you tube discussion
Panel booktv.com 9/24/2006 rebroadcast Nov. 24, 2006
Panelists were contributers 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out and The 9/11 Truth Movement
Peter Dale Scott
David Ray Griffin
Peter Phillips, Project Censored
I was fortunate to be able to closely listen to almost the entire discussion. Unfortunately, since the forum occurred
pre-November 7 election, some of the focus of the panelists appeared to be for people to get energized to replace Republicans
with Democrats. In my opinion, that had no place in this discussion, and it took away from the substance of what was
At one point, one of the speakers said nobody comes out no whistleblowers because their careers could be damaged or threats
of doing harm to family deter them. He then used the case of Valerie Plame as an example.
That further showed the bias in the individuals who made up the panel.
Finally, at the very end of the session, the host, McGovern, said something like go out and vote for Democrats!
They discredited themselves. (11/24/2006)
Search for book tv broadcast produced:
9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out to Air On C-Span This Weekend
The September 24 KPFA event from Berkeley, CA, will air on C-Span's Book TV this weekend.
David Ray Griffin
Peter Dale Scott
Friday Nov 24th: 4:00pm 1:00pm
Saturday Nov 25th: 3:30am 12:30am
it's good that it'll be on TV, but people can watch this anytime they want on google video.
So in terms of getting the word out, there's not much point in spreading it around the internet, since you can just spread
the link around, but it would be great to tell places like radio stations, newspapers, and TV stations where links arn't possible.
But that's sweet that it'll be on TV, it'll hopefully create a few new truthers out there.
Panel member mentioned Michael Powell, Washington Post Sept 8, 2006
9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply
Many Americans suspect U.S. government involvement or complicity
NEW YORK - He felt no shiver of doubt in those first terrible hours.
He watched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and assumed
al-Qaeda had wreaked terrible vengeance. He listened to anchors and military experts and assumed the facts of Sept. 11, 2001,
were as stated on the screen.
It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher,
began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child's story while the nation was attacked
and how Osama bin Laden, America's Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora...
One panel member also mentioned that a whistleblower may be coming out within a few days, so check
Journal of 9/11 Studies.com and veterans for truth
Is this the whistleblower? Lauro Chavez? misspellings... in my mind, is this a hoax
with the references all in order...
9/11 Conspiracy:Cheney Ordered Military Stand Down
Sergeant Lauro "LJ" Chavez, 9/11 Whistle Blower Speaks Out in Cincinnati Post
OK here's an interview with Lauro Chavez... must be true
(September 24, 2006)
Questions marked by Q, asked by Cathy Garger
Oh and though Garger had doubts, verification of Chavez military record as posted on Alex Jones site is a OK.
On the Info Wars website, however, confirmation of Sgt. Chavez's military record is posted. With thanks to Alex Jones,
this alleged verification of Sgt. Chavez's military record document appears on the Info Wars website:
OK obviously, the net is abuzz, is Chavez a hoax?
CENTCOM Whistleblower Former Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On
From: S.T.Ill Freeman
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
Military whistleblower comes forward with key informationSteve Watson / Infowars
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
Steve Watson / Infowars | September 26 2006 http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm
Alex Jones was joined on air yesterday by a former Sergeant in the United States
Army named Lauro "LJ" Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a
potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This
has led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.
In a letter that first appeared on the 9/11 Veterans For Truth Website, Sergeant
Lauro "LJ" Chavez responds to a Cincinnati Post hit piece article by outlining his own doubts about the official version of
9/11 and his personal experiences of the strange prelude to the events of that morning.
Despite early (and healthy) reactions claiming this may be a hoax designed to poison
the well of the 9/11 truth movement, Sergeant Chavez has now provided us with evidence of his credentials, his honorable discharge
documents showing the military installations he was located inside. The last station he held was inside United States Central
Command in Tampa - the pdf can be viewed here.
Mr Chavez was quick to point out that he does not have all the answers, but does
have what he feels is vital information regarding the events of 9/11:
''I'm in no way in a position to tell people that 'this is the official story so
believe me', no, I want to give people the information so they can go away and look for themselves and formulate a logical
decision with all the evidence." Chavez said.
Mr Chavez worked within CENTCOM, one of the five American regional unified commands
consisting of Marines, Navy and air force officers...
Back and forth discussion (ignore foul language)
Right after Sgt. Chavez emailed that
letter to 9/11 truth people, I heard him tell his story on The Power Hour show, and again later in the morning on Alex Jones'
Besides my having been in the Navy
(1948-50), I have experience as a civilian in SAC (USAF) and NASA control rooms. He convinced me his story was 100% correct.
9/11 Whistleblower Sergeant Lauro "LJ" Chavez Speaks Out at the Veteran’s for 9/11 Truth site
Chavez answers questions about hoax, etc
Norman Mineta (reference)
Hydrogen's Dirty Secret
President Bush promises that fuel-cell cars will be free of pollution. But if he
has his way, the cars of tomorrow will run on hydrogen made from fossil fuels.
May/June 2003 Issue
When President Bush unveiled his plans for a hydrogen-powered car in his State of the Union address in January, he proposed
$1.2 billion in spending to develop a revolutionary automobile that will be "pollution-free." The new vehicle, he declared,
will rely on "a simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen" to power a car "producing only water, not exhaust fumes."
Within 20 years, the president vowed, fuel-cell cars will "make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent
on foreign sources of oil."
By launching an ambitious program to develop what he calls the "Freedom Car," Bush seemed determined to realize the kind
of future that hydrogen-car supporters have envisioned for years. Using existing technology, hydrogen can be easily and cleanly
extracted from water. Electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines is used to split the water's hydrogen atoms
from its oxygen atoms. The hydrogen is then recombined with oxygen in fuel cells, where it releases electrons that drive an
electric motor in a car. What Bush didn't reveal in his nationwide address, however, is that his administration has been working
quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent -- and potentially as dirty --
as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year
in concert with the energy industry, up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil
fuels -- in a process using energy generated by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked
from water using nuclear energy.
Such a system, experts say, would effectively eliminate most of the benefits offered by hydrogen. Although the fuel-cell
cars themselves may emit nothing but water vapor, the process of producing the fuel cells from hydrocarbons will continue
America's dependence on fossil fuels and leave behind carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming.
Mike Nicklas, chair of the American Solar Energy Society, was one of 224 energy experts invited by the Department of Energy
to develop the government's Roadmap last spring. The sessions, environmentalists quickly discovered, were dominated by representatives
from the oil, coal, and nuclear industries. "All the emphasis was on how the process would benefit traditional energy industries,"
recalls Nicklas, who sat on a committee chaired by an executive from ChevronTexaco. "The whole meeting had been staged to
get a particular result, which was a plan to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels and not from renewables." The plan does not
call for a single ounce of hydrogen to come from power generated by the sun or the wind, concluding that such technologies
"need further development for hydrogen production to be more cost competitive."
But instead of investing in developing those sources, the budget that Bush submitted to Congress pays scant attention to
renewable methods of producing hydrogen. More than half of all hydrogen funding is earmarked for automakers and the energy
G.W. Bush somber 9?11: I'm still attempting to find out whether similar security measures were taken for the President
to have access to a separate room (with a secure phone set-up by Secret Service) in any school he visited prior to September
11, 2001. How about on September 10th?
Who determines who is patriotic? Do we have to salute the flag, the President, the United Nations, or face secret
Be aware: The intention of the world organization known as the United Nations is not peace, it is World
Government. Don't believe that? Read the founding Charter. It starts out using terminology of the United States Constitution, "We the people/s." If it acts like a duck, quacks like
a duck, it is a duck.
Still a non-believer World Citizen HistoryNovember 23, 1948 letter from Garry Davis to Dr. H.V. Evatt
What is the difference between the National Guard and the Reserves? That is the question asked of Lt. Gen. James Helmly
by James Carafano at Heritage Foundation symposium broadcast on C-Span Sept. 16, 2005.
After five minutes, Helmly has
still not answered the question about the difference. Keep watching and learning.
1908 Army Reserve established by
War Department, Helmly said. "... performs traditional civilian type functions in a military force... totally under Title
10... national guard operates under the structure of the governors..."
Unanticipated weakness in fireproofing techniques, just sprayed on, weaked trusses, floors pancaked downward...
History Channel WTC: Rise and Fall of an American Icon
Still tracking truth:
Discrepancy 9/11 Watch:
History Channel, Monday, November 7, 2005 documentary on the 9/11
Hijackers, Inside the Hamburg Cell
the documentary presented a coded "message" which they claim said lollipop - a slash
- two branches
The meaning was 9/11
History Channelsearch documentary list
However, the September 11 Commission page 266 has this message reversed in its report.
There are more such discrepancies and puzzlements Citizen Mom is investigating.
The Patriot Act. Congress has until December 2005 to reauthorize and expand the Patriot Act. The Senate and House versions are different.
There is still time to have input from all concerned. Make your voice heard. Contact Congress now. Don't be mesmerized by
all of the focus on Avian flu throughout the media, including C-Span.
Update: FBI mines records of ordinary Americans
Under Patriot Act, feds probe lives of residents not alleged to be terrorists
Nov. 6, 2005By Barton Gellman
October 24, 2005, C-Span guest Geoffrey Levy of Trust for america's health takes a comment from a caller warning about gassed fish check it out today
C-Span Washington Journal guest, March 12, 2004, Professor Michael Barkun. His book, A Culture of Conspiracy.
Discussion of the topic on Dick Gordon Show at
the connection.org Originally Aired: 1/2/2002
Beware an option that has historically been opposed, nevertheless, movements have existed since the ratification of the 1789
Constitution: a call by states for a Second (federal) Constitutional Convention. This issue keeps raising its shackles and
there is even a modern replacement constitution. Beware second conventionthat can use precedent to alter our form of government, a "republic" "if you can keep it."
Turning to a state issue
that should keep us on our toes, Pennsylvania state legislators voted themselves a hefty payraise in the early morning hours
of July 7, 2005 with no debate. Taxpayers legitimately are outraged. However, beware, many are using this issue to rally the
public around not simply throwing the payjacker incumbents OUT of office, but are calling for a Pennsylvania (state) constitutional
the Pennsylvania Constitution
Some links on this issue
Sunday, August 14, 2005, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
payraise furor not going away
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review October 23, 2005
While all of us are legitimately angry with the legislators who ignored the Pennsylvania constitution to pass legislation
that included "unvouchered expense accounts" allowing the legislators to opt into taking the salary increase during the current
term of office rather than waiting until 2006, we need to step back and ask a few questions.
Would a convention alter
the uniformity of taxation clause in the PA Constitution?
The clause was left untouched during the 1967 Convention,
but there is no guarantee it would not be altered to permit graduated income taxation, and the like, and/or make such unconstitutional
legislation such as Keystone Opportunity Zones, constitutional.
More questions need to be asked before the PA public
is asked to ok such a convention, whether the convention be deemed limited, or not.
Check Tribune Review Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Bush seeks to federalize emergencies: Beware.
Beware: Bush seeks to federalize emergencies
"Using the military in domestic law enforcement is generally a very bad idea," said Timothy
Edgar, national security policy counsel for the ACLU. "I'm afraid that it will have unforeseen consequences for civil liberties.
1st Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation' December 20, 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
U.S. 6th Circuit Appeals Court Allows Ten Commandment Display at County Court House Lexington Herald-Leader Beth Musgrave
December 21, 2005
Student stands up to pledge -- in courtSat, Dec. 24, 2005
Search for truth begins, but never ends, here
OK I am doggedly tracking this Net Display of I don't know what to call it at this point.
Even worldnetdaily.com posted the letter-writing campaign of Jude Wanniski. It will be linked soon.
These latest finds are variations of the question Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People? and
the definitive statement: Saddam Did Not Gas His Own People.
Jacki Patru at sweetliberty.org
March 24, 2003
Hussein Did NOT Gas the Kurds!
New York Times: "The United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated
within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds,
not Iraqi gas."
Link provided from govsux.com entitled: Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?
The link goes to yet another copy of the http://www.polyconomics.com/ Wanniski memo.
November 18, 1998
Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?
Memo To: Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Iraqi use of Poison Gas
Read the full Memo.
More about Saddam Hussein
Fox News Oil for Food Eric Shawn report
1:30 PM EST April 21, 2003
According to the Coalition for International Justice, Saddam Hussein used the United Nations oil-for-food program for other
than the humanitarian purposes of the program.
U.N. Oil-for-Food Program Is A Windfall For Saddam (October 7, 2002)
More research links.