Uploaded: Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 10:38 am
Green Party to run TV political ads locally
Palo Altan Carol Brouillet, who is the Green Party candidate running against Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, will get her message on TV with a 30-second ad scheduled to start running Wednesday.
Brouillet said the ads will run more than 200 times in the 14th Congressional District at or near prime time on cable channels CNN, Fox and CNBC. Because the ads are just running in the district, "they aren't that expensive," she said.
Brouillet has long been a critic of the government's explanation of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, when the World Trade Towers were demolished by terrorists who hijacked commercial jetliners.
"A number of documentaries have questioned the official explanation of 9/11," Brouillet said. "Internationally, people are questioning the official story."
-- Don Kazak
Posted by Carol Brouillet,
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 30, 2008 at 12:19 am
I appreciate the supportive comments posted here from local people and some of my heroes- including whistleblower, Kevin Ryan, who lost his job at UL for publicly questioning the NIST Report. He edits the Journal of 9/11 Studies (see Web Link )and has given some excellent presentations examining the problems with the NIST Report which are posted online and are included in some of the documentaries which are available. Anthony J. Hall is a Canadian professor and the author of- The American Empire and the Fourth World. He recently spoke at a conference in Edmonton. The title of his presentation was- The Lies and Crimes of 911: A Canadian View of the War on Terror's Origins (See
Web Link and there is a video of the talk online).
Despite the resistance to the issue of 9/11, the truth movement continues to grow and I feel honored to be a part of it, and in good company, with people like Kevin Ryan, Anthony Hall, Steve E. Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, AIA... whom I greatly admire and respect for their intelligence, integrity and courage.
In the last year and a half, I cut back my Listening Project in Downtown Palo Alto, so that I could host a weekly radio show called Questioning War-Organizing Resistance on We the People Radio Network out of Austin, Texas, and I was able to do shows on any topic that I chose. I did one show on Scientists, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth with Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA, Ron Brookman, Kamal Obeid, and Scott C. Grainger, PE. I was glad to hear firsthand from structural engineers and a fire prevention engineer their perception of the problems with NIST's explanation of the destruction of the towers. After the show I received an email from the wife of one of the structural engineers suggesting that I do a show on "Denial." She wrote to me that she understood all the technical jargon and reasons why the official explanation was "impossible," because she was married to an engineer... I followed up on her suggestion and did two shows- one on overcoming individual denial, and the other on overcoming collective denial with several psychologists. One of the psychologists suggested that the best we could do is simply have information available, but never force it upon anyone, because it could be so upsetting to people's worldviews. I actually softened the images in my TV ad, removing the more traumatic images of the exploding first and second towers, because they are very disturbing, and including the more obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7, which many people still have not heard of, in hopes of getting people to question 9/11 and find out for themselves what is wrong with the official narrative.
I place my hopes upon the rationality and intelligence of people when presented with facts and information to make wiser, more informed decisions. I do understand that those who do not like "the message" generally attack the messenger, that is the risk that I take and others have taken. As Schopenhauer says- All truth passes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
I don't think there is much danger that I will be elected to Congress next week, but I have spoken with Arizona Senator Karen Johnson and Jesse Ventura, both outspoken about the need for a real investigation and critical of the 9/11 Commission. Karen will probably run for Governor of Arizona in 2010 and Jesse will probably run for President in 2012. Probably by 2010, the whole world, including the United States will not believe the official story.
We showed several American documentaries, a German documentary and an Italian documentary- Zero- An Investigation into 9/11 at our 4th Annual 9/11 Film Festival last 9/11/2008 at the Grand Lake Theater. Zero was also shown on televison in Russia to millions of people. The organization that I founded, Northern Caifornia 9/11 Truth Alliance distributes documentaries to community access stations across the country. There are now so many excellent books on the subject that I can't read or review all of them.
I admit that I was almost "all alone" when I began the Listening Project in Downtown Palo Alto in October 2001, and marched on Eshoo's office demanding a congressional investigation in January 2002. My best friend asked me, "Are you crazy?" when she saw my first 9/11 truth banner at an anti-war rally in February 2002, before we had magazines, books, documentaries. I remember, also, when I was "ignorant about politics" before I started doing research on the CIA, and other issues, that transformed my life. Maybe I am crazy to believe that truth, love, compassion are stronger than lies, fear and greed, but I plan on continuing to seek and speak the truth, and working and organizing for peace and justice.
Posted by Carol Brouillet,
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 2, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Popular Mechanic's article and book has been thoroughly debunked by David Ray Griffin in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
Here's an excerpt from Griffin's book which shatters much of PM's dubious credibility, although this is but the tip of an iceberg:
"Popular Mechanics next attempts to refute the 9/11 truth movement's claim that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 "were brought down intentionally - not by hijacked airplanes, but by... controlled demolition." It makes this attempt primarily by appealing to the NIST report.... Continuing the ploy of suggesting that all "experts" support the official account while only loony "conspiracy theorists" support the alternative theory, the PM authors, in introducing the controlled demolition claim, do not mention any of the physicists, engineers or philosophers of science who have made it. They instead mention a Danish writer who thinks that the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers was "part of a wide-ranging plot by the Freemasons to create a New World Order" and that "the Apollo moon landings were a hoax."
They then mention that the controlled demolition hypothesis is also endorsed by Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist at the Department of Labor... [and] continuing their effort to discredit their opposition, begin their next paragraph with these words: "Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views..." Although I am not quite sure how many skeptics these authors can hold in one hand, "a handful" suggests merely a few, perhaps a dozen. However, the website "Professors Question 9/11" has well over a hundred names, and they, moreover, constitute only a fraction of the active members of the 9/11 truth movement having academic credentials.
In any case, the important part of the statement is the next part, which says "not one of the leading [alternative] conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction or related fields."
An obvious problem with this statement is that the PM authors, in writing their article and now their book, have become "leading conspiracy theorists" for the other side but evidently do not have academic degrees in "engineering, construction or related fields." I would not, however, use that as an argument against their book. To be a credible, responsible defender of either the official or alternative theory about the WTC collapses, one need not have a degree in physics, engineering or any other technical field. What one needs is the ability to read with comprehension, to evaluate evidence, and to draw logical conclusions from that evidence. Our entire judicial system depends on the ability of laypeople - judges and jury members - to evaluate the testimony of competing experts.
Of course, as that statement indicates, it is necessary for those who challenge the official conspiracy theory to be able to appeal to experts in fields relevant to the question of why the buildings collapsed, and one of those fields is physics. The 9/11 truth movement includes several people with advanced degrees in physics, one of whom, Steven Jones, is among the leading critics of the official theory. The movement also includes chemists, engineers, computer scientists, mathematicians, architects, pilots, former military officers, politicians, and people with expertise in political science and military intelligence, all of which are relevant to the question at hand. [see the Patriots Question 9/11 website]
The PM authors, however, try to convince their readers that all the experts are on their side. Having implied that there are no experts who support the controlled demolition theory, they then say that the collapses of the WTC buildings have been studied by "hundreds of experts from academic and private industry, as well as the government," after which they assert:
The conclusions reached by these experts have been consistent: A combination of physical damage from the airplane crashes - or, in the case of WTC 7, from falling debris - and prolonged exposure to the resulting fires ultimately destroyed the structural integrity of all three buildings.
But this statement is doubly misleading. On the one hand, virtually all of the "experts" who have reached - or at least publicly endorsed - the government's theory have been working on behalf of government agencies (such as FEMA and NIST) and/or for private industries that are dependent on government funding. On the other hand, the 9/11 truth movement can appeal to a growing number of experts, including Holland's Danny Jowenko, Switzerland's Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider, and Finland's Heikki Kurttila, who reject the official theory. The debate between the two theories cannot, therefore, be settled by appeal to authority. It must be settled by appeal to the evidence.
Posted by Carol Brouillet,
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 3, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Those who bash me as a "Conspiracy Nut" seem oblivious to the unraveling of the official 9/11 "narrative."
Being the first to demand a Congressional Investigation of 9/11 back in 2001, I have noticed a pattern of lying, destruction of evidence, cover-ups.
In January 2002, Bush and Cheney asked Daschle to limit the investigation to the "Intelligence failures." Originally L. Britt Snider (former inspector general at the CIA) was supposed to lead the inquiry, but he quit. (Ironically he quit on the day that I protested Bush in San Jose with a big banner that said "Allowing ex-CIA Snider to investigate 9/11, is like allowing ex-CEO Lay to investigate Enron.")
Who oversaw the first joint Inquiry? Porter Goss and Bob Graham, the men who had breakfast on 9/11 with the head of Pakistan's ISI, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the man who had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the attack. Did they investigate themselves? No.
The 9/11 Report said-
"Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."
The report failed to address the foreknowledge of insiders who bought and put options on United and American and financial companies whose stocks plunged after the attacks, and call options in military companies whose stocks soared after the attacks. The report ignored the $100,000 and Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad.
The Commission itself was forced upon a very reluctant White House who resisted it from the beginning. Henry Kissinger, known for lying to Congress, his role in the Chilean coup d'Etat, the secret bombing of Cambodia was to chair the Commission, until he withdrew under pressure from the victim's families to reveal his financial ties.
Philip Zelikow, who basically ran the Commission and wrote the report, wrote the outline before they even started the investigation. He was the author of the "Pre-Emptive War Doctrine." He had to testify before the Commission, as he was part of the National Security transition team.
The 9/11 Report relied upon "tortured confessions." None of the Commissioners had access to the witnesses, or alleged masterminds.
Key evidence was systemically destroyed- including the audiotapes from the air traffic controllers who were communicating with the planes on 9/11, the videotapes of the interrogations of the "Al Qaeda suspects."
Even Kean and Hamilton, co-chairs of the Commission, in their 2006 book say "We were set up to fail."
The military has come up with three different timelines for the events that morning, and none of them are believable or can account for their failure to intercept any of the hijacked planes.
The Commission Report completely fails to acknowledge or explain the presence of an E-4B over Washington D.C. before the Pentagon was hit. The E-4B is also known as the "Doomsday plane" and is the mst sophisticated communications plane in the airforce arsenal, the one designed to survive a nuclear attack.
The Report also fails to mention that multiple exercises were being conducted on 9/11, Global Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, including plane hijackings, and a plane crashing into a building scenarios.
The Report fails to mention Norman Mineta's damning testimony about what happened in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center before the Pentagon was hit, when a young man asked Cheney three times about an incoming plane- "The plane is 50 miles, 30 miles, ten miles out, do the orders still stand?" And Cheney's response, "Of course, the orders still stand, did I say anything to the contrary?"
While there might be other interpretations of those events, Griffin outlines clearly in his excellent book 9/11 Contradictions- An Open Letter to Congress and the Press that the dramatic changes in the official story, versions #1 and versions #2, which appears a year later, after versions #1 fails, deserve some attention, scrutiny, investigation.
Clearly the omission of the destruction of World Trade Center 7 from the 9/11 Commission Report occurred because they could not explain it, and hoped to ignore it, and not draw attention to it. Most people probably still do not even realize that the 47 storey Building #7 was destroyed on 9/11/2001, nor that the event looks like a controlled demolition, and can best be explained by controlled demolition. NIST's recent report, released just prior to the Democratic Convention, and more or less ignored by the media, is not credible, and was thoroughly challenged by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
At the 9/11 Film Festival, which I organized, many of the films examined WTC 7's destruction. Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth spoke about it.
Our other guest speakers, however, addressed "Continuity of Government" which is not very well known. Peter Dale Scott, author of The Road to 9/11 (and many other books), professor emeritus at UC Berkeley, notes that Cheney and Rumsfeld worked on plans for Continuity of Government for two decades prior to 9/11, when they were in the private sector, and not even in government. COG would be more appropriately termed "Change of Government" since it really ends our Constitutional form of government and replaces it with a secret/shadow government with undefined, unknown rules where Congress is "expendable." Cheney has been rather public about the need for a stronger executive branch of government, without the dehabilitating restrictions imposed after the Watergate Era.
The Project for a New American Century, which they were a part of, along with much of the Bush cabal, clearly stated their goal of global domination ,and called for a reorganization of the American military, and stated that "The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a New Pearl Harbour." [In 1998 Philip Zelikow also co-authored an article "Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy" in which they speculated that had the '93 bombing of the WTC succeeded-"the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force."]
On the morning of 9/11, Continuity of Government was declared, we went into a "State of Emergency" which has been renewed every year. The White House does not feel obliged to obey the Constitution, the Supreme Court, International Law, or respond to Congress.
Congressman De Fazio, on the Homeland Security Oversight Committee asked to see the plans and was denied access to them. He said, on the floor of Congress:
The Bush administration tells us they have such a plan. They have
introduced a little sketchy public version that is clearly inadequate and doesn't really tell us what they have in mind, but they said, don't worry; there's a detailed classified version. But now they've denied the entire Homeland Security Committee of the United States House of Representatives access to their so-called detailed plan to provide for continuity of government. They say, trust us. Trust us, the people who brought us Katrina, to be competent in the face of a disaster? Trust us, the people who brought us warrantless wiretapping and other excesses eroding our civil liberties? Trust us?
Maybe the plan just really doesn't exist and that's why they won't
show it to us. I don't know. Or maybe there's something there that's
outrageous. The American people need their elected representatives to review this plan for the continuity of government.
Ex-Congressman Dan Hamburg also spoke at our event. He had co-authored an article entitled- Rule by fear or rule by law?
This is the heart of the matter, how can we collectively allow ourselves to be ruled by those wielding violent force who ignore the rule of law, have lied to us repeatedly, have enriched themselves, while waging war on other nations, our Constitution, and our rights.
I do not support torture, war. I believe we should have honest, accountable, law abiding, elected officials.
We've witnessed two flagrantly stolen Presidential elections. We've seen the mass media cheerlead the lies used to sell us the war on Iraq and deny the problems in our voting processes.
When I ask people questions, at my Listening Project downtown, I can tell by their answers, if they get their information from Fox News, NPR, Pacifica, by reading books, from the internet, from their engagement in the real world.
Marines have tried to convince me that WTC 7, was an invention of that "dubious left wing BBC." I remain unconvinced by the regurgitation of what I recognize as "lies on the part of the official propagandist mouthpieces" when contradicted by witnesses and more reliable sources of information.
Sadly, it is "two distinctly different narratives of the same events which leads to war" according to Michael Andregg, author of On the Causes of War. There is fierce opposition to relinquishing one's faith and trust in the dominant institutions, no matter how well merited.