Jesse Ventura Calls For New 9/11 Investigation; Challenges Media

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
October 29, 2010

Former Governor of Minnesota, ex-Navy SEAL and retired pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura has renewed the call for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 in the face of dramatic new evidence that is coming to light every week.

“You’ve got all this evidence but clearly when you look at what happened, and the results of all of it, it shows clearly that these commissions and these official government investigations are frauds.” Ventura told nationally syndicated radio host Alex Jones.

“They don’t seek the truth, they are there to simply push the government’s story of whatever that may be – what they want said about what happened.” Ventura continued as he and Jones presented and analyzed previously unseen video and eyewitness accounts from September 11 2001 that suggest secondary explosions were a contributing factor to the destruction of the World Trade Center.

“When you look at the whole commission, it got run by Zelikow, who comes right out of the White House – he was the guy in charge. If they didn’t unanimously agree on something, it wasn’t even entered into it.” Ventura noted, also adding that the 9/11 Commission failed to even mention the total and symmetrical collapse of building 7, a 47 story skyscraper that was not attacked on 9/11, yet fell straight down into it’s own footprint later the same afternoon.

“Anything that doesn’t fit into their scenario, they just ignore.” Ventura added.

The former governor also noted that originally there was never even going to be an investigation into the attacks of any kind, and that it was only via pressure from the victims’ relatives that a commission was appointed.

“When pressure came from the families and they demanded an investigation, well who’s the first person they come up with to run it? Henry Kissinger. Well, there was outcry and outrage over that because of all of his contacts and everything he’s into… Then you look at it from a logical point of view, did they really and truly want to investigate?” Ventura stated.

“Well when you learn that they spent a hundred million dollars to investigate Whitewater – where ultimately in the end I guess they learned that the president cheated on his wife – and then initially for the murder of 3,000 people at 9/11, they allocate 4 million. It ended up going to 12 or 13 million in the end but that alone should cause you to say there wasn’t a real investigation going to be done here.” he added.

Ventura also commented on the recent video releases from NIST, following Freedom of Information Act requests.Yesterday we highlighted a newly discovered video in which the director of the FBI in New York is seen interviewing firefighters after the collapse of one of the trade towers, and discussing “secondary hits” being responsible.

“NIST has all this information in their possession, and yet their report chooses to ignore it and not even mention it. How much more simple can it be for someone out there to look at that and go ’something is rotten in Denmark here’.” Ventura said.

“Shouldn’t they have at least addressed it and said that ‘well we had many reports of firefighters and officials saying bombs were going off’, and then give an explanation as to why these people were wrong?”

Ventura also had harsh words for the corporate media and it’s culpability in allowing a cover up to prosper.

“You have to remember, the mainstream media is not the ally.” Ventura said.

“I’m just baffled, it’s beyond words. The mainstream media, was supposed to be our fourth branch of government, the unwritten fourth branch by our forefathers. Their job was to be the check, to be the watchdog and watch the other three branches of government and keep them honest, and now that they have sold us out we are in dire straights.” he added.

“These stories should be the lead stories on TV right now. Not do downgrade you or I, but the only place they are hearing them is on your radio show and a few other non mainstream outlets.” Ventura told Jones.

“I’m getting censored more and more. The access that I had two years ago, I had way more two years ago than what I’m getting now. I’m being cut back too, I can’t get on all the shows I’d like to get on anymore.” he added.

Ventura also vilified the media’s portrayal of 9/11 researchers, noting that “The mainstream portrays 9/11 truthers as being some fringe element and some wild crazy liberals or whatever they are out there.”

“They don’t realise that the 9/11 truth movement, the great majority of it is professionals. These are not people that are crazy, in fact they are courageous because they are putting their professional integrity on the line to ask the questions.” Ventura asserted.

Jesse Ventura: 9/11 Footage Shows FBI Director Asking FDNY Film

You Were Made For This

By Clarissa Pinkola Estes

My friends, do not lose heart. We were made for these times. I have heard from so many recently who are deeply and properly bewildered. They are concerned about the state of affairs in our world now. Ours is a time of almost daily astonishment and often righteous rage over the latest degradations of what matters most to civilized, visionary people. 

You are right in your assessments. The lustre and hubris some have aspired to while endorsing acts so heinous against children, elders, everyday people, the poor, the unguarded, the helpless, is breathtaking. Yet, I urge you, ask you, gentle you, to please not spend your spirit dry by bewailing these difficult times. Especially do not lose hope. Most particularly because, the fact is that we were made for these times. Yes. For years, we have been learning, practicing, been in training for and just waiting to meet on this exact plain of engagement.

I grew up on the Great Lakes and recognize a seaworthy vessel when I see one. Regarding awakened souls, there have never been more able vessels in the waters than there are right now across the world. And they are fully provisioned and able to signal one another as never before in the history of humankind.

Look out over the prow; there are millions of boats of righteous souls on the waters with you. Even though your veneers may shiver from every wave in this stormy roil, I assure you that the long timbers composing your prow and rudder come from a greater forest. That long-grained lumber is known to withstand storms, to hold together, to hold its own, and to advance, regardless.

In any dark time, there is a tendency to veer toward fainting over how much is wrong or unmended in the world. Do not focus on that. There is a tendency, too, to fall into being weakened by dwelling on what is outside your reach, by what cannot yet be. Do not focus there. That is spending the wind without raising the sails.

We are needed, that is all we can know. And though we meet resistance, we more so will meet great souls who will hail us, love us and guide us, and we will know them when they appear. Didn't you say you were a believer? Didn't you say you pledged to listen to a voice greater? Didn't you ask for grace? Don't you remember that to be in grace means to submit to the voice greater?
Ours is not the task of fixing the entire world all at once, but of stretching out to mend the part of the world that is within our reach. Any small, calm thing that one soul can do to help another soul, to assist some portion of this poor suffering world, will help immensely. It is not given to us to know which acts or by whom, will cause the critical mass to tip toward an enduring good.

What is needed for dramatic change is an accumulation of acts, adding, adding to, adding more, continuing. We know that it does not take everyone on Earth to bring justice and peace, but only a small, determined group who will not give up during the first, second, or hundredth gale.

One of the most calming and powerful actions you can do to intervene in a stormy world is to stand up and show your soul. Soul on deck shines like gold in dark times. The light of the soul throws sparks, can send up flares, builds signal fires, causes proper matters to catch fire. To display the lantern of soul in shadowy times like these – to be fierce and to show mercy toward others; both are acts of immense bravery and greatest necessity.

Struggling souls catch light from other souls who are fully lit and willing to show it. If you would help to calm the tumult, this is one of the strongest things you can do.

There will always be times when you feel discouraged. I too have felt despair many times in my life, but I do not keep a chair for it. I will not entertain it. It is not allowed to eat from my plate.

The reason is this: In my uttermost bones I know something, as do you. It is that there can be no despair when you remember why you came to Earth, who you serve, and who sent you here. The good words we say and the good deeds we do are not ours. They are the words and deeds of the One who brought us here. In that spirit, I hope you will write this on your wall: When a great ship is in harbor and moored, it is safe, there can be no doubt. But that is not what great ships are built for.

Clarissa Pinkola Estes, Ph.D

Author of the best seller Women Who Run with the Wolves

WEDNESDAY, OCT 27, 2010 08:30 ET

WAR ROOM

Barack Obama: The oligarchs' president

BY CHARLES FERGUSON

Salon

When I first decided to make a documentary about the financial crisis, in late 2008, my biggest question was how to handle Barack Obama. Alas, the answer rapidly became all too clear, as my film "Inside Job" shows in painful detail.

When Barack Obama was elected, he had an unprecedented opportunity to shape American history by bringing the country's new financial oligarchy under control. Elected on a platform of change and renewal by a nation in crisis and with strong majorities in both houses of Congress, his election celebrated throughout the world, Obama could have done great things. Instead, he gave us more of the same. America will be paying for his decision for a very long time.

The first troubling sign was his personnel appointments: Larry Summers, the man behind nearly every disastrous policy that created the crisis, fresh from making $20 million from hedge funds and investment banks while at Harvard, to become the director of the National Economic Council; Tim Geithner, plucked from the New York Federal Reserve Bank and put in charge at Treasury; as Geithner's chief of staff, Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist; to succeed Geithner at the New York Fed, William C. Dudley, who was chief economist of Goldman Sachs during the housing bubble years; Michael Froman, straight from Citigroup Alternative Investments, which lost billions while its executives became rich, to coordinate economic policy for the National Security Council; Jacob Lew, who was the CFO of Citigroup Alternative Investments, as deputy secretary of state (and now, Obama's nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget); Gary Gensler, a former Goldman executive who helped ban the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives, to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates derivatives; Mary Shapiro, former head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency, the investment banking industry’s self-policing body, to run the Securities and Exchange Commission; reappointing Ben Bernanke. And on and on.

These moves were excused as the understandable actions of a president-elect without a background in finance turning to the most experienced people in a time of crisis. But even then, it was clear that these people had been part of the problem, not the solution, and that other highly competent but untainted candidates were available.

And now, nearly two years later, the Obama administration has established a clear record. Beginning almost immediately, the president consistently opposed any effort to control financial industry compensation -- even for firms receiving federal aid, as most were in 2009. Then came a long period of total inaction, followed by the toothless Wall Street reform bill passed this summer and the appointment of a former Fannie Mae lobbyist, Tom Donilon, as the new national security advisor. There was no action on the foreclosure crisis and no serious attempt to investigate the causes of the crisis. The SEC has brought only a handful of civil cases ending in trivial fines, with neither firms nor individuals required to admit any wrongdoing.

Most tellingly, there has not been a single criminal prosecution of any firm or any individual senior financial executive -- literally zero -- and, of course, no appointment of a special prosecutor. While we can debate the extent to which fraud caused the crisis, and precisely how much fraud was committed, the answer is clearly not zero. We already know that Lehman and other firms used fake accounting to hide liabilities and inflate assets; that lenders and securitizers frequently knew that the loans they sold and packaged were fraudulent or defective; and, of course, we also now know that Goldman Sachs and other investment banks sold securities they knew to be defective (they were often sold to pension funds for low-paid government employees, by the way) -- and that they designed many of these securities so that they could profit by betting against them after they were sold. Stunningly, this last practice was not ipso facto illegal; but as a practical matter, it’s pretty hard to do if you’re telling the truth. Yet nobody has been prosecuted, and only a very few individuals have even been sued in civil cases.

It is, in short, overwhelmingly clear that President Obama and his administration decided to side with the oligarchs -- or at least not to challenge them. This raises the question of why they have made this choice, and whether it is a correct (in the sense of rationally self-interested) calculation on their part.

As to the "why," several explanations have been proposed. One is that the president, as a matter of individual psychology, is extremely conflict-averse, preferring to avoid fights no matter how important. A second hypothesis is that the president is simply doing the most he can, given the political climate and the furious lobbying effort with which he is confronted. This explanation, however, is belied by the personnel appointments, among other evidence.

A more disturbing possibility is that the Obama administration has simply codified a new strategic equilibrium in American politics, one first devised by the Clinton administration, in which both parties are supine with regard to the financial sector and the wealthy.

The objection to this view is that there is some evidence, in conventional political terms, that the Obama strategy of giving in to Wall Street might be a mistake. The economy remains in bad shape, bad enough to be a major political handicap, and will likely stay that way for several years. Democrats are having trouble fundraising (from individuals, at least; interest group donors remain plentiful), union voters may desert them, and it looks like Republicans and the Tea Party will make substantial inroads in the midterm elections. The liberal media, most prominently the Huffington Post but many other outlets as well, have turned sharply critical of administration policy. And my own conversations with friends and colleagues have revealed a deep, angry disillusionment with Obama.

But consider the situation more broadly. If the two parties both lie down for Wall Street in roughly equal measure, but fight viciously over other issues, it is possible to construct a stable strategic equilibrium. At the margin, the Democrats are slightly less favorable to business, at least for unionized industries, but nobody upsets the financial sector apple cart.

This angers much of the Democratic base. But the Democrats avoid the epic confrontation that would surely ensue if they were to take on the financial sector, which would retaliate with a massively funded effort. Instead, the two parties fight furiously, or at least pretend to fight furiously, about a wide range of other social issues that affect many voters deeply -- abortion, gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, creationism, global warming, health insurance and so on. Each side can credibly warn its base that if it deserts the party, apocalypse may follow. So, while some citizens may register as independents, or stop voting, or stop donating to the system, the entrenched establishments of both parties will remain safe.

Of course, the sustainability of this strategic duopoly depends on the absence of truly independent challenges, such as third parties. Third parties can and do arise in America -- George Wallace, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and, now (sort of), the Tea Party -- but they tend to be short-lived, in part because they face enormous structural obstacles in becoming a sustainable political force. For one, America doesn't have a parliamentary system, and most localities don’t use ranked-choice or "instant-runoff" voting. Plus, given the structure of American elections, the Obama administration can credibly warn, pointing to the example of Ralph Nader, that any splinter effort would hand the White House to the Republicans. And, given the enormous role now played by money in American elections, the logistical and financial efforts required to create a grass-roots third party would be huge. In contrast, the financial sector possesses the twin advantages of concentration and cohesion on the one hand, and of enormous financial resources on the other.

So, then, the Obama administration’s choices may be depressingly rational, given the "quiet coup," to use Simon Johnson’s term, constituted by the spectacular rise of the financial industry and the wealthy over the last quarter-century. This does not mean we should all despair; there have been times before in American history when the American people had to force their leaders to follow them. A century ago, the progressive movement achieved major reforms in the face of an economy even more concentrated than today. But it won’t be easy. To reverse the hegemony of the financial sector, and the danger it poses both to economic stability and to real democracy, will require an enormous outpouring of popular anger and organizational energy, probably a considerable period of time, and perhaps could be generated only by ... another, even worse, financial crisis, such as might well occur a decade hence, given the absence of real reform after this one…

Charles Ferguson’s new film, "Inside Job," a documentary about the financial crisis, is now in theaters nationwide. Ferguson holds a B.A. in mathematics from U.C. Berkeley, a Ph.D. In political science from MIT, and is the author of four books on various policy issues. "Inside Job" is his second film; his first, "No End in Sight," analyzed the occupation of Iraq and was nominated for an Academy Award in 2008.

Physicist Jeff Farrer - one of the scientists who found thermite in the World Trade Center dust

JIvamukti 9/11 1st Responder Benefit

On Sept 10th 2010, Jivamukti Yoga and Lululemon Union Square Raised over $500 dollors for Feal Good Foundation.




Ken George

John Devlin

Hosted By Satyavira

9/11 Truth Has Won - The Coming of the Flood

link:  http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/6160-the-coming-of-the-flood.html

Why 9-11 Truth Has Won - The Coming of the Flood

Monday, 25 October 2010 15:21

By Allen L. Jasson Introduction
I recently wrote in MWC News arguing the case for Why 9-11 Truth Has Won, due primarily to the weight of irrefutable scientific proof of the two key elements that evidence controlled demolition of the three WTC Towers – free fall collapse and the presence of thermite, explaining the total absence of structural resistance. For this and for other reasons the successful demand by the 9-11 Truth Movement and others for a new, wider, proper investigation is only a matter of time. The flood would come. The recent political squabble in Australia represents further breaching of the dam wall that will bring that flood.

 

 

For those who usually give no attention to the list of US client states that rubber-stamp the UN votes of the US and Israel and contribute to the thin veneer of moral legitimacy of its obviously illegal wars for oil and empire, Australia is that large Southern Hemisphere continent between Indonesia and Antarctica. Aside from assisting the CIA in minor ways in its intrigues against the Chilean, left-wing government of Salvador Allende in 1973 the Australian secret services were doing their treasonous part at home by contributing to similar intrigues against the Australian, left-wing government of Gough Whitlam. Many Australians today understand that both of the major parties dominant in Australian politics (just as in the US and Britain) are, in the words of George Galloway “two cheeks of the same backside” and that whichever is in office, which always depends on the consent of the US ambassador and the foreign owned corporate media, the government is a US-compliant puppet no different to those of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kevin Bracken appears to be one Australian who understands the situation and gave some indication of it in his attack on a radio talk-show host with the comment that “Unfortunately cowards like yourself have set the political agenda in this country for too long”. In his position, as Victorian Trades Hall president, he probably knows better than most how Australia’s situation came to be. But Bracken has opened another great crack in the dam wall for 9-11 Truth with his public comments that the attacks of 9-11 were not the result of terrorist activity and that the official story was itself a conspiracy theory that "didn't stand up" to scientific scrutiny.

Stamping on the Ants’ Nest

Predictably, Bracken’s comments brought out the swarms of angry demands for silence. The talk show host instantly drew the “nutter theory” card and dismissed any suggestion of debate, the political “opposition” demanded that the government take action against Bracken “to send a message that such remarks are unacceptable” and the Prime Minister dismissed the comments as “stupid and wrong”. This pattern of certain opinions being “unacceptable” or offensive is so long established in Australia that it has become part of the “culture”. One is often told, in the manner of a gentle warning, that “you’re entitled to your opinion” but the expression of opinion, particularly if at variance with the accepted wisdom, is generally regarded as anti-social behaviour. Having the audacity to ardently defend an opinion is a social outrage that will attract a reputation for intellectual arrogance or, in the Australian idiom, being “up yourself”. Corporate power has assumed the de facto role of censor and enforcer having not only the capacity to deny livelihood or career advancement but also to deny service when “unacceptable” opinions are expressed (For example).

Opinion flows from the top as a lava of unfounded assertions such as “It was a terrorist attack, and we condemn it” from zealous lackeys to power like Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd while contrary opinions may be dismissed out of hand as “stupid and wrong”, also without any need for rational substantiation.

However, none of these defenders of the nest, it seems, has realised that their exertions only emphasize that if these views were so “stupid and wrong” they would be no threat to the establishment view, and probably would not be shared by more than 50% of the Australian public. Still more, none of these instruments of managed public opinion has the wit to understand that once the accepted wisdom is seen as obviously flawed, the tactic of silencing all debate on the subject only further entrenches the widespread view that there are matters in need of debate and that resistance to it suggests they may somehow pose a threat to established power.

It was the opposition’s shadow Attorney General, Robert Clarke who made the inevitable appeal to “support the troops” in claiming that the remarks “were a direct insult to Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan”; this from a man who should realise their presence there is illegal. Here again, we have remarks reflecting a failure to realise that a public increasingly unhappy about an ongoing involvement in Afghanistan, even those who find offensive any reference to the ongoing murder and maiming of Afghan civilians, may be inclined to consider that it would mean something far worse than an “insult” to Australian soldiers if indeed, it should emerge that they are fighting a war for profit for oil companies based on a lie (particularly if there is little sign of an Australian share in the spoils falling to influential people)..

Losing Their Grip

In general, the organizations of the left/progressive movements have been tirelessly relentless in their persistence in tactics that are now obviously failing, if they ever were successful. (Why?) The unbelievable stupidity of engaging in absurd antics to attract the attention of corrupt, corporate, mainstream media to their causes is still evident and demonstrations are still the tactic of choice despite the now obvious indifference of governments to the numbers and to emerging public disillusion, not only with these forms of dissent, but to the political process in general. The people who own western capitalism on the other hand maintain and apply a knowledge base that grows with experience and usually adapt their methods. Their resort to overworn tactics for stifling debate is unusually inept and suggests that in spite of their now universal daily access to the minds of the masses they are losing their grip.

Given the now widespread awareness of:

• The fallacy of “liberation” of Iraq
• The absence of WMD
• The transfer of Iraqi oil reserves to control of US companies
• The invalid association of Iraq with Afghanistan in terrorism
• The expanded US influence in the Middle East as a result of these wars
• The many other exposed dishonesties involved in initiating them
• UN opposition to them
• Their now obvious and widely acknowledged illegality
• The PNAC call for a “new Pearl Harbour”
• The ongoing racism, violence and savagery against the civilian populations,

and many other matters that are under discussion outside the realm of the corporate mainstream media, it seems all the more surprisingly inept that the establishment reflexes are resorting to tactics of silencing debate.

Given the vast amount of material now available outside the realm of the corporate mainstream media, which not only discredits the official account but also points strongly to the “inside job” conclusion, there is a lot for inquisitive minds to discover when motivated by conspicuously suspicious attempts to silence debate. It has to be conceded that some of this material is trite rubbish; one thread of discussion even asserted that the planes that struck the towers were holograms. But people understand that there will always be this diversionary element. Indeed, it’s an acknowledged tactic in the information wars to infuse such nonsense into the opponent’s camp.

However, returning to my original point as to why 9-11 Truth has won, there is irrefutable science underpinning the key facts that point to controlled demolition. Awareness of these facts will inevitably reach and capture public opinion.

No Honour Among Thieves

We are all compromised by capitalism; it’s only a matter of degree. We are born into a system based on ownership in which all the sources of all the things we need in order to live, love and raise children are already owned, were already owned generations before we were born. Most people don’t give much thought to this; they simply learn to comply with the mechanisms of control that this system applies to them in order to serve their needs and assume the context as given. Consequently, all the way from the corrupt politician who “knows” that playing politics is like wrestling a pig and thinks “the price is worth it”, the compliant journalist who avoids any consideration that if his opinions were different he would not have a job, the many professionals who think that professionalism necessarily involves moral compromise, the soldier who kills civilians for sport and dismisses it as “his job”, the interrogator who says “The Christian in me knows it’s wrong, but the corrections officer in me just loves to see a grown man piss himself”, all the way down to ordinary Joe who knows better than to discuss politics at work, there are degrees of cooperation with the system’s immorality and a general reluctance to see ourselves in the context of the bigger picture: an evasion of responsibility for what the capitalist system we all contribute to and depend on is doing to human beings, human destiny  and the planet.

In this context the widespread acceptance of the idea that “Saddam Hussein had to be got rid of” and public concern to “liberate the people of Iraq”, despite universal indifference to their appalling suffering under 12 years of our cruel sanctions, can only be seen as wilful self deception. Similarly, the often heard argument about ‘our’ obligation to the people of Afghanistan due to the disaster that might befall them if we leave, despite the regular slaughter of Afghan civilians every day that we are there and the fact of history that in the late 1970s they had, of their own making, a more open, secular, moderate, tolerant and egalitarian society than ever they could hope for under the boot of western occupation and that it was destroyed by western meddling, is as perverse a notion as the “white man’s burden”. Australians generally understand, and with increasing stake in the nation’s economy according to their social strata, are generally committed to the idea that “if we keep in good with the US and the US gets its oil then our economy will be healthy and we will be able to pay the mortgage and upgrade the BMW next year and all will be well. – don’t rock the boat!”.

I had a very stark encounter with this one day in 2007 in a café in Bruges where I met a group of obviously affluent Australian tourists, all four of them grossly overweight and still gorging themselves on Belgian chocolates and cream-cakes. I was so disgusted with this and their self-congratulatory conversation that I was moved to take them to task over the fact of Australia’s disgraceful involvement in the war in Iraq, in consequence of which millions of Iraqis were without basic essentials, even clean water while they sat here stuffing their faces. One spluttering, red-faced, angry response that emerged obviously from some primordial, irrational, subconscious corner of this unexplored mind was “Every country has the right to defend its economy!”.  I was awestruck at what this “Freudian slip” revealed.

Notwithstanding the widespread, vehement opposition to the wars that have arisen in consequence of 9-11 the equally widespread passive, silent coalescence and even support of the kind that parrots the obviously flawed arguments in support of them, is in fact complicity; people who are wilfully deceived or unwilling to voice contrary opinions because they are compromised by their share in the spoils – the paltry crumbs that fall from the table, however vile the crimes that brought the loaf to be cut.

But the wealth gap has been widening for the past 30 years and the rate at which it widens is becoming extreme. The privatisation and increased charging for essential resources, the growth in regressive taxation, tax havens and concessions for the wealthy, the shift of government expenditure from health care, education and public services to infrastructure amenities for capital, corporate subsidies, football stadiums and other sweeteners to established wealth and capital are creating massive exclusion. The suburbs of cities have become people farms full of welfare dependants kept ill educated and ignorant by decrepit and decaying education systems whilst ill informed and diverted by television “news and entertainment”. Greed and corruption in both the government and private sectors has rendered impossible any hope or desire to correct the situation and people of wealth with any vestigial capacity for moral reflection sigh a “ho hum” at the depravity of their advantage. Meanwhile the global, economic ship is already faltering on the rocks of corruption, financial incompetence, outstripped energy resources and a declining, overheating biosphere.

The Effect of Emerging Truth

Kevin Bracken is a prominent person who has voiced key points in the public domain:

• The attacks only worked because the US Government was in some way involved
• It couldn't have happened unless there was participation from key elements of the American military and government and security services
• The official story for September 11 doesn't stack up
• The buildings were imploded
• Aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire
• If they want to stop terrorism they've got to look at who was really behind September 11,

These points are only a fragment and have all been said before but very little repeated in the mainstream media – by contrast with the opposite views.  They are being met with demands to “shut up” based on hollow and illogical claims they are insulting and disrespectful and unfounded assertions they are stupid and wrong. The union movement, of which Kevin Bracken is an executive, is being chastened into “damage control” with officials being compelled to publicly distance themselves from Bracken’s remarks, which serves only to reinforce the sense of public figures being coerced by power into alignment with the accepted, official wisdom, a phenomenon that has been starkly evident since September 12^th 2001.

But even as Bracken was speaking callers were phoning in to ask such things as “I think if you've seen the videos of [one tower] - nothing hit it and it fell down. I mean, what's the story there?" or to assert “The investigation was a joke and most thinking people agree”.  Similarly, despite the silence of mainstream media about the facts supporting views contrary to the official explanation, information is circulating and two (of some 500) comments on an Australian, online publication of the story (one of them incidentally from a reader in the US) made the following significant points:

a)      World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper that would have been the tallest building in 35 states and was nearly a football field in length and 140 feet wide, came down in about 7 seconds at 5:20 pm on 9/11 at freefall acceleration for over 100 feet. The only way an object can fall at freefall acceleration is through air. WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns that would have had to [be] removed simultaneously on 8 floors in order for freefall to have occurred. WTC 7 had fires on only a few floors; fires that persisted in any given place for only 20-30 minutes. Ordinary office fires (and jet fuel fires, although WTC 7 was not hit by a plane) cannot exceed 1,000 ºC. Steel is an excellent heat sink and does not reach the same temperature as a fire except over a prolonged period of time. The fire proofing for WTC 7 was not compromised.

b)      Even members of the US Govt’s own 9/11 Commission who wrote the official version of events have now labelled the official story a fabrication. The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was all based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. John Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report. In his book released last year: The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version is almost entirely untrue... Farmer states clearly in his book... at some level of the government, at some point in time there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened...On that basis alone, even putting aside the compelling scientific evidence that the planes did not bring down the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings, Kevin Bracken is quite rightly calling for a proper investigation so that the truth be known.

Bracken is not alone. Intellectuals all over the world and even members of the Japanese and European parliament, not to mention the “unmentionable” Iranian President Ahmadinejad have publicly voiced doubts or urged debate about 9-11.

What this points to is that there is a widespread public debate going on, despite its invisibility in the mainstream media. It’s a highly informed and astute debate that is sorting the grain from the chaff and there are some substantial facts that this debate will inevitably bring to widespread acceptance with potent impact.

It points to the old saying that you can fool some of the people all the time and even all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. The time is fast approaching when very few of the people are fooled by all the adamant, hollow assertion of the official 9-11 conspiracy theory, or cowered into submission by the bullying coercion of its powerful adherents.

As one Australian trade union official said, regardless of the leadership compliance with demands to distance themselves from Bracken’s remarks, and even question his future in the movement, his comments have kindled renewed, intense debate within the movement and no doubt also among its rank and file membership.

Airing the Linen

The Bush era and the consequent ten years of war have fomented intense international disenchantment with the US. In Australia, the once widespread enchantment with all things America has shrunk to the confines of the entrepreneurial and affluent middle class. The inevitable debate about 9-11 will occur in this context and there is a lot of unclean linen associated with US involvement in Australian domestic political and economic affairs, past and present, which may be dragged out for airing.

Bracken’s comments are just one significant breach of the dam. There will be others, many others, because the world is full of people who will dare to ask for more than a world run by psychopathic criminals; people who can inflict pain suffering, injury, even death without empathy, compassion or remorse. As the debate goes on outside the compliant mainstream media it will intensify because it comes from a human spirit full of imagination and creative energy that lives outside the artificial confines of a bogus social system dominated by people who manipulate it to their own designs and indulgence, people who, by their very lack of scruple, circumspect or conviction for anything other than the accumulation of wealth, rise to dominate it and, having done so, corrupt and coerce others to their own image.

The change is coming. The flood will come.

 In Australia, as in other places, there will be wider ramifications.

Satyavira

Weekend NewsDump WikiLeaks website publishes classified military documents from Iraq By the CNN Wire Staff

WikiLeaks website publishes classified military documents from Iraq By the CNN Wire Staff

Washington (CNN) -- The whistle-blower website WikiLeaks published nearly 400,000 classified military documents from the Iraq war on Friday, calling it the largest classified military leak in history.

The latest round of leaked documents provides a new picture of how many Iraqi civilians have been killed, a new window on the role that Iran has played in supporting Iraqi militants and many accounts of abuse by Iraqi's army and police, according to The New York Times.

The Times was one of a handful of news organizations that was provided early access to the papers.

According to new documents, the vast majority of slain civilians were killed by other Iraqis.

The U.S. military is notifying Iraqis named in the documents, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told CNN.

"There are 300 names of Iraqis in here that we think would be particularly endangered by their exposure," he said. "We have passed that information on to U.S. Forces Iraq. They are in the process right now of contacting those Iraqis to try to safeguard them."

The Pentagon had not previously warned Iraqi civilians who have cooperated with the United States that their names may be posted on the internet.

"We don't want to start notifying people and then find out that their names aren't in any of these documents that are released," Col. David Lapan, a top Pentagon spokesman, said earlier Friday. "Why put people through the trouble and the concern for no reason?"

The Pentagon denounced the release, which WikiLeaks said comprised 391,832 reports.

Video: WikiLeaks posts more documents

Video: Why the world needs WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks 101: Exposing secrets online

Video: WikiLeaks founder ditches interview

RELATED TOPICS

• Wikileaks.org
• U.S. Department of Defense
• Iraq War

"This is all classified secret information never designed to be exposed to the public," Morrell told CNN Friday. "Our greatest fear is that it puts our troops in even greater danger than they inherently are on these battlefields. That it will expose tactics, techniques and procedures -- how they operate on the battlefield, how they respond under attack, the capabilities of our equipment ... how we cultivate sources (and) how we work with Iraqis."

After a similar release of 77,000 classified documents from the war in Afghanistan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said Wiki Leaks "might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

Morrell echoed that sentiment Friday.

"We know in the aftermath of the Afghan document leak that the Taliban and others spoke publicly, encouraging their members to mine that database -- our intelligence confirmed that fact," he told CNN. "Now you will have virtually half a million classified secret documents in the public domain which our enemies clearly intend to use against us.

"That can endanger the lives of American forces, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the world," Morrell said.

WikiLeaks has shown a much heavier hand redacting the new round of documents compared to its previous publication of documents.

Editor-in-chief Julian Assange told CNN's Atika Shubert the site was more "vigorous" this time compared to the Afghanistan process.

An initial comparison of a few documents redacted by WikiLeaks to the same documents released by the Department of Defense shows that WikiLeaks removed more information than the Pentagon.

The documents detail Iran's role in supplying Iraqi militia fighters with weapons, including the most lethal type of roadside bomb.

Field reports released Friday assert that Iraqi militants traveled to Iran for training as snipers and in using explosives, according to the Times. Iran's Quds Force urged Iraqi extremists it was working with to kill Iraqi officials, the Times reported.

CNN was offered access to the documents in advance of the release but declined because of conditions that were attached to accepting the material.

According to an analysis by the Guardian, a British newspaper, the documents detail torture, summary executions and war crimes.

U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, the documents show, according to the Guardian.

The Times said that hundreds of reports of beatings, burnings and lashings suggested that "such treatment was not an exception." Most abuse cases contained in the new batch of leaks appear to have been ultimately ignored, the paper said.

The Times said that military rules require forces to report abuse to Iraqi authorities, but suggested that there was little follow-up on abuse reports.

The group Iraq Body Count said that the new documents reveal 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths, raising the group's civilian death toll to 122,000.

"It's the largest single addition to our database since we began it," the anti-war group's co-founder, John Sloboda, told CNN.

WikiLeaks' Assange told CNN in an exclusive interview Friday that the new round of field reports shows "compelling evidence of war crimes" committed by forces of the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government.

The Pentagon's Morrell rebutted that charge.

"We vetted every single one of the documents, word by word, page by page," Morrell told CNN, saying the vetting began in July. "There is nothing in here which would indicate war crimes. If there were, we would have investigated it a long time ago."

A group of 120 Defense Department experts has been poring over hundreds of thousands of "Significant Action Reports" that they expected to be posted to the WikiLeaks website.

In a news release, the group said the documents detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, encompassing 66,081 civilians, 23,984 insurgents, 15,196 Iraqi government forces and 3,771 coalition forces, according to the classifications used by the U.S. military.

Assange said the documents contained more than 1,000 reports on the torture or abuse of detainees by Iraqi government forces and that he expects that 40 wrongful death lawsuits will be filed as a result of the new leaks.

He dismissed concerns that the publication of the documents could endanger U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, asserting that the Pentagon "cannot find a single person that has been harmed" due to WikiLeaks' previous release of 76,000 pages of documents related to the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

"We strongly condemn the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and will not comment on these leaked documents other than to note that 'significant activities' reports are initial, raw observations by tactical units," the Department of Defense said in a Friday statement. "They are essentially snapshots of events, both tragic and mundane, and do not tell the whole story. That said, the period covered by these reports has been well-chronicled in news stories, books and films and the release of these field reports does not bring new understanding to Iraq's past.

"However, it does expose secret information that could make our troops even more vulnerable to attack in the future," the statement continued. "Just as with the leaked Afghan documents, we know our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources, and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment. This security breach could very well get our troops and those they are fighting with killed."

Ryan Crocker, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, said this week he is concerned for the safety of the Iraqis who may be mentioned.

"What I'd really be worried about in this context, we're not fighting a hot war," Crocker said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Tuesday. "It's not the same set of issues in Afghanistan, although there may be some carryover. I'd really be worried if, as looks to be the case, you have Iraqi political figures named in a context or a connection that can make them politically and physically vulnerable to their adversaries.

"It just has an utterly chilling effect on the willingness of political figures to talk to us, not just in Iraq, anywhere in the world. And I think a hugely irresponsible step on the part of WikiLeaks. Just in a different sense than we saw in Afghanistan, this, too, is going to put lives at risk needlessly and irresponsibly."