October 19, 2001

Big Brother Files : More Food for Thought

Hello everyone

Here is another compilation I had prepared for you earlier this week. As I mentioned there will be a *gradual* shift towards working on the solution - more on this in a coming compilation. But of course, we will keep a close eye on the developing global situation, etc.

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator


1. Bill Blum on the Hypocrisy Crusade
2. Big Brother exposed
3. Interesting stories to explore
4. Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski
6. Taliban - Confidential
7. Say what you want, but this war is illegal'
8. U.S. Government Knowledge and Complicity

See also:

Washington Asks NATO To Deploy AWACS Planes In US

Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg Organization meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 said the following as transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates:

"Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

"...the US (and particularly the Pentagon) has hitherto opposed the creation of any international criminal tribunal which could conceivably indict an American citizen." (Geoffrey Robertson). In fact there is a wide international support for, and ratification of, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Details at: http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html


October 4, 2001 -- America's new wall of homeland security is creating a big demand for cells to hold suspects and illegal aliens who might be rounded up. Stocks of private companies that build and operate prisons for governments have zoomed as high as 300 percent in anticipation of internment camps and new prisons. CLIP

Government Had Prior Knowledge - Key Points

The FBI knows another terrorist attack is being planned now in Oklahoma City - attack site unknown. The FBI has and is prohibiting their agents or local police from taking known terrorists into custody. An Iraqi terrorist cell is involved and was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. Ashcroft and members of Congress aren't listening. CLIP

The longer this war continues, the more difficult it will become

Anti-Terrorism Questions for Bush - and more articles


Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001
From: Mark Graffis <mgraffis@vitelcom.net>
Subject: Bill Blum on the Hypocrisy Crusade

From: BBlum6ol.com

Keep Those Envelopes Coming!

The man illegally occupying the White House made the following announcement a few days ago:

"We are asking every child in America to earn or give a dollar that will be used to provide food and medical help for the children of Afghanistan. You can send your dollar in an envelope marked 'America's Fund for Afghan Children' right here to the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C."

I suggest that we send the envelopes, but not with any money; instead with a note saying something like "You could help the children of Afghanistan a great deal more if you'd stop bombing their country, killing them and their parents, and making it impossible for real charitable organizations to bring food, medical, and other aid into the country."

It would be better if you signed your name and address, but you must realize in the expanded police state that is now looming, this could likely get you put on a list, if not worse.

Bill Blum is the author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower"

Portions of the books can be read at:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm (with a link to Killing Hope)


From: "Matthew Webb" <visionquest@eoni.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001
Subject: Big Brother exposed

This is a reply to one of UCS members


Dear Sandra,

I very much appreciate your reply. Unlike most people, you are actually asking what can be done to remedy this planetary crisis. If only there were many more so willing to question and discuss, what is ordinarily considered "taboo" subjects.

One such subject is the difference between the current definition of patriotism, and intelligent social responsibility. In the current definition we see a great deal of hype repeated over and over again, much like a religious mantra, whose original meaning has long since been forgotten. Our "way of life" is threatened we hear. We hear of "liberty and justice for all" and yet we offer neither of these to Afganistan, Panama, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Iran, Ecuador, Cuba and a large host of others. Very soon, even the average American citizen will be persecuted for the slightest deviation from the mainstream politcal agenda, much as it was during the communism scare during the 1950's.

Even the word "patriotism" can be broken down as follows; "pat" (male society) "riot" (anarchistic revolt) and "ism" (a state or condition of). Thus "patriotism" originally referred to the fervor of political and social dissent, with the attitude that true freedom was something earned, not just a hollow ideology with no practical meaning. It was a social movement away from the tyranny of government interference, (Britain) toward the true welfare of the people. The meaning of patriotism today however, is one of "don't ever question anything the government says, and never challenge its conclusions or methods". (If you do, don't be surprised if the FBI comes to investigate.) This definition is the exact opposite of what the term meant during the US revolutionary war era. I submit that this implies we have become the tyranny we so deplored, during the inception of this country.

My further comments are found below;

Sandra said: Matthew, i am interested after reading your message as to exactly what you think should be done regarding the terrist attacks.


The very first thing I suggest is the HONEST questioning of everything we are told by the media, and the beliefs to which we are expected to adhere. True social progress can ONLY be had through honesty, since there is no point in questioning, if we are not prepared to accept the answers found. I invite you to read my previous "Be Not Decieved" posts, Parts 1 and 2, which are in the recent UCS article archives. I also suggest that you read the Survivalists' Guide for the New Millennium, (a book I've written, found in its entirety on my World Mind Society website at http://www.eoni.com/~visionquest

Many of my articles on such subjects are also posted some time ago on UCS and can be found in the archives, and on my website.


Just what is the USA suppose to do: not retaliate, sit back and see what is next. Please write and let us know what you think should be done for the best interest of our or at least my country.


Let us first ask, "Retaliate for what?" There is a very, very valid argument, which is simply logical and straightforward, which says that the WTC bombings were the retaliation, and we were and are the original perpetrators of world catastrophy.

To make this point further, I'm going to forward to the UCS readership a compilation I just received from Jean Hudon, (renamed “Obey Big Brother or be Punished”) which puts these matters in better perspective. I have always said that if you really want to understand the bottom line of US foreign policy, then you must only know one thing...WHERE IS THE PROFIT. In the case of Iraq this is obvious. In the case of Afganistan, the monetary profit to be made is a matter of regional proximity to vast oil reserves. This too will be addressed in Jean Hudon's compilation, and if you and others take the time to read it fully, you will understand.

As for what should be done for "your" country, I would say that the very best measure is to see Truth clearly, and to remember where our true allegience lies. Our allegience is not to the flimsy veil of nationalism. A nation is only an artifical ideal that is collectively believed in. When that ideal becomes hypocritically abused, such as in the bombing of other countries who did not attack us first, it is then that this ideal is world destructive. I ask you, where is the "Democrary and Justice" in bombing a nation who is only circumstancially associated with a suspect criminal? Remember that Bin Laden has never been brought to trial, and no guilt has been proven on his part. (Also we must note that the Taliban has recently offered to reveal Bin Laden to a neutral third party country, if we will stop our bombings of their country. Bush has denied this, say "there will be no negotiations"...democracy and justice for all?)

Does the supposed end of freedom justify any murderous means? Does Justice include the summary execution of criminal suspects and their associates just because George Bush says so? What if the FBI came to your door tomorrow and whisked you off to an indefinate prison term without trial, as a "suspected terrorist", (as it has done to over 700 people already) regardless of your innocence? Who would be there to stop them, or even question the act? Not your flag waving neighbors, that's for sure.

The first step to true freedom, is the freeing of the mind.

Matthew Wayne Webb
United Communities of Spirit



Two years of groundbreaking coverage on the Vietnamization of Colombia

Three years of reporting on the channeling of drug profits through Wall Street

The first news entity to publish the entire deposition of Adm. Thomas Moorer admitting sarin gas use in SE Asia

Exclusive coverage on the contents of a CIA IG report (10/98) admitting direct CIA involvement in the drug trade

Expanded coverage of the CIA illegally transferring military aircraft to private companies that were later used to smuggle cocaine in the 1990s

The connection between the crack cocaine epidemic and massive foreclosures of HUD financed homes in South Central Los Angeles. (Ethnic Cleansing)

The first US news entity to report in detail on connections between the KLA and the heroin trade

An exclusive two-part series connecting Dominican drug lords to money laundering through the Democratic Party

The first US news agency to fully explore the massive looting of Russia through the Bank of New York and link it to the drug trade

Gov George Bush flying in a Texas state airplane once owned by Barry Seal (picked up by the AP)

Perjury committed by Deputy Attorneys General in the conviction of Edwin Wilson

The Democratic Party's Presidential Drug Money Pipeline

The 9th Circuit Court Affirming Contra Leaders Claims of CIA Sanction for Drug Trafficking

Promis Software (2000)

The Bush-Cheney Drug Empire

European Economic Conference on US Economy

Massive Holes in the U.S. Position on the Shootdown of Missionaries in Peru


Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter National security advisor

Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?

(End of excerpt from Brzezinski interview)



By Norman Solomon

During the first two days of this month, CNN's website displayed an odd little announcement. "There have been false reports that CNN has not used the word 'terrorist' to refer to those who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon," the notice said. "In fact, CNN has consistently and repeatedly referred to the attackers and hijackers as terrorists, and it will continue to do so."

The CNN disclaimer was accurate -- and, by conventional media standards, reassuring. But it bypassed a basic question that festers beneath America's overwhelming media coverage of recent weeks: Exactly what qualifies as "terrorism"?

For this country's mainstream journalists, that's a non-question about a no-brainer. More than ever, the proper function of the "terrorist" label seems obvious. "A group of people commandeered airliners and used them as guided missiles against thousands of people," says NBC News executive Bill Wheatley. "If that doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, what does?"

True enough. At the same time, it's notable that American news outlets routinely define terrorism the same way that U.S. government officials do. Usually, editors assume that reporters don't need any formal directive because the appropriate usage is simply understood.

The Wall Street Journal does provide some guidelines, telling its staff that the word terrorist "should be used carefully, and specifically, to describe those people and nongovernmental organizations that plan and execute acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets." In newsrooms across the United States, media professionals would agree.

But -- in sharp contrast -- Reuters has stuck to a distinctive approach for decades. "As part of a policy to avoid the use of emotive words," the global news service says, "we do not use terms like 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' unless they are in a direct quote or are otherwise attributable to a third party. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background so that readers can make their own decisions based on the facts."

Since mid-September, the Reuters management has taken a lot of heat for maintaining this policy -- and for reiterating it in an internal memo, which included the observation that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In a clarifying statement, released on Oct. 2, the top execs at Reuters explained:

"Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly."

Reuters reports from 160 countries, and the "terrorist" label is highly contentious in quite a few of them. Behind the scenes, many governments have pressured Reuters to flatly describe their enemies as terrorists in news dispatches.

From the vantage point of government leaders in Ankara or Jerusalem or Moscow, for example, journalists shouldn't hesitate to describe their violent foes as terrorists. But why should reporters oblige by pinning that tag on Kurdish combatants in Turkey, or Palestinian militants in occupied territories, or rebels in Chechnya?

Unless we buy into the absurd pretense that governments don't engage in "terrorism," the circumscribed use of the term by U.S. media makes no sense. Turkish military forces have certainly terrorized and killed many civilians; the same is true of Israeli forces and Russian troops. As a result, plenty of Kurds, Palestinians and Chechens are grieving.

American reporters could plausibly expand their working definition of terrorism to include all organized acts of terror and murder committed against civilians. But such consistency would meet with fierce opposition in high Washington places.

During the 1980s, with a non-evasive standard for terrorism, news accounts would have routinely referred to the Nicaraguan contra guerrillas -- in addition to the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments -- as U.S.- backed "terrorists." Today, for instance, such a standard would require news coverage of terrorism in the Middle East to include the Israeli assaults with bullets and missiles that take the lives of Palestinian children and other civilians.

Evenhanded use of the "terrorist" label would mean sometimes affixing it directly on the U.S. government. During the past decade, from Iraq to Sudan to Yugoslavia, the Pentagon's missiles have destroyed the lives of civilians just as innocent as those who perished on Sept. 11. If journalists dare not call that "terrorism," then perhaps the word should be retired from the media lexicon.

It's entirely appropriate for news outlets to describe the Sept. 11 hijackers as "terrorists" -- if those outlets are willing to use the "terrorist" label with integrity across the board. But as long as news organizations are not willing to do so, the Reuters policy is the only principled journalistic alternative.

There is no credible reason to believe that mainstream U.S. media will jump off Uncle Sam's propaganda merry-go-round about "terrorism." And the problem goes far beyond the deeply hypocritical routine of condemning some murderously explosive actions against civilians while applauding or even implementing others.

More than five years have passed since Madeleine Albright, then secretary of state, appeared on the CBS program "60 Minutes" and explained her lack of concern about the deaths resulting from U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq. In a broadcast that aired on May 12, 1996, the CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Albright: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died when -- in -- in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"

"I think this is a very hard choice," Albright replied, "but the price- we think the price is worth it."

Since then, by continuing to impose sanctions on Iraq, the U.S. government has killed hundreds of thousands more children. Of course such present-day policies did not stop Albright's successor from immediately claiming the high moral ground on Sept. 11. Responding to the tragic events that day, Colin Powell denounced "people who feel that with the destruction of buildings, with the murder of people, they can somehow achieve a political purpose."

Obviously, top U.S. officials still believe that they can "somehow achieve a political purpose" with sanctions that are killing several thousand Iraqi children every month. While standing on that policy platform, the officials fervently deplore terrorism.



Sate: Fri, 28 Sep 2001
Subject: Taliban - Confidential

By Gordon Thomas


China has provided the Taliban with state-of-the-art electronic defence equipment. It was developed by military contractors in Britain, the United States and Germany and stolen by Chinas Secret Intelligence Service (CSIS).

The deal was cemented in Kabul on the day the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were hit.

In return for beefing-up Afghanistans defences, the Taliban have agreed to close Afghan-based camps used to train Muslim Fundamentalists currently terrorising Chinas northern provinces. Details of the deal leaked out of Beijing last week to the Sunday Express from anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. It was confirmed by Washington where the State Department was highly disturbed by the news the U.S. Embssy in Beijing had sent about the deal.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was told the deal involved two major Chinese companies, Huswei Technologies and ZTE. Both are major suppliers to Chinas Peoples Liberation Army. Chinas Ministry of State Security supplied missile-tracking equipment and a range of electronic counter-measures to the Taliban.

The equipment had been developed in Britain. Since last Sunday Chinese air force transporters have been flying into Kabuls airport with the equipment. It was immediately distributed to areas from where the Taliban fear a U.S. attack would come. And for the first time we can reveal the close contacts between CSIS and Osama bin-Laden. It has emerged that in the past year he has made several visits to Beijing, usually accompanied by Chinas ambassador to Pakistan who is Beijings most senior diplomat in the region. A high-ranking Chinese defector to America, with full access to the CSIS, has revealed the most comprehensive-ever details of Chinas spying operations against key economic and industrial targets in Britain.

State-of-the-art research and technology worth an estimated 14 billion has been stolen in the past three years since CSIS intensified its operations in Britain. The defector, Colonel Xu Junping, was Director of Strategy in Chinas Defence Ministry. For the past five years he oversaw all secret operations by CSIS against the West. Xu has told his CIA debriefers how:

CSIS has established bases in Londons Soho (Chinatown) and other cities. Some are above restaurants or in brothels. CSIS pays for Chinese students to have further education in Britain. Many attend university post-graduate courses at our leading universities including Oxford and Cambridge.

After qualifying usually in computer or science-related subjects those students are taught how to apply for jobs with British firms some of whom have sensitive defence contracts. Xu has provided a list of target firms. Most are in the high-tech industry.

CSIS trains those graduates to steal trade secrets from their employers and bring them to safe houses. Xu has provided a list of the houses in London, Glasgow and Manchester.

CSIS has twenty full-time agents working in Britain. Only two of them have diplomatic status. The others are attached to Chinese business organisation to provide them with cover for their secret activities. The number of CSIS agents is larger than any other foreign intelligence service operating in Britain. In the five months that Xu has been kept under wraps in a safe house deep in the countryside outside Washington its perimeter guarded by crack-shot agents the slim, good-looking 44-year old defector has also provided valuable insights about how much China knows.

Of MI6 operations in the Far East. How China secretly contravened sanctions against Saddam to re-arm Iraq with nuclear weapons. Iraq now has a capability to produce long-range nuclear missiles. How China secretly helped Slobodan Milosevic during the Balkans War and how a CSIS team flew to Belgrade, ready to whisk Milosevic to sanctuary in China - shortly before he was arrested and sent to The Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Even more alarming was Xus revelation that Osama bin-Laden to the U.S. the grandmaster of terrorism has close contacts with CSIS.

Our intelligence service operates on the principle that your enemies are our potential allies, Xu told his debriefers. So important were some of Xus revelations that U.S. National Security Adviser, Condolezza Rice, sat in on debriefings. She heard:

Xu confirm CSIS plans to stage an escalating series of crises to help China become the new Superpower of the new Millenium. How CSIS is working hard to exploit Europes growing problem with asylum seekers. Xus predictions have now been included into a CIA report entitled Global Trends Up To 2015. The report contains these chilling claims:

CSIS will provide biochemical and small nuclear devices to terrorist groups to attack the United States and Britain. CSIS will increasingly support rogue states like Iraq and Iran. On present calculations, with the help of China, both countries will have gone nuclear by the year 2005, says the report. The report is a grim precursor to the present economic slowdown.

CSIS will exploit the present economic stagnation that will reach its peak in the year 2015. All the indications are there could be a major war by then. The main protagonists will be China and America. But Britain and NATO will inevitably be drawn in. White House sources say a copy of the report is permanently on President Bushs desk in the Oval Office.

Xu, who speaks fluent English, was one of Chinas new breed of high fliers, a brilliant strategist according to one CIA source. He defected with nothing but the clothes he wore and a small overnight case. With his diplomatic passport he had no problem catching a China Air flight to Bangkok earlier this year. From there he flew to Washington. There he called a number a CIA agent had given him in Beijing.

An hour later he was installed in the CIA safe house. Last week his five months of intensive debriefing was over. During that time Xu was given the courtesies of a top-level defector. He had his own chef to cook his favourite Chinese meals. Videos of Manchester United, his favourite team, were obtained from Britain for him to watch. Then it was back to work..talking for hours into a microphone.

This coming week Xu enters Americas Witness Protection Programme. He will have plastic surgery to change his appearance. A language teacher will coach him in the latest buzz words. He will get used to his new name. A job will be found for him and he will receive a secret pension for life.

But he will have no physical protection against the ever present threat that a CSIS team will assassinate him. To give him a bodyguard would be to draw attention to him, said an FBI source. His best protection will be his ability to melt into his chosen background.

Chinese Spies

China now has the worlds largest intelligence-gathering apparatus. As well as CSIS (approx 4,000 staff), a third based overseas, the others are:

STD. Headquartered in the monolithic Ministry of Defence building in Beijing, the Science and Technology Department (4,000 members) has two prime functions. Collating all signals traffic from the Chinese Navy, overseas embassies and satellites. Targeting all foreign firms at the cutting edge of military and civilian technology.

MID. Reports to the Politburo and Army General Staff. Brief includes updating all foreign military capabilities. Members attached to every Chinese embassy and consulate. Number of staff estimated as 1,500. ILD. Small specialist unit (300 members). Conducts high-tech intelligence-gathering.

MSS. (3,500 staff). Equivalent to MI5 but three times larger. Targets all foreigners in China and spies on its own citizens. CLIP

Gordon Thomas

See also:

China May See Star Wars Plans (2 sept)
U.S. Reported To Share Missile Defense Secrets With China
Bush To Drop Objection to the China Nuclear Buildup (Isn't THAT silly!!)


Say what you want, but this war is illegal

Professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto

Globe and Mail
Tuesday, October 9, 2001

A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter.

Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security.

The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.

Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defence, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.

The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.

Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where "necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security." Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.


But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters of our most vital interests.

We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.

The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, lawless world.


U.S. Government Knowledge and Complicity

From: David Feustel <dfeustel@mindspring.com>

Chicago Attorney David Schippers, head of the Clinton impeachment, asserted yesterday on the Alex Jones show that the Justice department had detailed information on 911 weeks before the attack was carried out.

Schippers says that he personally sent information about the impending 911 attack to AG Ashcroft asking for an investigation, but Ashcroft refused to do that.

Schippers got his information from FBI agents who had collected information about the impending attack and all the terrorists subsequently involved.

The FBI agents sent the information to Schippers after they were explicitly ordered to drop their investigation of signs of the impending attack.

Given the Government's extremely well documented prior knowledge of and complicity in the first WTC bombing and the OKC bombing, I find this report credible.

Only the government is benefiting from the fallout of 911 as a result of its assumption of drastically increased powers to 'fight terrorism'.