Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 17, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


New York State Bans Fracking






Truthdig Bazaar
Churchill

Churchill

By Paul Johnson
$14.97

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

CIA Program Too Good to Be True?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 13, 2009
Dick Cheney
White House / David Bohrer

What is so controversial about killing al-Qaida bigwigs and avoiding civilian casualties that the CIA would have to conceal such things from Congress? The usual anonymous officials have emerged to explain the secret CIA program Dick Cheney and the agency are supposed to have hidden, and something smells awfully fishy.

Here’s how the AP, relying on anonymous sources, describes the program:

The program, which never got off the ground and remains shrouded in mystery, was designed to target leaders of the terrorism network at close range, rather than with airstrikes that risked civilian casualties, government officials with knowledge of the operation said Monday. [Link]

First of all, since when has collateral damage been high on Dick Cheney’s priority list?

And what politician is going to object to either (a) killing al-Qaida leaders or (b) not killing civilians?

It’s not even clear that the program broke the law. One well-placed source told Associated Press that CIA Director Leon Panetta, a Democrat appointed by President Obama, had told congressional committees “there was no indication that there was anything illegal or inappropriate about the effort itself.”

And this from a CNN Internet item from 2002 titled “U.S. policy on assassinations”:


“According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence ‘finding’ instructing the CIA to engage in ‘lethal covert operations’  to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.


“White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence ‘finding’ is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the [1976 executive order banning political assassinations] does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists.”

It has been widely publicized that the United States has either killed or tried to kill al-Qaida leaders with attacks from conventional aircraft or aerial drones. These air raids—which sadly have claimed many innocent victims—have occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia.

According to the anonymous officials, the “embryonic” CIA program never got under way.

Apparently Intelligence Committee Democrats in both chambers of Congress are flipping out over a program that was, we are told, appealing, uncontroversial and nonexistent. Either the Democrats are upset for no good reason or Dick Cheney has friends in the leak business who are painting some rightly enraged legislators as wing nuts.

Could this program be the fabled Cheney hit squad Seymour Hersh once alluded to?

As with all secret programs, we are left guessing at shadows, wondering what our government has done in our name.

Related: Former CIA Director Michael Hayden tells NPR that Cheney never told him to keep details from Congress.

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Sepharad, July 21, 2009 at 11:25 pm Link to this comment

Inherit, I take your point. Sorry. Will try to stop thinking logically in future. (Only hope I haven’t given the hajis—or CIA—any ideas, it being high state fair season and all.)

Report this

By DBM, July 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

Why argue about Who-dunnit instead of agreeing that there are crimes that need investigating and get on with it?  If anyone goes near the original 9/11 investigations with a broad mandate to determine the truth they will have to explain a number of anomalies and explore the veracity and relevance of a lot of evidence (including thermite!).

However, the original scope/reason for the investigation can be something like the CIA program that this article is about as long as the scope is broad and an independent investigator is allowed to follow the evidence where it leads.

The problem is that the current Congressional investigation is specifically scoped to determine why Congress was not informed rather than to pursue the original crime(s) ... i.e. a whitewash.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 21, 2009 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

Seph, Stop it! Stop it NOW!

How DARE you ask logical and rational questions of the 9/11-was-a-CIA/Mossad-plot crowd!  Questions like: Why didn’t they just bomb a mall or a baseball game.  Much cheaper, much easier, much easier to blame on “Islamic terrorists!”, rather than biting the hand that feeds it.

Yeah, Why?  I TOLD TW he can’t produce a motive and he can’t because IT IS NOT LOGICAL!

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 17, 2009 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

RE No Spam, July 17 at 5:49 pm #

We wish there was a secret cadre of experts in the field wiping out these terrorist scum.
——————————————————————————
Well the 9/11 truth movement at its best is the closest thing we have going. You can go to ae911truth.org and volunteer to help. The folks running this site really are a cadre of experts; they are serious, heavy-duty scientists intensely dedicated to disinfecting these scum with the light of scientific truth. Your mission: take our country back.

Report this

By No Spam, July 17, 2009 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We wish there was a secret cadre of experts in the field wiping out these terrorist scum. That would save a lot of lives on both sides of the fence. But, alas, it only happens in the movies. Much like truth and honesty in Congress and Washington; only in the movies. Sigh.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 16, 2009 at 11:25 pm Link to this comment

Re Sepharad

Inherit, re demo charges set without being noticed ... very good question. Re nanothermite theory in general, its high cost (unlike plain old thermite) on a scale related to WTC damage makes a deliberately set explosion seem unlikely.

      = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Sepharad,

Nanothermite is cheap according to Harrit. Read the links to interviews with him I posted earlier. Among other things it may be used in the form of a paint which can be applied to steel girders which when ignited causes them to melt. For a while the debunkers were claiming that the reddish chips were “just” paint chips. Well maybe they were. But as the experiment described in the paper shows, when you raise their temperature in a differential scanning calorimeter they ignite explosively at 430 degrees centigrade leaving a typical thermitic reaction residue of tiny iron spheroids. They even have a picture of a single half-ignited chip that clearly shows the spheres in formation.

These are clear facts which any qualified person can verify independently.


If it was done by our own intelligence services, why didn’t they pick something less elaborate? Wouldn’t it have been easier to plant a bomb in a shopping mall or stadium and blame it on Saddam? I don’t know. It is an interesting question, but let us stick to the facts and proceed from fact to fact rather than get lost in speculation. All I want to know is where that nanothermite came from and how it got in the buildings. That will require an honest investigation backed by the full authority of the government.
A petition to put such an investigation on the ballot in New York City was filed with 52,000 signatures of New York residents on June 24.

http://nyccan.org/nyccanfilespetition.php

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 16, 2009 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

By DBM, July 16 at 5:26 pm #
I can’t see how this suddenly became a right/left issue.  I don’t know any right-wingers who advocate murder of Americans.
      x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
DBM,

This isn’t a left-right issue. The real core of the 9/11 truth movement are people who really value and understand science, people who know how to use their own eyes and think for themselves. These people are often almost apolitical. For example, Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is a Reagan Republican. Here is an article signed by eight former Republican administration officials including Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm

The most serious 9/11 truth supporters are not ideological believers. They do not belong to the Left or Right. They are open-minded science-oriented people who have somehow managed to avoid being brainwashed.

Report this

By Sepharad, July 16, 2009 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Inherit, re demo charges set without being noticed ... very good question. Re nanothermite theory in general, its high cost (unlike plain old thermite) on a scale related to WTC damage makes a deliberately set explosion seem unlikely. Your 100 scientists denying global warming underlines the fact that there’s much disagreement re nearly everything important in the scientific research community. A while back I mentioned rumors that quantam mechanics theory are being questioned, and another such article appeared in this week’s “Science” magazine, written by a scientist from London College. And medical journals are full of contradictory research articles and studies financed by grants from pharmaceutical companies.

Politically speaking, thinking about the CIA creating the WTC disaster, it occurred to me that if it was the CIA, they could have generated just as much outrage, if not more, by targeting airports, baseball games, busy bridges at rush hour instead of just two towers full of high-end capitalists and the Pentagon. What government agency bites the hand that feeds it? Attacking the symbol of the West’s hegemony as well as financial power sounds more like a smart jihadi’s dream revenge. From the angle of the CIA, a surer way to make Americans receptive to war would have been to create a sense of fear, of no longer being remote and safe from the crazies of a troubled world, i.e. striking in the heartland, say a half-dozen packed stadiums on the 4th of July or state fairs—places where wiring and generally preparing to set off huge bombs would never be noticed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Z

Report this

By diamond, July 16, 2009 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

The most important thing to understand here is that the Twin Towers would never have come down from being hit by a plane OR fire OR both. The people who blew them up knew this, which is why they blew them up. They knew they would never collapse from any other treatment. Why? Because in the 1940’s the Empire State Building was hit by a wayward plane flying in fog. There was a fire which burned much longer than the ones in the towers but the Empire State building never even looked like coming down.

Bearing this in mind the brief given to the men who engineered the Twin Towers was simple: we don’t want these buildings to come down (a) from a fire
(b) from being hit by a plane
(c) from being hit by a hurricane up to 140 miles an hour.

It has to be remembered that the Twin Towers were designed by Les Robertson and John Skilling, engineers on the design of the World Trade Centre, to withstand the impact of the biggest plane flying at the time (Boeing 707, comparable to the Boeing 767 alleged to have hit the Towers). The World Trade Centre was designed to withstand multiple impacts and not come down: it had an exo-skeleton of steel, making it even stronger than other steel framed buildings. The exterior of the buildings was like a grid, purpose designed and built to withstand huge impacts. Even the force of a hurricane – 140 mile an hour gusts of wind. When a fire broke out in the North Tower in 1975, the fire burned for three hours (twice as long as the fire on 9/11) and the building showed no sign whatever of coming down.  On top of that, the steel pillars that held both the towers up had been heavily sprayed with asbestos when the World Trade Centre was built, because the use of asbestos was legal in those days. This makes the impossibility that they would melt, just that little bit more impossible. Some even suggest that new laws meant that the asbestos was going to have to removed, and (before the WTC was sold to Larry Silverstein) that meant removed by the New York Port Authority, meaning Mayor Rudi Giuliani, at a cost estimated at a billion dollars. The Twin Towers were, in fact, an expensive white elephant and cost the New York Port Authority a fortune to run. A cynic and a sceptic would say that those who put the explosives in the buildings knew all of this and planned accordingly.

As for building number 7, Larry Silverstein admitted on morning television -I believe it was ‘Today’ in an interview with Matt Lauer - that building number 7 WAS DEMOLISHED.  Furthermore the BBC put the story of number 7’s ‘collapse’ to air 26 minutes before it happened as did numerous American TV networks. Case closed.

Report this

By DBM, July 16, 2009 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

I can’t see how this suddenly became a right/left issue.  I don’t know any right-wingers who advocate murder of Americans.

Here’s an idea:

How about someone use this “Secret Program” of Cheney’s to establish as Special Prosecutor to get to the bottom of how much the Bush administration was doing without Congressional oversight?

Who knows it might uncover things about 9/11 as well.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 16, 2009 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, FolkTruther but in order to be an “authentic leftist” one must agree to the 9/11/01 conspiracy is a hard row to hoe. Is it any version of the conspiracy or your version that is allowed? A poor way of dealing with all others who are authentic except for this faux pau. Unless it is the wave of assassinations of the 1960’s or how about Wellstone‘s death. Was that an assassination? How is your criterion on that litmus as a “true leftist” fits. And if you don’t yourself are then you false too? Think about it and maybe you won’t be so quick to attack others on your side when they don’t agree 100% with everything you do.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 16, 2009 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

Folktruther, July 15 at 10:21 pm #

Sepharad, reading your post made me realize that their are people who don’t know that distinguished scientists and scholars all over the world have ALREADY confirned what Diamand and Tony were saying.  Not to mention pilots, high military and intelligence officers, and all kinds of academics.

The US media, including the pseudo-left media, has done a good job of keeping this quiet.
*******************************************

Yeah, and 100 “Scientists” signed a document saying global warming was a phony.  (One, turned out I had known as a kid, is a MEDICAL DOCTOR, not a researcher).

And “A growing number of scientists doubts Carbon-14 dating is real” (cited many times by creationists).

Nobody has EVER answered me: How did ALL those demolition charges and the thousands of miles of wire necessary to set them off in the proper sequence, get placed ALL OVER the WTC without anybody noticing?  Was every person entering the WTC handed a blind-fold and lead to where he/she was going?

Maybe they got Mr. Scott to use the transporter to get the charges there unseen.  Seems reasonable…

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 16, 2009 at 1:16 am Link to this comment

I would just like to add that although the the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 do not look like standard controlled demolitions, they also don’t look like buildings collapsing from the force of gravity due to structural failure. They look like they are being blown to smithereens. That’s what my eyes tell me, even before I do any of the science.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 16, 2009 at 12:15 am Link to this comment

It’s true that North and South Tower collapse does not look like a standard controlled demolition. The collapse of WTC7, however looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Please watch this video and listen to the analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8&feature=PlayList&p=1F271C700C5A9C1A&index=1


It doesn’t offend your common sense that a steel-frame building could just disintegrate like that from top to bottom from a fire? It has never happened before in history. What do you think happened to all that steel? People were saying it melted from the fire, but a hydrocarbon fire from jet fuel does not get nearly hot enough to melt steel.

Report this

By DBM, July 16, 2009 at 12:07 am Link to this comment

Strangely, after 8 years it has just occured to me that the other large building apparently hit by a plane that we have seen was the pentagon.  In that case the plane appears to have shed its wings and gone straight through without causing the floors above to accordian down.

Obviously a very different building but there aren’t many examples to go on ...

Report this

By DBM, July 16, 2009 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

I haven’t chimed in recently as I am open to doubters of the conspiracy theories and I’m somewhat agnostic on this. 

However, the statement that “We HAVE seen buildings collapse from controlled demolitions and this looks nothing like that…” is interesting.  I’ve never seen a controlled explosive demolition in person but I’ve seen video of a number of them ... the WT towers coming down look exactly like they do.

As no other skyscapers have ever come down due to fire or non-demolition explosion (except the the three WT towers) we don’t know if they should look different or not.

Report this

By Marshall, July 15, 2009 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

By Tony Wicher, July 16 at 12:13 am #

Sorry Tony - but in your youtube movie I see a building collapsing while a narrator tries to convince me that this isn’t the way a building hit by an airplane should collapse.  Of course, he’s got the “can’t prove me wrong” thing going for him since nobody’s ever actually SEEN a building hit by a plane collapse.  We HAVE seen buildings collapse from controlled demolitions and this looks nothing like that, so if you ask my untrained eye, it’ll tell you that yeah, that pretty much looks like a building that collapses after getting hit by a plane.

But good luck with your case.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 15, 2009 at 9:50 pm Link to this comment

By Sepharad, July 15 at 9:50 pm #
Well hell, Tony and diamond. The material basis for your theory seems to make sense. I do not believe in conspiracy theories—avoid them whenver possible—unless they are true, but your reasons for suspecting a CIA-planned 9/11 just rolled into my “maybe so” zone. (I hope you know you’ve just shot my work focus.) It WILL take a forensic investigation by a major scientist, but one not dependent on any institution that relies on American backing.

        x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Sepharad,

The leader of the nanothermite study, Niels Harrit, is a chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen who knows a lot about explosives. He impresses me as a very serious man of science. Here are some links:

http://world911truth.org/interview-with-dr-niels-harrit/

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090415231352441

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=453204#

Report this

By Sepharad, July 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther, If it’s true that all media covered up such a conspiracy, either I got out of Freedom of Information activity too soon or we didn’t get it right in the first place. (I keep up with all the journalism reviews that supposedly monitor what does not get printed that should have been, as well as what does get printed that’s wrong. Not a peep anywhere. On the other hand, they’ve shut down the Freedom of Information Center at the University of Missouri and installed advertising and broadcast journalism in its space. When I tried to locate some reports on a specific topic, the person on the phone said they were all stored in the basement and accidentally thrown out. Oh well. Life is full of disappointments.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 15, 2009 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

By Marshall, July 15 at 9:25 pm #
Tony - I’ll leave the scientific debate to the scientific community since i cannot possibly verify any of the claims made in your study.  I predict that no one will take your study seriously because the vast weight of scientific evidence, not to mention common sense, already refutes the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. 

    x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Common sense and my eyes tell me that those buildings did not collapse because of fire and the force of gravity but because of explosives placed in them. The science only confirms what my common sense and my eyes already tell me. Unfortunately, neither common sense, their own eyes nor elementary science is enough for most people compared to the weight of political authority. That is the problem we have to overcome. Come on, man - you don’t have to be a scientist to use your own eyes. Just look at one tiny piece of evidence for yourself - this video of the North Tower collapsing. It only runs for a minute or two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

Report this

By diamond, July 15, 2009 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

‘the vast weight of scientific evidence, not to mention common sense, already refutes the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11.’

You’re simply wrong,Marshall. The scientific evidence proves the towers were blown up and it always has. Engineers have been saying this since day one. The evidence that the entire official version of events is manufactured is also vast and irrefutable. Fire engineers were never allowed to examine any of the evidence on the site and the steel pillars which would have shown evidence of being ‘cut’ by the thermite were thrown on trucks and shipped to Asia to be melted down.

In fact, fire engineers called in to investigate the collapse of the Twin Towers complained in a story run in the New York Times in 2001 that their investigations were impeded at every turn. They were prevented from interviewing witnesses, from examining the whole of what became known as ‘ground zero’ and also had difficulty gaining access to recorded distress calls to the fire department and the police. Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineer Magazine, wrote that: ‘The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.’ One of the investigating engineers claimed, ‘Our hands are tied.’ The man some people refer to as Rudi the Recycler ignored all this and the recycling of the steel the engineers were meant to examine continued apace. Rudi Giuliani, Mayor of New York City, sold it all, unexamined. There was no concrete to recycle because it had been pulverized into fine, white powder by the demolition wave.

Further to the thermite:
‘Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary when ignited but when the ingredients are ultra-fine grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this ‘nano-thermite’ reacts very rapidly, even explosively and is sometimes referred to as ‘super thermite’ (The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2, p. 23).

While ordinary thermite is classified as an incendiary, super thermite is classified as a pyrotechnic or explosive. It also, conveniently, comes as a paint which can be applied to almost any surface and can be ignited by ‘electric matches’.
‘Super-thermite electric matches’ were developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which applications include ‘triggering explosives for …demolition’. This explosive paint, it seems, can be ignited by a ‘simple electric pulse’ and the electric matches are very safe: The super-thermite electric matches produce no toxic lead smoke and are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat and static discharge. All of this information was also in the ‘Open Chemical Physics Journal’ mentioned.

Report this

By Folktruther, July 15, 2009 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

Sepharad, reading your post made me realize that their are people who don’t know that distinguished scientists and scholars all over the world have ALREADY confirned what Diamand and Tony were saying.  Not to mention pilots, high military and intelligence officers, and all kinds of academics.

The US media, including the pseudo-left media, has done a good job of keeping this quiet.

Report this

By Sepharad, July 15, 2009 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

Well hell, Tony and diamond. The material basis for your theory seems to make sense. I do not believe in conspiracy theories—avoid them whenver possible—unless they are true, but your reasons for suspecting a CIA-planned 9/11 just rolled into my “maybe so” zone. (I hope you know you’ve just shot my work focus.) It WILL take a forensic investigation by a major scientist, but one not dependent on any institution that relies on American backing. And such a person might not be so easy to find, because America is far ahead of anyone else in the field (There might be a French scientist who would cooperate, just to restore a bit of luster to the drooping French flag. Israelis could not participate—America is a major financial backer—and even if that were not true they’re always at loggerheads with the CIA so they’d probably be deemed biased.) But there’s been so much information lost by now, and as DBM notes tons of disinformation put about, that it’s a cold trail. I doubt there will ever be a way to nail it down, but a good forensic investigation would be of interest to all Americans.

Tony, re bin Laden—I have no idea if he’s dead or alive, but it really doesn’t matter. He’s a generic and already cloned into immortality. Some of the messages from Al Zawahari, bin Laded’s deputy, have been, in the last year, current, or at least informed of events close in time.

Tom Friedman wasn’t the only one who wasn’t convinced that sectarian violence would flare in Iraq. General Eric Shinseki told us, in very specific terms, that several times as many soldiers would be needed to cope with such violence, and no one defended him when they hastened him into retirement. But there were those such as Arab historian Foud Ajami saying that nothing but Western intervention would help jolt the Middle East into economic recovery—something that in hindsight is obviously not true. But there was some sense too that theory. Whether it was right for the U.S. to invade Iraq no longer matters (except, it might be hoped, this example might keep us out of similar ventures).

Report this

By Marshall, July 15, 2009 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

Tony - I’ll leave the scientific debate to the scientific community since i cannot possibly verify any of the claims made in your study.  I predict that no one will take your study seriously because the vast weight of scientific evidence, not to mention common sense, already refutes the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11.  This will simply prompt you to condemn the scientific community as being part of the cover up and embolden you further at cocktail parties and online forums.  But hey - knock yourself out.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 15, 2009 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

By Marshall, July 15 at 7:08 pm #
So Tony - I’m assuming you’re associated with this study and can vouch for the integrity of its authors or point to pier review on their study?

          x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Marshall,

I am a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which I joined after first looking at the video analysis of the collapse of the three WTC buildings by physicist David Chandler and then reading the nanothermite paper, which clinched the case for me. The web site is ae911truth.org. The site currently has 703 credentialled architects and engineers as well as non-credentialled supporters such as me. I scientifically a layman (my degrees are in philosophy) but I have a good education in science which I owe largely to the fact that my father was a professor of theoretical physics at a top technical college. I think I have an understanding of what is good science, who is an honest scientist dedicated to truth and who is a phony bureaucrat who says whatever his political superiors tell him to say. I have met Richard Gage and David Chandler of AE911truth in person, not the authors of the nanothermite paper but my impression from watching hours of interviews and reading many papers by Harrit, Jones and Ryan is one of great scientific expertise and integrity. Our objective now is to get this paper peer-reviewed by as many more qualified scientists as possible to arrive at a consensus in the scientific community about it. If the results of the experiments described in the paper cannot be replicated, then I will have to admit I was wrong. But the experiments look so simple and clear to me that I really don’t think this will happen.

By the way, we could use all the help we can get, so if your read the paper, think it merits a peer review and happen to know any qualified scientists, please pass it on to them. 

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1F271C700C5A9C1A

Report this

By diamond, July 15, 2009 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

DBM anyone who can spell propaganda knows what the problem is here. People lie, physics and chemistry don’t. Physics says the towers came down at free fall speed and only buildings that are blown up come down at free fall speed. A pancake collapse is nothing like what you saw those buildings do and a pancake collapse for a 110 storey building takes 96 seconds, not 10. Google Newton’s law of gravity.

Then there’s the chemistry. The dust from the WTC was full of red-grey spheroids which when tested proved to be unignited thermite. Super thermite to be exact, which is both an incendiary and an explosive. This was available by April 2000 but was only available to the military. It would have been impossible for any civilian to get their hands on this in the amounts needed, so tightly was it controlled. And you remember that huge cloud of white dust that chased people down the streets of Manhattan? That’s what’s known as a pyroclastic surge.

‘A turbulent low-density cloud of hot rock debris and gases that moves at extremely high speeds’ (U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior).

This is something that is produced when volcanoes erupt, which gives some indication of the intensity of the heat and explosive power of what was unleashed on the Twin Towers. Kerosene did this? Kerosene made the site at Ground Zero smoke for three months? Made metal rails glow as if they’d been hit by a nuclear bomb? Made a river of molten steel run under the ruins for weeks? Made the ground at the site register a temperature of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit even six weeks after 9/11? In the world I live in kerosene can’t do that and until someone explains why it did this on 9/11 and never before or since I’ll believe 9/11 was an act of domestic terror planned and executed by the US against itself so it could attack others.

Report this

By Marshall, July 15, 2009 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

So Tony - I’m assuming you’re associated with this study and can vouch for the integrity of its authors or point to pier review on their study?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 15, 2009 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

DBM,

Let me just add that I am not sure of everything, I am just sure that nanothermite is present in the dust. I don’t know how it got there, but I am quite sure it was not made in Afghanistan. An honest forensic investigation would easily discover where it came from and who put it there. There has never been such an investigation.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 15, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

RE DBM, July 15 at 2:52 am #
Tony,

David Ray Griffin is a really interesting guy and well worth listening to ... but he (and you as well) seem very sure of exactly what did happen on 9/11/01.
      x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
DBM,

The reason I am so sure is that I believe in scientific method as the way to establish facts. Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but nobody is entitled to his own facts. The existence of unignited nanothermite chips in the dust of WTC is not an opinion, not a theory, not an hypothesis, but an established fact. The scientific paper in the link below establishes this beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Please read it. It is not highly technical. Any layman educated enough in science to get through the average Scientific American article can understand it. Please read it and you will understand why I am so sure. There is plenty of dust still around and any chemistry lab can confirm the presence of the nanothermite. I am currently talking to senior scientists at top technical colleges to arrange for them to confirm the results in their own labs.

We shall see if the consensus of the entire scientific community is sufficient to overcome government disinformation.


http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Report this

By DBM, July 14, 2009 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment

Tony,

David Ray Griffin is a really interesting guy and well worth listening to ... but he (and you as well) seem very sure of exactly what did happen on 9/11/01. 

Unfortunately, I suspect that the mountains of disinformation that have been produced have done the intended trick of making it impossible to ever know what happened.  Even if we know the truth I don’t think it will be possible to know that it is true (if you see what I mean).

I wish everyone could share your certitude but I don’t think it will ever happen ...

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 14, 2009 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

Sepharad,

Do you think bin Laden is still out there? You should read David Ray Griffin’s, “Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?” which just came out. He argues strongly in it that bin Laden died in December of 2001. All the video and audio recordings since 2001 have been fakes. So who is putting them out? 

There is no doubt whatsoever that our own security apparatus engineered 9/11. It’s a scientifically established and unmistakable fact that unignited nanothermite occurs ubiquitously in the dust from the World Trade Center catastrophe. That nanothermite was not put there by some Islamic fundamentalists. It was most likely made in Lawrence Livermore Labs, which incidentally also manufactured the anthrax that was sent in the mail six weeks after 9/11. You can verify it for yourself at the following link:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Report this

By DBM, July 14, 2009 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

Whether they are hiding complicity or simply failure of duty, all the misinformation produced about 9/11 has surely removed any possibility of ever getting to the bottom of what happened (or recognising the truth as fact if it did come to light).

No matter the importance or centrality of this program, the issue is that the Executive branch (in this case probably the VP’s office) were spending government money and conducting illegal operations without the knowledge or consent of the Legislative branch.  This should be the lever used to initiate a broadly scoped investigation under a special prosecutor which could uncover much more than what is behind this story.

However, that would take a 180 degree change in course by the Obama administration which appears to believe that the storm this would cause would hamper efforts in totally unrelated areas like Health Care reform (read removal of health insurance interdiction in the process), economic recovery and securing the world’s energy supply ... I disagree that these things are mutually exclusive but no-one is yet to convince the Obama administration.

Sadly, it could also be that Obama does not want to see a witch-hunt for the rest of his life like the way the Clinton’s have been persecuted (whatever their short-comings) and is trying to play the game.  Also sadly, I expect that he won’t escape persecution anyway if the radical right gets back in power.

Report this

By diamond, July 14, 2009 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

Sepharad the war in Afghanistan was never the main game. It was like the Vietnam war in reverse, where they invaded the ‘sideshow’ country first. They had to invade Afghanistan because they had falsely claimed that Osama bin laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. Imagine how strange it would have looked if they had attacked Iraq first, especially since they had failed to convince anyone that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The truth really is stranger than fiction and if you believe nothing else, believe that the CIA was behind the 9/11 attacks - not on their own, of course. Who else do you think had the expertise to plant all that thermite in the towers? Who else could get their hands on weaponized anthrax of such purity that no one at Fort Detrick had ever seen anything like it before when they tested the anthrax from the evelopes? And only the Pentagon could turn on the ‘war games’ that were a cover for the real operation and not respond to the distress calls from the air traffic controllers until the towers had collapsed. And only the Bush administration could let all this go on, because they were the government.

The facts are these:

In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein refers to the neo con military doctrine published in 1996: ‘Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance’, which became the basis for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But Iraq was not the only candidate for invasion. It was Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner, who opined that the Iraq war would set up a different model in the heart of the Arab Muslim world. This, he suggested, would in turn set off a series of neo liberal shock waves throughout the region. In The Shock Doctrine Klein claims that, ‘When the idea of invading an Arab country and turning it into a model state first gained currency…the names of several possible countries were floated – Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Michael Ledeen (leading neo con’s) preference, Iran’ (p. 329, Klein).  Friedman has now joined the ranks of those who claim not to have foreseen the carnage that would result from this invasion. My guess is the ‘secret program’ touches on the planning of 9/11 or how to handle the aftermath and that is what all the secrecy is about. Leon Panetta closed it down within 24 hours of finding out about it and informed Congress about it so this is something really serious and it’s NOT about assassinating Al Qaeda leaders.

Report this

By Sepharad, July 14, 2009 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

PS to my last comment: probably the real reason the CIA didn’t discuss the whole thing with Congress is that since Castro, we’ve made assassinations of other government heads illegal. Why did we make it illegal? Because if we didn’t, it would be open season for other countries to send hit teams after OUR executive branch—not that that would always have been a great loss. (And would probably save a lot of our soldiers’ lives, because they wouldn’t
BE on the battlefield.)

Report this

By Sepharad, July 14, 2009 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

Tony, I don’t think the CIA was behind 9/11, in any way other than their stunning ineptitude at preventing it. But I still don’t understand why they hid from Congress their program to assassinate Al Quaeda leaders. Seems to me that would have been a better solution than invading another country, which could only result in more local support for bin Laden et al. In fact, at the time the U.S. went after the Taliban and bin Laden in Afghanistan, I wondered why they didn’t just send in culturally and linguistically well-prepared special forces to hunt for specific individuals. It seemed like we were blowing up a wall instead of picking a lock.

Report this

By diamond, July 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

dihey let me explain something that you don’t seem to grasp. When you go and invade another country (Afghanistan for example) bomb them and lock their sons and husbands up for years of torture during which they are not charged with a crime and brought to trial but are in some cases murdered and/or driven mad and when you imprison their fellow Muslims in Iraq, rape women and sodomize children, all bets are off. The soldier you’re talking about was not carrying a cross or some rosary beads, he was carrying a gun. He was there to kill or be killed. The Taliban don’t have the money to build secret prisons. The people of Afghanistan have nothing because America’s proxy war with the Russians took what little they had. And now they don’t even have their own country because the Americans and their deluded allies have arrived to occupy and colonize it so they can build that gas and oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Karachi on the Indian Ocean. America’s puppet Karzai sits in Kabul running a mafia government that takes the money for themselves, is in bed with drug barons and lets the rest of the country rot. It must be the first time since Hitler did it that entire nations have been classified as collateral damage. Just like the people Cheney and the neo cons killed on 9/11. They were the first victims of the neo con/neo liberals war on democracy.

Report this

By Folktruther, July 14, 2009 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

Dihey, what we are talking about here is a White House death squad used to murder Terrorists.  All the doubletalk of truthdig and other mainstream pseudo-leftist powerbull serves to deflect, muffle and delute the full horror of what the Bushites initited.  and what Obama is apparently continuing. 

The War on Terrorism is also directed against the American population.  If he can bomb Afpak homes, weddings and funerals, he can bomb American ones.  If he can murder Iraqis, he can murder Americans.

tony Wicker in a sense is right.  Once the Bushites collaberated in the 9/11-antrax public relations homicide, it was all downhill from there.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 14, 2009 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

By Sepharad, July 14 at 12:51 am #
Tony Wicher, if it doesn’t compute (i.e., CIA offing Al Quaeda leaders yet not telling Congress about it) it is so unlikely that there must be another explanation—scratch that, another “lie.”
=====================================================
Sepharad,

Precisely my point. My view is that what they are really hiding is their complicity in 9/11. They will try all sorts of “limited hang-outs” short of that. If the American people end up believing that all they were hiding is torture and assassination of “our enemies”, they get off with a slap on the wrist and they win. But if it comes out that they were complicit in 9/11, they wind up at the end of a rope where they belong.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 14, 2009 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

Cheney our Martin Boorman? Or maybe a “Rasputin” could be a better moniker? I would be interested in the budget, which no one mentions, on this ‘sporadic’ and ‘non-existent’ project of international assassination. Any numbers anyone?

As was brought up by Keith Olberman on Monday, “Was it due to its lack of action…out of emberassment..?” as the cause for hiding it.

Will we ever know all the facts? Dubious at best.

Report this

By don knutsen, July 14, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I smell another usefull distraction from our non-representitive goverment. Rather then investigate the many outright lies spewed out by the last administration, dragging us into their neo-con plan, something that surely should result in criminal preoceedings eventually. The wimp-o-crats are going after a clandestine operation, that most would agree with if asked, as opposed to so many outrages committed in our name. This will fissle out in the end, seving its purpose to distract us into thinking our elected representitives are doing something usefull.

Report this

By hippie4ever, July 14, 2009 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

More Dick Cheney in the news; apparently he encouraged the CIA to lie to Congress. More violations of law for which Cheney has not been charged.

Why is Obama protecting this criminal? Tell me again, then kiss me. I like to get kissed before I get…

Report this

By dihey, July 14, 2009 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

Folktruther:

It is probably fair to point out that Keith Olberman has repeatedly interviewed Professor Turley on his MSNBC program “Oddball”. Neither Keith nor Turley have pulled their punches of the Obama administration’s prevarications. In essence they have accused Obama of trying to bury or ignore real war crimes.

Turley pointed out that captured Americans may now be “legally waterboarded” with impunity. Unfortunately he forgot to mention among his examples the U.S. soldier that may have been captured by the Taliban. This man may be in great danger because of what the previous administration has done and the current administration refuses to investigate/prosecute.

This soldier seems to have disappeared. Does the Taliban have secret prisons of its own?

Report this

By Folktruther, July 14, 2009 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

there is a strong tradition of the mainstream pseudo-left media covering up US assaainations and murders, and sanitizing them when something goes public.  both Chomsky and Ales Cockburn, for example, support the delusive Warren Report on the Kennedy assassination and the offical story on the others, while accusing honest truthers of being ‘conspiracy theorists.’  this truthdig piece is in the same pseudo-left tradition.

Seymour Hirsh, Americans best investigative reporter, stated that Cheney was directing an assassination squad from the vice-president’s office.  this explosive revelation, which has not yet been detailed, will be the subject of damage control of the pseudo-left media, like truthdig, to protect the American power structures legitimacy. 

In the Bushite counter revolution kicked off by the 9/11-antrax public relations himicide, not only torture, kidnapping and lawless imprisonment was systemtized, but murder as well.  It must be understood that the War on Terrorism is conducted against the American population as well, under the guise of protecting us.  So it is likely that thesse murders against Americans occurred in the same way they tortured, imprisoned Americans.  Being onducted from the White House.

Report this

By Rodger Lemonde, July 14, 2009 at 6:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mostly this reveals a “Give me one of each.” approach to power on Cheney’s part. The man is a power junky.
By 2012 he will be running for emperor or dictator for life having exhausted the possibilities of power under a democracy. Possibly, like Caligula, he will have a metamorphosis and become a god. Those heart attacks could be interpreted as rising from the dead.

Report this

By marcus medler, July 14, 2009 at 2:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This seems like a red herring. What is it leading away from, intimate knowledge of the organizations plan in the US? I suspect this was an ongoing program since the Bush 1 and Clinton years. Could Ben Laden be an American fence? The American self directed and appointed covert defenders of our “oligarchs way” are well seasoned at convoluted, inane, amoral and evil enterprise. Do some research on the CIA directed destruction of the USS Liberty in 1967 by Israel’s blind warriors.

Report this

By Sepharad, July 13, 2009 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment

Tony Wicher, if it doesn’t compute (i.e., CIA offing Al Quaeda leaders yet not telling Congress about it) it is so unlikely that there must be another explanation—scratch that, another “lie.”

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 13, 2009 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

Something smells fishy in the state of Denmark, all right. What, the CIA admits to trying to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders? Who is going to get upset about that? And why wouldn’t they tell Congress about it? This does not compute.

Report this

By Marshall, July 13, 2009 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

By rolmike, July 13 at 7:32 pm #

“exactly. what is this nonstory about…”

I would imagine it’s about retribution for Pelosi.

On the other hand I’d guess the public would totally support this program, so maybe it was introduced by the Republicans to make themselves look good!

Report this

By frank1569, July 13, 2009 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Can only think of one reason to conceal it from Congress - the program must have been domestic, which would make it seriously illegal. And, seeing as how over half the CIA is now ‘privately contracted,’ maybe there was some Blackwater involvement, too…?

Report this

By rolmike, July 13, 2009 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

exactly. what is this nonstory about, except a diversion from far greater crimes that were committed.

Report this

By DBM, July 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

On current form you can count on the Obama administration keeping this secret for “National Security” purposes.

Is it just me or is the idea of “impunity” in the Oval Office just too alluring for any man to resist?

Report this

By Mary Ann McNeely, July 13, 2009 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

Cheney would have made a great Stalinist Communist or Nazi.

Report this

By diamond, July 13, 2009 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

All lies. Michael Hayden is a liar. Dick Cheney is a liar. The neo cons and their stooges lie the way others breathe. Ask yourself a simple question. Why would they target terrorist leaders of ‘Al Qaeda’ when it’s a known fact that they let all the top Taliban/Al Qaida detainees go from Guantanamo Bay and then spent a lot of time torturing people their own documents (DoD) stated were innocent to get them to confess to involvement in 9/11? This whole story stinks. It reeks of deception and cover up. Like everything associated with the Bush administration, including 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission. Endless lies to cover up treason and murder and this is no exception. The neo cons will fight tooth and nail to stop the truth about this ‘secret program’ getting out because the facts it reveals are so shocking they believe they public must never know them.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook