Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Excerpts from THE TERROR CONSPIRACY: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty by JIM MARRS/Published by The Disinformation Company Ltd.


The continuing controversy over the Pentagon attack is the result of a simple lack of decisive evidence. One can hardly doubt that there must have been ample evidence at the actual crime scene, and so, the primary problem is that most of this evidence was removed by a variety of suspicious official actions in the wake of the attack. These include seizing of security videos that have never been made public, the immediate and rapid mop-up of the crime scene and the destruction of, or suppression of, nearly all the physical evidence inside the building in the days and weeks following the attack.

Take the case of April Gallop, who was working inside the Pentagon's west side when it was struck on 9/11. Gallop was preparing to take her infant son to day care when an explosion rocked the building. "I thought it was a bomb," Gallop recalled. "I was buried in rubble and my first thought was for my son...outside they were treating survivors on the grassy lawn. But all the ambulances had left, so a man who was near the scene stepped up, put us in a private car, and drove us to the hospital."

Gallop said while in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once. "They never identified themselves or even said which agency they worked for. But I know they were not newsmen because I learned that the Pentagon told news reporters not to cover survivors' stories or they would not get any more stories out of there. The men who visited all said they couldn't tell me what to say, they only wanted to make suggestions. But then they told me what to do, which was to take the [Victim Compensation Fund] money and shut up. They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building. They repeated this over and over. But I was there and I never saw a plane or even debris from a plane. I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people."

Military affairs journalist Barbara Honegger reported many people in the Pentagon at the time of the attack believed a bomb or bombs had exploded inside the building. She reported that, oddly enough, multiple teams of K-9 bomb-sniffing dogs with handlers in camouflage were seen just outside the Pentagon at about 7:30 am on September 11, 2201. One Army officer said he had never seen the bomb dogs there before or since 9/11.

Page 92-93-94-95: THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Internet Commentator Allan P. Duncan wrote:

"Between the Fall of 1998 and June 2001, a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey is caught on tape in an ATF weapons sting conspiring to buy millions of dollars of weapons including components for nuclear bombs. Three years after the operation ended, all of the people in the deal are free.

"Federal agents who worked on the case were frustrated because it was handled as a criminal case instead of a counterterrorism case. In an in depth look at 'Operation Diamondback' I reveal that one of the suspects who was accused of skimming millions of dollars from a fraudulent HMO to offshore accounts where the money allegedly went to finance terrorism, was defended in the HMO case by a lawyer who later became the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, under John Ashcroft. The lawyer, Michael Chertoff, was in his position as Assistant Attorney General when Operation Diamondback ended and his client was never arrested even though an intelligence document claimed he and his brother in Egypt had links to Osama Bin Laden."

Chicago attorney David Schippers said in a late October 2001 interview that he had been approached by FBI agents a month and a half prior to the 9/11 attacks. The agents revealed that they had knowledge that lower Manhattan was to be the object of a terrorist attack using airplanes as flying bombs and they wanted to prevent this.

They were seeking legal advice because their FBI superiors had ordered them off the case and threatened them with the National Security Act if they spoke out. Schippers said he tried in vain to warn Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"Again I used people who were personal friends of John Ashcroft to try to get to him. One of them callled me back and said, 'All right, I have talked to him. He will call you tomorrow morning.' This was like month before the bombing. The next morning I got a call. It wasn't from Ashcroft. It was from somebody in the Justice Department. He said, 'We don't start our investigations at the top. Let me look into this and I will get back to you.' As I sit here today [October 10, 2001], I have never heard from him."

Once again, no mention of this incident or even the name of David Schippers, a very prominent Republican attorney, can be found anywhere in The 9/11 Commission Report.


Inflated budgets, further centralization of intelligence functions, and adding more intelligence and law enforcement manpower will add nothing to the search for true national security until the American people demand an honest accounting concerning how our government behaved before and during the 9/11 attacks. The record clearly shows that there was a great deal of foreknowledge of what was to come and even covert contact with the alleged hijackers, yet very little commitment at the highest level to stopping the attacks---in fact, there appeared to be a willingness to allow them to happen.


The Warren Report rested on the shaky premise of Arlen Specter's single bullet theory---the idea that one rifle slug passed through both President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally---causing seven separate wounds to both men including hitting at least two bones---yet emerged to be found unscathed at the hospital. Similarly, the 9/11 Commission's verdict that 9/11 was simply the result of miscues, miscommunication and system badly in need of centralization is based on the equally implausible premise that at least 19 fanatical Arab Muslims---some with expired visas or questionable passports and some on security watch lists---traveled to various countries where plans were hatched, came in and out of the USA and trained at US flight schools directly under the nose of US authorities without arousing any notice or suspicion, but were then easily identified to a man within hours of the attacks.

Even if there was no intent to cover up the truth, the Commission was not funded at a level sufficient to do its work. Incredibly, more than three times as much money was spent on George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration than was originally allocated to investigate the attacks on September 11, 2001. While a total of $112.6 million was spent to investigate the 2003 space shuttle Columbia disaster and $50 million was once spent to look into Las Vegas gambling casinos, the 9/11 tragedy received a mere $13 million to probe the greatest attack on America since 1812. The Presidential Inaugural Committee estimated Bush's 2005 inauguration events cost about $40 million, with the federal government and District of Columbia bearing an additional $20 million as the costs of providing security.

From the outset, President Bush made clear that he wanted no independent investigation into the attacks. Bowing to entreaties of 9/11 families, the Bush administration initially promised only $3 million to investigate 9/11; it later relented after additional public pressure and released another $10 million.

Page 259-60: PART III: THE 9/11 BACKLASH

"Bin Laden...was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda, literally 'the database,' was originally the computer files of thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians," noted British commentator Robin Cook.

Often supposed enemies prove to be mirror images of each other. Noted author Thom Hartmann pointed out that both Bush's neocons and Muslim terrorists operate from the same ideology---both believe the end justifies the means and that people must be frightened into accepting religion and nationalism for the greater good of morality and a stable state.

No comments: