being violated by the stock story of what happened and impossible anomalies galore demanding real investigation.

And no less than the ACLU consistently ignores our assertions of the obvious fact that the Constitutional guarantee to all citizens that due process in pursuit of justice was never carried out – in fact, was expressly forbidden – with regard to the egregious crimes of mega mass-murder and probable high treason committed on 9/11. Thus, no weapon wielded against us, and against the victimized American people, has proven more successful over the past decade than the regular media’s wholesale and determined silence in response to our heartfelt assertions, the same powered by some of the best scientific work, documentary journalism, and legal thinking of the new century. As a rule, the implicated highest-level establishment that now owns our national media dismissively answers us with silence, rarely and, in some cases, never acknowledging that we, with our reasoned and verifiable arguments, even exist. Thus, for example, our biggest events, even our scientifically-telling press briefings and conferences and our truly major publications, are seldom covered by the mainstream press, and never in meaningful substantive detail. And when they do mention us, it seems to be to mischaracterize us in the mind of the transfixed public as impertinent to their popular story – as somehow brain-damaged snake oil salesmen, vaguely sinister imposters.

The left-wing media, not the neo-con wannabe Kay’s people at all, do, however, similarly mischaracterize us and refuse to engage, or even inform themselves of, our highly-convincing (dangerously seductive?) major points of courtroom-ready evidence, preferring to mount straw-man arguments instead and charges that we’re simply “deranged” to beg to differ with the standard account that everyone knows of foreign hoodlums armed to the chin with scalpels, ironically having come from the very lands the establishment wanted to homicidally attack.

Thus, liberal media darling Matt Taibbi, contributing editor of hipster (read “cutesy pet”) mag Rolling Stone, blurbed on the cover as “an honest political observer”, graced our movement with an entire chapter in his 2008 not-exactly-laudatory book The Great Derangement, lambasted us with collectively championing a “Bush did it conspiracy”, and accused us wholesale of mounting “a derangement of the truth”. Whatever that means. Have you ever met any Truther who maintained Bush did it? Or, is he saying that what we variously are saying is really the truth, but just some deranged form thereof? Hard to tell! (He’s right, of course, that not every Truther speaks with the succinctness of a courtroom lawyer). But, once again, not one proffered piece or point of evidence is actually stated or disputed anywhere in this “masterful” writer’s rant, either. (And, yes, I have seen his “debates” (vapid shouting matches) with whomever on various online blogs since, as you very well might have done, too).

So, what do any of these possibly otherwise reasonable people have against the set of customs that’s supposed to set us in America apart, namely, the rule of law and properly and fairly investigating any crime when one is committed? They bend themselves out of shape to call us out as idiots beyond reasoning for insisting on that!

Meanwhile, real flesh-and-blood people keep dying in the thousands in the Middle East, virtually unnoticed in our “media”, officially in retaliation for – nothing! They did nothing to us! Our truthful evidence clearly and calmly indicates beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone that the principal accusers and beneficiaries themselves had to have committed the catastrophic acts. Because there is no one else who could have.

What, then, must our response be this Memorial Day, when our valiant frontline soldiers are honored for dying for the enhancement and ease of great corporations? Two-fold: to redouble our efforts to spread the humble truth we possess in the form of certain evidence, not just back and forth among ourselves and to blog subscribers and the relatively few still uncommitted to whatever extent, but to get it across, sent, delivered, shouted, handed, and spoken to everyone! Evertibe that breathes! Until it is as pervasive, as ubiquitous in the environment shared by all of us as the official lies it exposes and counters. Or, even more so! That will take money. That will take time. That will take commitment from all of us. But, we MUST!

And the second way to counter the lies, deadly neglect, and ignorance hurled against us is to deliberately include in our messages a strong element of shaming of those who are the guilty and cowardly abetting the guilty who enjoy comfort and sanctimony and, in some cases, honor, while hundreds of millions suffer and millions die senselessly for what they did to aggrandize the oppressive rule and unprecedented, outrageous prosperity of just a mere few hundred at most – themselves. There were no other real beneficiaries.

I should add that stating the latter sanction may not be in vain, because I now know that these articles a few of us post are scanned and considered far beyond our limited number of registered Grassroots Organizers and activists. Hello, world and vile culprits!

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Pat Curley Bans Free Speech

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog writes:
Okay, the chorus of voices demanding that I ban Brian Good from posting here has gotten rather deafening. At the same time, we are proud of our reputation as one of the few places that both sides can post their arguments. You can't do that at 9-11 Flogger or Debunking the Debunkers.

So here's the deal. I will delete any comments from Brian that do not pertain to the subject matter of the actual post. If he starts nattering about how 91% of the widows' questions weren't answered, that comment goes down the memory hole unless the post in question is about those questions.
In the past Pat has went so far as to state that the Debunking the Debunkers blog doesn't "care for free speech." Funny, I don't recall starting a campaign trying to get his blog removed from the internet.

I used to have a clearly stated policy on the blog and my YouTube channel of not allowing the use of ad hominems. This is akin to the "semi-ban" that Pat is now exercising with Brian Good. What ended up happening, however, is that this policy resulted in a very high percentage of "debunker" comments not being allowed anyway and thus was a waste of everbody's time. When "debunker" comments were free of ad homs they often brought up things that we have addressed before. Hence, this statement that now sits permanently at the top of the blog.
Sorry, we no longer allow comments, but feel free to contact us here if you have a point of contention or some kind words you would like to share. 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.
One cordial exchange to come of this was my debate with with Larry Silverstein's friend Andrew G. Benjamin, I still ended up digging up a lot of old material, but he had some interesting things to say.

But apprenly this isn't good enough, because on the internet many people think they are entitled to have their two cents posted right under your two pennies no matter what. If someone writes a book their critics do not get a column under each page in which to comment. Their critics can, however, write whatever they please elsewhere and then the author decides which are worthy of response.

Granted, I could just let the comments sit if I deem them unworthy of a response, but I cannot bring myself to do that when they are on the same page as my entry.

We have found that intelligent discourse is achieved much more often by addressing the more prominent "debunkers" in post to post debates. On that note, the fact of the matter is, we link to more articles, provide more excerpts, and post more videos from "debunking" sites than any other 9/11 truth site out there. I recently left a comment at the so-called "9-11 Flogger" that links to a JREF post from Mark Roberts because it correctly points out that something in the post is wrong.

We are fair, Pat, and we are not stifling free speech, we are simply exercising ours and not running a forum.

But if you still want to claim that we "don't care for free speech" because we have a no comment policy as opposed to your restricted policy, then I have a message for one of your commenters.

Freedom of speech Brian, just watch what you say.

Fun Fact:

After being made aware of the Actors and Artists for 911 Truth site because I was told they link to us I noticed that Ace Baker received a gold record for his drum beat programming on that song. As blog contributor Adam Taylor recently stated to me in regard to a music video Ace put together, "Got to hand it to Ace. He's a real talented guy. Just wish he'd put it to good use." :)

Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis

Friday, May 20, 2011

If you were keeping score, Mohr probably did win the debate...

But that does not mean his premise is correct.

Pat Curley recently pointed out that AE911Truth has apparently decided to cancel releasing the DVD of Richard Gage and Chris Mohr's debate. While the obvious implication behind this is that Richard lost the debate, this still does not change the fact that Mohr was wrong on numerous points. Here's my take on the debate.

It must be remembered that Richard Gage is only one member of the Truth Movement. One wonders how the debate would have gone if Chris Mohr had debated any of these people:

Or any of these people.

Ultimately, I would have liked to have seen the debate, but I am still glad there was a debate at all.

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” -Joseph Joubert

Related Info:

Richard Gage and Chris Mohr Debate WTC Collapse

Magic, Mythology or Science?

2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Tony Szamboti, M.E. - Mechanical Engineer

Factual back-up for Tony Szamboti's claims:

-1:47 South wall of WTC1 buckling/columns bowing inward

-4:00 Manipulated sagging models

-4:22 NIST stopped at “collapse initiation”

-4:37 Problems with Dr. Bazant’s analysis

-5:58 NIST’s distorted tilt

-6:33 Bazant’s deceleration flaws

-8:46 Verinage demolitions refute arguments

-9:33 Upper section destroyed, therefore can’t crush lower section

-10:07 NIST “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

-11:02 Exaggerated sagging

-12:43 No explanation for high temperatures

-14:00 NIST misrepresents design loads of the Towers

-15:34 Small amount of steel saved for analysis

-16:36 No explanation for the molten flow from WTC2

-17:50 NIST acknowledges WTC7 free fall

-18:36 NIST’s WTC7 model doesn’t match the videos

-19:40 NIST’s model resembles natural collapse, but not WTC7 collapse

-20:00 NIST’s illogical reasons for dismissing controlled demolition

-21:06 Secret retrofit of the Citibank Tower refutes NIST’s arguments

-22:20 NIST misrepresents WTC7 construction

-23:11 NIST refuses to release data

-24:10 WTC7 sulfidized steel

-25:30 No other steel from WTC7 saved for analysis

-25:55 NIST never looked at any WTC7 steel in their investigation

-26:12 NIST misrepresents fire severity

-26:40 South Tower fire severity

-26:55 John Gross denies molten metal at Ground Zero

-27:57 NIST admits they never tested for explosives

-28:10 Over 100 first responders reported experiencing explosions

-28:52 NIST fails to follow NFPA 921 guidelines

Related Info:

Structural Aspects of Building 7’s Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony Szamboti

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Quick and Simple Action: Support Rashard Mendenhall and Vote for Free Speech

Nor Cal Truth

A poll has been conducted and is still available for voting at USA Today. The vote is concerning Rashard Mendenhall's loss of his corporate sponsor Champion apparel after his remarks about Bin Laden and 9/11.

The vote results right now will make you cringe, and we need to impact the results:

•68% think Rashard's sponsor dropping him was the right thing to do.
•18% Think Champion should not have dropped him, and allowed him to speak his mind freely.
•14% Dont care.

Will you help me bump up that 18%? CLICK HERE to vote.

After the killing of Bin Laden, NFL running back Rashard Mendenhall posted a Tweet to his fans saying this:

What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side...

He went on further to say this about the demolition os the WTC buildings:

“We’ll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style.

The poll is here:

Comment from "Orangutan":

Another poll of public opinion...

On May 4th Rashard Mendenhall had 13,631 followers on Twitter.
On May 19th Rashard Mendenhall has over 48,200 followers.

That should tell you something...

Related Info:

Thinking Athlete Mendenhall's Spokesman Contract Cancelled--Americans Support Ignorance

Rashard Mendenhall: 'I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style'

Death of Bin Laden May Distract from a More Disturbing Story

Hossein Turner
Weekly Zaman
May 15, 2011

Source: 911TruthNews

On the evening of May 1st, US president Barack Obama publically announced that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in a “firefight” as a result of a successful US military operation in Pakistan. Several discrepancies in the public story surrounding his death have since been pounced on by internet conspiracy theorists, some claiming that the US raid was fake as well as arguing that Bin Laden apparently died years ago. Such theories are not possible to prove and really serve as petty distractions from more important issues concerning Al Qaeda. One can clearly argue, however, that Bin Laden was never indicted for the crime of 9/11 by US authorities, even though he was always regarded as a suspect. The media has lately referred to him as the “mastermind” of the attacks, when in actuality it is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who has been officially named the mastermind, despite controversies regarding the reliability of his testimony and the nature of his role. More importantly, however, the role of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency (the ISI) may well be even more significant than those of Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

US counter-terrorism official John Brennan recently told the media that Bin Laden had apparently been living in his prominent Abbottabad home for five to six years and that “he was in contact with some senior al Qaeda officials”. US Senator Carl Levin said that the Pakistani army and intelligence agencies have serious questions to answer about how Bin Laden managed to live so close to the central location of the Pakistani army for apparently so long. The Pakistani authorities have hit back, claiming that they warned the US about the Bin Laden compound two years ago. This has created considerable tensions between the US and Pakistan – tensions which really hide a darker and more troubling history that connects certain former employees of the Pakistani ISI with members of Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers. These former employees have not been officially regarded as 9/11 suspects by the US authorities.

On the 22nd of July 2004, United Press International reported that “On the eve of the publication of its report, the 9/11 Commission was given a stunning document from Pakistan, claiming that Pakistani intelligence officers knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks”. The report also alleged that the Pakistani ISI provided direct financial support to the 9/11 hijackers and was thus fully involved in the plot. Worryingly, the final report of the 9/11 Commission failed to mention this allegation, and barely refers to the ISI agency at all. Since 9/11, Pakistan has become an ally in the “war on terror”, an ongoing war that has also been continued by President Obama. Pakistan has received a lot of financial aid in the years since 9/11, amounting to approximately $20 billion dollars . This aid comes despite reports that elements of the Pakistani government, including the shadowy ISI, have been supporting and aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan. The counter-productive nature of this policy seems clear – yet it continues, despite the protestations of certain US officials. The issue of financing the Taliban may be bad enough; worse than this, however, are compelling allegations that point to the ISI directly providing money to the September 11th hijackers even as the CIA continued close ties with the agency.

In September 2006, former Pakistani president General Pervez Musharraf stated that the US official Richard Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” during a conversation with Pakistan’s intelligence director. The alleged threat was made in the days following the 9/11 attacks and were apparently made as a consequence of Pakistan’s not choosing to participate in the “war on terror”. Ties to the Taliban were apparently severed – albeit only temporarily- by the Pakistani regime as a response to these alleged US threats, and this was met with approval by the Bush regime, who welcomed them as their new partner.

But serious questions remain about the involvement of the Pakistani authorities in the support and financing of Al Qaeda. The Family Steering Committee (FSC) of the 9/11 Commission was a group of 9/11 family members who spear-headed the campaign for the creation of the Commission to investigate the attacks, and who assisted the commission staffers with their work as well as monitoring them. On their website there remains a list of questions which the final report of the Commission failed to address or answer. In the case of the Pakistani ISI, some of the questions refer to the former Director of the agency, General Mahmood Ahmed. According to several media reports, the General was meeting with US officials in Washington between the 4th and 13th of September 2001. The FSC asked the 9/11 Commission to inquire about the details of the meeting with General Ahmed conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen on September 11th. More importantly, they also asked the Commission if they could find out why the General ordered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. This may seem like a serious allegation, even speculative – but it is no conspiracy theory. In June 2004, the New York Times reported that Lorie Van Auken, a member of the Family Steering Committee, “was irate” that the final report of the 9/11 Commission did not even mention General Mahmoud Ahmed’s alleged role in the $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta. Disturbingly, in 2006 the Pakistani newspaper The Friday Times published a report claiming that lobbyists from Pakistan gave thousands of dollars to members of the 9/11 Commission in order to try and get them to omit any information from the final report that might be damaging to the Pakistani authorities. This could perhaps explain why the 9/11 report does not address allegations against former members of the Pakistani ISI, especially that of General Mahmoud Ahmed and Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh.

The story of Saeed Sheikh is also highly compelling. He is currently being held in prison in Pakistan for the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl. He was originally sentenced to death for this crime back in July 2002, but he has since been kept alive and was even accused of plotting the death of General Musharraf from his jail cell in 2008. He has been linked not only to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but also to the Pakistani ISI. In 2002, according to the online archive History Commons, the New York Times, India Today, the National Post and The Guardian newspapers all reported that Saeed Sheikh was working for the ISI and was well known to senior officers there. Several media reports have also detailed Saeed Sheikh’s close ties to Al-Qaeda, particularly from late 1999 to 2001. For example, Vanity Fair reported in August 2002 that Osama Bin Laden referred to Saeed Sheikh as “my special son”. On the 30th of September 2001, the Daily Telegraph reported that Sheikh had even apparently trained some of the 9/11 hijackers. In his 2003 book Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, author Rohan Gunaratna wrote about how Sheikh was able to establish an Al-Qaeda network in Dubai. Interestingly, several 9/11 hijackers arrived in Dubai between the 11th of April and the 28th of June 2001 – according to US officials – and purchased several travelers’ checks. It was from this location in August 2001that Saeed Sheikh was alleged to have sent Mohammed Atta $100,000, which ended up in two of Atta’s accounts in Florida. If Saeed Sheikh had an Al-Qaeda base in Dubai at the time, it is also possible that he could have been in contact with the hijackers when they passed through. Regarding the money transfers to Mohammed Atta, an unnamed senior US official told CNN in October 2001 that “U.S. investigators now believe Sheik Syed, using the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, sent more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta”. In January 2002, the Press Trust Of India reported that the Indian authorities had informed the FBI that ransom money obtained by the Dubai mobster Aftab Ansari (in order to release a captured Calcutta businessman) was used to finance Mohammed Atta. Indian authorities named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh as the paymaster who provided Atta with $100,000 via wire transfer. A wide range of world news media reported on the link between Atta and Omar Saeed Sheikh. Unfortunately, the story of the wire transfer has been largely buried and obfuscated by the Western media since the end of 2001.

On October 7th 2001, General Mahmoud Ahmed was demoted from his position at the head of the Pakistani ISI. The official reason was because he was apparently too close to the Taliban. However, the official reason is not credible especially given the fact that the remaining ISI officials continued to maintain their ties with the Taliban. On June 20th 2004, a member of the 9/11 Commission told the Los Angeles Times that before 9/11, Pakistani officials were “up to their eyeballs” in collaboration with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Yet, General Mahmoud Ahmed and other members of the Pakistani authorities were apparently only threatened by the US authorities if they refused to become partners in the “war on terror”. Was General Ahmed sacked because of his decision to order Saeed Sheikh to wire money to Mohammed Atta? If so, it is a great injustice to have the General remain free in Pakistan with no charges on his head. Saeed Sheikh remains in a Pakistani jail, but like the General he too has not been formally charged with suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps the US authorities should seek to question these two men, rather than just kill them and ask questions later, as they did with Bin Laden. More importantly, there should be hard questions directed at the US authorities and the 9/11 Commission with regard to the way they have dealt with the ISI before and after 9/11. For the US authorities to simply threaten or scapegoat Pakistan now would be a grossly irresponsible act, since certain agencies of both governments have a lot of explaining to do.

Related Info:

Not a Deather, but a Doubter; Still a Truther

Rashard Mendenhall: 'I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style'

The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed on the Death of Osama Bin Laden

Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7!

Saturday, May 14, 2011


By Jon Gold, author of "The Facts Speak for Themselves."

Related Info:

Not a Deather, but a Doubter; Still a Truther

The Truth Movement Needs A Scientific Revolution

"That's how we sell war to little girls, Haw Haw!"

WTF?! It seems the global teen prostitution ring run by an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse is capitalizing off of the death of Osama Bin Laden!

Disney Trademarks "Seal Team 6"
In a perfect example of a big media company looking to capitalize on current events, The Walt Disney Company has trademarked “Seal Team 6,” which also happens to be the name of the elite special forces team that killed Osama Bin Laden.

The trademark applications came on May 3rd, two days after the operation that killed Bin Laden… and two days after “Seal Team 6″ was included in thousands of news articles and TV programs focusing on the operation.

Disney’s trademark applications for “Seal Team 6″ cover clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games and “entertainment and education services,” among other things.

I think this vindicates me for all the dissing of Disney I've done over the years!

Unless it's something innocent, like this ...

"Based on real events... only more believable!"

Actually on second thought, a children's animated movie involving pinnipeds fighting a war would be even more f**ked up!

Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7!

Some newbie on the Prison Planet forum has just written the post of the month:
It's a simple talking point.

Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7.

What's all the fuss with 'Did Bin Laden Die in 2001?', 'Did They Kill Him in 2011, and Was It Murder?', 'Is Bin Laden Still Alive?'

What does it matter if they kill the patsy?


Everytime someone wants to debate with you whether or not Bin Laden is dead and the latest tale rooted in truth, simply say: Bin Laden didn't bring down Building 7.

The new Bin Laden fable is being used to obfuscate the original 9/11 fable. But it's 9/11, not Bin Laden, that's being used to take away freedom. While it's appropriate to distrust the new Navy SEAL/Bin Laden story, there's a simple one-line response to it:

Bin Laden didn't bring down Building 7.

Remember Building 7

Not a Deather, but a Doubter; Still a Truther

Rashard Mendenhall: 'I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style'

The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed on the Death of Osama Bin Laden

Death of Bin Laden May Distract from a More Disturbing Story

Friday, May 13, 2011

The Truth Movement Needs A Scientific Revolution

Oh, the crap we have to put up with. It appears the 9/11 truth movement's most prominent mainstream spokesperson is promoting the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used on 9/11. Sad, but I saw it coming. When Ventura was on Coast to Coast last month he was recommended Judy Wood's new book. I was hoping he would forget about it but it seems he didn't.

This sort of thing has happened before. Remember Warren Cuccurullo? He came out on AJ's show and appeared rational in those interviews, but then went on to become a no-planer. However, it's much worse with Jesse since he promotes 9/11 truth in the mainstream.

Now I don't think either Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura are disinfo. I agree with most of what Alex says about 9/11. While, when it comes to the demolition of the towers, he does have a tendency to over-emphasize anecdotal evidence and dubious things like 'pull it', when it comes to 9/11 in general, he mainly focuses more on credible stuff like the hijackers training at US Military bases, the standdown evidence, the drills, the Visas, the history etc., instead of little anomalies, and he doesn't focus on Israel like so many do. Plus, it was Prison Planet who warned us back in 2006 about the possibility of the Pentagon stuff being a giant psyop, and I've heard Alex and Bermas attack 'Space Beam' stuff several times, and he obviously reacted negatively when Ventura mentioned Judy Wood's name in the clip above. As for Ventura himself, alot of people, including Kevin Ryan, have now questioned Ventura's motives, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just been duped.

Judy Wood and the DEW theory seem to have gained popularity in conspiracy circles recently. Wood appeared on Coast to Coast AM a few of days ago, and Red Ice Radio, who do great work on other issues that I support, seem to endorse the DEW claims [1] [2]. And now with Jesse endorsing it too, I feel compelled to address it.

First off let me just say that I do not believe that thermitic devices were the ONLY thing used in the demolition of the towers. In fact, I think that's quite unlikely. It's more likely conventional explosives were used in conjunction with the various types of thermite, and I keep an open mind to the possibility that stuff we've never even heard of may have been at work as well. I do not disagree with promoters of DEW or other fringe views (e.g. mini-nukes etc.) because I am close minded, I disagree because these fringe theories can not be scientifically tested in the way that the nanothermite stuff has been.

Judy Wood's work doesn't seem very scientific to me. It's just pointing out a load of anomalies like 'melted cars' and things and making grand claims. There's a difference between anomalies and evidence. If Wood were to actually do proper scientific tests on one of these car wreckages and find some kind of signature or something that matches the signature of some advanced weapon, in the same way Steven Jones got ahold of a load of WTC dust and found thermite signatures in it, or in the same way FEMA analysed the strange steel from WTC7 and found sulfur residues, then it would be evidence of something. But she hasn't done that. Instead she simply points to photos of 'toasted cars' and claims that to be 'evidence'. It's not evidence. At best it's an anomaly. All the more fringe 9/11 theories out there seem to be based on little anomalies rather than evidence.

This exchange between Nafeez Ahmed and an audience member sums up my view of most of the speculative stuff that's out there, it's not even that I think they're wrong necessarily, I just don't like discussing these other views because they can't be proven either way.

Why deal with theories, and pointless, divisive speculation, when you can deal with facts? This applies not just to the DEW stuff, but also the Pentagon stuff, the living hijacker stuff, the phone call stuff and the recent Bin Laden stuff. There's nothing wrong with coming up with other theories, but at the end of the day the goal of the movement is to get a proper investigation into 9/11. I don't see why we can't just say "Here are the facts ..." and stick with that until we get a new investigation. We can consider all this other stuff once we have an investigation, but until then it's just counter productive to promote these things.

We shouldn't even be fighting really. Even if the DEW advocates are right it doesn't discount the thermite stuff. It doesn't have to be DEW vs nanothermite vs mini-nukes etc. It could be a combination. But the nanothermite theory and the work of AE911Truth etc. is the most scientifically credible, and therefore promoting that is our best tactic for getting a new 9/11 investigation. So even if I did suspect that DEWs or mini-nukes were used I would still focus on the nanothermite evidence due to it's credibility.

The fact that people like Judy Wood and the Citizen Investigation Team ignore and even try to debunk more credibile research leads me to believe they are disinfo. If they were genuine truth seekers whose end goal really was a new investigation then they would support the more credible research, instead of attacking it and trying to make their speculation the central dogma of the 9/11 truth movement.

To the people who endorse things like CIT's flyover theory and Judy Wood's DEW theory, I am not saying you should stop believing in these theories, I am simply suggesting you get your priorities right and take a more scientific approach to promoting 9/11 truth. Getting a real investigation is the goal, once that happens we can let the chips fall where they may.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed on the Death of Osama Bin Laden

Related info:

Nafeez Ahmed: Divisive Speculation Harms The Movement

Not a Deather, but a Doubter; Still a Truther

Rashard Mendenhall: 'I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style'

The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror

Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7!

Death of Bin Laden May Distract from a More Disturbing Story

What do the 7/7 victims and Princess Diana have in common?

Answer: After long, expensive whitewash inquests, the verdict for both was simply 'unlawfully killed'.

Princess Diana unlawfully killed - April 2008

Wow ... Several months and 4.5 million pounds for a verdict of 'unlawfully killed'? No shit Sherlock! And of course, British intelligence was cleared of all counts of failure/complicity. It's worth noting that from the very word go they refused to even consider 'conspiracy theories'...

7/7 Investigation Day One: “All Conspiracy Theories Have No Basis”

Monday, May 9, 2011

Not a Deather, but a Doubter, Still a Truther

The following is a fairly detailed and nuanced argument, so before going any further please read this short statement by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and this short statement by physicist David Chandler and civil engineer Jonathan Cole, regarding the death of Osama bin Laden.

Also consider the following two statements that bin Laden has no bearing upon.

Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal stated that there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'"

"...We met other whistle-blowers on the side of the road in Maryland, ya know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us by the way (laughs)... um, but, they had information... and basically, the Government knew... ya know, other than the exact moment... they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come." - 9/11 family member Patty Casazza

For refutations of "debunkers" on the topics noted thus far please click on the red text toward the bottom of this piece.

There has been a heated debate raging in the 9/11 truth movement, which is essentially: did bin Laden get killed by US forces last week, or was he really killed years ago and used until now as a war on terror sustaining boogie man, who is now of more use as a war expanding or false flag excuse creating, (pick your reason) officially dead man.

Let me tell you where I stand straight off; I am leaning quite strongly towards him being killed last week. However, I'm first going to play devil's advocate and demonstrate why those claiming that the US is faking the recent account should not be discounted with non-endearing terms like "deather" as espoused by Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog.

FOX News running a story entitled "Report: Bin Laden Already Dead" in December 2001 is a starting point. But to continue believing that story in this narrative one would have to then have good cause to believe that the subsequent 40 audio or video tapes that surfaced between 2001 and 2011 of bin Laden were faked. (Counting the 5 most recent tapes.)

This might sound absurd, however, in May of last yaer the Washington Post reported the following about the CIA's Iraq Operations Group:
The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.

Eventually, “things ground to a halt,” the other former officer said, because no one could come to agreement on the projects...

The reality, the former officials said, was that the agency really didn’t have enough money and expertise to carry out the projects.

“The military took them over,” said one. “They had assets in psy-war down at Ft. Bragg,” at the army’s special warfare center.
Even though this project never came to fruition, it is still iron-clad proof that US agencies will engage in such activities. Some will protest, correctly, that this tape was reported to have been created to influence our foreign enemies. To that point, the "Psy-war" group mentioned is short for psychological warfare, which The U.S. Department of Defense defines as, "The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives."

However, the declassified CIA memo "Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report," which called for the employment of "propaganda assets" for "discrediting the claims of the [JFK] conspiracy theorists," was labeled "PSYCH," presumably for psychological Warfare Operations. So it is of no comfort that "they had assets in psy-war down at Ft. Bragg" take over the fake Osama tape producing operation. There is, however, every reason for concern that they, or other such units, would use this type of propaganda against, not just our foreign enemies, but also the American public.

The next thing needed in this narrative is indisputable proof that at least one bin Laden audio or video tape was a fraud. Lo and behold this November 2002 report from the Guardian entitled "Swiss scientists 95% sure that Bin Laden recording was fake," which states that, "Scientists in Switzerland say they are almost certain that a recent audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden is a fake," but then noted that:
American experts initially concluded that the voice on the tape was probably Bin Laden, though it is unlikely ever to be fully authenticated because of the recording's poor quality.

The Swiss findings conflict with other research published by the French news magazine L'Express last week.

In that study, Bernard Gautheron, director of the phonetic testing laboratory at the Institute of Linguistics and Phonetics in Paris, concluded there was a "very strong probability" that the al-Jazeera tape was genuine.
However, the article then goes on to make a stronger case for the Swiss study:
But researchers at the Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, in Lausanne, believe the message was recorded by an impostor.

In a study commissioned by France 2 television, researchers built a computer model of Bin Laden's voice, based on an hour of genuine recordings.

Using voice recognition systems being developed for banking security, they tested the model against 20 known recordings of Bin Laden. The system correctly identified his voice in 19 of them.

This meant there was only a 5% risk of error in their conclusion that the latest tape is a fake, Professor Hervé Bourlard, the institute's director, told the Guardian yesterday. "It's an automatic system but it's very sensitive," he said. "It picks up things the human ear doesn't pick up."

He agreed that the sound quality of the recent tape was poor but added: "Many of our 20 [test] recordings were also of poor quality. Some were very good, some very bad, but our results were all positive except in one case."

Prof Bourlard, a voice recognition expert, is the author or joint author of 150 research papers and two books, and has worked extensively with the International Computer Science Institute at Berkeley, California.
But what of the other recordings?

The following excerpt from the February 1999 Washington Post article "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing" indicates that the voice-morphing technology mentioned by Madsen really is as good, or even better, than he claims, in which case no amount of expert agreement would really matter:
"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating "I am being treated well by my captors."

"They chose to have him say something he would never otherwise have said," chuckled one of Papcun's colleagues.

Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump, when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future...

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.
This article was famously used in early versions of the film Loose Change, to support the theory that the phone calls from the hijacked flights on 9/11 were faked, but as Jim Hoffman noted in a critique, "These examples, which merely consist of creating static messages, are not at all comparable to the phone conversations from Flight 93, which were real-time two-way conversations." Furthermore, as the debunking website asks, "...How did the conspirators obtain a "10-minute digital recording" of several passengers? Especially as many of the ones who made calls weren't even supposed to be Flight 93 passengers until the very last minute." These points are not an issue, however, with solitary diatribes by bin Laden.

And if a YouTube poster can make the following video, what could the CIA accomplish?

Now, take all of this combined with the following reports from Russia Today and you have your cause for disbelief by many. What they frame as the White House inviting conspiracy theories over bin Laden's death could also be viewed as further evidence of a conspiracy!

These issues were even reported by the Sun Sentinel to have struck a nerve with Jeannie Evans who lost her brother firefighter Robert Evans on 9/11, who stated, "Why not show us proof, that Bin Laden was killed? I would like to see that."

The reports that bin Laden was not armed also raise the question, as posed by Washington's Blog, "Why Didn’t We Capture the Terrorist Kingpin and Interrogate Him?"

With all that being said, here are my dissenting thoughts on this issue. The earlier reports of bin Laden's death are relying on pure hearsay. The often cited report I provided earlier from FOX News is from a "Taliban source," whose leader Muhammad Omar, is a long time friend of bin Laden; this is certainly a cause for doubt regarding this report. So what is there besides this?

(Note: I respect a lot of the work at and, whom I'm about to criticise.)

Let's break down the article, "Inside Sources: Bin Laden’s Corpse Has Been On Ice For Nearly a Decade" on radio host Alex Jones' website Prison Planet. The only individual cited regarding bin Laden being on ice is an unnamed "high level Republican source," Paul Joseph Watson noted at the time that, "Alex has warned that this might be disinfo and the fact that we're reporting on it pre-emptively may cause them to change the script." OK, I'm noting this, it might be disinfo AND them reporting it may cause the government to change the script. So that second part doesn't mean that it might not be disinfo, right?

Next up is the very impressive "Council on Foreign Relations member Steve R. Pieczenik, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, and James Baker" who told the Alex Jones Show that bin Laden had already been "dead for months" back in April 2002. For starters, blog contributor Scootle Royale pointed out yesterday that:
...The fact that he is a high level insider should... raise alarms. Over the last decade many government, intelligence and military insiders have come forward apparently supporting our cause while promoting disinfo, such as David Shayler, Morgan Reynolds and Albert Stubblebine. Government insiders are attractive to us due to their apparent credibility, but the history of our movement has shown that generally they are in fact the least credible. So forgive me for expressing skepticism when a former CFR member, Kissinger associate and high ranking official of five past administrations, who is perpetrating a number of myths such as the myth that the 2001 'fatty bin laden' video was fake, comes out to apparently support our cause.
We'll get to the "fatty bin Laden" video in a sec, but first I want to examine how Pieczenik came to his conclusion about bin Laden being dead.

Interview of Steve R. Pieczenik - Alex Jones Show - April 24, 2002:
Pieczenik: ...I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying. And you could see those in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he's been dead for months.

Jones: You are talking about the obvious fat guy, sitting there that looked nothing like bin Laden.

SP: You've got it. I mean the whole thing was a, I mean it was such a hoax. I mean I said you would have to be, you know, blind and stupid to not realize that this is really being manipulating in trying to manipulate us.
First off, Pieczenik is not saying that his sources told him bin Laden was dead, he is saying that they told him he was sick. It is based on this, him being a physician, and his belief that the "fatty bin Laden" tape was fake that he claims bin Laden has "been dead for months." And I'm not blind or stupid, but I am certain that bin Laden tape is not a fake.

Here is a truther site proving it.

Here is a debunker site proving it.

And here is a video where an expert comes to the same conclusion.

Furthermore, since this video was likely recorded on September 26th 2001, at a time when nobody is claiming bin Laden had died yet, there is no reason to think it wasn't him. That being said, there is damning information about this tape, including the fact that bin Laden does not confess to 9/11 on it as the US claimed, but again, we'll get back there in a second.

And as Scootle has pointed out before, the idea of a fake bin Laden sitting down with the real al-Zawahiri doesn't make much sense.

All the other sources noted on the Prison Planet page contain no actual reports of bin Laden's death, but rather opinions: "Of course he is dead" "I think now, frankly, he is dead" "I personally think he [Bin Laden] is probably not with us anymore" "I would come to believe that [Bin Laden] probably is dead" "Osama may have died" "probably dead" "I don’t think he’s alive."

They also quote former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as saying Omar Sheikh had killed Osama Bin Laden, which Scootle recently demonstrated was a misspeak.

They quote former US foreign intelligence officer and professor of international relations at Boston University Angelo Codevilla, who in his article "Osama bin Elvis," wrote that, "All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama Bin Laden." In the article it is posited that "no reputable person" reports having seen bin Laden since 2001, and the argument that Osama's "increasingly secular language is inconsistent" with his Wahhabism is put forward. But his "evidence" also includes the Taliban souce, the Benazir Bhutto quote, and the "fatty bin Laden tape." The erroneous points that the bin Laden in the video writes with the wrong hand and shouldn't be wearing a gold ring according to Islamic law are also raised. Mr. Codevilla is clearly as wrong about much of the bin Laden evidence as he is the Elvis Presley evidence.

The only piece of evidence offered on the page "Osama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government" from What Really Happened, which isn't on the Prison Planet page, is from the editor-in-chief of a London-based Arab news magazine who in 2002 published what he asserted was a will written in 2001 by bin Laden. CNN reported that the will "could not be independently authenticated" and that the Arab news magazine editor admitted "he doesn't know for sure if bin Laden is dead." He does state that, "Once someone writes his will, it means either he's dying or he's going to die soon." However, bin Laden could have very well feared for his life due to him being the world's most wanted terrorist or his failing health and thus decided to write the will. Ultimately it proves nothing.

Considering that bin Laden evaded capture for almost a decade, his ill health, the evidence and possibility of faked audios and videos, and the report of him being dead backed by so many official's opinions that he was, it was a strong hypothesis to say he probably was dead. Given the new info, however, it must be considered that the former reports were based on disinfo and/or opinion.

On that note, the new report of bin Laden's death is supported by a claimed DNA match, which could be a lie, but also could be hard evidence, which the other report of his death did not offer. Some are asking how such a fast DNA match could have been made, as one answer on this YahooAnswers page noted, "...Most testing facilities are understaffed, underfunded, and overworked. Add in chain of custody protocols with evidence, and it takes a long time to get anything done."

Furthermore, reports that "forensics experts have almost unanimously stepped forward to support the idea that the DNA testing – most likely Y-linked short tandem repeat PCR amplification and analysis – could easily have been performed in the amount of time and location it is purported to have been, using industry-standard products."

There is also a death photo that may yet be released, which has been seen by a number of members of Congress, again which could be fake or taken long ago, but can also be viewed as a substantiation of the reports that "commandos... used a camera phone to upload a photo to Operation room where engineers used facial recognition software to verify it." Again, such a picture could be a sophisticated fake, or taken long ago, but the other report offered no such corroboration.

There are also the accounts from the people in the house said to have been living with him. The Telegraph reports that bin Laden's fifth wife, Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, "who was shot in the leg during the raid... ...has already told Pakistani investigators they had been living in the compound since 2005." This report from the Daily Mail states that bin Laden's 12 year old daughter says he was captured alive and then executed.

Also, the 35 audios or videos that surfaced between 2001 and his reported killing, although possibly all fake, must now also be taken into consideration as evidence that the US did indeed kill him, if only circumstantial.

The same goes for five new videos released yesterday, one of which shows Osama bin Laden inside the compound where he was killed. In the video he is seen watching a report about himself on television, which includes images and video of Barack Obama suggesting the footage is recent. Mike Rivero of What Really Happened, who still promotes the false "fatty bin Laden" video idea, is proclaiming that it is "definitely not Osama Bin Laden" in a short post reproduced on Prison Planet today entitled "Bin Laden: The Ears Have It," stating, "Ears are as unique as fingerprints, and they do not change with time. The ears do not match (and the noses are also different). However, many commenters on Prison Planet do not agree.
SilverFox Says:

Someone needs to do some simple research before writing articles. Yes, the ears, feet & nose change as we age.

The ears: 1. They grow larger 2. They grow hair 3. The lobes get thinner

Enjoy Says:

The heads are at different angles, so the angles would change. The one on the top left, he is looking down, the ear would appear higher...

The ‘angle’, is off a wee bit,just enough to ‘seem’, that one of the ears looks ‘taller’ than another ‘shot’ of the same side,of said ear..There is a ‘distinct flat run’, down the back of each ear photo…it is in all the photo’s. The nose shots match as well,along with the eyebrow line... I believe it was all ‘false flag’, anyhow...

neonexus Says:

Everything with cartilage changes with ages, everybody knows that. I agree with Silverfox, kinda FAIL ish article.

roodolpt Says:

I would have to say all be it reluctantly that point for point there is a lot of similarity between both images taking into acout camera angles and picture quality it will be more difficult to disprove than some of the other more obvious fakery going on
Good luck

xeno Says:

I hate to break it to you chaps, but those are the same ears. I’m baffled how anyone can manage to see two sets of ears there. The only differences are the angle the photos are taken from and the light sources.

DovCohen Says:

C’mon guys, this current picture of Bin Laden watching TV does, in fact, look like the Bin Laden picture next to it. The ears and nose do look similar. the earlobe is attached and same lines, etc...

roodolpt Says:

Point for point from the forehead down through the eye area nose and mouth the “real” osama pic is almost identical when enlarged and rotated to the same angle as the old osama, although at that point the ear is out of place this is easily explained by the different camera angles i experemented and was able to reproduce a similar effect using a friend as a subject. The ear although out of place was a respectable match both in size and scale points matching up very well
Try it yourself
I’m not saying this is really osama but if not it is a very osama like double

twieskid Says:

The ears look similar...

czar1027 Says:

Big fail here. The ears are very similar. Scale them and tilt them to the same angles and you will see they match up. I wish that PP would filter some stories a bit more. Stuff like this makes us look like tin hat kooks.

I love this site, but can we stick with quality over quantity please?
Another article by Paul Joseph Watson posted on Prison Planet today links to a report in which a man claims he knows who the man in the bin Laden video really is. Watson transcribes the quote from the report, "His name is Akhbar Han, he owns the house they said was Osama’s house, I know him very well." The name is a slight mistranslation, as the San Francisco Chronicle noted last Tuesday "Rashid and Akbar Khan owned the fortified residence where U.S. commandos killed bin Laden." The story quotes their grocer Anjum Qaisar as saying, "I was curious about why they bought so much food, but I did not want to be rude by asking." So this man's identity was well known, and if the above quoted commenters from Prison Planet had seen him around they surely would have noted a striking resemblence to bin Laden, so the fact that no other reports claim Akbar Khan is the man actually seen in the video makes this claim hard to believe.

Watson states in yet another article put out today that, "Almost every single neighbor that lived near the alleged Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad that was interviewed by news reporters said with absolute certainty that they had never seen Bin Laden and that they knew of no evidence whatsoever to suggest he lived there."

It is true that nobody reports seeing him, or as noted, anybody looking like him, but the statement that "almost every single neighbor that was interviewed" provided "no evidence whatsoever to suggest he lived there" is only accurate of the stories Watson cites in his articles. It goes well beyond their shopping habits and the report from the grocer that they "always paid cash, never asked for credit." The Associated Press article "Bin Laden's Neighbors Were Suspicious" reports:
When a woman involved in a polio vaccine drive turned up at Osama bin Laden's hideaway, she remarked to the men behind the high walls about the expensive SUVs parked inside. The men took the vaccine, apparently to administer to the 23 children at the compound, and told her to go away...

"People were skeptical in this neighborhood about this place and these guys. They used to gossip, say they were smugglers or drug dealers. People would complain that even with such a big house they didn't invite the poor or distribute charity," said Mashood Khan, a 45-year-old farmer...

"That house was obviously a suspicious one," said Jahangir Khan, who was buying a newspaper in Abbottabad. "Either it was a complete failure of our intelligence agencies or they were involved in this affair."
The article "Osama bin Laden Neighbors Noticed Odd Behavior" on News Max reports:
"We used to play cricket near the house but their kids never joined us," said Nabeel, 12. "The kids did not go to school. We never saw them going to school."...

People had been scratching their heads for years in Abbottabad, a typical medium-sized Pakistani city, 50 km (31 miles) northwest of the capital Islamabad.

Residents had tried to come up with some answers. They must be a religious family so that's why the women were never seen, kept inside.

But that didn't explain why the men of the house never attended weddings or funerals -- unusual behavior in Pakistan's deeply traditional Muslim society.

Irritations over the odd behavior built up.

During religious holidays many of the people of Abbottabad gave each other sweets.

But those in the house where U.S. officials say America's public enemy number lived in comfort were so anti-social that others never bothered to knock on their doors during those special occasions.

"We distribute kheer (a sweet dish of milk and rice) to our neighbors, but my mother never asked me to go there," said Mohammad Kabir...
The article "What It's Like to Be Osama Bin Laden's Neighbor" from the Atlantic Wire reports:
Residents tell the Journal that one man whom they saw entering the compound identified himself as Rashid but often changed his story, claiming one day that he was in the transportation business and the next that he was a money changer. Other neighbors inform CNN's Nic Robertson that bin Laden's people identified themselves as gold merchants and kept to themselves, rarely venturing outside. When local children kicked balls over the compound's walls, they couldn't retrieve them and received money from someone in bin Laden's entourage instead (the account makes the plot of The Sandlot seem lame). Other neighbor accounts describe people only leaving the compound to go to the mosque and the fleeting image of a "stout man driving a red van." One neighbor explained to Bloomberg that she knew Arabic-speaking women lived in the house because her children heard them through the gate one day.

The compound was also an intimidating place. Residents tell the L.A. Times that security cameras spied on anyone who approached. One day last month, according to Bloomberg, a neighbor knocked on the gate to recommend turning off the compound's powerful security lights because electricity is so expensive. A Pakistani opened the door and grew angry, inquiring, "Who told you to come here?"
Now back to the topic of the newly relased videos, the others are said to be from 2010, but look identical to a bin Laden video from 2007. One train of thought, as stated by Prison Planet is, "Hoax: White House Claims 4-Year-Old Bin Laden Video Is New Footage." Scootle summed it up another way in a post yesterday, stating:
"...Since the footage is identical the 2007 video and the man in the videos is clearly Osama, we can therefore reason that the so-called 'Blackbeard Bin Laden' in the 2007 video probably was Bin Laden after all, and not some other guy with a fake black beard or something, as many have assumed.

However, other anomalies with the 2007 video are still of interest such as the fact that his lips don't seem to match his speech at points and for most of the speech the video is frozen. So the 2007 video may still have been a fake composed of old footage of Bin Laden, or maybe the Pentagon just likes screwing with us.
This quote comes to mind.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-- Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

For those reading this who don't agree with CIT, consider the following summary of their Pentagon argument compared with my following summary of the bin Laden died in 2001 argument.
Lamp posts downed by plane impact: faked

Generator damage by engine impact: faked

Boeing parts on the ground and inside the building: faked

Impact hole cutout in the Pentagon matching a 757-sized jetliner: faked

Recovered DNA identifying Flight 77 passengers and crew: faked

Recovered victim personal effects provided to family members: faked

All witnesses to the plane impact: plants or confused about what they saw
35 audios or videos that surfaced between 2001 and his reported killing in 2011, as well as 5 videos released afterwards: faked

Recovered DNA identifying Osama: faked

Facial recognition software identifying Osama from a death photo that several members of Congress have seen: faked

Osama's wife and daughter identifying him: faked

Obviously the Pentagon would require many more conspirators and much more fakery, hence the "Not a Deather, but a Doubter." But my doubt is immaterial, because even if I were 100% convinced of a bin Laden hoax conspiracy, I would not be pushing it front and center (and I never have even when I had much stronger doubts) because this argument is such an uphill battle now with the public consciousness and would likely just be equated with harmful 9/11 issues that also depend on fakery arguments. Why do that that when we have such a diverse plethora of good evidence that only requires people to look at undisputed facts, obvious lies, physics, and forensics?

On that note, mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti had this to say recently at 911 Blogger:
The much bigger issue than when he died is that Osama bin Laden was not wanted for the 911 attacks by the FBI. The video of him allegedly admitting to it was found like a needle in a haystack in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan in Dec. 2001, after the invasion. The FBI apparently had a problem with that video as it did not deem it as grounds to indict bin Laden for the 911 attacks.

Shortly after 911 Colin Powell said a white paper would be released which proved the guilt of bin Laden for the 911 attacks. Incredibly, no white paper was ever provided to the public...
The evidence indicates the problem the FBI has with the tape is that it proves, as 9/11 researcher Ed Hass wrote in 2007, that the tape was obtained in a CIA string operation and thus "the CIA had Osama bin Laden in its sights, camera and rifle, on or about September 26, 2001 and failed to capture or kill him in favor of gaining a videotape confession of sorts to support the Bush Administration’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. If Osama bin Laden had been captured or killed on or about September 26, 2001 – there would have been no international support for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan." Click here for more info.

And yes, in 2001 then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the government would soon "put out a paper ... that will describe clearly the evidence that we have linking" bin Laden to 9/11. One day later the government reneged on this pledge and no such paper has ever been offered.

However, Bin Laden has admitted to being involved in 9/11, but just like the FBI he has made contraduictory statements and denied his guilt on three reported occasions, including once on video, but this doesn't mean he wasn't involved. Afterall, there is circumstantial evidence against him in the form of a video showing him meeting with with some of the hijackers. And as points out, "Since 9/11, al-Qaeda have released footage of several of the hijackers. These include a number of video wills, where they talk about jihad and attacking America."

Another important issue right now are these statements from President Barack Obama to 60 Minutes, "We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. But we don’t know who or what that support network was. We don’t know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that’s something that we have to investigate and, more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate."

We should defintely be asking the Obama Administration to investigate the October 9, 2001 Times of India report that Pakistan's former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Mahmud Ahmed, who was meeting with US officials on 9/11, had $100,000 wired to 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. When former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was confronted by the press about these isssues on May 16, 2002 she feigned complete ignorance of the issues, and the transcrips of the question asked were edited, changing "ISI chief" to "inaudibe." Click here for more info.

Another thing Obama should be investigating are reports that CIA station chief Larry Mitchell met with bin Laden in a Pakistani hospital two months before 9/11.

Now matter what your position on the bin Laden killing, right now is a pertinent time to bring up these issues and to let the Obama administration know that you oppose war in Pakistan even if every shred of the official 9/11 story is true. If you have all your eggs in one basket, now is a perfect time to spread them about and support groups that oppose war, even if they oppose 9/11 truth.

Newsletter No. 1199
4 May 2011
Email 020 7801 2768



Bin Laden is dead but the "war on terror" continues as before.
2011 is the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion
ten years ago. April was Iraq's most deadly month since 2009. The
war on Libya, still being sold as "humanitarian intervention" to
protect civilians, has sunk to the level of killing three of
Gaddafi's grandchildren, all under the age of twelve.

As Andrew Murray, national chair of Stop the War, wrote in his
recent Guardian article, bin Laden's death is a fork in the road
in world politics. The choices are stark: end the "war on terror"
now, or else continue with a policy "which only offers the
promise of thousands more Bin Ladens arising, vowing to take the
fight to the western powers in the only way they see available".

The day after Bin Laden's death Stop the War issued the following


The killing of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces in Pakistan
has been hailed a turning point in the 'war on terror'. The
assassination, it is claimed, will draw a line nearly 10 years
after 9/11. But if the US really wants to draws a line under
these wars it needs to adopt very different policies from those
which it is now pursuing.

The US and other NATO forces must now withdraw all troops from
Afghanistan. The capture or killing of bin Laden was a stated aim
when the attack began in October 2001 -- 'wanted dead or alive'
in the words of George Bush. Since that time, tens if not
hundreds of thousands have died in Afghanistan, the Taliban have
gained in strength, and the pro US government is one of the most
corrupt in the world. There is no justification for the war.

The US and Britain should remind themselves of the grievances
which bin Laden claimed in 2001: the presence of US troops in the
Middle East; the treatment of the Palestinians; and the continued
sanctions against Iraq. All of these grievances have worsened in
the last ten years. There are now western troops in Iraq,
Afghanistan, US bases all over the region, and an intervention
including troops and airstrikes in Libya. The Palestinians suffer
even more, and have been subject to aerial attack by Israel. Iraq
suffers full scale occupation as a result of the war in 2003.

The war has been extended into Pakistan, not just with Special
Forces operations such as the killing of bin Laden, but with
drone attacks which have killed thousands of Pakistanis and
created great instability in the country.

The US and its allies have followed a policy of backing dictators
and despots across the Middle East. Only the uprisings of the
peoples in these countries has in any way altered that policy,
and even now, while waging war in Libya, the west turns a blind
eye to the atrocities in Bahrain and the repression in Saudi

The war against Libya is not about humanitarian intervention but
about the western powers _ especially the former colonial powers
in North Africa_ trying to regain control of the region. The
airstrikes should stop immediately and all troops including
Special Forces and advisers should be withdrawn.

These policies have not helped to end terrorism, but have made it
more likely. Al Qaeda barely existed outside Afghanistan 10 years
ago; now it is a presence in a number of Middle Eastern
countries. The latest events will in all likelihood lead to more
attacks by al Qaeda, including in Europe and the US. The only way
to end terrorism is to change the policies which create space for
it to flourish in the first place.


President Obama will be making a state visit to Britain at the
end of May and Stop the War will announce shortly the details of
a protest to denounce his continuation of the war policies of his
predecessor George W Bush.

We are asking all local Stop the War groups to organise events in
their communities, with public meetings, street stalls,
petitioning etc, to raise the profile of the anti-war majority in
this country that opposes the escalating aggression of the
western powers, and, specifically, to call for the immediate
withdrawal of all British troops from Afghanistan and an end to
the bombing of Libya.

Campaign leaflets and petition sheets are available to download
from our website.

If you would like to get involved in a local Stop the War group
in your area, contact our national office: Email or call 020 7801 2768.


The plight of Palestinians continues to deteriorate, as Israel
maintains its siege of Gaza, denying its people basic resources,
and escalates its theft of Palestinian land and property on the
West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

Stop the War has joined with Palestine Solidarity Campaign, CND,
British Muslim Initiative and Palestinian Forum in Britain, in
calling a national demonstration on Saturday 14 May against
Israel's endless violations of international law. The
demonstration is supported by many other organisations. Full
details are available here:

For updates, go to:

The West's assaults on three Muslim countries in the last ten
years have been accompanied by a chorus of anti-Muslim
propaganda, which will no doubt swell further in the aftermath of
the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

To discuss the effects of Islamophobia and how to campaign
against it, Stop the War, as part of the Enough Coalition, is
organising a day conference which will bring together community
figures, campaigners, academics, experts, and victims of
anti-Muslim attacks, from Britain, Europe and the USA.

Speakers include Seumas Milne (The Guardian), Salma Yaqoob, Daud
Abdullah, Tony Benn, Lindsey German, Peter Oborne (Daily
Telegraph), Marwan Muhammed from France, Dr. Sabine Schiffer from
Germany and Professor John Esposito from the USA (FULL LIST OF

The event if free but places are limited, so early booking is
advisable. Please register to book your place at

Register place:

Anger against the western powers will only be increased by recent
events. The Taliban have just announced the start of the fighting
season in Afghanistan, Pakistan is deeply destabilised by the
"war on terror". The British government has now admitted that the
war on Libya could be "a long haul".

Stop the War's day conference on Saturday 11 June will highlight
the disasters of the Afghanistan war and put it in the context of
wider imperialist intervention. Central to the discussion will be
the next steps in the campaign to get the troops home.

Speakers include Tony Benn, George Galloway, Tariq Ali, Lindsey
German, David Swanson from the USA, Pankaj Mishra, Mehdi Hasan
(political editor of New Statesman), Joan Humphries from Military
Families Against the War and David Gentleman, the artist who
designs the now legendary bloodspot placards and posters for Stop
the War.

For updates, go to:
Admission is £5. Please book in advance by emailing or phoning 020 7801 2768.


Stop the War's YouTube channel, started just a few months ago, is
proving very popular, with close to 100,000 views already. Over
50 videos have now been posted and we are adding new films every
week. The two most recent are:

* Osama Bin Laden's death and the day America declared war on the
* Look who came to the royal wedding: dictators, torturers, human
rights' abusers


Related Info:

Rashard Mendenhall: 'I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style'

The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed on the Death of Osama Bin Laden

Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7!

Death of Bin Laden May Distract from a More Disturbing Story