Upcoming Events

National | Crime and Justice

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Irish 9/11 Truth Movement information packs for Politicians and media

category national | crime and justice | news report author Dé hAoine Iúil 29, 2005 18:25author by Anon - Irish 9-11 Truth Movementauthor email info at 911truth dot ie Report this post to the editors

Irish 9/11 Truth deliver 166 pack to the Dail one for each TD , but Dail only accept 5

Irish 9/11 Truth Movement has been busy preparing 250 information packs for:

166 TD’s
13 MEP’s
8 members of the RTE Authority &
63 prominent media and other Irish individuals.

Last week they delivered 166 pack to the Dail one for each TD , but officails refuse to accept and mor etahn 5 packs.

Dail Refuse to any more than 5 envelopes for TDs

so close !
so close !

“Do people really think that matters of Government are decided over a pint in the Galway tent? Let’s face it, we have the most accessible political system in the world – it’s more trouble to get away from Irish politicians.”

‘Fianna Fail Party Insider’ ‘Winners all Right’ Pn9 Sunday Business Post July 24th 2005

Below is a copy of the mail sent to all political partys.

Dear Heads of Political Parties,

Since the London bombing on 07/07 the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement has been busy preparing 250 information packs for:

166 TD’s
13 MEP’s
8 members of the RTE Authority &
63 prominent media and other Irish individuals.

This task has taken dozens of man hours provided at no charge by concerned citizens and members of our movement. Each information pack (as you are aware since all five heads of parties received theirs via the postal service on Friday July 22nd) contains approximately 50 pages of documentation and a copy of the DVD ‘Confronting the Evidence’ which suggests (if not proves) that we were lied to by the American government about that terrible atrocity on September 11th 2001 and thus lied to re the reasons for the horrific deaths of so many Irish people on that fateful day.

In all, 12,500 pages of documentation are included which cost members of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement personally a cumulative €500 in terms of paper, printing and related stationary costs. Due to this initial cost we took the decision that rather than spend a further €170 on postage we would simply drive from Cork to the Dail and deposit the four boxes of envelopes at reception.

When we arrived in Dublin last Wednesday July 20th we rang the Dail as we approached the city centre in order to notify the internal postal service of our arrival and to arrange a drop off. However, the first question we were asked was what organisation we represented and when the answer was provided it became very clear very quickly that we were not going to be facilitated and were told instead that we had to post any correspondence that we wished a member of the Oireachtas to receive.

We could not help thinking at the time that if the answer provided was the ‘Irish Licensed Vintners Association’ or the ‘INO’ that we would not have received the same response – why else ask the question?

Having driven for four hours we were obviously not happy with this situation and in the best Irish tradition we decided to chance our arm. When we approached the Garda on duty at the Dail he asked us where we were from and what we wanted to do. When we told him that we had driven from Cork with the sole purpose to drop off 166 information packs he told us, wholly reasonably, to say that to the security guard in reception and that ‘we should be alright to leave them in reception until the postal guys come in the morning.’

When we approached John the security guard and told him what we wanted to do the initial response was not negative. The quote was ‘I’m not 100% percent sure what I can do for you, just hold on a minute and I’ll make a call.’ Again, we thought, if this is a hard and fast rule, there would be no point in making that phone call. The point is, it is obviously not.

Moments later John returned with a different tone: ‘So you’ve been on already have you?’ ‘I have yeah’. ‘All I can do for you I’m afraid is take five envelopes and they have to be for T.D.s in your constituency, nobody else.’ We then retrieved five envelopes for the three Fianna Fail T.D.’s, one Fine Gael T.D. and one Green T.D. in Cork South Central. John checked all the addresses to make sure that we were not sneaking one in to the Tanaiste or something. Before we left, John gratefully received a free copy of the DVD with interest.

We then distributed copies of the DVD’s to the patrons and staff of Buswells hotel and Hogan’s bar on George St as well as all patrons sitting outside the Barge that evening. The irony is that John and the patrons of those fine three establishments are all better informed about 9/11 at this point than members of our own parliament. In all, the Irish 9/11 truth movement has distributed 1,300 copies of the DVD in Ireland and expect another large shipment in the coming weeks from our kind DVD sponsors Reopen911.org

In any event, we are quite sure the 5 envelope maximum rule for correspondence is NOT designed to prevent Irish citizens from giving information to Irish T.D.s. What the rule IS designed to achieve seems a mystery to everybody that we have spoken to.

We have phoned all the offices of the political parties today with the intention of arranging how we might drop off the information packs for the Dail members by perhaps driving back to Dublin and driving around the party political HQ’s.

However, we have just come across some evidence that suggests that the CCTV footage of the four London bombers at Luton is a complete fabrication and given that neither our government nor our media seems interested in critiquing this information we feel that this is a more productive use of our time than driving back to - and around Dublin.


Therefore, we hereby ask all six political parties to send a cheque or postal order to our postal address below in order to cover the cost of postage so that we can send an information pack to every elected member of your party.

The figures are quite small apart from the Fianna Fail postal bill of €76.80 (80 (81-1) * .96 cent) but if one considers that this represents one hundred of one percent (.000192%) of top line revenues from the Fianna Fail tent (€400,000) at the Galway races this week (or alternatively one bottle of champagne) then we don’t expect it to lead to any financial insolvency problems for the party.

The other party political postal bills are as follows:

Fine Gael: 30 (31-1) * .96 = €28.80
Labour: 20 (21-1) * .96 = €19.20
Progressive Democrats: 7 (8-1) * .96 = €6.72
Greens: 5 (6-1) * .96 = €4.80
Sinn Fein: 5 * .96 = €4.80

Kind regards,

Irish 9/11 Truth Movement,

Related Link: http://www.911truth.ie
author by shipseapublication date Aoine Iúil 29, 2005 19:10Report this post to the editors

Is it possible for other people to have/buy an information pack and DVD?

author by Dozzeypublication date Aoine Iúil 29, 2005 19:29Report this post to the editors

Why didn't you just post them in the first place to the leaders of the parties (the money you spent on petrol would more than suffice) - or did you just do it because you had nothing better to do that day?.....

author by Postman Patpublication date Aoine Iúil 29, 2005 20:26Report this post to the editors

... or why not, on your little jaunt up to Dublin, just leave them off at the various Party Headquarters?

author by original posterpublication date Aoine Iúil 29, 2005 22:59author email original at poster dot conReport this post to the editors

hey i was the person who posted the article, but not the person[s]who when to Dublin, i, just recieved the mail and thought it would be of intrest to people that read indymedia.
so i cant answer the questions about the desicion to drive to dublin rather than post, but can presume that the petrol from cork to dublin would be much less that the e150 aprox for postage
As for dropin them in to the party HQ, sounds like a great idea, just wondering what the chances of the mails actually reachin the TD's concidering the attitude of the people at the dail.

shipsea mail your address to: info@911truth.ie
i am sure they would be more than happy to send u on a dvd, they sent me one., and its worth a watch !

author by The Bush 9-11 Truth Movementpublication date Aoine Iúil 29, 2005 23:41Report this post to the editors

Bush to Amerika on 9-11: "It was the Dirty Arabs who did it! Dirty Arab! Dirty Arab! Those Filthy Filthy Dirty Smelly Arabs! The Arabs did it because they hate blue jeans, cowboy hats, and apple pie! They hate freedom and they don't like the way Britney Spears and Madonna Wiggle their butts on MTV. First we will take the fight to the Terrorist. We attack countries that sponsor terror and cut off their Finance. Their chief financial sources are the Heroin in Afganistan and Oil. WE WILL TAKE THE OPIUM FIELDS FROM THEM AND WE WILL TAKE THE OIL FIELDS FROM THEM! WE WILL NOT ALLOW THEM ANYTHING TO FINANCE TERROR! I have set up an energy task force to see this does not happen. I have seen to it that a Covert Special Team will retake the Opium Fields and help secure America from the scourge of Terror. THIS IS ONE WAR WE WILL WIN!"

author by jfkpublication date Domh Iúil 31, 2005 13:53Report this post to the editors

dude, the towers were never there in the first place.

author by Chekovpublication date Domh Iúil 31, 2005 22:38Report this post to the editors

I'm genuinely disappointed to learn that the "9-11 truth movement " has now established itself in Ireland, although I'm very optimistic that their membership will never surpass the stage of 'countability on the fingers of a seriously mutilated hand'.

The reason for my disappointment is that 9-11 crusaders are among the internet's most prolific producers of absolute unmitigated nonsense and embarassingly ungrounded speculation, which considering the medium, is saying quite a lot. In terms of political discussion on the Internet (and on sites such as this) they are single-handedly responsible for a serious negative shift in the signal to noise ratio. If I wasn't aware of the effects of paranoid narcissism on the personality, I'd be tempted to think that it was all a big conspiracy.

One of the reasons that they are so destructive is that nonsensical, unsubstantiated speculation is just so easy to produce. Every historical incident, no matter how recent, is only ever partially explained. In a chaotic universe, something would be amiss if coincidences didn't happen all the time. Our brains are at essence pattern recognition devices and they tend to interpret significance into many of the chaotic unfoldings of events that have no more significance than the underlying physical rules by which the universe operates and are merely the expressions of those laws in an infinitely complex environment.

The other major reason why conspiracy theorists are so destructive is that the hobby is particularly attractive to those of a narcissistic bent. Their investigations do not attempt in any way to understand the world, their conclusions always throw up more questions than they answer (well they don't actually answer anything). The positively revel in the prospect of discovering deeper and deeper levels of mysterious conspiracies involving vast numbers of people in sinister shadowy coordination all over the world. The purpose is to justify and flatter their own inaction and sense of powerlessness - the enemy is everywhere, all powerful and capable of anything (although paradoxically bizzarely incapable of shutting them up).

In the real world, a good rule of thumb is that the more you look into something, the simpler the explanation becomes. They adopt the opposite approach, discarding the utterly obvious in favour of wildly unlikely theories.

The method of the conspiracy theorists is to focus on small discrepancies, unexplained events and coincidences in order to undermine 'official' explanations of events. They then introduce wildly speculative alternative theories which are so embarrassingly inferior to the official theories that it almost makes you blush for them.

This article is quite a case in point, it provides several clear demonstrations of the incredibly poor grasp of reality which is almost universal amongst this 'truth' movement.

QUOTE: "We could not help thinking at the time that if the answer provided was the ‘Irish Licensed Vintners Association’ or the ‘INO’ that we would not have received the same response"

I can think of several not-at-all conspiratorial reasons why the reception of the representatives of organisations representing tens of thousands of people might be a little different to the reception of a never-before-heard of organisation with a membership in single figures who aren't even capable of researching the protocol for delivering information to the Dai before arriving there.

QUOTE: "However, we have just come across some evidence that suggests that the CCTV footage of the four London bombers at Luton is a complete fabrication and given that neither our government nor our media seems interested in critiquing this information we feel that this is a more productive use of our time than driving back to - and around Dublin. http://wagnews.blogspot.com/

This is perhaps the most embarrassingly bad evidence for a conspiracy that I have yet seen. It tops all of the claims about invisible missiles, non-existant planes, planned demolitions and all the other hilariously improbable 9-11 theories.

If you follow the second link, you will discover that the entire 'evidence' for this theory is based around the analysis of a photo-still from a CCTV camera. The photo shows typical jpeg compression artefacts which is exactly what you would expect from a CCTV still. The author of this theory clearly doesn't understand the first thing about digital imagery and turns these artefacts into 'proof' of a fake photo. The fact that the 9-11 'truth' movement appears to instantly accept this absolute hogwash from somebody who doesn't have anything approaching a clue speaks volumes about the merits of their research. As somebody who has a fair amount of knowledge about digital photo compression (I've coded implementations of jpeg compression algorithms) I can tell you that nobody who has any familiarity with the area could possibly discern any evidence of manipulation in that photo. Jpeg compression creates auras and luminosity leakage.

This sort of uncritical acceptance of amateur (and woefully bad) technical analysis of evidence is the sine qua non of this truth movement. They live in a world which is run by a vast and amorphous 'them' which involves every single technical person in the world. They consider it plausible, for example, that every single qualified engineer in the world somehow failed to notice the fact that the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition live on television, while believing that this is so obvious that it is detectable by the completely unqualified amateurs who transform themselves into technical experts on the thermal characteristics of steel overnight or, as in this case, digital photography. In the real world people like engineers, doctors, emergency staff and technical experts of all kinds are often possessed of inquiring minds and are rarely blindly obedient to the powerful, especially if they are being asked to cover up the murder of thousands of people. If there was something seriously amiss with the explanations for such enormously public events, the chances of it being kept secret are zero.

author by shipseapublication date Domh Iúil 31, 2005 23:08Report this post to the editors

Why you should imagine that insult, arrogance and a near total ignorance of, or attention to fact would ever be a substitute for reasoned argument, bewilders me. If you want to stay on your knees before 'official' explanations, that is a matter for you, but keep your vicious invective to yourself. Nowhere do you attempt to deal with a single one of the FACTS that clearly make you feel so threatened. I object to your intemperate and ill-informed posting and hope that the editors will see fit to remove it.

author by longtime lobbyistpublication date Domh Iúil 31, 2005 23:44Report this post to the editors

I thought Chekov's piece was well argued. If the editors are to remove anything, it should be this entire "News Report". The fact that you can only deliver a particular (small) number of envelopes into Leinster House is hardly news.
As for the whole conspiracy thing, yes there are government conspiracies but this is not one of them. This type of unsubstantiated rubbish only serves to undermine those who are trying to uncover the truth about real wrongdoing by governments. For example the Dublin/Monaghan Bombings and the Garda Heavy Gang scandal (to name just two).

author by chekovpublication date Domh Iúil 31, 2005 23:48Report this post to the editors

"Why you should imagine that insult, arrogance and a near total ignorance of, or attention to fact would ever be a substitute for reasoned argument, bewilders me. If you want to stay on your knees before 'official' explanations, that is a matter for you, but keep your vicious invective to yourself. Nowhere do you attempt to deal with a single one of the FACTS that clearly make you feel so threatened. I object to your intemperate and ill-informed posting and hope that the editors will see fit to remove it."

There are at least a half dozen personal insults in your one-paragraph posting. There is no attempt to make the 'reasoned argument' of which you speak to support these insults. Some of your insults are laughably unsubstantiated (I explained exactly why I think that the 9-11 truth movement is damaging to sites like indymedia and I am not at all threatened by any of the nonsense that they produce, nor am I on my knees before anybody or anything). You seem to feel that putting FACTS in capital letters amounts to an argument. In contrast I think that my offering, while being forthright, is entirely a reasoned argument which draws on specific quotations from the article that I was reponding to, and argues based upon very specific evidence (re the photograph) about which I am actually very well informed.

Incidentally, my motivation for taking the time to provide a reasoned rebuttal of the article is nothing to do with a desire to insult the individuals involved and regret the necessity of doing so in such a way that it may hurt people's feelings. However, I do think it is necessary to challenge such articles which I believe are utter nonsense. I am an editor of indymedia and the open publishing model that we use depends upon people being willing to robustly challenge information that they do not think is accurate or dependable.

author by Jamespublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 08:11Report this post to the editors

Game set and match to Chekov.

author by shipseapublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 12:43Report this post to the editors

...is that you do nothing more than generalise from your own very particular, and personal experience and would have us all believe that you are some sort of superior expert on an issue that goes well beyond what you are prepared even to contemplate (by yor own admission) - let alone offer any useful insight into. For those people, who have not, like you, dismissed certain premises out of hand and who have actually taken the trouble to research and read the FACTS ( I just love those capitals) and to offer explanations that at the very least are often as rational and convincing as any contrary explanation or position. I did not include a single personal insult against you. To describe your insults as such is not, in FACT, the same thing as issuing an insult. Your confusion over the distinction may help us to understand why you clearly find this issue so difficult to get your head around it. (And that last comment probably is an insult - just to help you get the point). Personally, I dont know what or who to believe about any of this stuff (surprise, surprise) but in the interests of rational and open debate I am prepared, politely and respectfully, to consider the arguments and evidence of anyone who has something to say - however much I may disagree with their conclusion in the final analysis. The original posting was a politely expressed account of an experience that is concerning. Your intemperate invective about these people does a disservice to Indymedia and undermines your own argument significantly. You are more concerned with characterising those you disagree with negatively than in offering respectful consideration of their views. It is possible to disagree without being either arrogant or rude. This is precisely the point at which complete blindness enters into your own arguments.
Hope this helps.

author by shipseapublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 16:01Report this post to the editors


To quote you at what you presumably believe is your most witty:

‘Their investigations do not in any way attempt to understand the world, their conclusions always throw up more questions than they answer (well they don’t actually answer anything.) They positively revel in the prospect of discovering deeper and deeper levels of mysterious conspiracies involving vast numbers of people in sinister shadowy coordination all over the world. The purpose is to justify and flatter their own inaction and sense of powerlessness – the enemy is everywhere, all powerful and capable of anything (although paradoxically bizarrely incapable of shutting them up).’

Jam-packed with ‘factual’ rebuttal, I see! This paragraph reminds one of nothing more than a text-book example of the Bush/Blair propaganda for their war OF terror (those capitals again!). All those dark, Muslim terrorists whose countries they’d like to invade – plotting against us wherever they are – also conveniently in possession of vast oil reserves. Dont they sound just like conspiracy theorists? ‘The enemy is Islam’ one nutcase Republican ‘conspiranoid’ (to borrow your insulting terminology) announced at the weekend. Why don’t you challenge him? In contrast, most of the alternative explanations offered to official accounts of events since 9/11 point cogently and convincingly in the direction of a relatively small group of people: those with a vested interest in promoting war – who are on record as having done so and who are also the only people to have profited from it. Both Bush and Blair are proven liars on the issue of weapons of mass destruction – among many other things. Specific detailed evidence is mounting against them – as you rightly point out, this type of thing is actually quite hard to disguise. And contrary to what you say, throughout the history of human existence it has sadly been all too easy to persuade huge numbers of people to kill other even larger groups of people – whether by covert operation or in open warfare. It’s happening right now in Iraq and in many other places around the world, or hadn’t you noticed?

Media Lens has an excellent analysis (Redjade provided a link on another thread yesterday) of how journalists refuse to engage with the real FACTS so as not to make themselves unpopular with their meat and drink (politicians and corporations) – particularly where this issue is concerned. I hope that, as an editor, you are not secretly pining for inclusion in this select little club? Too much on Indymedia from people like me would get in the way of that, wouldn’t it? Incidentally, I can remember a time when the Dublin/ Monaghan bomb plot theories were described as outrageous hallucinating too. It all looks a little more convincing now, though, doesn’t it?

‘I can think of several not-at-all conspiratorial reasons why the reception of the representatives of organisations representing tens of thousands of people might be a little different to the reception of a never-before-heard of organisation with a membership in single figures who aren’t even capable of researching the protocol for delivering information to the Dail before arriving there.’:

This little gem really betrays your totalitarian tendencies! So, size matters after all! It’s all right to ignore small groups of people? The vast majority of voluntary groups in Ireland would fall in to your disparaging description - including the lack of familiarity with Dail administrative arrangements. And anyway, you miss the point: the ‘protocol’, as you call it, was clearly made up at the door and it is a matter of serious concern to everyone in Ireland if our elected representatives can decide who they will and will not listen to on such an arbitrary basis.

‘I am an editor of Indymedia and the open publishing model that we use depends upon people being willing to robustly challenge information that they do not think is accurate or dependable’:

Let’s take that at face value. Your own claim to be dealing with facts rests exclusively on your knowledge of digital technology and the contexts in which you use it. Otherwise you nowhere deal with a single fact in relation to the original posting – which was actually about something quite different to the theme you chose to focus on. Unless you are employed in the intelligence services, your observations tell us absolutely zero about whether or not these images were fitted up. I'd be embarrassed about that, if I were you.

author by redjade - 23publication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 16:40author address Bank Holiday Madness ReignsReport this post to the editors

I remember Chomsky being asked in some interview long long ago what he says when people call him a conspiracy theorist - he simply remarked that almost of all his sources come from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal - just a matter of disassembling the propaganda and reassociating the facts. (poorly paraphrased, Im sorry).

Question: do the rich and the powerful 'conspire' together without any sense of democracy or even 'consultation'? Well... no sh*t sherlock!

Question: Do they do things without telling us? Again, of course.

Question: Is there a layer of politics and decision making that we are not being told about - again, it doesn't take much to see that that is obvious. I do not remember full webcast audio and video streaming out of the inner rooms of Gleneagles.

OK thats settled.

•••The problem of 'conspiracy theorists' is that they have a conclusion and then set out to find the facts.

And the problem with many 'conspiracy theorists' is that the underlying assumption is that the Conspirators are a) fully united themselves, b) have a full control over the 'situation' and c) agree on the 'end plan' - ALL of which assumes waaaay too much about them.

I think the 'Neo-Cons' really REALLY believed the US/K would be welcomed into Iraq by Iraqis and the rest of the muslim world. Sy Hersh has said on numerous occasions that the Neo-Cons really DO believe they are bringing 'Democracy' to the world - they are true-believers' We know thats all rubbish, of course.

Obvious now is that Iraq is a major MAJOR f*ck up or 'mascalculation' as they say in Washington DC - especially since its quite difficult now to invade Syria and Iran (from their twisted perspective)

Point is, 'they' haven't a fricken clue what they are doing and 100,000+ Iraqis have paid the sad price.

Back to conspiracies and such. Yes, 'they' have never told us the truth behind 9/11 - and they never will.

In the 'official story' there are many many pieces of the puzzle that simply do not fit. Daddy Bush's relationship with Daddy Bin Laden, the lazy scramble of military jets, the 'exercises' happening at the same time for the same type of event, and - oh yes! everyone has forgotten! - the US military grade anthrax which no one has been arrested for and the media has utterly forgotten about. And many other little pieces of the puzzle that have been burried and forgotten.

Some of these can/could be explained 'innocently' if there was more information - but we don't have that info so we make assumptions - and many conspiracy theorists make assumptions about the facts to prove their conclusions they have already arrived at.

but A + B does not always mean C if you also do not know about D and E and F. And D and F are not connected with C unless we also know the details behind E - all so confusing, so keep looking and investigating WITH an open mind.

• The worst part of it is when people get frustrated and start assuming that people who dont agree with them are automatically some how part of the conspiracy themselves.

Buy me a pint sometime and I will tell you my 'conspiracy theories' about 9/11 in detail. You may find that they are stranger than even Michael C. Ruppert's! - but from a different perspective.

author by shipseapublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 17:42Report this post to the editors

“•••The problem of 'conspiracy theorists' is that they have a conclusion and then set out to find the facts. And the problem with many 'conspiracy theorists' is that the underlying assumption is that the Conspirators are a) fully united themselves, b) have full control over the 'situation' and c) agree on the 'end plan' - ALL of which assumes waaaay too much about them.”

I agree with some if not most of what you say otherwise but I have to take issue with the above. In its way, it too is a generalisation, I think. It’s not actually exactly clear what you mean by ‘conspiracy theorists’ but on the inference that it includes anyone who thinks that there were those who have deliberately engineered this war on terror to get hold of the oil, and to secure a foothold in a strategically critical region of the world, I think you may be doing a serious disservice to some very well informed commentators and also the very thing you accuse the consp. theorists of: making an underlying assumption that consp theorists are all fully united about what, how and why it has all happened. All of which assumes waaay to much about them too!!! I don’t think, for example, that John Pilger is a conspiracy theorist. I don’t think there are creatures from Mars involved and I had to laugh at the comment: ‘Dude, the twin towers never existed’. The fact remains, these wars were planned well before 9/11 (not conspiracy theory, it’s fact). Somehow the circumstances were brought about to provide an apparent justification for them. We need urgently to know exactly how that happened (we already know we were lied to about a number of things) and I for one, am willing to hear anything anyone might have to offer by way of information about that. Sure, it may include some more outlandish suggestions but when you compare that to the mountains of utter bullshit and propaganda that we are daily treated to by the Bush/Blair axis of evil, it pales in comparison. What I don’t understand is why commentators like Chekov turn so much ire and venom on this generally innocuous and understandably worried group of people when it would be much more appropriately directed at the real villains: the war-mongers of all hues - all of whom are killing far more innocent than guilty people. That really is something to be very angry about.

The British public is hugely against the Iraqi war. And yet there are plans to invade Iran and other countries ( you’ve brought a lot of information to our attention about this yourself). How can the public be brought on side? How can they be made to wear massive incursions on their civil liberties? What would frighten them enough to let this happen? How can effective objection be stifled for the future? These are legitimate and very necessary questions for any thinking person to ask. Great care needs to be taken in answering them but they ought, in my view, to be very much at the front of every mind at the moment and nothing in the present climate – including conspiracy theories - ought to be taken at face value.

author by Fintan Dunne - BreakForNews.compublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 18:29Report this post to the editors

Let me respond to the over-the-top post from Chekov about those who question to official line on 9/11.

Chekov : "9-11 crusaders are among the internet's most prolific producers of absolute unmitigated nonsense and embarassingly ungrounded speculation"

Let's just check out FOX, CNN or similar mainstream media. If you want to discover the motherlode of "absolute unmitigated nonsense and embarassingly ungrounded speculation", then they boys are the clear leaders.

For example the pre-war claims that Iraq had WMDs, or claims that al-Qaida's, Musab al-Zarqawi is behind virtually every anti-occupation attack in Iraq. Wounded here, almost captured there. See, it's not only Ireland's Cu Chullain who has Superhero powers!

The 9/11 issue is just like any other area of human interest. The views which question the official line range from the wild assertions found on internet forums, to the methodical science of more than one university professor.

I have interviewed many of those who question the mainstream line on 9/11 and formed my own opinions. I recommend others to review the wide range of evidence before forming theirs.

For me, the presence of a 9/11 truth group in Ireland is a positive development. For others too --hoodwinked by the gross lie over WMDs, they are wondering if they were misled also about the genesis of the attacks which so conveniently kicked the U.S. war machine into gear.

The central issue in the end, is not whether a plane hit the Pentagon; if the patsies carried out the hijackings; or if the WTC was a controlled demolition.

The question is: do major powers trick their populations into war? The answer from the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident which escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the 'unexpected' Pearl Harbour attack --is, yes they do.

Note also that many of the questions about 9/11 are no wild inventions, but established fact.

We know for a fact that the WTC changed hands for the first time since it was built --just weeks before the attacks. As I wrote in a pair of articles published on the internet 7 and 14 days after 9/11,


...that was when a consortium led by Larry Silverstein, and backed by the Westfield Corporation of Australia, bought the Trade Center property from the Port Authority of New York --and took out a new insurance against immediate and consequential losses. Just one of many substantial issues of fact.

If I, in examining such an issue seem to "interpret significance into many of the chaotic unfoldings of events that... are merely the expressions of... an infinitely complex environment."

Well, I have only prudent insurance loss adjusters for company. Like me, they routinely investigate suspicious insurance claims --especially against brand new policies-- and, hard-nosed realists that they are, they never apologise for so doing.

Nor shall I.

If it is prudent business practice, it's a prudent democratic exercise also.

Let's look at the issue of the recent Luton CCTV image of four alleged London bombers, also scoffed at by the post above.

I am aware that artefacts can appear when CCTV images are rendered as jpegs. Especially poor quality jpegs. Bur our analysis is based on the official Met police image -which rather a high quality jpeg.

But that's where the quality ends. The image itself is so poor that three of the faces are just blurred smudges. Besides the many other points our photo analysis makes, it is hard to explain how this is the output from a good definition modern CCTV camera. It's worthless for identification.


As to how likely it is that these kind of issues could be kept from popular opinion, you only have to look which url is displayed right now at the top of your browser.

It says Indymedia. ie

And such a media exists because of the clear deficiencies in the 'reporting' of events on the corporate media.

Whether it WMDs or 9/11, that's how lies are spun and maintained.

Related Link: http://www.BreakForNews.com
author by redjadepublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 18:34Report this post to the editors

I'll get back to the debate later shiptosea

Question: what's this DVD? Was it produced in Ireland? From elsewhere? Is there a webpage for it? Can we download it somewhere?

It would have been nice if this newswire post pointed to some links about this video.

so in 5 mins I googled ‘Confronting the Evidence’ and found http://www.reopen911.org and after looking at the html source I found the links so anyone can download the video...

So here is the info - and you can download the video yourself.

go to

then right-click and download:

I'm downloading now and will take a look later.

author by redjadepublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 19:16Report this post to the editors

'The question is: do major powers trick their populations into war?'

If that was the only question then there wouldn't be much of a discussion on this website. A majority in both the US and UK (as well as Ireland) believe that.

author by R. Isiblepublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 19:18Report this post to the editors

QUOTE: "What I don’t understand is why commentators like Chekov turn so much ire and venom on this generally innocuous and understandably worried group of people when it would be much more appropriately directed at the real villains"

Just guessing here: because the desperate urge to produce a simple story (in which one evil devil-nazi called Bush and a couple of his friends are simply and solely responsible for all the problems instead of being bit-part actors taking advantage of a system) distracts and detracts from the actual problem which is more complicated.

Namely that we live in late-stage capitalism which created undemocratic power and wars and will continue to do so no matter who is at the controls of power.

Also that the explanation that there is a coherent, effective single conspiracy which is able to control a vastly complex world leads to a ramification of explanations and special pleading which leads to a vastly implausible theory.

Spending so much time focussing on the idea that some weirdos in the Bush administration blew up the twin towers instead of accepting that there are large numbers of terrorists created by the US/West backing of Israel's genocide against the Palestians, US/West's turning a blind eye against the massive human rights abuses (mainly of Muslims) in Chechnya, the Phillipines and Indonesia is ignoring war-crimes of the deepest and most disgusting nature in order to focus on a Boy's Own story about how the only thing wrong is that there are a few bad apples perverting American Freedom and Democracy.

Add to that that there's absolutely no fucking evidence that the Twin Towers and the pentagon were hit by anything other than the planes and all that there is is a bunch of wasters distracting attention from more important issues.

Like Global Warming you might be able to find one or two fringe non-specialists that have some sort of academic qualification (but usually not in the exact specialty) that can be trotted out as "experts", but that doesn't cut much weight when the body of opinion of those that have proven their expertise through the channels of their profession disagree.

You (shipsea) suggest Chekov may be a spook of some sort, well here's my conspiracy: Mike Ruppert and all the 911 Truth Commission People are a bunch of smokescreen patsies encouraged by the Bush administration to detract and distract from the more plausible and reasonable opposition. The goal is to fill Indymedias worldwide with raving crap so that when a random member of the public happens across an Indymedia s/he will dismiss it as being "all rubbish".

Luckily we have strict guidelines which call for us to delete unsupported material and this will happen just as much for any wild accusations in 9/11 stuff as it will for people claiming the moon-landings never happened.

author by redjadepublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 19:43Report this post to the editors

considering all of the above at the same time read the following from today's Washington Post on the 7/7/ and 21/7 London Bombers (or Bomber Wannabes)...

''The only tangible link between the two sets of bombers, according to officials, is a brochure for a white-water rafting center in northern Wales. The brochure was discovered in a backpack containing undetonated explosives that one of the alleged July 21 attackers, Muktar Said Ibrahim, 27, left behind on an east London bus. Two of the July 7 bombers from Leeds had participated in a rafting trip with the center in early June.''

quote found at

The police/MI5/6/whatever are looking 'Al Qaeda' and so far, with other bits of info from here and there putting together a larger picture but the only connection they can find between 7/7/ and 21/7 is a brochure!

I'm sure the cops will find more info as time goes on, (and I hope they do) but it is a bit funny if you just stopped at this point of the investigation and decided to blame 'white-water rafting'! :-)

author by shipseapublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 20:45Report this post to the editors

Where did I say anything like that? Are you sure its my comment you're talking about? Now you've got me worried....suppose the whole Indymedia thing is a vast plot to identify all the really dangerous lefties...

R Isible makes the excellent point that the truth will be complicated and chaotic - no single explanation is likely for all that has happened during the last few years. I certainly dont disagree that US and Western policy towards certain regions of the world hasnt caused huge resentment and the conditions for precipitating attacks like these. Any fool can see that - and I doubt there are many so-called conspiracy theorists whose concerns didnt arise from that precise conviction! But Bush and his backers wanted the war 'now' so to speak and they wanted a big reason to take it to a number of countries. Proven facts. It is no use using offensive terms like 'raving crap' and threatening censorship of views that you dont happen to agree with. Your own conspiracy theory (that it suits Bush to allow bogus theories to circulate to deflect attention - perhaps even deployed by him to do so!?!?) equally may or may not be true but it is no more supported by tangible evidence than some of the other views your deride for lack of the same sort of evidence. Unlike you, I am prepared to do you the courtesy of thinking that yours is a plausible point of view - but no more so than other, different suggestions I have seen. As with Chekov, it is the precise point at which you become insulting and intemperate that you lose contact with rational debate. Am I right that I am addressing another Indymedia editor here? It is you and Chekov who have established a stubborn foregone conclusion and who are determined to be right in every regard regardless of the information that is presented to you - even to the point of insulting and abusing your contributors. A great editorial policy!

author by R. Isiblepublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 21:14Report this post to the editors

QUOTE: "It is no use using offensive terms like 'raving crap'"

Agreed and I apologise for that.

QUOTE: " and threatening censorship of views that you dont happen to agree with."

I'm pointing out that there's a certain minimum standard for publishing of news and information on indymedia.ie. The reason that I'm doing that is to make it absolutely clear what our guidelines are, so that no one gets hold of the wrong end of the stick and thinks that we're going to allow the publication of unsupported allegations about how the Pentagon was blown up by a missile and that the plane and all the people on it never existed. I, in particular, am going to be very trigger-happy with the delete button because I believe that indymedia.ie is not primarly a discussion/debate/bulletin-board site, but a site on which NEWS should be published. So, consider this an advance warning and if you don't like it I'd suggest that you take your own money and time and open up 911TruthMovement.ie and post away to your hearts content on it, free of invidious censorship of your wildest speculations.

QUOTE: " Your own conspiracy theory (that it suits Bush to allow bogus theories to circulate to deflect attention"

No, it was worse than that, that's a mild restatement of the unsupported, crackpot assertion that I made "Mike Ruppert and all the 911 Truth Commission People are a bunch of smokescreen patsies encouraged by the Bush administration to detract and distract from the more plausible and reasonable opposition". There is NO evidence to show that Ruppert or any of the 911TC have been "encouraged" by the Bush administration. The point was to make a wildly stupid claim that CANNOT be PROVED or DISPROVED. Why can't it be disproved? Because obviously, THEY will hide the real truth.

That is the essence of all "conspiranoid" theories, they are NON-FALSIFIABLE. And that means they may as well never be discussed. And it certainly means that they shouldn't get in the way of the actual FACTS reported as news here on the NEWSwire.

author by shipseapublication date Luan Lún 01, 2005 23:30Report this post to the editors

Clearly we are dealing here with an editor who does not like to be challenged.

For your information, I do subscribe financially to Indymedia - albeit modestly. I have also contributed substantially to the news reports on a completely different topic.

You be as trigger happy as you like with the delete button, buster, but here is one contributor who will not be recommending Indymedia if you are – and believe me I have been doing a lot on your behalf recently. No doubt we will get along without each other just fine.

If you don’t want any debate that challenges your own views then you should never have introduced the ‘comments’ facility – or perhaps that was only ever intended for people who would make you feel good about yourself and your own view of the world. Censoring those whose point of view you are incapable of understanding is not the same thing as maintaining editorial standards.

Again, your comments are intemperate, rude, arrogant and patronising. You offer no evidence to support your assertions about those you are so derogatory about – not a single FACT. In contrast, the majority of the so-called conspiracy theorists offer some form of evidence to support the possibilities they ask others to consider. I am not defending or denying their conclusions - but their right to share them is incontrovertible. That is what Indymedia is supposed to be all about, I thought. Incidentally, is the decision to delete your responsibility alone? If so, then things are worse than on any of the corporate newspapers to which Indymedia is supposed to be an alternative. I am disgusted and offended by the conduct of your debate on this thread. So much for the editorial ‘standards’ that you try to hide your prejudices and rudeness behind.

And where have you been, anyway? You still believe the US government is not devious, violent, greedy and chauvinistic? You haven’t seen the evidence of their covert undermining of foreign governments, of their training and funding of violent insurgents and military juntas? Chile, Nicaragua, East Timor? Any of these ring a bell? How much planning, investment and forethought went into all of that? Lying about weapons of mass destruction? Outing their own CIA operative because her husband had given them an honest account of Nigeria’s role in the WMD issue? There are thousands of examples of just how far they are prepared to go – even to the point of stealing an election – possibly two according to many Americans who will know more about it than either of us - so I wouldn’t be so confident of dismissing their 9/11 Truth Movement either. Electronic voting in the hands of known Republican donors? You've just seen the anticipated deaths of 100K Iraqis plus all of the soldiers on both sides. Do you seriously think the Bush administration is incapable of arranging a violent justification for war? It has demonstrably shown that it has no compunction about spending the lives of (disporportionately black and poor) American citizens. Answer that question, will ya? What is your problem with simply keeping an open mind? Noone is forcing you to agree with anything you arent convinced by - but argue the toss! Dont just sling invective around.

FACTS, FACTS and more FACTS. Deal with them instead of insulting and censoring your own readers and contributors.

author by R. Isiblepublication date Máirt Lún 02, 2005 00:50Report this post to the editors

QUOTE: "Clearly we are dealing here with an editor who does not like to be challenged."

Clearly "we" are dealing here with someone that refuses to accept that there are stated rules in place: rules which say that unsupported allegations are not FACT and will not be tolerated.

QUOTE: "For your information, I do subscribe financially to Indymedia - albeit modestly. I have also contributed substantially to the news reports on a completely different topic."

For your information, neither of those admirable personal traits has any bearing on whether or not postings to the newswire comprised of unsupported allegations will remain. I also find it ironic that in the light of your rebuke to Chekov about journalists dancing to the tune of their paymasters you attempt to suggest that YOUR supplying money to indymedia.ie should change my opinion about what is unsupported rumour and conspiracy and should be removed from the newswire.

It won't. I'd rather Indymedia.ie crashed financially than that it becomes a repository of unsupported hypotheses about the hidden and unverifiable machinations of someone or other.

(Bear in mind that all the opinions expressed here are mine and mine solely as one member of the Editorial Collective. Others may disagree).

author by R. Isiblepublication date Máirt Lún 02, 2005 00:55Report this post to the editors

QUOTE: "here is one contributor who will not be recommending Indymedia if you are – and believe me I have been doing a lot on your behalf recently"

Indymedia is not "me" by a long stretch. It's comprised of a lot of people writing and editing. It does none of them, or us or you any favours to have their FACTual contributions displayed in proximity to hypotheses that cannot be shown to be false or true.

author by Daniel Lewinpublication date Máirt Lún 02, 2005 01:23Report this post to the editors

It will soon be possible to make "cell phone" calls from an airplane.


author by shipseapublication date Máirt Lún 02, 2005 11:05Report this post to the editors

What laughable paranoia. Now who is making unsubstantiated and unsupportable allegations? Last time round you seemed to have some bizarre notion that I had accused Chekov of being a spy! Just to remind you, it was you who introduced the subject of financial contributions to Indymedia and implied that your personal investment in this site entitled you to more of a say. I simply pointed out that I, too, make a modest contribution – the point being that it’s got nothing to do with anything! With regard to the other comments I made – and let me make this simple for you – the point was to show you that you are not the only one with the best interests of this website at heart, that there are many of your readers and contributors who are equally committed to it even if they don’t have convictions that are carbon copies of your own. You are entitled to disagree but not to be rude and arrogant – and if you really cared about standards on Indymedia, that would be one of the basic rules. As an editor, I would have thought you would be very conscious of the need for courtesy. I have nowhere made a single unsupported allegation about anything – a FACT that you refuse to engage with. I have asked numerous questions and you do not answer them either.

The original posting gave an account of a concerning experience at Dail Eireann. As the founder of a support group for vulnerable people, I am actually very concerned to read about this experience because it certainly chimes with the difficulties we have had in trying to get public representatives to listen. For public representatives to actually refuse information from members of the voting public is an appalling travesty of the democratic process. Secondly, the posting made no allegations of any kind, it invited people to view the information on offer and suggested that certain video stills might not be genuine. It nowhere said that they absolutely were not. In other words, caution was being exercised. You may think the idea is far-fetched and there are many who would agree with you, I have no doubt. But threatening to silence these views in the totalitarian manner that you have described (‘I am certainly going to be trigger happy with the delete button and you’d better get used to it’ – if that’s not coercion, what the hell is, I’d like to know?) gets nobody anywhere and is guaranteed to destroy the very thing you say that Indymedia is supposed to be about. I would rather live in a world where free-thinking people were at liberty to put forward hypotheses with evidence to support their views than in the Stalinist world of absolute certainties that you are trying to impose here. What are you so afraid of? If you believe an expressed view is mistaken or stretching a point, why don’t you just say that and explain why? Is that really so difficult? And one last small little thought, if something is ‘non falsifiable’, might that just be because it is true?

author by passenger9apublication date Máirt Lún 02, 2005 14:05Report this post to the editors

Pray tell me Chekov, in your infinite wisdom on this matter, how did the 47 storey WTC7 "collapse", and WTC 6 for that matter - the US Customs house?? Conspiracy theory?

Neither were hit by an airplane? Did they suffer from catastrophic shock at seeing their sister buildings explode from the top down - pulverised into 150micron particle dust by 14 tons of explosives in mid-air as they fell - in less time than a free-falling object from the same distance? Conspiracy theory?

Why are the Firemen who WERE PRESENT in the buildings saying they "heard bombs going off all over the place"? Conspiracy theory?

No plane crashed in Shanksville - a hole in a field does not constitute a airplane crash. Conspiracy theory?

Nothing hit the Penatgon - it was a simple bomb to take peoples attention away from the real crime which was the WTC's. Conspiracy theory?

91% of the alleged victims from the four flights still to this day do not exist in the US Public Records Death databases. Conspiracy theory?

ICTS - an Israeli security company - handled "security" at the World Trade Center. So?

ICTS are in charge of "security" at Newark and Boston airports where two of the alleged flights took place from. So?

ICTS are in charge of "security" on the Madrid Metro? So?

ICTS have the contract to handle "security" on London's Underground?

Go Figure!!

author by boooeingpublication date Máirt Lún 02, 2005 18:40Report this post to the editors

R. Istable said ".... there's absolutely no fucking evidence that the Twin Towers and the pentagon were hit by anything other than the planes ....."

surely we all agree that the 2 towers were hit by planes , as for the pentagon, can R. Isistable please show some fk'in evidence that a boeing 757 hit the pentagon ?

why did it not knock the exteroir wall ?
757's are big where is the wrekage?
if the inital impact did not knock the outside wall the wreakage should be visible from the photos taken after the crash.

surely if the have cctv in my conner shop the most protected building on earth would have a few too, these would have caught the impact on camera, where is the photage. ?
and why was cctv footage from the garage accross the street conficiated after the crash ?

Related Link: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreur...n.htm
author by conspiranoid charliepublication date Máirt Lún 02, 2005 21:30Report this post to the editors

First a couple of things about the 9-11 Truth Movement.

It essentially has two wings - those who believe that the US Govt had foreknowledge of the attack and consciously failed to act (and perhaps facilitated it in some small ways) and those who believe that the Govt engineered it.

There are then the fringe elements who blame it on 'the Jews', and/or other super-secret cabals/Lucifarians. These people might have a lot of websites, but from what I can gather, they are in a severe minority in the movement. (These people are perhaps best embodied by the Wing(nut) TV crowd).

And finally there are those 'pod plane/missile' theorists (the Power Hour people being the best example, also www.911letsroll.org). IMO these people, whether they know it or not, are involved in propogating disinformation.

However, the one thing (most) of the movement is united on is the question of Full Disclosure of all relevant facts. The 'Independent' 9-11 Commission (which had to be fought tooth and nail for) was an utter sham - virtually every footnote refers to a document or interview that cannot be seen for 'security reasons'. The National Security Archive ( [ http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ ] among others) has filed FOIA's on every document cited, and all have been refused. The 9-11 report either did not hear testimonies that conflicted with the official narrative, or those that it did hear were not published in the final report. It did not at all address the issue of WTC7 (someone mentioned WTC 6, but as far as I know, that was brought down by demolition a few days /after/ the attacks. Don't waste your time citing that, it's irrelevant. WTC 7 is a major unanswered question though). As David Ray Griffin points out in his lecture (below) and his book 'Omissions and Distortions' - the Report is rife with, well, omissions and distortions.

Personally, I am a 'foreknowledger' with heavy suspicions of complicity. Not because they fit with some grand theory on my part, but because in the last year or so I started reading up on the frankly bizarre facts of the case (though I admit I was always bothered by the lack of an air response on the day).

Anyway, some links of interest. Most of these are either audio or video presentations.

9/11 Commission Report One Year Later

Last weekend, hearing on Capitol Hill. Speakers: Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA, event sponsor) , Lorie Van Auken (Jersey Girl), Mel Goodman, John Judge, Mike Ruppert (ex LAPD), Wayne Madsen (ex NSA), Ray McGovern (ex CIA), Robert McIlvaine



Nafeez Ahmed on CSPAN

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed outlines the relationship between the West and radical Muslim groups like the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria, and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in Serbia. Mr. Ahmed says that these groups, parts of which are now affiliated with Al Qaeda, were used by the United States and Britain to further Western political and economic goals. He argues that a more complete investigation of this relationship is necessary to understand what happened on 9/11. Mr. Ahmed also talks about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1996 British attempt to assassinate Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in this light. This talk, held at American University in Washington, DC, was organized by the DC Emergency Truth Convergence ( http://www.truthemergency.us ). Includes Q&A.



David Ray Griffin on CSPAN

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions

David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring in 2004). He has authored or edited over two dozen books, including "God and Religion in the Postmodern World," "Religion and Scientific Naturalism," and "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11."


Other Griffins talks/interviews


A debate on Democracy Now between Ray Griffin and Chip Berlet (www.publiceye.org)



Coast to Coast 9/11 Round Table Debate

Insightful, and somewhat argumentative discussion of 9/11 by 4 top dogs in 9/11 research. Peter Lance and Mike Levine ('foreknowledge') VS David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones ('complicty' - IMO Jones does the 9-11 truthers more bad than good, Ruppert would have been a much better spokesman for their side).

Also contains an interview with former Bush Admin labour dept. official Morgan Reynolds, author of the article "Why did the trade centre collapse?" - (see http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html )



Some interviews with Mike Ruppert

Interviewed by Catherine Austin-Fitts on Pacifica's Flashpoints.

Various interviews hosted on A-Infos Radio Project


Barry Zwicker - The Great Conspiracy: The 9-11 News Special You Never Saw

http://tinyurl.com/7mq92 (torrent links)

Some interviews with Zwicker


Aftermath: Unawnsered Questions (Guerrilla News Network)



Mohammed Atta & the Venice Flying Circus



Michael Meacher (former Blair Environment Minister) wrote the Guardian article "This war on terrorism is bogus" (see - http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0906-01.htm ). Here's a couple of interviews:


http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/bbc_meacher.html (BBC)

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/channel4_meacher.ram (Ch 4)


Some interviews from Mark Levine's Radio Inside Scoop

David Ray Griffin:

Peter Lance:

Alex Jones:

Jimmy Walter: mms://

Jersey Girls:

Sibel Edmonds:


Some other links to sites

http://www.911busters.com/ (many videos and audio)
http://www.arcticbeacon.com (Greg Szymanski)
http://www.infowars.com / http://www.prisonplanet.com (Alex Jones)
http://www.takingaim.info (Pacifica)
http://www.gunsandbutter.net (Pacifica)
http://www.yourbbsucks.com (Jon Gold)
http://www.justacitizen.com/ (Sibel Edmonds)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com (Mike Ruppert)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org (Paul Thomspon)

author by bobpublication date Aoine Lún 05, 2005 18:23Report this post to the editors

hay shipsea, and anyone else who might be interested.

i think their info pack can be downloaded from here,


author by Morgan Stack - Irish 9/11 Truth Movementpublication date Sath Lún 13, 2005 10:53author email info at 911truth dot ieauthor address Suite 212, 2A Crawford Hall, Western Road, Cork.author phone +353 86 0505864Report this post to the editors

Hi Guys,

So I guess I'm the guy who drove to Dublin that day with the Information Packs and DVDs. A friend told me that this posting was up and I've just found it this minute.

For some reason I've never been a regular visitor to Indymedia.. I'm not being smart.. I can't quite figure how how it has eluded me for so long. From the postings above there does seem to be a captive and passionate community here.. I'm liking it already (-:

I can't possiby reply to all of the above points so I think the best approach might be to give you a little background on myself and how I ended up outside the Dail with 161 too many envelopes (-:!

I am a lecturer at the Institute of Technology Tralee in the area of Information Systems. I originally studied accounting (M.Acc Smurfit 97) but later did an MBS in UCC. I worked in a stockbroking firm in Dublin for a year (Dolmen Butler) and had a short and very forgettable few months working for ConocoPhillips (who now own Irish National Petroleum Corp).

I am, I suppose, implicity building up my bona fides for being a non typical 'conspiracy theorist.' I guess I think that's important for some reason.

So the story is basically this. Last January I went into the Greyhound bar in Tralee on a Thursday night for a quick pint. It just happened to be the day of George Bush's 2nd inauguration. The guys doing the promotion had a projector set up where there were showing mpegs and shockware files sorta 'in honour of the President' so to speak (-:

In one of these videos it seemed to suggest that no plane hit the pentagon on 9/11! I remember thinking 'what a strage thing to say'. I mean, why would somebody make up a story about no plane hitting the Pentagon when all you'd have to do is show the pictures of the crash site to make them look like fools? As I say, strange. So I just forgot about it and then the following day at work I had a browser open in front of me and it came into my head so I just typed in '9/11 plane pentagon' into Google....

The first thing I came accross was these powerpoints by some group called the ‘American Patriot Friends Network.’ I knew nothing about them then and I still don’t to be honest but they have a good collection of photographs of the pentagon that day and from almost immediately after impact.. have a look if you havn’t seen them before…


This .swf file also has a good collection of photos and a cool soundtrack too! If anybody knows the name of the artist for the first kinda drub and bassee tune could they let me know! Sweet.


So as you can imagine we were pretty shocked to find no evidence of a plane anywhere at the pentagon in any photographs taken by anybody… No plane.

That opened a real rabbit’s hole I have to tell you. I threw myself into basically researching every and any aspect of 9/11 with every waking moment and I can tell you quite truthfully that absolutely no part of the official story stands up to scrutiny. Not one. The best and most accessible introduction to this stuff is Dr. David Ray Griffin’s ‘The New Pearl Harbour.’ Although there have been dozens of books writtin on this stuff over the past four years Griffins is the only one generally available – Easons and Waterstones both stock it. I challenge anybody to read that book and say there aren’t dozens of questions needing answering… In fact, you can read it online in its entirety here:


To be perfectly honest even though I saw those photographs with my own eyes I spent three months researching before I finally said to myself ‘buddy, enough already, they did it.’ At that point in April C-Span in the US broadcast a lecture by Dr. Griffin at a University in Wisconsin entitled ‘9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond’ and which carried the following advance blurb: ‘The ethical and spiritual dimension of facing the overwhelming evidence that the Bush Administration was complicit in the attacks of Sept 11th.’ C-Span repeated the 90 minute talk over and over again. For those of you guys who don’t know C-Span its kinda like the public sector serious broadcaster in the US.. it’s all book reviews and debates and kinda academic stuff. I lived in the States for two years too and I was addicted.. it really is quality. You can download the talk at my blog-to-be foghappens.org – two 47MB files.. the violins or whatever in the background at the start are indicative of C-Span! Anyway, I digress. Once I saw that talk I finally said ok, I have to let people know about this stuff.. I really feel that I would be failing in my duties as a citizen and indeed as a person if I did not do all I could to let people know the truly shocking info I have come across in the past few months. Simple as that. If more people were to die needlessly in similar staged attacks in the future I’ll have to ask myself if I did everything I could to prevent those deaths and human suffering which could be on a scale that is almost unimaginable. I appreciate that this leads people to think that I’m a nutcase and a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and so on but if this is the price I have to pay then so be it. I’ll be that figure of derison if I have to be. Saving lives and preventing more suffering is more important.

And it’s only a ‘conspiracy theory’ if there’s no evidence to support it.

Regarding the DVD. Once I started organising the conference for November I invited a French guy called Thierry Meyssan to speak. He wrote what I think was the first book about the pentagon in 2002. Long story short he never replied but I got an email almost immediately from a guy called Jimmy Walter who said he ‘heard what I was doing and would like to offer any support he could.’ I looked up his website, saw he had commissioned the documentary and asked him for 300 to cover all Irish representatives and media orgs. This he did. I subsequently picked up another 1,000 copies of the DVD in Scotland at the G8 and most of them have been since distributed around Ireland, mostly around Cork City. Not all TDs and media orgs have them yet for the very banal reason that I am completely broke. Hence the drive to Dublin that day and what I guess was a sense of indignation that as a citizen of Ireland I was not able to simply give information to our public representatives. I just think that’s wrong and hence the original posting of the letter to the heads of the political parties. Incidentally I got a cheque and a very nice letter from a Labour deputy to cover the cost of all postage to Labour TD’s and so all Labout TDs have a copy of the DVD and Info Pack since last Monday (Aug 8th?). Fine Gael refused to pay for them and I havn’t heard back from Fianna Fail or the PDs specifically on this issue. I did get an email from the Taoiseachs Assistant Private Secretary to the effect that he had passed this on to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and that he’ll be in touch with us soon. If he does I’ll let ye know what that consisted of.

Otherwise, the DVD is indeed available for downloading in chunks at reopen911.org It’s a pain in the ass but you get to see it. Can anybody point out any innacuracies or misstatements on the DVD? Seriously, I would like to know if there is. I didn’t find any though.

So anyway its getting early. I’ll finish by just inviting ye all, friend and message board foe alike to the conference we have coming up in UCC on the 12th November 2005. We are quite proud of the speaker lineup which is attached below..

Incidentally, the Daily Mail had a 4,000 word piece in last Saturday’s edition called ‘9/11 on Trial.’ I have it scanned if anybody wants it. I’ll also attach the fist ever joint statement by the British and Irish 9/11 Truth Movements concerning state sponsored terrorism, released only yesterday.

Take Care,
Morgan Stack.


The New Pearl Harbour
Exploring Conflicting Interpretations of 9/11

Date: Saturday 12th November 2005
Venue: Boole IV UCC Cork Ireland.
Time: 9.30am-5.00pm (6 speakers see below)
Post Conference Panel: 6.30pm-8.00pm (6 foreign affairs spokespersons of six Irish political parties (subject to acceptance).


Daniel Hopsicker
Author, Journalist, TV producer.
Mad Cow Morning News www.madcowprod.com
Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 Cover Up in Florida
Florida, US.

Nafeez Mosadeq Ahmed
Director Institute of Policy Research & Development
The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked 9/11
Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq
London, England.

Phil Berg
Attorney for victims widow Ellen Mariani & fire-fighter Phil Rodriguez
Philidelphia, US.

Webster Tarpley
Terrorism Historian
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography
Washington D.C.

Mathias Brocker
Author: Facts, Forgeries and the Suppressed Evidence of 9/11

We the undersigned know:

A) That on occasion some deluded fanatics acting alone or connected to non-governmental groups of an extremist nature commit atrocities against harmless civilians up and sometimes kill themselves in the process - Such terrible things happen and

B) We also know (see references at end) that since WW2 (indeed also before) the secret agencies of many nominally democratic Western States have a long and shocking history of:

a) carrying out terrorist bomb outrages and/or
b) encouraging fascist outrages against designated 'enemies' and/or
c) doing so in such a way as to frame designated enemies and/or
d) manipulating or aiding confused/desperate people to commit the sorts of atrocities which elements in the State can then use to increase repression and scapegoat target communities or movements and/or
e) obstructing parliamentary and judicial enquiries including by destroying the vital evidence of their crimes - Such terrible things also happen.

Therefore, in the immediate aftermath of any particular outrage it is VITAL that we encourage an open mind as to which of these broad categories of event (A or B) we may be confronted by - or maybe some combination such as B(d) above.

We urgently need to develop best practice protocols for responsible journalists, media organisations, community leaders, politicians, etc to sign up to:

 which inhibit any rush to Judgment, especially one fuelled largely by Islamophobia or other hatreds,
 which discourage rumour mongering and unduly selective presentation or leaking of evidence or purported evidence,
 and in particular which lead people to treat official statements and unattributed briefings from the government, the police, the secret services, other media, websites, etc with the cautious and disciplined skepticism which they deserve.

We consider it vital that all relevant or potentially relevant information is kept safe and made available to the public at large or investigators and investigations having the trust of all sections of society - so that the truth(s) about terrorist outrages can be known with a view to preventing their recurrence and minimising the kind of generalised fear and hatreds which can lead to so-called 'revenge' attacks, pogroms or even genocide. This applies not simply to properly constituted open trials of designated 'terrorist suspects' (innocent until proven guilty) but also to cases of real or supposed 'suicide' murders where the perpetrators are rightly or wrongly assumed to be dead.

In particular in relation to the London transport murders of 7/7 we call on ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL and irrespective of all current assumptions concerning likely authorship of these terrible acts:

1. not to assume they/we know for certain what happened and who was behind the bombings;
2. to study the evidence in the round with open minds and having regard to a variety of sources, potential precedents etc;
3. to demand thorough and strongly independent public investigations capable of discovering and publicising the truth in such a way as to lay false allegations and unnnecessary suspicions to rest - and if necessary to create interim and/or alternative tribunal(s);
4. to join our demand that the many vital sources of evidence are preserved and not destroyed, e.g. CCTV footage; the bomb-damaged tube carriages; phone, credit and other records, including intelligence reports, London transport and maintenance records, etc;
5. and in the event of denial of a serious inquiry and/or attempted destruction of CCTV footage, tube carriages, etc to join our appeal to responsible workers, contractors, etc to come forward and say or show what they know.



Annie McMahon - Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: Mi5, Mi6 and the Shayler Affair
William Blum - Killing Hope
Chomsky and Herman - the Real Terror Network

NATO'S Secret Armies - Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, by Daniele Ganser
(Frank Cass, London 2005) see Book Review:

Tony Gosling tells how Ganser’s new book on ‘Gladio’ provides ample evidence of systematic state murder of European civilians for political ends.

The BBC documentary maker, Allan Frankovich, made three hour-long programmes about ‘Gladio’, a secret pan-European network of special forces (1). Gladio was controlled by NATO's Clandestine Planning Committee attached to Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe. It was appropriate that the documentaries should be made by the BBC, since Britain's MI6 and SAS were key movers and trainers, with the CIA, in the Gladio operation.

Frankovich died unexpectedly on 17th April 1997 inside the customs hall at Houston airport of a ‘heart attack.’ According to friends, he had documents in his briefcase showing that the CIA was behind the bombing of Pan AM Flight 103. For 'On Company Business' Frankovich won the international critics’ award for best documentary at 1980 Berlin film festival. Subject: CIA corruption.

But, revelations about the ‘Gladiators’ he was investigating continued. Ganser’s book links Ex-SS Nazis to NATO and the most ruthless right wing political extremists in Europe. It paints a picture of a western military establishment deeply infiltrated by neo-Nazis who blame their political massacres on the left and appear to act with impunity. It is a real bombshell and a milestone, and depicts a catalogue of institutionalised (NATO) domestic and European state terrorism running back to the 1950's. It tells in detail how many Baader-Meinhof, ETA, Red Brigade and IRA 'extreme left' bombs were planted by NATO Special forces, often in collaboration with right-wing extremists. False-flag mayhem to excuse clamp-downs on left political movements. The ruthlessness of the killings was used to dissuade investigation, the horror used as a defence by the perpetrators.

The CIA and the British secret service MI6, in collaboration with the military alliance NATO and European military secret services, set up a network of clandestine anti-communist armies in Western Europe after World War II. The secret soldiers were trained on remote islands in the Mediterranean and in unorthodox warfare centres in England and in the United States by the Green Berets and SAS Special Forces.

The network was armed with explosives, machine guns and high-tech communication equipment hidden in underground bunkers and secret arms caches in forests and mountain meadows. In some countries the secret army linked up with right-wing terrorist who in a secret war engaged in political manipulation, harassment of left wing parties, massacres, coups d'etat and torture.

Codenamed "Gladio" ('the sword'), in 1990 the Italian secret army was exposed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti to the Italian Senate, whereupon the press spoke of "The best kept, and most damaging, political-military secret since World War II" (Observer, 18. November 1990) and observed that "The story seems straight from the pages of a political thriller." (The Times, November 19, 1990). (2)

Ever since, so-called 'stay-behind' armies of NATO have also been discovered in France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Greece and Turkey. They were internationally co-ordinated by the Pentagon and NATO and had their last known meeting in the NATO-linked Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) in Brussels in October 1990.

"On the morning of August 2, 1980, a massive bomb exploded in the waiting room of the central train station in Bologna, killing 81 people and injuring 200 others. General Santorito, the chief of Italy's military intelligence agency, SISMI testified in the wake of the bombing that it had been planned by the British-Swiss-American 'Montecarlo Comite' based in Monaco."

Ganser's book reveals, for the first time, the influence of the extreme right at the apex of western military might. It reveals a Western military system in the grip of lawlessness and institutional psycopathology. NATO's 'Stay Behind' Gladio forces, formed in the 1950's, were created ostensibly to act as 'sabotage centres' in the case of a Soviet invasion. In reality they have been responsible for many, if not most of the so-called left wing bomb attacks of the last 40 years. The current state of knowledge is documented in this incredible book just out in paperback for £21.00. Now is the time to be exposing the simple cross-national use of special forces to plant bombs and carry out assassinations, that were blamed on the Red Brigade and other left-wing militant groups.

This book pieces together the evidence that, in just about every country in Europe, including so-called neutral countries such as Finland and Switzerland, NATO 'special forces' and extreme right-wing paramilitaries have been planting bombs, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and injuring thousands. This is the real terrorist threat which counts ex-Waffen SS among their members, and it comes from NATO.
Bombs were subsequently blamed on Red Brigades, Baader Meinhof and almost all the activists in the latter half of the twentieth century from the extreme left. This is psychopathic 'self-harming' state terrorism for political ends aligned with the extreme right. Italy has been a particular target in NATO's brutal campaign which included a successful coup which was called off by President Nixon at the last minute.

We live in a world where bombs mysteriously go off and no-one claims credit, then the news tells us that they were done by Muslim terror groups: Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, Beirut. These bombs are quite powerful and blow huge craters in the roads - which IRA bombs never did. In Madrid, ten were detonated simultaneously. Thereby the image of 'terror' is maintained. This book invites us to step through the looking-glass, and enquire whether it has after all been the military right-wing that constructs these events, phoney terror events, to maintain its ruinous stranglehold on our culture. It gives us the essential basis for evaluating this question. It was called, 'Gladio.'

Noam Chomsky’s comment:
‘Put briefly, the “stay-behind” armies of Western Europe – originally organized to fight in the event of World War III – morphed into substantial clandestine political forces with deep roots in European police and intelligence agencies. According to parliamentary investigations, the stay-behind veterans of Gladio appear to have made and broke governments. Elsewhere, they provided channels for intelligence operations and other relationships largely unknown to the elected leaders of a half dozen democratic states. This is important stuff.’

NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe by Daniele Ganser, 2004, Frank Cass Publishers, £20 from Amazon. ISBN: 0714685003

Web links
It turns out, oddly enough, that the fight against drugs and terrorism has involved the training of terrorists, letting off bombs & dealing narcotics! Are our politicians fully aware of this? See:

For more comments, see:
www.isn.ethz.ch/php/collections/coll_gladio.htm Operation Gladio

For the genesis of Gladio, see:


1. The third of these programmes was shown on 24th June 1992 on BBC2: ‘Gladio, The Foot Soldiers,’ series editor Laurence Rees.
2. See e.g. Puppetmasters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy by Philip Willan, 1991; for an earlier study, see Gianfranco Sanguinetti On Terrorism and the State 1982.

Related Link: http://www.911truth.ie
author by Morgan Stack - Irish 9/11 Truth Movementpublication date Luan Lún 15, 2005 20:15author email info at 911truth dot ieauthor address Suite 212, 2A Crawford Hall, Western Road, cork.author phone n/aReport this post to the editors

The following article was in the Irish Times today. It's full of innacuracies but still represents the first time the Irish Times has allowed or permitted a journalist to question the official version of events...

Note the comment at the end 'something a whole lot darker and more disturbing'.

It seems too dark and disturbing to report on!


Wanted: a commission to investigate the 9/11 commission
Mark Steyn

OPINION: If you want to know everything wrong with America's official 9/11 commission in a single soundbite, consider this from Al Felzenberg, their designated spokesman, speaking last Wednesday: "There was no way that Atta could have been in the United States at that time, which is why the staff didn't give this tremendous weight when they were writing the report. This information was not meshing with the other information that we had."
In fairness to Felzenberg, he was having a bad week, and a hard time staying on top of the commission's ever-shifting version of events.

It emerged a few days ago that a group from Special Operations Command had fingered Mohammed Atta - the guy who ploughed Flight 11 into the first World Trade Center tower - well over a year before before 9/11.
Or, as the Associated Press puts it: "A classified military intelligence unit called 'Able Danger' identified Atta and three other hijackers in 1999 as potential members of a terrorist cell in New York City."
Unfortunately, their superiors decided they would be unable to tell the FBI because of the so-called government "wall" that prevented one agency sharing information with another agency if the persons involved were "US persons" - which means not just US citizens, but persons in the US legally.
The official position of US immigration is that Mohammed Atta was not in the country in 1999 or early 2000, which means presumably he was there illegally, which means he wasn't covered by the rules preventing info-sharing.

But, of course, we're not talking about precise rules here, so much as the prevailing culture of the 1999/2000 period when Al Gore was going around boasting that his first act as president would be to sign a law preventing local cops from racial profiling in highway stops - or, as he put it, pulling someone over for "driving while black". And the collapsed investigation of Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwan-born scientist at Los Alamos accused of leaking nuclear secrets to the Chinese, had prompted a press storm of headlines like "Investigator Denies Lee Was Victim Of Racial Bias" (San Francisco Chronicle).

The last thing anyone at the FBI wanted was to look into any other identity groups, even certain ones who seemed to be spending a lot of time at pilot-training schools.
Who needs Al Gore breathing down your neck huffing about discriminating against folks for "flying while Muslim"?

Still, the news that military intelligence had Atta in its sights back then is less shocking than the 9/11 commission's reaction to it. When the story broke last week, the commissioners denied they knew anything about "Able Danger": "The September 11th commission did not learn of any US government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell," insisted Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair.

"Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."
But within 48 hours this version was non-operative. Hamilton remembered that he had known about it, but decided it was no big deal.

As the AP subsequently reported: "The September 11th commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaeda who might be part of a US-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report, a spokesman acknowledged Thursday."

So, far from being a "major focus" that they just happened to miss, it turns out they knew about it but "decided not to include" it. How'd that happen? Well, as Felzenberg says so disarmingly, "this information was not meshing with the other information".
As a glimpse into the mindset of the commission, that's astonishing: 9/11 happened, in part, because the various Federal bureaucracies involved were unable to process information that didn't "mesh" with conventional wisdom.

Now we find that the official commission intended to identify those problems and ensure they don't recur is, in fact, guilty of the very same fatal flaw. The new information didn't "mesh" with the old information, so they disregarded it.

But, hey, let's not have a philosophical discussion, let's keep it practical: there was "no way" that Atta could have been in the US except when the official INS record says he was?

Actually, there's plenty of ways. Forget the southern border, insofar as there is such a thing. Fact: on America's northern border, no record is kept of individual visitors to the US. Fact: the only Islamist terrorist attack prevented by the US government in the period before 9/11 was the attempt to blow up LAX (Los Angeles international airport) by Ahmed Ressam, a Montrealer caught on the Washington/British Columbia frontier by an alert official who happened to notice he seemed a little sweaty.

A different guard, a cooler Islamist, and it might just have been yet another routine unrecorded border crossing.

So, when the 9/11 commission starts saying that there's "no way" something can happen when it happens every single day of the week, you start to wonder what exactly is the point of an official investigation so locked in to pre-set conclusions.

9/11 was a total government fiasco: CIA, FBI, INS, FAA, all the hotshot acronyms failed spectacularly.

But appoint an official commission and let them issue an official report and suddenly everyone says, oh, well, this is the official version of 9/11; if they say something didn't happen, it can't possibly have happened.
Readers may recall that I never cared for the commission. There were too many showboating partisan hacks who seemed more interested in playing to the rhythms of the presidential election season.
There was at least one person with an outrageous conflict of interest: Clinton justice department honcho Jamie Gorelick, the guardian of that "wall" of separation, shouldn't have been on the commission but instead a key witness appearing in front of it. And there were far too many areas where the members appeared interested only in facts that supported a predetermined outcome.
Maybe we need a 9/11 "commission commission" to investigate the 9/11 commission. A body intended to reassure Americans that the lessons of that terrible day had been learned - instead of engaging in what, at best, was transparent politicking and collusion in posterior-covering and, at worst, was something a whole lot darker and more disturbing.

The problem pre-9/11 was always political - that's to say, no matter how savvy individual operatives in various agencies may have been, the political culture of the day meant that nothing would happen except a memo would get typed up and shovelled into a filing cabinet.

Together with other never fully explained episodes - like the discovery that Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger was smuggling single-copy classified documents out from the national archives in his pants - the "Able Danger" story makes one thing plain: the problem is still political.

author by Williampublication date Máirt Beal 15, 2007 12:25Report this post to the editors

I think considering all the trouble you went to in order to prepare those information packs, that you should have posted them. It might have cost you 170 Euros but at least you would be certain that all Dail members received one as you could have sent them in plain, unmarked envelopes and security could not have intercepted them.
That said, you are doing a great job and keep on throwing light on the 9/11 hoax and it will eventaully crumble just like the Towers themselves.

Related Link: http://www.infowars.net
author by Hoaxbusterpublication date Máirt Beal 15, 2007 13:20Report this post to the editors

I think this is brilliant - is this some comedian putting together a new show or something?

Anyway a search on http://www.ittralee.ie/ throws up no "Morgan Stack". Googling the name only reveals this 9111 Truth organisation.

author by Edwardpublication date Domh Meith 03, 2007 13:38Report this post to the editors

Sgt. Lagasse & Sgt. Brooks Pentagon police are eyewitness to the flight 77
going to the north side of the gas station disputing the official story that said the flight path was to the south of the gas station.
the gas station is across the street from the pentagon.

Related Link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE
Number of comments per page
© 2001-2018 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Mura bhforáileann an t-údar a mhalairt, tá gach uile inneachar saor chun athúsáid, athchló agus athchraolú neamhthráchtála a bhaint as, ar an idirlín agus in aon áit eile. Is le rannpháirtithe na tuairimí atá ar an suíomh seo agus ní gá go ndroimscríobhann Comharchumann Saormheán na hÉireann iad. Independent Media Centre Ireland. Séanadh | Príobháideacht