Search News from Limbo


Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Cameron sees 9/11 critics
as dangerous 'extremists'
His cabinet aide is moving to limit even peaceful speech

By Ian Henshall 
Press Release from Reinvestigate 911
Reinvestigate 911, the UK campaign calling for a thorough and fully independent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, condemns government plans to create a concept new to British public discourse: non-violent extremism.

This week Theresa May, Britain's home secretary, outlined plans for draconian legal controls on individuals not suspected or accused of advocating violence. This is not blue sky thinking or a party conference gimmick: the EU too is quietly developing a similar concept and wishes to operate an internet censorship system to deal with "esoteric" websites. David Cameron made a similar call to the UN General Assembly last week.

Reinvestigate 911 believes the true reason for the plans is that, as Hilary Clinton conceded while secretary of state, the NATO powers are losing the propaganda war and are increasingly seen as aggressors and warmongers. Rather than ask why, the easy response is to shoot the messenger. Obama official Cass Sunstein has called for organized attacks on websites which do not tow the official line, and from the Snowden leaks it seems clear that Sunstein's plans are in operation already. Here in the UK Ofcom claims the right to regulate internet news sites under little noticed passages of New Labor's Communication Act.

However Reinvestigate 911 is flattered that 13 years after the 9/11 attacks authorities still feel the need to proclaim the entirely discredited official 911 story and attempt to smear skeptics as conspiracy theorists.

Reinvestigate 911 will continue to draw attention to the impossibilities and contradictions in the official 9/11 story for as long as we are legally permitted and we call on the mainstream media to overcome the great fear we know they have. Please open this can of worms and start asking the obvious questions while it is still legal to do so.

For more details of the NATO plans and 9/11 leaks, see the following article.

David Cameron in another collision with reality

A bizarre passage, unnoticed in David Cameron's UN speech, could be the first signal of government censorship plans and may lie behind Home Secretary Theresa May's plans announced this week for a clampdown on government designated "extremists" even when they do not advocate violence.

Cameron laid down the new government line in his speech to the UN.  "We shouldn't stand by and just allow any form of nonviolent extremism." What on earth does this mean? UKIP? Stop the War? Surely one goal of democracy is to persuade potentially violent extremists to become nonviolent extremists? And isn't it the role of a democratic government to stand by while the democratic process unfolds.

The PM did not offer a definition but he said nonviolent extremism is characterized by "the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations."

This statement takes smearing and guilt by association to a new level of absurdity. The Clash of Civilisation theory is the ruling theory at least in the US and Israel, Cameron only needs to read Rupert Murdoch's publications or listen to any speech by Netanyahu to see that. Presumably Cameron is not calling for "restrictions" on people like Rupert Murdoch and Samuel Huntingdon.

The idea that Muslims are persecuted as deliberate policy is also widespread. The best way of refuting that might be if Cameron and his NATO friends would bomb a non-Muslim country but since 9/11 this has never happened. If Cameron and Obama had got their way last summer Syria would have been the seventh Muslim country to be bombed since 9/11 and ISIS would quite likely now be in charge there.

A more logical candidate for the next bombing spree might be Saudi Arabia who, according the official story, supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers and, we now know, supported at least some of them in the US in the run-up to the attacks. Cameron's advisers are probably aware that the demand is growing in Congress to release the redacted part of the Congressional 9/11 probe which describes this in more detail, but the evidence is already public in the form of FBI leaks.

We are left with the most bizarre passage of all, but perhaps the part that could prove the most significant as the 9/11 truth movement continues to spread its influence globally. With his reference to "the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot" Cameron is pedaling his own lies. Most in the 9/11 truth movement have an open mind as to what a genuine investigation might find. There is as much interest in the role of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and their friends in the CIA who blocked the arrest of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The most vocal US group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, studiously takes no position other than to demand an inquiry into the as yet unexplained collapse of skyscrapers apparently brought down with astonishing speed by two plane collisions in New York, events the Twin Towers were designed specifically to withstand.

The emerging global truth movement that is making Clinton, Obama and Cameron so nervous is fed by the unanswered questions over 9/11 and 7/7 -- but also by the lies used to start the 2003 Iraq war. If they will lie systematically to start a war, the supreme crime according to the Nuremberg tribunal, why would they tell the truth about anything else? ask the skeptics. So far no politician or newspaper editor has been jailed or even sacked for incompetence as a result of the weapons of mass destruction hoax, so that might be a good place for Cameron to make a start at "not standing by." Why not hold a public inquiry into how the media laundered the Iraq lies and why with a few exceptions they have not even apologized?

Contrary to politicians' claims, there has never been a full and thorough inquiry into 9/11 or 7/7. An inquiry cannot be genuine when the intelligence agencies, whose activities or lack of them are an essential part of the story, are obstructing justice themselves. For instance, the CIA refused any access by the 9/11 Commission to their interrogations of alleged 9/11 organisers, now Guatanamo Bay prisoners, nor to the interrogators, nor to the interrogation records which they later illegally destroyed.

The 9/11 Commission was, in the words of its chair and co-chair, "set up to fail." Commissioner Max Cleland did not even sit through the charade; he resigned, calling the inquiry a whitewash and a scandal. Does that make Cleland a non-violent extremist?

The 7/7 inquest was constrained in many ways, not least by the state counsel making it clear at the outset that they would not look into so-called "conspiracy theories." This suggests another way that Cameron could "not stand by." Why not reconvene the 7/7 inquiry with orders to look thoroughly into all the "conspiracy theories" with unlimited subpena powers against anyone they or the relatives of the survivors wish to question? Don't the victims deserve that anyway?

Perhaps the most bizarre of all Cameron's logical twists is the claim that the 9/11 truth movement is encouraging Muslim extremism. People saying Osama bin Laden was a dupe of the CIA or even had nothing to do with 9/11 are, according to the prime minister, helping recruit more jihadist supporters for Osama bin Laden's soul mates. In fact al Qaeda and the NATO alliance both agree that the 9/11 truth movement is their enemy, and have condemned it in often similar terms.

This all makes sense if the intelligence agencies have more links than they like to admit with jihadists, that the 9/11 and 7/7 stories are indeed wrong and that NATO governments are trying to find ways to use the fear factor to extend their already pervasive media control by threatening anyone who could be designated a "non-violent extremist," which could be just about anyone the government dislikes.

No need to worry about that though. It's obviously a conspiracy

01273 326862 daytime
Contact Ian Henshall 079469 39217   

We will support any new investigation of the 9/11 attacks so long as
    *it is run by uncompromised people with a range of opinion including those inclined to disbelieve the official 9/11 story.
    *it follows the evidence wherever it leads
         If it takes place in the US to be credible it will need
    *full legal authority to demand immediate access to any evidence and any witness it chooses
    *the resources it requires to carry out its investigation

Reinvestigate 911 is supported by Coffee Plant (
) suppliers of organic and Fairtrade coffees to caterers and retail customers.

7 months in jail for critic of UK terror policy

Cameron's repressive government made its point, did it not?

Saturday, September 20, 2014

White House aided Moscow
in hiding germ war program
Robert M. Gates, defense secretary under the second President Bush and under President Obama, has admitted to having been a key player in an international operation to conceal from the world the Soviet Union's gigantic, treaty-breaking germ war program, according to a trio of reporters associated with the New York Times. Supposedly Gates was trying to prevent reformer Mikhail Gorbachev, whom Gates adjudged as the West's best bet, from being weakened politically.

Yet, Gorbachev and his government were denying the existence of a monstrous threat to humanity. Maybe the military had the audacity to conceal the program from Gorbachev, was one theory.

It is true that Communist Gorbachev was threatened politically by nationalist Boris Yeltsin. And, when the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse, an alleged coup d'etat occurred, that rapidly went awry. I say "alleged" because an obvious motive of the plotters was to arrest Yeltsin, after which Gorbachev could have been restored to power.

At any rate, the point is that in 1991 the White House was meddling in press matters in order to keep a Communist from looking bad,  supporting him against a nationalist known to be highly amenable to Western ideas and who publicly stated that Russia should renounce the world empire business and concentrate on homeland affairs.

On Page 126 of  Germs -- Biological Weapons and America's Secret War, we read:

"The British were eager to expose the Soviet lies, perhaps by arranging for [high-level defector Vladimir] Pasechnik to make his charges public on a television documentary. Robert Gates, Bush's deputy national security adviser, was horrified by this idea, fearing it would humiliate Gorbachev and hamper his reform efforts."

Gates's argument prevailed, say authors Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad, who quoted Gates as saying, "The information was tightly held. And the Bush administration had a pretty good reputation for keeping secrets."

Miller now appears on Fox News and writes a column for Pundicity. Engelberg is top editor at ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative news outfit that occasionally partners with the Times. Broad remains a science writer for the Times.

One might argue that helping this particular red was a rational policy. But, there are numerous other similar pointers that strongly suggest excessive communist influence at high levels in Washington.

Joining the CIA in 1966, Gates headed the agency from 1991 to 1993, having been the agency's deputy director from 1986 until 1989. He was a national security aide to President George H.W. Bush and  from January 20, 1989, until November 6, 1991. The elder Bush, who was President Gerald Ford's CIA chief for one year, approved of Gates's policy of favoring the top Soviet communist over the pro-Western nationalist Yeltsin.

Bush is still smarting from criticism of his "Chicken Kiev" speech in which he took a hard line backing reform communism over liberty.

Here we see a CIA careerist who angled on behalf of communism over freedom, which some might interpret as lending credence to  the long-held suspicion within the CIA that the agency was penetrated by moles.

The Soviet biowar program is discussed here:

Biotech or bioterror? A global dilemma

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Top NSA whistleblower sees
federal 'fraud' in 9/11 probes

William Binney, a top-tier official who quit the NSA  soon after 9/11 over President Bush's surveillance policies, has denounced the government investigations of the collapses of World Trade Center towers as "scientific fraud."

Binney, who spent 30 years in the code-cracking business, told an interviewer he was  convinced by a physicist and another scientist that the government had committed fraud in its 9/11 probe.

Binney said was approached to listen to the case for fraud after receiving an award on behalf of Laura Poitras, who was instrumental in breaking the Edward Snowden story.

He scorned the National Institutes for Standards and Technology for avoiding what he considered important areas of inquiry, noting that if crypto-analysts thought that way, codes would go uncracked.

Several years ago, Glenn Greenwald, then with Salon and later to team with Poitras in exposing NSA dragnet surveillance, strongly criticized the federal claims about Bruce Ivins, a federal scientist who committed suicide in 2008 after being accused of being the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks. A 2011 National Science Foundation report found that FBI and Justice Department claims concerning the scientific evidence against Ivins could not be substantiated.

Frontline interview of Binney

German interview of Binney

USA Today talks to Binney, 2 other NSA veterans

Wikipedia biographical sketch of Binney

Floors pancake faster than free fall in video
The first 17 minutes of this video are  impressive. Wayne Coste, who identifies himself as an engineer, points out visible evidence of controlled demolition of one of the twin towers.

The video of a tower collapsing shows ejecta exploding sideways from the building floor by floor. The reason the pancake theory doesn't work is because you can see this happening a split second BEFOREarrival of the leading edge of the debris cloud at the same height. But the debris cloud is falling at maximum velocity; nothing can fall faster. So the floors can't pancake faster than the debris cloud falls, which is what the video shows them doing for, as he says, about 20 floors.

Now a quibble might be that the force transmitted through the steel frame can travel faster than free fall. But it seems very doubtful one would see such an elegant pattern from that consideration. Another worry is that we don't know the provenance of this copy of the video, though there is no reason to doubt that the imagery is faithful to the original. Still, one can imagine federal officials shrugging their shoulders and suggesting that perhaps the clip has been tampered with.

Scientist troubled by cognitive dissonance among citizenry

Josh Mitteldorf, who has a background in physics, biology and computer simulation, reports that his similation of a trade center tower's collapse yielded a rate of fall far slower than what was observed.

He comments on the problem of lack of public awareness of the 9/11 issues thus:

I don't know anymore how to bring people aboard.  I think anyone who can be convinced by arguments from science or common sense physics is already convinced.  The problem now is that all our media are steeped so deeply in a vast charade that once the belief cracks, everything falls apart. Few people have the strength to confront the fact that the social and economic basis for their lives are built on lies of Orwellian scale.  It is the edge of madness to think 
  • that the politics we've discussed with our friends is a carefully-crafted illusion, 
  • that the economic system where we define our success and our value in the world has no legitimacy 
  • that progressive and liberal commentators who we admire are paid (or coerced) by the CIA to avoid 9/11 and other sensitive areas
  • that the vote count in major elections is systematically corrupted, always pulling toward the right
  • that all the non-profit advocacy groups that we support, the major environmental and civil rights and peace groups are working within a system that is unresponsive to them by design.
About half my friends have figured this out and share conspiracy stories with me, but the other half (including my daughters and my ex-wife) won't tolerate me talking about politics. 

Spiritual aside: The Battle of Armageddon by Hank Williams

Friday, August 29, 2014

'Paranoid' CIA conspiracy theorist
was right about red pull at the top
The CIA's counterintelligence chief, James Jesus Angelton, had been discredited as a "paranoid schizophrenic" toward the end of his career. The mole-hunter had been forced aside before his death in 1987.

However, a CIA inspector general later found that CIA directors under Presidents Reagan, Bush (the elder) and Clinton had been under strong KGB influence and had been passing Communist disinformation to the White House. Bush had been CIA chief under President Ford, and had also been Reagan's "co-president" for national security (at least until the Iran-Contra scandal flared).

This bit of history comes from the writer Edward Jay Epstein, as posted on Cryptome.

The purpose of the first excerpt on the Cryptome site is to pave the way for the second piece, which suggests that Edward Snowden's thefts involve far more than data on surveillance of Americans and that those public revelations may have been meant as a smokescreen for espionage. I don't necessarily agree with that. Why bother with the elaborate deception? Had he been a typical defecting spy, one would expect that he and his masters would have arranged a sensible escape plan in advance.

But the point I wish to make concerns the CIA inspector general verifying a major part of what many had suspected.

In a recent biography, James Jesus Angleton; Was He Right?, Epstein writes:

'In 1995, however , the CIA Inspector General found that in the 1980s and early 1990s the KGB had dispatched at least a half-dozen double agents who provided disinformation cooked up in Moscow to their CIA case officers. It further discovered that this concoction of bogus and factually true information had routinely been passed between 1986 and 1994 to three Presidents– President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton. The disinformation, according to the Inspector General, became part of one of the CIA's most highly classified products, with each report signed personally by the CIA director, provided with a distinctive blue stripe to signify their importance , and sent directly to the President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State. When the CIA Inspector General retrospectively traced out the path of this disinformation in the blue border reports, he found that the “senior CIA officers responsible for these reports had known that some of their sources were controlled by Russian intelligence.” These CIA officials apparently continued to forward the Russian disinformation to the White House because it would be too embarrassing for them to admit that they had been so badly deceived. Whatever their motive, the CIA officers who had been gulled by the KGB found a common interest with the KGB in not revealing on-going deception. The CIA Director John Deutch, who had received these blue border reports when he was deputy director of the Department of Defense, told Congress that the CIA’s failure to disclose that the intelligence was from KGB-controlled agents was "an inexcusable lapse in elementary intelligence practice."'

An insightful retrospective on Epstein:

It should be noted that Epstein has often been embroiled in controversy, especially with respect to his analyses of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Within 2 hours of 9/11 attacks,
CIA 'knew' al Qaeda was guilty

Ex-CIA chief counsel John Rizzo told Spiegel magazine:

"I actually wrote the first list [of potential covert actions] the day of 9/11, literally two hours after the attack. Like everyone else, I was in a state of shock and bewilderment, but I knew that we were going to undertake counteractions that were unprecedented in my career. I scribbled down on my yellow legal pad conceivable options, including lethal operations against al-Qaida -- not just the al-Qaida elements who carried out the 9/11 attack, but also those who would be planning future attacks. The list included, for the first time in the history of the CIA, a program to detain and interrogate senior al-Qaida leaders."

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Press faces computer control
under proposed federal rule 

If the Guardian U.S. edition has leaked NSA files in its computer, a proposed new U.S. rule permits the government to remotely enter the computer and seize or copy the data of interest, according to a document published by Cryptome.

A court could approve raiding an overseas computer to confiscate data, the proposal says. That might mean Germany's Der Spiegel, which has published a number of NSA stories, could have its computer system raided by operatives interested in erasing data thought to be relevant to U.S. national security.

The proposed rule change draws no distinction between press computers and non-press computers.

From the proposed change in federal rules on criminal procedures:

"The amendment provides that
in two specific circumstances a magistrate judge in a
district where activities related to a crime may have
occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote
access to search electronic storage media and seize or copy
electronically stored information even when that media or
information is or may be located outside of the district."

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Military trying to intimidate general reader? 

It sounds like the usual tortured military rinky dink: Military people may not read The Intercept, where Glenn Greenwald is a staff writer, because it is the military's responsibility to safeguard classified documents.

The problem is, the documents are public. Doesn't matter, says the military. You may endanger your security clearance if you read a classified document on a news site via an "unclassified" computer.

This "reasoning" is associated with the idea that, in addition to Edward Snowden, there may be a second leaker. It is not explained why this possibility is relevant.

Aside from silly bureaucratism, we may have a case here of the military trying to send a psyops message that there is some inherent wrong in Americans reading documents that have not been declassified. The securocrats, I speculate, wish to get the message out via the outraged media that the government takes a very dim view of any American reading a classified document without its permission -- even if it is published in the press.

This suspicion is bolstered by the curious phrasing found in the military prohibition, as quoted by The Intercept:

Viewing potentially classified material (even material already wrongfully released in the public domain) from unclassified equipment will cause you long term security issues.  This is considered a security violation.