Green Party to run TV political ads locally

The ad can also be seen on YouTube at Web Link and says: On 9/11, three skyscrapers were felled by two planes, World Trade Center 7, the Patriot Act, the financial crash, the bailout, all share characteristics of controlled demolitions, criminal fraud, and treason. We the people, need the courage to seek and speak the truth. We need to investigate the big lies. We need to arrest, impeach the terrorists. We need to defend our Constitution, our rights, our lives. I am Carol Brouillet, Green Party Candidate for Congress and I approve this message. Vote Green for truth, peace and justice.

Eshoo has not supported a real investigation of 9/11, nor impeachment, and she voted for the bailout. Congress is sworn to exercise oversight over the Executive Branch, to defend the Constitution. Without Congress's support the Administration couldn't have have violated our rights, blithely carry on illegal, immoral wars, based upon hundreds of lies. The biggest financial crime in world history is taking place now. Before 9/11 I was working on changing the monetary system and I wrote a longer article- Evolution of the Apocalypse- Empire's Demise- Human Renaissance which looks in greater depth at the financial system and the resemblance between 9/11 and the financial bailout. In both cases, people in key positions, most responsible for the disasters have been rewarded, promoted, and have become more powerful, instead of being held accountable.

I'd like to see more details about the critical issues that we must face as a nation, than the cost of advertising. In this country it seems that speech is free- only if you can't be seen or heard, otherwise it is damn expensive and a luxury of the rich and powerful. The internet is the last bastion of free speech and now that is threatened.

Query, Carol:
Where are you on the 2nd amendment? Abortion?

Let the truth be told. We need candidates who are willing to confront the facts. Thanks Carol.

Carol,

I am voting for you. Enough of the big business driven one-party democratic/republican rule.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Carol has an international reputation for her untiring and truly innovative work as a peace activist and advocate for 9/11 Truth. She devotes herself in all sorts of ways, day and night, 24/7, to the cause of a more harmonious and decent social order. You voters in the Paolo Alta area are fortunate to have such a gifted, wise and dedicated candidate willing and ready to represent you. For the betterment of the world and your community, send Carol to Congress.

Anthony J. Hall
Lethbridge, Alberta
Canada

Don't confuse tin foil and truth. This woman seeks the truth and anyone who says they know what happened on 911 I ask them this. Why don't you or the 911 commission follow the money? That is how you get to the truth.

Defenders of the official account of 9/11 would have you believe there are no credible critics of the official account. However, consider the following:

- Raymond McGovern, PhD, former Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) and 27-year CIA veteran. "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke." (According to the CIA, NIE's are "the most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues.")

- William Christison, former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 250 CIA analysts. 29-year CIA veteran. "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. ... The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them."

- Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."

- General Albert Stubblebine, former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence. 32-year U.S. Army veteran. "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"

For decades, we relied on these individuals to collect information essential to our national security and provide critical analysis during which time the U.S. faced far more real and much more serious threats than anything today. We cannot now ignore their stunning condemnation of the official account of 9/11.

Information about 1,000 other credible critics of the official account of 9/11 is available at Web Link

Here is the truth:

1. Two airplanes, hijacked by operatives of Osama bin Laden, were driven into the two WTC towers. These towers crashed to the ground as the result of damage caused by the planes crashing into them. Other building were victims of collateral damage, as the two towers fell to the ground.

2. Another hijacked airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

3. A fouth hijacked plane crashed into field in Pennsylvania.

4. Kennedy was killed by Oswald, and there never was a bullet that changed trjectory in mid air.

5. Paranoia continues to fuel weak minds.

Gary, asymmetrical damage from impact and fire can not cause
symmetrical collapse. Think about it. Government investigators
tell us the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes, and they provide no
evidence that those wimpy oxygen-starved (sooty smoke) fires
significantly weakened the steel. NIST has not one steel sample
from the main structural columns showing heating above 480 degrees
F.

Perimeter columns were built for a hurricane, rated at 2000% of their
live loads. The government's computer models were stopped at the
point of collapse initiation. Their reports assumed that because we
saw a total symmetrical collapse, initiation of any collapse at all
would be total and symmetrical. That's bad science. The structural
steel wreckage was shipped off to China before experts could see it.
That's bad science.

We need new, thorough, honest investigations. 500 architects and
engineers agree. Check out AE911Truth.org

You're in the business of war,peace is bad for business.This country sends more on defense than all the other nations of the world combined.The 'business of war' creates millions of jobs.and each and every single one of those jobs depends upon there being a well defined enemy worthy of stockpiling weapons against.For 50 years that enemy was the Soviet Union.Without it those jobs/ the defense budget were threatened.911 returned us to the cold war 'status quo' providing the needed enemy.Coming ,as we are told it did, at the hands of the very same (formerly?) CIA assets we had used to hasten the collapse of The Soviet Union (by given them their own 'Vietnam' in Afghanistan).Of course people are going to ask questions.Why is it considered crazy to ask questions?Considering what 911 has done for the budgets of the CIA,FBI,NSA etc.one might conclude that those are NOT the best organizations to be investigating the matter.

Carol, Thank you for your activism. How inspiring that 9/11 Truth is finding its way into the mainstream, even with great difficulty, I understand. Let us all keep pushing for an investigation into this incomprehensible act of evil. That such death and misery on 9/11/01, and much more in the ensuing war, was perpetrated by American officials, elected and not, is appalling. Bringing such evil to light is not a pretty business. Thank you for being an early leader.

Thanks to Carol for standing up for the truth when others might be intimidated with the petty name-calling of those who lack intellectual curiosity.

The label "conspiracy theory" applies to the Government version too, but in this case the official version is the least believable one to anyone who bothers to investigate.

There are many credible, educated people who support a through investigation of the 9-11 event including Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth ( www.ae911truth.org ).

Go Carole! We need your activism!.

Terry Koch

Wow! I am in Texas. This article about Carol Brouillet's integrity hit headlines here coinciding with Willie Nelson and Gov. Jesse Ventura discussing the same Cover-up about 9/11/01! My hat is off to Carol who has the courage to bring this issue out into the open with transparency in government!
Willie Nelson and Gov. Jesse Ventura Video --> Web Link

Senator Karen Johnson addresses the Senate floor about the Cover-up and controlled demolition evidence --> Web Link

Over 500 independent Architects and Engineers point to evidence of explosives! www.AE911Truth.org

Who would you tend to believe?
A government report compiled by ten listed authors at NIST and a few dozen contracted and employed staff?
...or...
...would you tend to believe over 500 independent architects and engineers who put their reputations on the line?

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH www.AE911Truth.org

Carol -- your had needs more tin foil.

For once the biggest nutball comments seem to be from out of town.

All they have is ad hominem attacks ('tinfoil',nutcase). Go Carol!

Those who don't question the official conspiracy theory (OCT) are simply inarticulate, ignorant, corporate media-brainwashed lemmings (how's that for counter ad hom!)

They are waking up slowly as the last act of a corrupt government is to loot the country.

I wonder which US FED GOVT [sic] agency that the above spooks, who hurried to post against 911 truth, work for, and are paid by - to make such postings ?
What a world of disinfo we inhabit.
You would think these people would be worried about their own welfares, and the welfares of their families, when a rogue US govt is willing to kill 3,000 Americans for political gain.
They can't handle the truth - the truth would end their paychecks.

Carol has a wonderful platform: Transparency and Honesty

This Architect in a TV interview supports her position towards wanting the truth about 9/11/01. Web Link
Research Scientists regarding 9/11/01 --> Web Link

Carol Brouillet is an inspiration. Few people, if any, work harder to defend our country and promote peace. She is a real leader, and California's 14th district would be lucky to have her as their representative in Congress.

Thanks for all you do Carol.

The chair and the vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton)admit that the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail. I think that says a lot about the integrity of the 9/11 Commission. They failed to address 70% of the Family Steering Committee's questions. The budget was way underfunded and they gave a very short time to investigate the worst crime in our country in modern times. The Executive Director,Philip Zelikow, had numerous conflicts of interest connected with the Bush Administration and should have never been considered for this important job. I would be careful calling anyone a "kook" because they dare to ask questions and want to see a new independent investigation of 9/11.

On 9/11/2001, many highly unlikely coincidences occurred, enabling 19 hijackers to commandeer jumbo jets using box cutters and fly them precisely into their targets. Merits further investigation (or a real investigation, I should say).

In the Bay Area, you're lucky to have a candidate like Carol who is unafraid to speak up and ask questions. It's time we all started asking a few questions.

As a former Bay Area resident, I may someday return, and nothing would be better than to have a Green Congressional representative who would represent me, rather than special interests, in the Congress.

John M. Wages, Jr.
Candidate, US House of Representatives, MS-01
www.VoteJohnWages.com

"As a former Bay Area resident, I may someday return, and nothing would be better than to have a Green Congressional representative who would represent me, rather than special interests, in the Congress."

John, don't hold your breath. Many former 60's radicals have either moved away, died early, or become conservatives (like me).

Carol is a histrionic wreck. There is nothing to her conspiracy charges about 9-11, that she puts forth, ad nauseum.

Take a deep breath, then take your meds.

Trust me, she will lose. Life will move on...as it should.

Gary, you say "Carol is a histrionic wreck."

Yeah, that's what I always say about Paul Revere. What an attention-seeker he was, riding around late at night shouting nonsense about the redcoats coming--when honest citizens were trying to get a good night's sleep so they could work productively in the morning!

You say "There is nothing to her conspiracy charges about 9-11." There is plenty to what she tells us about 9/11. It's not a theory but a fact that the 9/11 widows' 300 questions got only 27 answers. It's not a theory but a fact that over 100 first responders reported explosions and/or flashes of light as the towers began coming down. It's not a theory but a fact that NORAD's shifting stories about the lack of air defense for 100 minutes on 9/11 so troubled the 9/11 Commission that they considered asking the Justice Department for an investigation.

If you ever get around to investigating the facts for yourself, you will understand and celebrate Carol's efforts to bring these facts into public awareness.

ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHO IS THE CLOSEST PERSON TO BEATING ESHOO. DOES ANYBODY KNOW?

GOT ANNA'S RE-ELECTION MAILER ON SATURDAY, AND I PUT IT IN THE DUMPSTER WHERE IT BELONGED. WHERE OUR $700 BILLION IN TAX REVENUE WENT TOO.

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.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Anna Eshoo's record of complacent complicity with the Bush regime's neo-fascistic agenda is shameful and cowardly. As one with a "safe seat" she could have been a leader in defending the Constitution and our system of checks and balances. Instead she made happy talk about her trivial accomplishments, and yipped ineffectually at not only the worst, but the most dangerous President in US history. Carol has been speaking out courageously for years now. Anna is a symbol of all that is wrong with this decaying culture and this Quisling Congress.

Why is this not in the mainstream international press? The world is watching......

CArol Brouillet has been watching too many X-Files episodes--she sees conspiracies everywhere. She does not have a chance on tuesday--I suggest she withdraw and save herself the embarrassment of a crushing defeat

Carol Brouillet has already "won a victory" for honor and truth and integrity!!

Carol has "won" by taking a stand against injustice, by standing tall and firm against unjust wars, by not compromising what is right and valid.

Carol Brouillet has "won" by representing those who have really investigated the issues. She is on the side of those who are aware of what is not being reported by the mainstream press.

Carol Brouillet has won a victory for all of us. Despite the truth possibly being unpopular because it has not been viewed by others, she stood on the side of truth and justice.

ANYONE who really investigates the issues with unfettered thought and looks at the evidence KNOWS that Carol Brouillet is with them.

I would want to have Carol as my friend, someone who cherishes compassion and truth.

FOR THE NAME CALLERS--I would NOT want to have as a friend some caustic, skeptic who strains at criticalness and name-calling. Who would ever want to be around a person like that?!? Who would want to be around a cynical person that is unwilling to thoroughly view the facts and evidence offered?!?

Carol has already won in my eyes. Standing firm by truth despite the odds and ridicule is a legacy statement of one's own worth and value.

Good, Tom T, you can join Carol at her "victory" party and watch a few X-File episodes together

I wonder who Anna will party with? I bet it will be a well-funded
party. Apparently she raised almost a million and a half in "campaign"
contributions, and spent almost one million three on her "campaign."
What campaign? I got a couple of pamphlets in the mail. A million
five every two years is a lot of grease!

"I place my hopes upon the rationality and intelligence of people when presented with facts ..."

Carol,

No you don't. You are all about leftist paranoia and hysteria. You don't have the facts, and you are not interested in them.

Gary,

I've found Carol to be a fountain of facts, while your attitude seems defensive and fact-phobic.

Here are some facts for you:

Several of the alleged hijackers appear to have been residents at various US military bases. The DoD has refused to clarify whether these residents were different people with similar names or not.

Two alleged 9/11 hijackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego, and the FBI would not let the 9/11 Commission interview the informant.

29 pages have been redacted from the first investigation of 9/11, a joint House/Senate inquiry.

A conservative French newspaper, Le Figaro, reported that Osama bin Laden had been treated in the American Hospital in Dubai two months before 9/11 by Dr. Terry Callaway. While there, Le Figaro says, Osama met with CIA agent Larry Mitchell and Saudi Prince Turki al Faisal (later ambassador to the USA). Dr. Callaway was never questioned by the 9/11 Commission.

Government investigators tell us the jet fuel in the towers burned off in ten minutes.

Government investigators provide no evidence that those wimpy oxygen-starved (sooty smoke) fires significantly weakened the steel.

NIST has not one steel sample from the main structural columns showing heating above 480 degrees F.

The government's computer models were stopped at the point of collapse initiation. Their reports assumed that because a total symmetrical collapse happened, initiation of any collapse at all through fire would produce the collapse we saw.

Firemen rioted at Ground Zero, protesting that the hasty cleanup was desecrating the dead.

“Fire Engineering” Magazine protested that the unscientific cleanup was making the investigation “a half baked farce”.

Structural steel wreckage was shipped off to China before experts could see it.

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and/or flashes of light as the towers began coming down.

The 9/11 widows' 300 questions got only 27 answers.

NORAD's shifting stories about the lack of air defense for 100 minutes on 9/11 so troubled the 9/11 Commission that they considered asking the Justice Department for a criminal investigation.

Commissioners Keane and Hamilton said the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail.”

Dr. Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, was an expert in political myth-making.

Zelikow wrote the outline for the 9/11 Commission complete with chapters and sub-headings before the investigation even started.

Zelikow had worked in W's administration, and actually appeared as a witness before the Commission he directed. When family members asked him to resign because of his conflicts of interest, he refused.


If you're interested in facts, Gary, I'd suggest that you consult "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson, a Stanford grad, all of which comes from mainstream news sources. It's published by HarperCollins. An online (searchable!)version is available at HistoryCommons.org (it's called "Complete 911 Timeline").

The facts are disturbing and damning. Wake up, Gary.

Brian,

I know you truly believe what you believe.

You might want to consider the article from Popular Mechanics, from 2005, which addressed many of the conspiracy issues. It is the link, below.

It probably won't have an effect on you or Carol or the rest of your paranoid crowd, but it is worth the effort, if you will make it. This conspiracy notion has consumed Carol (and you, apparently). It is both sad and pathetic, yet humorous at the same time.

Web Link

As an impartial bystander reading this conversation, I'd like to know if Gary has read Brian's links, and vice versa. You both (but Gary especially) seem attached to your own version not willing to even peek at what the other side has to say, much less comment on the specifics. Gary, have you read any of this Web Link? Brian, does the Popular Mechanics article debunk any of your claims?

bystander,

I have listened to Carol's claims about WTC and Building 7 for years. Yes, I have read some of her "evidence", such as it is (it isn't). No, I am not going to follow up every new paranoid claim. I watched this entire scenario play out with the Kennedy assasination, and I am not going to waste any more time on it.

Read the Popular Mechanics article before you make any more claims. It presents rational arguments.

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.

"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."

Carol,

Exactly as predicted, although I think it was in another thread on this forum, you will always claim that official reports of experts are the result of pay offs and collusion. There is no way to satisfy the paranoid mind...it will just keep coming up with boogymen (and books claiming that there are boogymen).

For the rational of mind, I do, indeed, recomment the NIST report:

Web Link

Carol, I suggest you sell your story to Oliver Stone...maybe he will make another foolish movie, like JFK.

I do not know what concerns me more...

the fact that someone that believes in the conspiracy theories revolving 9/11 is running for office...

or the fact that she has apparently raised enough money from equally paranoid members of our society to place ads on tv.

Either way the whole thing makes me embarassed to say I live here.

Tomorrow will bring a stunning defeat for Carol Brouillet in a ridiculous bid for a congressional seat. I cannot believe that anyone would vote for someone that believes in the stupid 9/11 conspiracy theory stories.
Maybe there is some X-Files Society somewhere that needs an elected official--Carol could surely win that election

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.

Carol--you are way out there. The only "unraveling of the official 9/11 narractive" is in your head. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to profit from the events (yes, I consider your run for congress and the accompanying publicity as profit) of 9/11.
Your defeat tomorrow will be stunning and very satisfying for me.

Carol,

Just playing along with your paranoia, maybe it was a conspiracy among William Ayers, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Who knows? Did the 9-11 Commission interview them?

500 architects and engineers demand new 9/11 investigations.

Web Link

30 of them are structural engineers who, after studying the issues, are putting their professional reputations on the line by challenging the government story and inviting us to see what's obvious to the naked eye: those towers didn't fall down, they were blown up.

Why was the structural steel shipped off to China--scooped up so rapidly that experts had no chance to examine it and firemen rioted, protesting the desecration of the dead.

The 9/11 widows got 27 answers to 300 questions. Why don't they deserve answers?

I'd recommend the NIST report to anyone who's interested in a case study of scientific mendacity. NIST ignored results of empirical tests when they failed to yield the desired results. When their initial computer models failed to generate a collapse, they just upped their temperature inputs and assumed more core columns were damaged by impact. And then when they managed to generate a partial, local, asymmetrical collapse, they simply assumed that would result in the total symmetrical and essentially free-fall speed collapse that we saw.

NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 480 degrees F. That's not hot enough to weaken it.

All reliable evidence shows that on 9/11/2001 a well-coordinated group of religious nuts beat our massive defense and military (which were designed to fight more conventional battles). Incompetence is almost always the more likely answer instead of conspiracy.

Rarely have people so plainly stated why they did things. We have a tape of bin Laden bragging about how well the plan worked -- better than even he had hoped. We have the hijackers planning what they would do in Muslim heaven (with 72 virgins or 72 grapes, the translations of the Koran vary).

I have no love for W and his minions, but there's no real evidence that they had the competence to pull off 9/11 (with hijackers from the wrong countries, to boot), and then were so incompetent in its follow-up and war that they supposedly wanted an excuse for.

For a U.S. conspiracy to have been true, there would have to have been hundreds or thousands of Americans involved. And, they would have to have killed anyone who didn't agree to work with them. There is not a single bit of conclusive evidence or testimony to back the conspiracy theory.

It's interesting that 9/11 conspiracy theory is a lot like religion -- no real evidence is necessary.

For a rational, point-by-point analysis, see:

"9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective"
Web Link

Popular Mechanics "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report"
Web Link

Book: "9-11 Myths"
Web Link

Ralph Nader called Obama an Uncle Tom on National TV this week, and would not retract it, he defended it in fact.

I am surprised the Green Party has the gaul to show its face again after that.

Nader and the Green Party are toast, over, caput

Mark Thomas has obviously not done his homework by citing and pointing to websites which cannot challenge the issues raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement and are thoroughly discredited by David Ray Griffin in his book- Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Ralph Nader was absolutely correct in pointing out that Obama's appointees promise us more of the pro-war, por-corporate policies advanced by the Bush and Clinton regimes.

Sadly, Obama's election marks a desire for real change, but more likely is the illusion of change, without any real substance. His cabinet choices include pro-Zionist, pro-torture, pro-war people. Like the Democratic Party he does not advocate accountability, and by promoting the bailout, and continuing with the architects of the biggest financial bubble/heist in history, he is likely to get some of the blame for crises when they inevitably get worse.

So, Carol, Do you have something against Israel (ie. your pro-Zionist comment) or do you believe the myth that the Palestinians are poor, peace loving oppressed people who are being crushed by Israel?
I guess if you believe in the "US was behind 9/11" myth you are entitled to believe other fairy tales as well
BTW, how many votes did you end up with????

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]