Search This Blog

Monday, June 22, 2009

MUST READ -- No-Plane-Theory

Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Originally published March 2008.
Broken links updated June 2009.

by CB_Brooklyn

(mirrored @

From the moment people thought that planes crashed in the World Trade Center, the brainwashing had begun.

The “official” account of Boeing 767s striking the North and South Towers, at 400+MPH and 500+MPH respectively, became glued in peoples’ minds as “fact” because of the “tee-vee”. Good ol’ tee-vee. We all trust the media.

Even in 1938, when Orson Welles directed a special Halloween radio broadcast of the novel “War of the Worlds”, millions of Americans believed Martians were invading earth. Everyone trusts the media! (As a side note, I’d like to advertise a new article by Andrew Johnson: “Mars Anomalies”.)

It should come to no surprise how the media affects peoples’ minds and our culture, and the media’s reporting of 9/11 is no exception.

The 9/11 coverup perpetrators had their deceptive propaganda well planned. With their total control over the media they successfully conditioned most into believing their “19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims” story. People were overwhelmed; their brains saturated with the propaganda.

November 10, 2001 - George W Bush brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of “inside job” is crazy: ”Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.” [removed]

But the propaganda didn’t stop there. The coverup perps, the experts they are, knew some people would see through their “boxcutter” deception, so they crafted an alternate propaganda… specifically targeting those already suspicious of the “official” story.

Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

This alternate propaganda is promoted by government plants within the “truth movement”, along with its fabricated evidence (such as molten metal). Of course, the media carefully publicize this “evidence” as a “wacky conspiracy theory”…

November 14, 2005 - Tucker Carlson brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of an “inside job” theory is offensive. Steven Jones promotes the “alternate propaganda”:

Yet, the coverup perpetrators use ridicule to keep the “REAL” version hidden…

December 6, 2006 - Steven E Jones brainwashes the 9/11 “truth movement” into thinking the idea of directed energy weapons and no planes is “crazy disinfo”: “Of late, [Jim Fetzer] refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”

Jones is one of many in and around the “truth movement” associated with Los Alamos where Directed Energy Weapons are researched. See here to learn how the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media. Jones also suppressed free energy research in ways that mirror his 9/11 coverup:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
By CB_Brooklyn

Timeline of Events Involving Steve Jones, Crockett Grabbe and Steve Koonin
By Russ Gerst

If no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, why didn’t the media use it to discredit the “truth movement”? Here’s a video of Dr Morgan Reynolds on FOX News:

Certainly if no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, the media would have invited Dr Reynolds back. Why didn’t they?

On top of that, why didn’t the media report Reynolds’ or Wood’s court cases, represented by Attorney Jerry Leaphart?

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.

Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels

Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels

UPDATE!!! While composing this article the author became aware of the following:

New York Times
“For Engineer, a Cloud of Litigation After 9/11”
By Jim Dwyer
February 23, 2008

The relevant quote is as follows (emphasis added):

”… one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.”

Wood and Reynolds have filed two separate lawsuits.

No mention of Wood/Reynolds/Leaphart’s names in the Times article.


Let us review…

The media (i.e. MSNBC):
promote the “official” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “alternate” version as the “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
shun the “REAL” version and court cases

Plants in the ”truth movement” (i.e. Steven Jones):
promote the “alternate” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “REAL” version as “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”

We can now understand why many “truthers” shy away from no-planes/TV-Fakery. Seems the 9/11 coverup perps tricked the “truth movement” with a well orchestrated plan of deception! Will these theories really “damage” the “truth movement”, or has the movement merely been tricked into thinking so?

Many “truthers” often wonder why the mainstream media hasn’t broken the “inside job” story yet. The reason is simple: The 9/11 perps have not been exposed. (Check the “Suppression Timeline” linked above.)

Only after the real 9/11 perpetrators are widely exposed with the media break!

Will “truthers” finally start promoting no-planes/TV-Fakery? If the “truth movement” can’t admit their mistakes, why should the average person? People will simply continue believing what they feel most comfortable with: the “boxcutter” story. They don’t care about the evidence. Why should they? After all, the “truth movement” doesn’t. Or do they???

How many “truthers” have looked at the no-planes/TV-Fakery evidence lately… evidence that anyone can understand?

Below you will find a ton of evidence. Look it through… you maybe surprised!



Claim: Just the idea that planes were projected in the air is loony tune crazy!

FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).

Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

… has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."

Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.


Claim: Thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers witnessed commercial airliners hit the towers.

FACT: Few people reported hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle.

A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert:

Wide body commercial airliners are LOUD:

A very small percentage of the approximately 500 First Responders at the WTC reported seeing commercial airliners. An even smaller number reported hearing them. However, they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on. See this analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews for full information:

Going in Search of Planes in NYC - by Andrew Johnson

Two examples…

WTC Task Force Interview
Stephen Gregory
Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Communications

Excerpts (pages 20-21) (emphasis added):

Q. Where were you when the second plane hit?
A. We were down at the command post between Liberty and Albany on the west side of West Street. …

Q. Did you see or hear the second plane before it hit the World Trade Center?

A. I never actually saw the plane, but l heard it. You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane. I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank. It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball. I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there.

user posted image

WTC Task Force Interview
Murray Murad
Lieutenant Investigator, Bureau of Investigations and Trials

Excerpts (pages 2-5) (emphasis added) [my comments in brackets]:

Well, I was conducting business down on Greenwich and Liberty at Engine 10, Truck 10, on that day.

It was about 8:41 that we heard a plane hovering over the fire house. It sounded like the plane was right on top of us.
[400MPH airplanes do not “hover”]

So about two or three minutes after hearing it, you heard something like revving. We took a look, and, boom, the north tower is hit.
[Is “two or three minutes” realistic? Being that 400 MPH is well over 5 mile a minute, did Murad also hear planes take off and land at LaGuardia Airport, approximately 10 miles away?]

Maybe about 10 to 12-minutes after that first plane, I heard another plane. Then I said to myself, we're being attacked.

I ran downstairs. No sooner did I run downstairs and look up, that I saw the second plane strike the south tower. It was such a vicious hit and such a precision hit, it was unbelievable.
[How come he didn’t report the deafening sound of a 500+ MPH commercial jet right above hit head?]


A precision hit all right. But… retired commercial airline / military pilot, Russ Wittenberg, who flew for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, piloted Flight 93 (Shanksville) and Flight 175 (South Tower) before 9/11. He says the alleged hijackers could not have flown those planes:


This analysis of the book “Never Forget: An Oral History of September 11, 2001” also has some interesting quotes:

The Original No Planers: Most Witnesses at the WTC Heard And Saw No Planes
By Morgan Reynolds

A few selected quotes (emphasis added):

• Gary Smiley, 38, FDNY paramedic, was carrying an injured woman across Church Street who kept yelling "plane" and Smiley recalled, "I looked up at that point, and that's when the second plane hit the South Tower. The explosion was unbelievable. It was right over my head. You didn't hear anything. People ask me sometimes, 'What did you hear?' I heard nothing. "

• John Abruzzo, 43, staff accountant, Port Authority, and C5-C6 quadriplegic: "I worked on the 69th floor of the North Tower...My desk faces north. I can see over my partition out the north windows. I don't remember hearing any sound, or an explosion. But I do remember that the building suddenly swayed, and that it swayed in one direction only. I thought the building was going to collapse right then and there. We've been in storms, you know, where the building sways back and forth, but that's took an hour and a half to get from the 69th floor down to the street level, and another ten to fifteen minutes to get to Stuyvesant High School."

• Steven Bienkowski, 37, NYPD Harbor Unit Scuba Team: "I happened to be sitting in the back left side of the (helicopter) ship. There were two pilots, two crew chiefs, my partner, and I. We were on the southwest side of the South Tower, and I glanced over my shoulder and there came a United Airlines aircraft right at us, a little bit underneath where we were. And I do mean a little bit underneath us. It probably missed us by about three hundred feet, and it proceeded to fly right through the building, right in front of us. I must have gone numb. I don't remember hearing an explosion, although it must have been extremely loud. I don't remember the helicopter moving...When that second plane went into the building, it just looked like an evil magician's trick. It looked nothing like what I would have imagined a plane crashing into a building would look like. The plane just completely disappeared and turned into a giant fireball. Being there was surreal. I guess the brain tries to protect you in times like that. You have some kind of defense mechanism in there that shuts down some of your senses. It just doesn't allow you to believe."


An interesting fact: CameraPlanet was responsible for collecting the amateur footage on 9/11.
Its owner, Steven Rosenbaum, is a magician:


Some witnesses reported explosions, bombs and missiles. A few examples:

National Review has this quote: “I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile. This could be World War III."

The BBC reports: I distinctly remember somebody saying: “A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit.”

According to a CNN transcript, a reporter said: a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. An eyewitness also states: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange.

This eyewitness specifically says NO plane, just a bomb:


Claim: Airplane wreckage proves planes hit the towers.

FACT: The available evidence does not add up.

WTC Task Force Interview
Stephen Gregory
Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Communications

Excerpt (page 20) (emphasis added):

Q. The airplane parts that you referred to, they were on West Street or on Vesey Street?
A. I saw airplane parts on West Street.
Q. How did you know they were airplane parts?
A. It looked like pieces of a plane, skin of a plane. I mean, they weren't really discernible. I couldn't say this was this part of a plane or that was that part. Just knowing a plane had hit the building and I looked and I saw it looked like the skin off a wing or a fuselage or wherever it came from.
Q. Clearly not building material?
A. No. The building material was sort of gray and you could see it, you know, how it differed from the plane. …

WTC Task Force Interview
Salvatore Cassano

Excerpt (pages 14-15) (emphasis added):

Q. On Vesey Street when you first arrived there, what was the scene like? That was where the first plane that hit. Was there any debris on that street?

A. No, there was no debris on that street at all from the first plane. I drove right up there and then like I said, I had just opened my door and the second -- I thought it was the secondary explosion. I didn't know it was another plane in the south tower, because when I heard it, I looked up and I saw debris. It had to be debris flying over from the south tower. Not much, but there was enough coming down in the street where I took off and I ducked into a garage until it cleared up.

After the secondary explosion in the north tower, I didn't know what the hell - I didn't know it was another plane that had hit until I got around to the command post.

There are NO verified airplane parts.
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests were filed but the government refuses to release documentation:

user posted image

See here for more:


Claim: Just the idea the TV Networks and military would work together to deceive the public is wacky cookoo!

FACT: The TV Networks/Military/PSYOPS connection was reported by the media before 9/11.

“Army 'psyops' at CNN - News giant employed military 'psychological operations' personnel”
By Geoff Metcalf
March 3, 2000

Some notable quotes (emphasis added):

CNN employed active duty U.S. Army psychological operations personnel last year, WorldNetDaily has confirmed through several sources at Fort Bragg and elsewhere.

Maj. Thomas Collins, U.S. Information Service has confirmed that "psyops" (psychological operations) personnel, soldiers and officers, have worked in the CNN headquarters in Atlanta. The lend/lease exercise was part of an Army program called "Training With Industry." According to Collins, the soldiers and officers, "... worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news."

The CNN military personnel were members of the Airmobile Fourth Psychological Operations Group, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. One of the main tasks of this group of almost 1200 soldiers and officers is to spread 'selected information.' Critics say that means dissemination of propaganda.


Claim: Just the idea the TV Networks would broadcast fake footage is nutcase kooky!

FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 as being available by TV Networks and the military for the purpose of altering world politics.

Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):

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.

The Independent
“When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen: Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering”
January 24, 2000

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):

Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS's recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using "virtual imaging" technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn't really there.

While it's little surprise that advances in TV technology enable broadcasters to better manipulate existing images and create new ones, what is surprising is that this was done during a live broadcast and in a news programme. The CBS evening news coverage involved replacing the logo of rival network NBC with the CBS logo on a large video screen in Times Square. NBC was "outraged" by the use of the technology, and even CBS's evening news presenter, Dan Rather, admitted it was a "mistake".

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

CBS's problems arise from the fact that its use of the PVI system went one step further than "enhancing" the look of its presentation: it tampered with the reality of an actual event it was depicting in a news show, raising the spectre of TV news reporters reporting "live" from around the world when they're actually far closer to home. The broadcaster - which has also used virtual imaging to modify the New York cityscape - defended itself by insisting: "CBS News' internal standards prohibit digital manipulation or other faking of news footage."

CBS is not the only broadcaster to use this technology in news broadcasts. Rival ABC recently included a report on Congress by a reporter wearing an overcoat in front of what to viewers seemed to be the US Capitol. The entire report was taped in a studio.

Trouble is, for the time being at least, the onus is on the viewer to draw any example of tampering with reality to the attention of the regulator which then would investigate retrospectively. Assuming, that is, that they realise what they are seeing isn't real.

Technology Review
“Lying With Pixels”
By Ivan Amato
July/August 2000
user posted image

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):

So far, real-time video manipulation has been within the grasp only of technologically sophisticated organizations such as TV networks and the military. But developers of the technology say it’s becoming simple and cheap enough to spread everywhere. And that has some observers wondering whether real-time video manipulation will erode public confidence in live television images, even when aired by news outlets. “Seeing may no longer be believing,” says Norman Winarsky, corporate vice president for information technology at Sarnoff. “You may not know what to trust.”

Deleting people or objects from live video, or inserting prerecorded people or objects into live scenes, is only the beginning of the deceptions becoming possible.

Combine the potential erosion of faith in video authenticity with the so-called “CNN effect” and the stage is set for deception to move the world in new ways. Livingston describes the CNN effect as the ability of mass media to go beyond merely reporting what is happening to actually influencing decision-makers as they consider military, international assistance and other national and international issues. “The CNN effect is real,” says James Currie, professor of political science at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. “Every office you go into at the Pentagon has CNN on.” And that means, he says, that a government, terrorist or advocacy group could set geopolitical events in motion on the strength of a few hours’ worth of credibility achieved by distributing a snippet of well-doctored video.

With experience as an army reservist, as a staffer with a top-secret clearance on the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, and as a legislative liaison for the Secretary of the Army, Currie has seen governmental decision-making and politicking up close. He is convinced that real-time video manipulation will be, or already is, in the hands of the military and intelligence communities. And while he has no evidence yet that any government or nongovernment organization has deployed video manipulation techniques, real-time or not, for political or military purposes, he has no problem conjuring up disinformation scenarios. For example, he says, consider the impact of a fabricated video that seemed to show Saddam Hussein “pouring himself a Scotch and taking a big drink of it. You could run it on Middle Eastern television and it would totally undermine his credibility with Islamic audiences.”


Claim: Just the idea the “airplane” videos violate physical laws is wacko disinfo!

FACT: Any video that shows an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel/concrete building violates Newton’s Laws of Motion.

Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane.

user posted image

user posted image

Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays this amateur clip back in slow motion:

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"

An airliner would receive the most damage when crashing on a steel building. It would crash against the building, not effortlessly glide through as seen in the FOX 5 “nose out” video:
user posted image

There were only two “live” news camera broadcasts - FOX5 (WNYW) and ABC7 (WABC) - with all others televised later in the day.

Here’s the ABC 7 shot of the “plane” disappearing behind the North Tower before impacting the South Tower:
user posted image

Is anyone aware… that in October 2007, the WABC Chopper 7 pilot, Paul Smith, was run over and killed by a taxi? The taxi swerved after being cutoff by a “black car”. This could be coincidence. But I find it odd that the camera operator, John Del Giorno, (who sat next to Smith in the chopper) was telephoned by 9/11 researcher, Jeff Hill, just a few months earlier. See here for the news reports covering Smith’s death, and an MP3 of the telephone conversation between Hill and Del Giorno:

Note the CNN cartoon video:
user posted image

user posted image

These videos of real crashes show just how delicate airplanes are:

Every known 9/11 WTC “airplane” video is archived here:
[Note: site is very resource intensive]

For those with difficulty understanding TV-Fakery via Newton’s Laws, note these:

The Incredible Moving Bridge (Naudet Brothers DVD):

The Spinning WTC (WCBS Footage):


Claim: TV-Fakery has been debunked time and time again.

FACT:The violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion has never been explained.

Several “papers” claiming to debunk TV-Fakery have surfaced. However, not one of them approaches the obvious violation of Newton’s Laws regarding an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel/concrete building. Instead, these strawman papers attempt to discredit TV-Fakery by “explaining away” a few points. Neither Steven Jones nor anyone in his team has ever addressed Newton’s Laws as it applies to TV-Fakery. (I wonder why…)


Claim: The missing information for Flights 11 and 77 in the BTS Database means nothing.

FACT: An official at the BTS confirmed that flights with missing “tail number” and “actual departure time” information have been cancelled.

9/11 Researcher Jeff Hill placed a call to the BTS and recorded the conversation:


Claim: Just the idea the cell phone calls were faked is cookoo crazy!

FACT: Advanced voice synthesizer technology exists and was reported in the media before 9/11 as being available for military operations. The technology was developed at Los Alamos. (Was Steven Jones involved??)

Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):
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.


Additional Information


Dr Reynolds suggested the following addition:

“March 5, 2006
Morgan Reynolds publishes article demonstrating at length that all four plane "crashes" were physically impossible as depicted by government and media.
All four "disappearances" were hoaxes proven by absence of airplane debris, undersized holes, absurd silhouettes of passage, impossible physics of aluminum planes gliding through structural steel without losing a flap, panel or wingtip, etc.”


And, of course, original no-plane research by Web Fairy:



The author wishes to thank the 9/11 Researchers and proofreaders whose work made this paper possible.

Special thanks to Jerry Leaphart (and all others involved), whose legal documents sourced the “War of the Worlds” and Gregory/Murad testimony ideas used.


Here is some first hit testimony. Before the official story was born, the eyewitnesses were thinking that they saw a smaller aircraft hit the North Tower:

“I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane….yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”-Karim Arraki (He said the second plane was identical)

“I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like ‘bounced’ of the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down….it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial…”-Stuart

“We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Centre. And then all the pieces fell to the bottom…in seconds.”-Anonymous

“…we saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”-Mary Cozza

"I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane."

"I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."-Sid Bedingfield

"I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently. But he said he was an eyewitness. I gave him to a fire marshal. I never got his name personally."-Steven Mosiello

"We proceeded in Tower 1. I think the revolving doors were kind of busted up, so I think we went through a window. At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."-Roy Chelson

"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane."-Anthony Bartolomey

(These reports are much like the reports at the Pentagon. Don Wright said that it looked like a commuter plane. Steve Patterson said it appeared to hold 8-12 passengers. D.S. Khavkin said that it was a small commercial plane.)


The many eyewitness accounts prove that a smaller aircraft hit the first Tower. AGM-86 missiles look like smaller planes while going fast. If one was painted with American Airlines or United Airlines colors, you wouldn't know the difference while it was going fast, which it would be while in flight (500mph). This means that the reports of a smaller plane are consistent with this type of missile. The theory of a missile was given stronger support by the following accounts, especially Don Dahler's:

"Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a could be world war three."-Mi Kyung Heller

“…I can only describe as, it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that….I grew up on military bases and I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet, but it could have been a missile as well….it was high pitched, but it had a…er…a…whooshing sound, not, not like a prop plane…”-Don Dahler

(NOTE: This description of sound is similar to the reports at the Pentagon. Steve Patterson heard a high pitched squeal and Lon Rains, who was 'convinced it was a missile' at the time, heard a loud whooshing sound. These descriptions are very consistent with an AGM-86 missile.)

“Bob said he heard it sounded like a rocket…”-Bob and Bri Video

"One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building."-Anthony Bartolomey


The plane story was fake. Do you want to believe these eyewitnesses, or CNN spook Sean Murtagh?

“I just witnessed a plane that appeared to be cruising at slightly lower-than-normal altitude over New York City, and it appears to have crashed into -- I don't know which tower it is -- but it hit directly in the middle of one of the World Trade Centre towers….it was a jet. It looked like a two-engine jet, maybe a 737….a large passenger commercial jet….it was teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip, and it looks like it crashed into, probably, 20 stories from the top of the World Trade Centre, maybe the 80th to 85th floor….the plane just was coming in low, and the wingtips tilted back and forth…”-Sean Murtagh, alleged eyewitness and suspected fake witness


Capt. Victor Saracini, 51, VICTOR J SARACINI 29 Aug 1950 -- 11 Sep 2001
Michael Horrocks MICHAEL R HORROCKS 24 Mar 1963 -- 11 Sep 2001
Robert J. Fangman (ROBERT J FANGMAN 02 Feb 1896 -- 30 Dec 1990)
Amy N. Jarret, 28 AMY N JARRET 03 Oct 1972 -- 11 Sep
Amy R. King Nothing Found
Kathryn L. Laborie Nothing Found
Alfred G. Marchand Nothing Found
Michael C. Tarrou Nothing found
Alicia N. Titus Nothing Found


Jason Dahl, 43 Nothing Found
Leroy Homer, 36 Nothing Found
Lorraine Bay Nothing Found
Sandra Bradshaw, 38 Nothing Found
Wanda Green Nothing Found
CeeCee Lyles Nothing Found
Deborah Welsh Nothing Found


by Edward S. Herman
July-August 2004

Michael Mandel.s How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage, and Crimes Against Humanity (Pluto: June 2004) is my favorite book of 2003-June 2004 (for the record, numbers two and three are Chomsky.s Hegemony or Survival and Frank Ackerman.s and Lisa Heinzerling.s Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing). Mandel.s book is a scholarly but eminently readable and completely convincing demonstration that the U.S. wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the institutional apparatus that has given them legal support, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY, Tribunal ) and the UN, have made a travesty of the law and are returning the world to the law of the jungle. The book is a perfect antidote to the .humanitarian intervention. claims of the spokespersons and apologists for a resurgent U.S. and Western imperialism.

Mandel is a Professor at the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University in Toronto, Canada, with a specialty in international law and with some enlightening experience as the individual who, in May 1999, in the midst of NATO.s 78-day bombing war against Yugoslavia, presented a petition for the indictment of 68 NATO leaders for their war crimes to Louise Arbour, then prosecutor of the Tribunal. His account of this experience and his analysis of Arbour.s and her successor Carla Del Ponte.s handling of this petition is crushing, and even funny, as he contrasts their finely-tuned adjustments to NATO.s needs for public relations service to its military plans with their crude and often laughable modes of evading even an official investigation of the documented evidence of NATO crimes.

A main theme of Mandel.s book is the huge and now underrated importance of the .supreme crime. of aggression as a source of mass killing, a crime that was the focal point of the Nuremberg trials and the basis of the UN Charter with its primary design to end the .scourge of war.. Mandel points out that the Nuremberg court regarded other war crimes and horrors as commonly derivatives of aggression, a crime that .contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.. War has horror-enhancement built-in as mutual destruction and killings escalate and restraints give way in the course of the struggle. (Mandel notes that the Holocaust occurred in the midst of war, with 97 percent of the murdered Jews living outside German territory in war-conquered land).

The problem for the United States (and the world) has been that this country is now in the business of aggression and its commission of the .supreme crime. is standard policy, thereby bringing the .scourge of war. across the globe in direct violation of the UN charter. Mandel.s first three chapters, on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, center on the fact that each was a case of aggression by any credible definition of the word, hence a supreme crime. Thus, getting the rest of the world to accept and even facilitate its aggressions has been a major task for U.S. leaders and their official and unofficial propagandists. Mandel.s book is an account of how the United States has gained acceptance, toleration, and even help for its aggressions.

One way it has done this is by claiming humanitarian goals or .self-defense. that justify its bypassing the UN, violating the UN Charter, and committing the supreme crime. Mandel makes mincemeat of these claims, which is not difficult to do but which Mandel does with an effective melding of relevant facts and an analysis of the law. He goes to pains to show that in each of these cases there was no attempt to resolve the problems by peaceful means.aggression was intended and was carried out, with pathetic intellectual and untenable legal cover. And it was swallowed by the UN and G-8, first easily (Kosovo, then Afghanistan) but with some foot-dragging on Iraq. Mandel stresses the importance of the U.S./NATO Kosovo war law violations as a major step on the road to a breakdown of any international law obstruction to the supreme crime, when carried out by the United States.

Another apologetic route has been the claim that what the United States does as it kills civilians in its wars of aggression is .collateral damage,. in contrast with the intentional killing of civilians in 9/11 and other attacks by retail terrorists. Mandel shows clearly that collateral damage is not .unintentional,. as it is well understood that civilians will die in the raids even if the exact identities and number of victims is unclear. He has an excellent analysis showing that killing innocent bystanders when targeting someone else has long been considered murder in Western law, even in the state of Texas. Mandel also shows how much the downgrading of killing labeled collateral is linked to a downgrading of the importance of the victims. He notes Brookings analyst Michael O.Hanlon.s charactererization of 1,000 civilians killed as .a mercifully low number,. .Not, .O my God, we killed innocent people!..

Mandel also stresses that discussions of collateral damage and violations of the laws of war in the U.S. assaults regularly fail to take account of the fact that these lesser crimes are being committed in the context of the .supreme crime..which makes them inherently indefensible as parts of an illegal and immoral whole. It is as if a discussion of an armed robbery should debate only the modalities of the robbery, not the crime of robbery itself. Mandel points out that with the start of the Iraq invasion, Human Rights Watch and even Amnesty International .issued stern all the .belligerents,. reminding them of their duties under the laws and customs of war. But neither said a single word about the illegality of the war itself or the supreme criminal responsibility of the leaders of the countries that had started it.. Human Rights Watch has even swallowed the NATO propaganda distinction between deliberate and collateral killings. These were all important gifts to the aggressor.s propaganda needs.

A further apologetic route is the use of tribunals to deal with target country war crimes. Mandel has excellent chapters on the War Crimes Tribunal (4), The Trial of Milosevic (5), and How America Gets Away With Murder (6), the last with Mandel.s description and analysis of how the Tribunal dealt with his petition on NATO war crimes. There is no finer account of the structured bias of the Tribunal, its de facto control by the United States, the integration of its work to the needs of U.S. political objectives in the area, and its judicial failings, which characterize it at every level of its operations. Mandel is no fan of Milosevic.s, but he makes it very clear that he is on trial strictly because he was the political target of the NATO war, and the supreme criminals needed his demonization, arrest and show-trial guilt to prove the justice of their cause. The abuses of the rule of law in his seizure and shipment to The Hague, and the judicial malpractice in his trial and his struggle in the face of these abuses, have made him a hero by default as he has regularly made the Tribunal court look bad.

The Tribunal was obligated by its charter to investigate and prosecute all credible charges of war crimes in Yugoslavia, which would include any by NATO forces. Thus in May 1999 Mandel presented Arbour with a compilation of evidence on NATO war crimes, with an accompanying legal analysis of why these constituted serious crimes. But Arbour and Del Ponte stalled for over a year, with Del Ponte eventually announcing that there was no basis for even opening an investigation with a crime base of only 500 dead, although Arbour.s May 1999 indictment of Milosevic was based on a crime base of 340 victims, mostly from a war zone, following the provision of information by one side in the war (the United States and Britain), information not verified by the Tribunal, and with only a three week lag to an indictment. Arbour had earlier stated that she would .only disregard unsubstantiated conclusions,. but this was only one of many principles set aside in the interest of service to her sponsor and funder.

Mandel traces in fine detail Arbour.s and Del Ponte.s (and before them Richard Goldstone.s) stream of actions and public relations announcements closely geared to precise NATO needs of the moment.indicting some Serbs to remove them from participation in political negotiations, but most often doing it to demonize target leaders and put some planned NATO act of violence in a more positive light. Mandel.s analysis of Del Ponte.s rationale for not investigating NATO.s acts, including the openly expressed belief that NATO officials only tell the truth..I accept the assurances given by NATO leaders..--that their press releases are reliable evidence, and that all of their killings of civilians and destruction of civilian sites were .genuine mistakes,. is devastating and amusing. For anybody reading this account with a half-open mind it will be very clear that the Tribunal was (and remains) a political and public relations arm of NATO, providing NATO with a convenient judicial façade.

An important theme of Mandel.s account of the work of the Tribunal is that, as an institution serving NATO aims, the Tribunal was an integral part of a war machine, .an instrument for the legitimation of war and the undermining of peace.. Mandel shows that the Tribunal was established and began operations in the same 1992-1993 time frame as the Clinton administration.s subversion of a series of efforts to settle the Bosnian conflict by negotiations, and he makes an excellent case that it was created in .an obvious attempt to derail the peace process.. Just prior to the Tribunal.s formation State Department official Lawrence Eagleberger publicly named the major Serb leaders as candidates for a war crimes trial, and suggested that bringing them to justice must be a high NATO priority. A regular theme of NATO and Tribunal officials was that we must not sacrifice .justice. in the interest of some political settlement.

Underlying this bias was a NATO aim of weakening and destroying an independent and Serb-predominant Yugoslavia. This required warfare, and was eventually successfully achieved by warfare. But meanwhile it was necessary to cover this over with the demand for .justice,. with the Tribunal (and the propaganda army of Rieff, Ignatieff, Sontag, Hitchens et al.) serving well in providing this cover for war. Mandel points out that many thousands of the dead in Bosnia followed the decision to sacrifice peace in the alleged interest of bringing justice.

It goes almost without saying that the substance of Mandel.s account and analysis of the role and work of the Tribunal is not to be found even in trace elements in mainstream accounts, as the propaganda system has geared itself completely to the NATO-friendly portrayal of the Tribunal as an independent instrument of justice. This is well illustrated by Marlise Simons. work on the Tribunal in the New York Times, strictly in the apologetic mode, as described with David Peterson in .Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service. (

The recent apology by the editors of the New York Times for their performance in the run-up to the Iraq invasion-occupation (.The Times and Iraq,. May 26, 2004) could no doubt be extended to other matters, but none would be more urgent than an apology for their coverage of the Tribunal and Balkans. conflicts where the news-truth gap has been and remains astronomical.

In accord with his main theme, Mandel stresses the fact that the Tribunal charter carefully exempts the supreme crime of aggression from prosecution, leaving only the lesser crimes. These lesser crimes have been pursued with thorough-going political opportunism, exempting NATO and its Bosnian Muslim and Croatian clients from indictment for the same acts that bring Serbs into the dock, as Mandel demonstrates. Mandel argues that there was no justification for the Tribunal ignoring the NATO leaders. commission of the .supreme crime,. as this is a key element of international law even if not part of the Tribunal.s mandate. So the ultimate irony of the Tribunal.s role is that it was an instrument aiding in the commission of the supreme crime, a remarkable testimonial to the U.S. ability to manipulate international institutions to service its needs.

In his last chapter (7), and one of his best, .Rounding Up the Usual Suspects While America Gets Away With Murder,. Mandel discusses the International Criminal Court (ICC) and various other developments bearing on the evolution of international law and justice, such as the Pinochet case, the Belgian law reaching out to international criminals, the Rwanda court (ICTR), and the general problem of justice and truth in the New World Order. He shows how the ICC.s jurisdiction was structured once again to exempt the .supreme crime. from the list of crimes it would address, in accord with U.S. demands. This did not prevent Kofi Annan from claiming that under the new ICC .no state.can abuse human rights with impunity.. Thus, while the ICC has not, like the ICTY, been .handicrafted for the specific task of legitimating aggressive leaves a great swath of international crime untouched, supreme crimes and crimes of the great powers..

Mandel shows how strenuously the Clinton administration worked during the period of formation of the ICC to water down its reach. Clinton never intended to join, he merely wanted to weaken it and make sure any U.S. actions would never be interfered with. To this end, he and his agents like David Sheffer made sure that war crimes did not include nuclear weapons, cluster bombs and land mines, and they obtained the Section 98 (2) right to negotiate bilateral exemptions from ICC prosecutions. They tried hard to arrange for Security Council control of the ICC agenda, which might have made the ICC acceptable because of the U.S. veto. Without it there was the threat of .politically motivated. prosecutions! Clinton.s actions flowed easily into the hardline Bush stance on the ICC.

Mandel describes the great pains to which the ICC has gone to make entry by the United States appealing, groveling almost without limit. He concludes that, .this is a court desperate for credibility, not with the world but with the world.s supreme international criminals. The Americans were very wise to stay out of this court, because this court is going to spend the rest of its life trying to convince them that they have nothing to fear from it. We can.t possibly look to a court like this for anything but the roundup of the usual suspects..

Mandel shows that only the usual suspects are likely to be rounded up across the globe. In analysing the Pinochet case, he tears to shreds the claims of the Human Rights Watch and other humanitarian interventionists that it marks the end of the era of impunity. His careful examination of this episode shows how crudely the Blair government managed to assure that the West.s own mass murderer would not be subjected to a trial for war crimes. The hypocrisy here of the .anti-impunity gang, fresh from their Kosovo crusade, and still howling for the arrest of Milosevic. could not be surpassed (Mandel points out that Pinochet was not released till a year after the end of the Kosovo war, and a year before the kidnapping of Milosevic, a spacing helpful to avoiding notice of the contrast in treatment between ally and target).

The Belgian universal anti-impunity law of 1994 saw Sharon, Blair, Bush, and U.S. general Tommy Franks threatened with prosecution, but.big surprise!.under U.S. pressure that law was emasculated and none of these villains will be brought to trial. The only people actually tried and given prison sentences under this .universal. law were four Hutus, two of them nuns. Mandel quotes both a Hutu and a Tutsi on the political nature of this proceeding, the Tutsi saying .They [the Belgians] ought to put themselves on trial.. But only the people of the South are brought to trial, not their former colonial masters, whose crime record in their former domains was and remains impressive.

As Mandel demonstrates, the performance of the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda fits into his overall analysis very comfortably. The United States was not interested in the mass killings in Rwanda, and in fact sided with the Tutsi invaders who subsequently devastated and killed vast numbers in the Congo as well as large numbers in Rwanda. Because of the U.S. disinterest, the ICTR was poorly funded, and because of the pro-Tutsi tilt of its principals the serious Tutsi killings of civilians were off the ICTR agenda, just as NATO crimes were off the ICTY agenda. Mandel notes that Arbour justified this ignoring of the thousands of Tutsi killings on the ground that if the ICTR pursued Tutsi killers .they would shut us down.. But Mandel points out that .These are the people, remember, who wouldn.t allow justice to be compromised by mere peace [in Bosnia and Kosovo]..

In short, it remains true today that to escape criminal proceedings for mass killing it is necessary to choose .to be with us. (Bush); whereas .they. and their allies had better watch out as the selective impunity laws and implementing institutions will not protect them. This does not produce a system of justice.not even partial the supreme criminals can use these compromised tribunals and courts to facilitate their own larger crimes and justify the serial implementation of these major crimes from which the lesser ones flow.

Michael Mandel.s book is a best buy and must reading for those who want to understand how the United States is ignoring, using and reshaping international law to serve its imperial needs..

First published in Z Magazine

Edward S. Herman is Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.


The UNDERCOVER WAR is continueing!! USA still mames and murders
in the name of the state!!

National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality, Repression, and the Criminalization of a Generation

October 23, 2007

On October 22, 2007, protests against Police Brutality, Repression, and the Criminalization of a Generation were called in over twenty cities. Parents and families of people murdered by police, students, movement activists, and people of all nationalities marched. In New York City, Cindy Sheehan spoke of being brutalized by police, and of the death of her son in Iraq, and Marcus Jones, the father of one of the Jena Six spoke by phone of his son Mychal Bell being re-jailed. In Atlanta, the city.s main newspaper reported that as the protest went past the city jail, .prisoners could be seen waving white T-shirts inside in an apparent show of support..

Protests were planned for Atlanta; Cleveland; Denver; Detroit; Eureka, CA; Flagstaff, AZ; Fresno, CA; Guelph, ON Canada: Houston; Kansas City, TX; Knoxville; Los Angeles; Louisville; Minneapolis; Montreal, QC (Canada); New Haven, CT; New Orleans, LA; New York City; Olympia, WA ; Pittsburgh; San Antonio, TX ; San Diego; Santa Rosa, CA; Seattle, WA; and St. Louis.

Following are some initial reports from correspondence received at Revolution and from other news sources:

Los Angeles Los Angeles
Credit: Marcus

Protesters rallied at police headquarters at Parker Center, and marched to Mac Arthur Park where on May First, police shot rubber bullets at, and beat protesters and reporters at an immigrants rights demonstration.

More than 300 people entered MacArthur Park in Los Angeles this October 22nd chanting: fired up! Can.t take it no more! Police brutality has got to go!. Marchers carried signs protesting ICE raids on immigrants, and demanding Free the Jena Six. The march ended with a candle-light vigil for victims of police brutality.

Families who have lost loved ones to police murder, high school and college students, members from various organizations, and some residents from Pico Union marched across the same soccer field where the police brutally beat immigrant protestors and journalists on May 1st. They marched past the same picnic benches where the LAPD fired 150 rubber bullets into the park. One woman wrote her message in plain black letters: .Ya Basta! No Mas!. [[Enough! No more!]

High school students and other youth played an important part in organizing and bringing friends to the National Day of protest. A 14 year old student from Jordan HS in Watts said, .I couldn.t stay quiet. That.s why I came. People can.t be scared. We need to stand up.. Another student from Eagle Rock High school wasn.t able to bust out of school in a .walk-out. like she had hoped, so she staged a .climb-out. to participate in this .can.t miss. day.

Some youth marched with members of a Revolution Club, behind their banner, .Humanity Needs Revolution and Communism.. Other students came from as far away as Victorville, located about 100 miles outside of L.A.

Javier Quezada whose son was killed at a hospital where he was being treated, Norma and Norberto Martinez whose son was shot down on Valentine.s Day, and Lilian Mitchell spoke from the stage of how their children.s lives were stolen by the police. Lilian Mitchell, whose son Charlie Wilson was murdered by the Torrance Police Department in July, said that all the people at October 22nd gave her strength to speak about what the police did to her son. She told Revolution Newspaper, .I don.t know what Charlie was doing out there, but the neighbors called the police. He was with a friend and they hid in a shed from the police. They sent out the dogs to find him. His girlfriend called him to give himself up. All he had was a cell phone. When they found them they shot that shed up, they tore it up [with bullets.] Charlie was shot from the back . . . The other young man [Shaun McCoy] was shot so much and his back was tore up so bad that they couldn.t fix him up [for the wake], the embalming fluid couldn.t stay in. . . They killed them. They had dogs, they shot them from behind, they killed them with the first shot, but they shot them more. They killed them. Why did they shoot him in the first place? He only had a cell phone on him..

Some residents from the neighborhood around MacArthur Park also known as.Little Central America.came out despite what some residents called a week-long attempt by the police to intimidate people from participating. One woman said, .This is where we were brutally beaten and I.m here to say the same thing [we said on May 1] human beings, not criminals. Criminal is how the police kill defenseless people. Criminal is how immigration [ICE] is taking parents away from children and then left alone like they are worthless. We shouldn.t take this anymore. We can.t keep silent about this!.

Los Angeles New York City
Margarita Rosario, Cindy Sheehan, Lynne Stewart
Credit: IndyMedia, NYC

At a rally of about 150 in Marcus Garvey Park, in Harlem Marcus Jones.whose son Mychal Bell, one of the Jena 6, was sent back to prison earlier this month.spoke to the crowd via a phone hook-up: .I just want to say thanks to everybody up there who are supporting Mychal. And been hearing about the racial profiling that the police have been doing up there. Jena is everywhere. I see that on a map of New York there.s no name Jena, New York.but I know it.s Jena up there somewhere..

Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan told about how the Bush regime had stolen the life of her son Casey, a U.S. solider killed in the Iraq war, and said, gotten in trouble with the mainstream media because I called George Bush .the No. 1 terrorist in the world.. People say, oh, no, he can.t be because he.s an elected leader of a state. Well, first of all, who elected him? Did any of you vote for him? No. He is an illegitimate leader of this brutal state..

Margarita Rosario, whose son and nephew were killed by the NYPD, said: .My son received 14 shots to his back while he was face down on the floor. And my nephew the same thing. They destroyed my life. I.m still standing and I will continue to stand. Let.s tell the community of Harlem today that we need to fight!.

As the multinational group of protesters took off on a march down 125th Street, 20 students from a charter school in the neighborhood, joined in, contributing their own chants on: .We stand with the Jena 6!. and .NYPD go to hell! We remember Sean Bell!. Members of the Harlem Revolution Club carried a colorful banner saying, .Humanity Needs Revolution. Stop Police Brutality. No More Nooses..

At a rally during the march, Travis Morales of the Revolutionary Communist Party said, .The immigration police, la migra, with their cowboy hats and shotguns, busting down the doors of homes, rounding up people and deporting them, terrorizing and tearing families apart, leaving children and babies stranded with their neighbors. Nooses hung from a whites-only tree in Jena, Louisiana, on a Black professor.s door at Columbia University, outside a Black cultural center at University of Maryland. A wave of nooses across this country, and 6 Black youth facing decades in prison for standing up to the nooses, the symbol of lynching of thousands of Black people.Don.t tell me we don.t need a revolution!.

At a rally at the end of the march, Sean Bell.s father, William Bell, said he was happy to see a movement against police brutality and that it was crucial for more youth to become involved.

Chicago. Credit: Li Onesto, Revolution

In Chicago, family members rallied with signs and posters and t-shirts honoring loved ones murdered by police: Meliton Recendez, 15, shot going out for a juice. Johnny Goodwin, 21, shot in the back. Lester "Roni" Spruill, 43, beaten and found dead in a jail cell. Steve Womack, 22, killed from a high-speed police chase. A young man spoke with a broken arm, spoke, explaining how the police shoved him out a window when they raided his home.

One man described how cops from the scandal-ridden "Special Operations Section" - known as "Shoot on Sight" put a bullet in his nephew's neck while the young man lay handcuffed on the ground. Deborah Thompson, who's brother Fred Hendersen was shot by a suburban cop point blank in the side of his head, told the crowd of 200 she would not let the killer of her son intimidate her. Mae Green, made a promise to her son Tony, who choked to death after being arrested by the police, .They will not give the police department a standing ovation for killing my son..

Ashunda Harris who's nephew Aaron Harrison was shot in the back as he ran away from the police, spoke clearly to the urgency of the situation: "If we don't make this movement and this revolution happen, it's going to continue and it's going to reach down to our grandchildren, and our grandchildren's children. We need to put an end to this..."


Among the 150 people rallying and marching in Oakland were many family and friends of Gary King, Jr., the 20 year old youth who was murdered on September 20. Gary King was grabbed by the dreadlocks, brutalized tasered and shot in the back by officer Patrick Gonzales, who had mistaken King for someone else. Gonzeles, who has been responsible for shooting several other young Black men in the last few years, stood with his foot in Gary's back as he lay dying on the ground.
Stolen Lives Wall in Oakland. Credit: IndyMedia SF Bay Area

Other family members of people killed by police present included Alade Djehuti-Mes (whose father, Charles Vaughn, Sr. was murdered by police in Seaside); Danny Garcia (brother of Mark Garcia, who died after being sprayed repeatedly with pepper spray and beaten by San Francisco police); Rashida Grinnage (whose husband, Raphael Grinnage, a well known jazz musician, and son, Luke Grinnage were both shot and killed by Oakland police); Cinnamon, (whose son, Lorante Studesville, was shot and seriously wounded by the OPD earlier this year); Frank Rosenberg (whose son Richard Rosenberg was shot and killed in front of his house); Meesha Irazarry, (mother of Idriss Stelley, a 23-year-old African American student killed by SFPD at the SF Sony Metreon Theatre in San Francisco in 2001); and Marylon Boyd (mother of Cameron Boyd killed by SFPD).

Atlanta. Credit:Special to Revolution

The October 22nd protest in Atlanta got significant coverage in the mainstream and alternative media. In an article titled, .'We All Live In Jena' Say Marchers Protesting Dekalb Shootings,. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that protesters .wearing black T-shirts proclaiming .We All Live In Jena. marched on Memorial Drive Monday to call attention to shootings by DeKalb County police and other cases of what they regard as injustice. One theme of the protest was the .criminalization of a generation.. As demonstrators chanted .What do we want? Justice!. in front of the county jail, prisoners could be seen waving white T-shirts inside in an apparent show of support.. Iffat Muhammad, who has organized protests over police shootings since her brother was shot and killed by police said, "This is a day of remembrance and a day of acknowledgment that brutality will not be tolerated."
Los Angeles
Fresno. Credit: Mike Rhodes

Among those rallying on October 22nd in Fresno, CA was the family of Everardo Toreres. Everardo had his life stolen on the night of October 27, 2002. He was arrested, handcuffed, and put into the back of a Madera, CA police car. A short time later, police officer Marcy Noriega came over to the car that Torres was in, pulled her service revolver and shot him to death. Noriega says she thought she was using her Taser gun. Torres.s family says Everardo was murdered by the police and they want justice.

Many protesters in Detroitwere family and friends of Jevon Royall, a young man killed in July on the 40th Anniversary of the Detroit Rebellion, blocks from where the rebellion started over police brutality, and they described how he was killed by police when he stepped outside of a family celebration. People marched to the site where Jevon was killed and held a Stolen Lives/Memorial service, with participants giving testimonials remembering and honoring Jevon and reading the names and stories of other victims of police brutality and murder.

In Santa Rosa, CA, organizers told Revolution that several hundred people were part of a rally and march. The march went through Roseland, a poor and mainly Latino community, where police have been setting up DUI checkpoints -- not set up late in the evening when people might be leaving bars -- but at rush hour when people are returning home from work. People in the community suspect that the roadblocks are aimed instead at immigrant workers without papers. Ben, an organizer with Copwatch in Santa Rosa, told Revolution that as the march went through Roseland, .There was an incredible response. People were honking their horns and raising their fists. People pulled over on the spot and parked their cars and joined the march.. Over the past year nine people have been killed in Sonoma County by local police and sheriffs, and in a recent nine-week period, local police shot and killed five. At a rally after the march, Ann Gray Byrd, chairwoman of the Sonoma County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "The families of those shot down in our communities have not been heard."
Los Angeles
Dorothy Chappell, calls out the cops
who killed her 15 year old grandson
Credit: Donald Black Jr

In Cleveland, Dorothy Chappell, whose grandson, Brandon Mc Cloud was murdered by Cleveland cops, September 1, 2005, called out the cops who killed her 15 year old grandson at the 4th district police station where the October 22nd protest was held.

In Seattle, family members of people killed by the police joined activists and proletarians of all nationalities- many with experiences of being brutalized or harassed by police to march through Seattle.s Pike Place market. All the way, people chanted .Hey cops, whaddya say, how many kids did you kill today?. A Seattle cop had just shot a 13 year old kid in the leg the week before.
Los Angeles
Credit: Communities United Against Police Brutality

A volunteer at Communities United Against Police Brutality in Minneapolis told Revolution that an October 22nd protest was held outside the Minneapolis Juvenile .Justice. Center in solidarity with the Jena Six, and because the police .are targeting and criminalizing the children.. Parents and youth coming out of the Juvenile Detention Center stopped and joined the rally and spoke out.

Activists in Minnesota have worked to document 85 deaths at the hands of police over the past ten years. Among them are several Native Americans: Franklin J. Brown, a 21-year-old American Indian man, was killed May 15, 2005 in his home on the White Earth reservation when police entered to conduct a search. He was shot 17 times. Some of the shots went through a closed door. He was unarmed. David Croud, an American Indian, was slammed into a stone wall and otherwise abused as he was arrested by six Duluth police officers on October 12, 2005. He slipped into a coma and never recovered. He was 29 years old. Benjamin DeCoteau, a Native American, was killed on January 22, 2005. He was unarmed when he was shot by officer Mark Beaupre under suspicious circumstances. He was 21 years old at the time of his death. On November 6, 1994, Richard LeGarde, an Anishinabe rights activist, was illegally arrested and then driven home to by a deputy, who was the last person to see him alive.

Thursday, June 18, 2009


CIA director Leon Panetta told the New Yorker:

When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.

News commentator Ed Schultz said today that Cheney is wishing for a terrorist attack on the U.S.

What should we make of all this?

Well, everyone knows that Cheney is ruthless:

Cheney is also the guy who:

Blast from the Past

Okay, Cheney is a bad apple. But that's not all.

Remember that Cheney falsely claimed that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq, but has recently admitted there was never any evidence to back up such a claim.

Remember also that the torture program which Cheney created was specifically aimed at producing false confessions in an attempt to link Iraq and 9/11.

A well-known writer said of Dick Cheney:

For his entire career, he sought untrammeled power. The Bush presidency and 9/11 finally gave it to him . . . .

Indeed, as I've previously written:

The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11.

The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11.

The Patriot Act was written before 9/11.

The government's spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here).

The neocons who now run the U.S. government lamented, before 9/11, that they could not institute their plans for global domination without a "new Pearl Harbor".

So Cheney had a lot of motivation to "accidentally" let 9/11 happen.

Cheney also knew 9/11 was going to happen. The government knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons -- and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes -- all before 9/11. Indeed, the government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers' own mouths before 9/11.

Indeed, Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11 (see this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay). So he was in a perfect position to "accidentally" let it happen.

He Only Had to Wait a Couple of Seconds

Before you say "that's a crazy conspiracy theory", please note that Cheney would have only had to delay normal military response a couple of seconds to let the 9/11 attacks succeed.

Specifically, the Secretary of Transportation testified to the 9/11 Commission:

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?"

(this testimony is confirmed here and here. See also this comment by the retired high-level CIA analyst mentioned above).

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that the Pentagon is a heavily-defended building, with defensive weapons on the roof. This matches a Pentagon employee’s statement that she was told "you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States".

And a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen to this interview).

Moreover, this diagram shows that the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. See also this essay regarding the stand down of the military; and see this war game proposal created before 9/11 revolving around Bin Laden and including "live-fly exercises" involving real planes, later confirmed by this official Department of Defense website. And remember that, according to CBS news, radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

All Cheney had to do was delay normal defensive procedures a couple of seconds to let the plane slam into the Pentagon. It was obvious by that time that the 9/11 attacks were not random instances of "pilot error". Cheney - in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11 - simply had to watch the plane approach from many miles away and yell at everyone that “the orders still stand” to let the attacks succeed.

By just delaying for a few seconds, Cheney's long-dreamed Iraq and Afghanistan wars, imperial ambitions as described by the Project for a New American Century, and increase of powers domestically would all be justified.

Given Cheney's masterminding of a program torture to produce false information about 9/11, fake intelligence regarding wmds to justify the Iraq war, centralization of power in the executive branch, assassinations and other hanky panky, and the rest of Cheney's biography, do you really think he couldn't delay things a couple of seconds to reach all of this goals?

Postscript: The 9/11 Commissioners themselves now doubt the "official" 9/11 story:

  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."
  • The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"