Ten Years Of Murderous Nonsense

WTC6 was hollowed out. What did this?

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the last happy day of my life.

It was an ignorant sort of happy, but I remember it fondly nonetheless.

I may as well; tomorrow will mark ten years of murderous nonsense. The official story of 9/11 is impossible to believe, yet it is promoted more brazenly than any contemporary truth.

My effort to avoid the anniversary propaganda having failed, I started trying to mark the biggest, stupidest, 9/11-related lie I can find.

There are plenty of candidates for the honor.

WTC5 had multiple holes. What did this?

Some serious 9/11 researchers have been trying to compile a list of all the "holes" in the official story: the distortions, the omissions, the contradictions, the outright lies, and all the other bits and pieces of evidence which suggest that the real story behind 9/11 is not the one we have been told.

These people remind me of the Renaissance mathematicians who spent their whole lives trying to find all the prime numbers.

The mathematicians were working for the royal courts, in many cases, whereas the 9/11 researchers are working against the powers of our day.

But the fields of research are more or less equally infinite.

Being somewhat less ambitious, I started a list of the people who used to be, or used to be considered, investigative journalists, or at least honest dissident writers, but who have shown quite clearly that their primary interest in the truth about 9/11 is in bashing those who seek it.

What burned these cars?

My list would certainly have been finite, but I lacked the discipline required to keep adding to it.

At last I settled on a smaller task: finding the undisputed facts in the official story.

My list now contains the date, as well as the names and locations of some of the buildings which were damaged or destroyed on that day.

I do not see any possibility of adding to this list in the future.

And that's the state of play.

Jerome Hauer

What drilled huge holes in WTC5 and WTC6?

What burned hundreds of cars, some more than half a mile away from the WTC?

Why are such questions not allowed even at so-called '9/11 Truth' sites?

I could write at length about such matters, and if I were healthy I would probably do so. But I can't.

Instead I can only point out that the people who disseminated the official story of 9/11, the people who have fabricated new "research" to support it, and the people who mount vicious attacks on those of us who don't buy their murderous nonsense, are all -- by their own choice -- mortal enemies of everything that is true and just and righteous, and therefore of all humanity.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Happy Patriot Day? Not Quite: The Saddest 9/11 Anniversary Of All

Here we are again, another September 11th. For me it's more painful than any previous anniversary of the "terrorist attacks" of 2001.

I've been trying to write a major essay about it, but it's not coming together. Oh well. Instead I will confine my comments to a few words and give you an opportunity to say what you wish, if you wish...

I think this is the most painful 9/11 since 2001 because we now know, more certainly than ever before, that the official story of what happened that day, and how it happened, is false in almost EVERY DETAIL.

We also now have -- for the first 9/11 anniversary since the "attacks", a Democratic president and a Democratic congress.

And YET we STILL don't have a SINGLE advocate for real 9/11 truth ANYWHERE near the corridors of power.

There used to be one, until just a few days ago, but he got run out for (among other things) having signed, five years ago, a letter requesting an impartial investigation of the crimes of 9/11 and their coverup. Apparently Obama's staff made a hasty decision and approved a man with a touch of truth in his past.

Guided by his Chief of Staff, a foul-mouthed, quick-tempered Zionist who stands against both electoral integrity and 9/11 truth, Obama has been trying not to allow such "mistakes". But occasionally they do happen, and as we have seen so clearly, they need to be corrected as soon as they are detected.

If we had a real opposition, a viable political process, open discourse, access to information, rule of law, a government whose authority derived from the consent of the governed: if we had any these things that supposedly make America great ...

If we had a major newspaper, a television network, a wire service, a national newsmagazine -- any major media source at all, that was willing to do an investigation, or even report on the investigative work of others, or even to do a series on the obvious and brazen way in which Bush and many others evaded their responsibility to defend the country and their concommitant responsibility to investigate thoroughly and openly the events of the day: if we had any or all of these things ...

The obvious (though horrible) truths about 9/11 would be much more common knowledge than they are already.

The perpetrators and their enablers would no longer be able to hide behind their obvious lies.

And the new administration, rather than running one token "Truther" out of town on a rail, would be FULL of people demanding Truth and Justice.

But it isn't. Far from it. We are as far from that as you could possibly imagine, and still going in the opposite direction.

I find this sadder than almost anything else that has happened in the past seven years and 364 days.

But then again, it's not a sad day for everybody.

It's a day of celebration, a day of victory, for some people, such as ... let's just say ... Jerome Hauer:

One segment of [this frequently unavailable] video [starting at 2:30] documents the following exchange, from the morning of September 11, 2001:

Dan Rather: Based on what you know, and I recognize we’re dealing with so few facts, is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings, or would it have required the, sort of, prior positioning of other explosives in the, uh, in the buildings? I mean, what do you think?

Jerome Hauer: No, I, uh, my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building, uh, that burned, uh, the velocity of that plane, uh, certainly, uh, uh, had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat, uh, probably weakened the structure as well, uh, and I think it, uh, was, uh, simply the, uh, the planes hitting the buildings, and, and causing the collapse.

Jerome Hauer is certainly a remarkable guest, isn't he? On the very morning of the event, he had the whole thing figured out.

The collapse was simply due to the planes hitting the buildings, just the velocity of the plane and of course the fact that it was filled with fuel, and the fact that it burned and of course you had that intense heat which must have weakened the structure ... It's incredible, of course. It's also half of the official story!

But let's get back to the attack itself. Who did it? Who could have done it? If you were watching CBS that morning, you would have heard this:

Dan Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he’s been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence, uh, people at very high levels who say, listen, you can’t have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.

Jerome Hauer: Yeah, well I’m not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.

And that, of course, is the other half of the official story.

How did Dan Rather happen to have a guest with him on the morning of 9/11 who knew the entire official story before it became public knowledge?

[...]

The twin disintegrations of the twin towers certainly looked like explosives-driven demolitions to many reporters who covered them live -- but Jerome Hauer assured Dan Rather and his viewers that it was just caused by the intense heat that weakened the structure!

The attack of 9/11 was of such scope and ferocity that it was virtually unimaginable -- except to the people who planned it -- just a day before it happened. But when it did happen, Jerome Hauer was able to contradict the intelligence experts and claim it bore the fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden!

Jerome Hauer knew the entire official story before it became public knowledge.

Jerome Hauer helped the official story become public knowledge!

Is that how the deal goes down? Do Jerome Hauer and his buddies win, and do we all lose?

That's how it looks to me, but if you have a different opinion you are certainly welcome to share it.

As a matter of fact, you are welcome to share your opinion even if you agree with me!

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

please help to put this article on Scoop's front page!

Seven Years of Bad Luck

Very superstitious

writings on the wall

Very superstitious
ladders 'bout to fall


Thirteen month old baby
broke the lookin' glass


Seven years of bad luck
the good things in your past


When you believe in things
that you don't understand
then you suffer


Superstition ain't the way


Very superstitious
wash your face and hands


Rid me of the problem
do all that you can


Keep me in a daydream
keep me goin' strong


You don't wanna save me
sad is my song


When you believe in things
that you don't understand
then you suffer


Superstition ain't the way


Very superstitious
nothin' more to say


Very superstitious
the devil's on his way


Thirteen month old baby
broke the lookin' glass


Seven years of bad luck
good things in your past


When you believe in things
that you don't understand


then you suffer


Superstition ain't the way
no, no, no, no, no

Stevie Wonder:

Suicided And Slandered: Scientist's Death Comes With Enough Lies To Disappear The Scandal Of The Century

At the bottom of this post you will find links to many good (and, indeed, excellent) articles about the supposed suicide of Bruce E. Ivins -- the alleged anthrax killer -- and all the nonsense that has gone on in the aftermath of his death.

I assume most readers are at least somewhat familiar with the story; if you're not, a good read through the links below is definitely in order.

Several points beg to be made:

According to the FBI itself, the anthrax attacks of 2001 were made in America. Some observers are less than surprised.

The targets had all either crossed the Bush family or were standing in the way of a mad dash to tyranny, or both.

Clumsy attempts were made to frame Arabs, and outrageous claims were used as a basis for wars of aggression and the destruction of civil liberties.

The anthrax attacks were carefully timed to provide an "irresistible" aftershock following the attacks of 9/11.

Neither the attacks of 9/11 nor the subsequent anthrax attacks have ever been explained in a way that is even slightly credible, except by independent researchers whose explanations are mocked by so-called "serious" commentators.

The most prominent media villain in the story is ABC's Brian Ross, who has consistently trumpeted false claims about the origin of the anthrax and steadfastly protected the sources who fed him those false claims. This is the same Brian Ross who always breaks the stories about upcoming bogus al Qaeda videos, which Ross always claims are authentic, even though some of them are utterly laughable.

Brian Ross is apparently tightly connected to the Rita Katz and the SITE Institute, which always seems to get these videos a day or two before the "Islamic militants" get them.

Katz and SITE are also tightly connected to the Bush family and Israeli intelligence.

In other words, the anthrax attacks and 9/11 are part of the same story. The Bush crime family and Israeli intelligence both play huge parts in this story; so do the PNAC with their mad dreams of global empire, and a stolen election. None of it would have been remotely possible unless our "mainstream news media" were actually organs of state propaganda.

One of the individuals who played huge parts in the combined story is a consummate insider: alleged counter-terrorist Jerome Hauer.

Jerome Hauer -- whose job description as the director of the national Office of Public Health Preparedness indicates that he should be trying to protect the nation from terrorism -- appeared on CBS news on 9/11 and blamed the attacks of the day on Osama bin Laden.

Hauer gave no evidence to support his implication -- indeed there was none, and to this day the FBI has no hard evidence tying Osama bin Laden to the crimes of 9/11. But that didn't stop Jerome Hauer from implicating him -- and by association, all of Afghanistan (which is still suffering from the slander).

Outrageous implication was Jerome Hauer's main job that day, apparently -- he also explained to Dan Rather's stunned viewers that the twin towers had "collapsed" because of the "intense heat of the fires" -- and of course the impact from the planes.

But outrageous implication wasn't Jerome Hauer's only job on 9/11; he also reportedly advised the occupants of the White House that same day to protect themselves against anthrax by taking Cipro.

This was astonishing because the warning came a week before any of the anthrax letters were even posted -- much less delivered, detected and publicized.

You can hear Jerome Hauer spinning the big lie (beginning at 2:30) in this video:

You can read more about Jerome Hauer here.

You can also see how concerned the White House was about anthrax from this report from the October 23, 2001 edition of the Washington Post:

President Bush said confidently Tuesday that "I don't have anthrax" after biohazard testing at the White House and the discovery of anthrax on a mail-opening machine at a screening facility six miles away.

All White House mail – more than 40,000 letters a week – is examined at military facilities across the Potomac River.

"Let me put it this way," Bush said. "I'm confident that when I come to work tomorrow, I'll be safe."

Asked if he was tested for the germ that has killed three people already this month, or if he was taking precautionary antibiotics, Bush replied simply: "I don't have anthrax."

At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won't discuss who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now.

On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved.

At that time, nobody [sic] could guess [sic] the dimensions of the terrorists' [sic] plot.

And finally (for now): Some of our most talented observers have all the threads of this story in their hands, but most of them are having awful trouble weaving them together and "guessing the dimensions of the terrorists' plot" -- or perhaps I should say they are having trouble accepting the inevitable conclusions of their evidence.

There are three major forces at work here, in my view. One is straightforward collusion, and signs of it keep popping up in distressing places. But even honest writers have trouble with this story, and for them (for us!) the main impediments are propaganda and denial. Nobody is immune to either one; but some are apparently much more vulnerable than others.

If some of our best observers cannot do it, consider how difficult it must be for those with average, or below-average analytical skills, those with less education, those with less time to spend reading, and those whose only source of news (still!) is the complicit mainstream media ...

... all of which explains (in a very unsatisfactory way) why this case will soon be closed, without the true story ever coming to light.

And nary a whimper from the vast unwashed will you hear in the big media.

~~~

Go ahead! Read! It won't hurt you.

Glenn Greenwald:
Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News
Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation
The FBI's emerging, leaking case against Ivins
Additional key facts re: the anthrax investigation

Gandhi:
Was This Really The Anthrax Killer?
Another Can Of Worms
The Inmates Are Still Running The Asylum
More Anthrax Questions
Bruce Ivins' Daily Diary, July 10 2008
Anthrax Suicide Fallout: Let's Go Down The Rabbithole
Anthrax Leaks
Selected Anthrax Quotes

Larisa Alexandrovna:
More terrorism, of the bio-right-wing kind?
A Suggestion to FBI Investigators, RE: Anthrax...
FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials
Jean C. Duley... tell us again...
An Anthrax tip...
Like porn? You must be the anthrax killer...
ABC's Sources on Anthrax/Iraq...

Grimblebee:
The AnthraX-Files: Nothing Makes Sense

Justin Raimundo:
Bruce Ivins: The Movie: Anthrax mystery: the FBI/media narrative is laughable – and sinister
The Patsy: Was Bruce Ivins the anthrax killer?

Wayne Madsen:
Fort Detrick Scientist "Commits Suicide" as Anthrax investigation closes in

Fan Mail From Some Flounder? Important? Just Look!

Jerome Hauer [photo], whom I have described as a 9/11 suspect awaiting indictment, sent me email last night, ostensibly to tell me that he enjoys reading my "nonsense" and that his friends send him my writing as "a source of great laughter."

Mr. Hauer didn't say what writing his friends had sent him, but I'm not surprised to learn he's a fan of this cold blog.

I have mentioned Mr. Hauer several times, primarily because of his television appearance on September 11, 2001, in which he told Dan Rather and Rather's audience that the twin towers of the World Trade Center had "collapsed" due to the impact of the planes that had hit them, and the "intense heat" of the resulting fires.

In the same segment, Hauer also told Rather that the attacks bore the "fingerprints of somebody like [Osama] bin Laden."

To me, the fact that Jerome Hauer was spreading both main parts of a clearly false story, that early and with that much confidence, indicates that his role in the events of the day was to help get the big lie in first.

I can't say for sure what prompted Mr. Hauer to write to me; I can say that in addition to referring to my writing as "nonsense", Mr. Hauer suggested that I "must have inherited a gene for creativity and one for stupidity." I already knew he had a good sense of humor, but in my opinion he's missed the point.

So I've replied to Jerome Hauer, as follows:

You may be quite correct about my genes for creativity and stupidity. But I also have genes for truth and justice.

If you can convince me that I'm wrong about you, I'll publish a retraction and an apology.

I can't say I'd do it gladly, but I'd much rather get the story right than pretend to be infallible.

So ... What do you mean "nonsense"? Specifically:

[1] Did you talk to Dan Rather on 9/11/2001?

[2] Did you tell him the towers "collapsed" because of the "intense heat" of the fires and the impact of the airplanes?

[3] Did you tell him the attack bore the "fingerprints of somebody like bin Laden"?

[4] And if so, how could you have know[n] these things at the time, when they still haven't been proven to this day?

I look forward to your response since I think it might help me to understand what actually happened.

I was serious about that. If I'm wrong about Jerome Hauer, I will have no problem saying so.

The ball's in his court. I'll keep you posted.

Peeling The Onion Again: Eliot Spitzer And Countless Layers Of Hypocrisy

I never thought I'd live to see mouth-breathing wingnuts calling for the impeachment of anyone who had played a key role in either enabling the attacks of 9/11 or hindering the so-called investigation into them. But in politics, as Yogi Berra supposedly said of baseball, "You ain't seen nothin'!"

In my previous very quick post about the sudden media attack on Eliot Spitzer, I hinted at the possibility that I could be a perfect wingnut, and I also mentioned the hypocrisy of mounting an international smear campaign against a man accused of engaging in sex with a consenting adult of the opposite gender, an activity that is by all accounts quite normal, even among prominent politicians.

But that's not the only hypocrisy to be seen; the layers of hypocrisy are piled one upon the next, just like an onion. Fortunately, this onion is easier to peel than it might otherwise be, thanks to Chris Floyd, Scott Horton, Arthur Silber, Sander Hicks and Kira.

Read these excerpts and click these links:

Start with Chris Floyd: The Abuser Abused: Eliot Spitzer Meets the Real Governor of New York

Scott Horton points to several glaring pieces of evidence indicating that Eliot Spitzer was targeted for political destruction by the partisan apparatchiks of George W. Bush's thoroughly corrupt Justice Department. It turns out that Spitzer was the subject of a secret, free-floating federal investigation, with much money and manpower employed in trawling through his finances and private life until something juicy finally turned up. As Horton notes, Bush prosecutors are a dab hand at this kind of dirty pool by now, although usually they have to trump up entirely specious charges to take down their victim, as in the case of Don Siegelman of Alabama. In this instance, however, Spitzer handed them the ammo himself with his penchant for professional stress relief.

And yet....Arthur Silber -- taking the lead, as usual -- notes that Spitzer has been hoist on his own petard. He is himself a past master of the politically targeted prosecution, complete with the use of arcane, outdated laws to fetch in suspects and strip them of their rights. He has also been an enthusiastic supporter of the liberty-gutting Surveillance State and the unfettered rampages of its security apparat.

Scott Horton mentions Spitzer's having prosecuted a prostitution case and predicts that this will dominate the punditry on this story. But he notes:

a second tier of questions that needs to be examined with respect to the Spitzer case. They go to prosecutorial motivation and direction. Note that this prosecution was managed with staffers from the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. This section is now at the center of a major scandal concerning politically directed prosecutions. During the Bush Administration, his Justice Department has opened 5.6 cases against Democrats for every one involving a Republican. Beyond this, a number of the cases seem to have been tied closely to election cycles. Indeed, a study of the cases out of Alabama shows clearly that even cases opened against Republicans are in fact only part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats. So here are the rather amazing facts that surface in the Spitzer case:

(1) The prosecutors handling the case came from the Public Integrity Section.

(2) The prosecution is opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910. You read that correctly. The statute itself is highly disreputable, and most of the high-profile cases brought under it were politically motivated and grossly abusive.
...

(3) The resources dedicated to the case in terms of prosecutors and investigators are extraordinary.

(4) How the investigation got started. The Justice Department has yet to give a full account of why they were looking into Spitzer’s payments, and indeed the suggestion in the ABC account is that it didn’t have anything to do with a prostitution ring. The suggestion that this was driven by an IRS inquiry and involved a bank might heighten, rather than allay, concerns of a politically motivated prosecution.

Horton concludes:

All of these facts are consistent with a process which is not the investigation of a crime, but rather an attempt to target and build a case against an individual.

The answer of the Justice Department to all this is likely to be: Trust us. But in the current environment, the reservoir of trust is tapped. The Justice Department needs to submit to some questions about how this probe got launched, who launched it, and to what extent political appointees were involved in its direction. This has nothing to do with Spitzer’s guilt or innocence. But it has everything to do with the fading integrity of the Public Integrity Section.

Arthur Silber points out Spitzer's role as an enabler of the surveillance state that ensnared him, has this to say, among other things:

Given Spitzer's unfathomable stupidity -- and in light of the fact that he is now the victim of the kinds of overreaching police state tactics that he himself has endlessly championed and utilized -- this can only be regarded as an instance of an especially objectionable, arrogant, overweening, power-mad, vicious son of a bitch himself getting exactly what he has been delightedly happy to dish out to others.

I want you to read these pieces in full, and then, when you've read Chris and Scott and Arthur, please read Sander Hicks (via Kira):

Spitzer's Real Scandal

Prescient New York real estate baron Larry Silverstein became primary lease-holder on the World Trade Center a mere six weeks before 9/11. It had never changed hands before. For a down payment, Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money, and his friends at the powerful investment bank Blackstone Group kicked in another $111 million. After 9/11, Silverstein demanded a whopping $7 billion insurance payout, in the form of two $3.5 billion payments. He argued the two different plane crashes were two separate “occurrences” of two separate attacks.

The Megaphone has now learned that as attorney general, Spitzer [photo] got involved behind the scenes, and in the courts, filing a amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief on Silverstein’s behalf on Jan. 15, 2003. For years, this brief languished in the files of the public records room on the 17th floor of the Second Circuit Court in Manhattan, until it was discovered and brought to The New York Megaphone by NYC attorney and author Carl Person. The court ended up agreeing with Spitzer and Silverstein, over-turning the decision of a lower court. Spitzer helped midwife a fat compromise and an eventual $4.5 billion payout for Silverstein. The Megaphone’s multiple requests for comment from Governor Spitzer were ignored.

Attorney Carl Person told The Megaphone, “I was surprised to see that Spitzer had used his position as attorney general to support one private litigant over another. Normally, this is not done…Silverstein could well have been someone who destroyed evidence concerning the 9/11 events by apparently ordering or consenting to the tearing (pulling) down of 7 WTC and the removal of the debris from his multiple ground leased premises thereafter.”
...

Eliot Spitzer’s connection to key 9/11 players extends to fellow life-long Democrat, Jerome Hauer, managing director of Kroll on 9/11. Only Jerome Hauer and his former boss, Rudolph Giuliani, were indicted by the San Diego Citizens Grand Jury.
...

A 2004 petition gathered 100,000 signatures begging then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to investigate the real source of the 2001 attacks. A Zogby poll that year likewise found that 66 per cent of voters wanted Eliot Spitzer, to tackle these tough questions. What those poll respondents didn’t know is that Spitzer can’t investigate 9/11 or anthrax. He would have to indict his friends from Kroll, Jerry Hauer and Michael Cherkasky. That’s the real scandal.

For more on Jerry Hauer, listen to the interview Sander Hicks did with him, and/or see "Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment".

For more on Hauer, Spitzer and their friends, read the biographical details compiled by the San Diego Citizens' Grand Jury, and see the particulars on Hauer here.

Here's slightly edited summary of Jerome Hauer's biographical details, from the San Diego citizens:

Jerome Hauer [photo] was Director of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management between February 1996 and March 2000.

As such he was primary in building the City's Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7 and in warning about emergence of the West Nile Virus one year before it appeared in New York City.

Hauer was Managing Director of Kroll, Inc. on 9/11/01, when he advised Dan Rather of CBS that demolition had not brought down a Twin Tower and that the day's attacks bore "the fingerprints of Osama bin Laden".

Hauer was Senior Adviser to U. S. Secretary of Health and Human Services for National Security and Emergency Management between June 2001 and November 2003.

He was the coordinator of the National Institute of Health's investigation of the anthrax deaths in fall of 2001.

Those deaths were caused by the Ames strain of anthrax, thought to be available only at the U. S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

The N.I.H. investigation coordinated by Jerome Hauer named no suspects except Osama bin Laden and al Q'aeda.

Here's what Jerome Hauer told Dan Rather on September 11, 2001:

Dan Rather: Based on what you know, and I recognize we’re dealing with so few facts, is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings, or would it have required the, sort of, prior positioning of other explosives in the, uh, in the buildings? I mean, what do you think?

Jerome Hauer: No, I, uh, my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building, uh, that burned, uh, the velocity of that plane, uh, certainly, uh, uh, had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat, uh, probably weakened the structure as well, uh, and I think it, uh, was, uh, simply the, uh, the planes hitting the buildings, and, and causing the collapse.
...

Dan Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he’s been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence, uh, people at very high levels who say, listen, you can’t have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.

Jerome Hauer: Yeah, well I’m not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.

Sander Hicks asked Jerome Hauer how he knew fires had taken down the towers. Hauer's response?

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a plane hitting the center of a building and burning for an hour, isn't gonna have an impact. [sic] There was no indication from the outside [sic] of any explosion."

So there you have it. If you disregard everything that looked or sounded like an explosion, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what isn't gonna have an impact!

Here's a bit more from the interview:

Sander Hicks: The people who are skeptical about all this stuff are basing some of their research on the fact that bin Laden did work for MAK, which is a cutout for the Pakistani ISI, the Saudi GID, and the American CIA, and our proxy war in Afghanistan. bin Laden does have a background of working for US foreign policy interests. Am I right?

Jerome Hauer: I'm not gonna get into that. That's um ...

Sander Hicks: Well I think you have a responsibility to answer for the fact that you were assigning blame to bin Laden, and then the country kind of went over a cliff, into a decrease in civil liberties and a decrease in quality of life, and cultural constriction. I know this sounds like a speech and I'm sorry, but my point is, my question is:

Jerome Hauer: Who thinks that our quality of life in this country has decreased?

Sander Hicks: Who thinks that?

Jerome Hauer: I don't know who does.

Beautiful! No explosions, no decrease in civil liberties, no decrease in quality of life, and probably no foreign wars of aggression either.

I may not be the perfect wingnut after all; that position could go to Jerome Hauer.

Paul Simon had it figured out.

... all lies and jest; still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest ...

For more onion-peeling from the cold archives, please see: "Peeling The GWOT, One Layer At A Time"

~~~

[AFTERTHOUGHT] My mother-in-law, none too astute when it comes to politics, asked me earlier today, "How could he have been so stupid? Doesn't he know they're watching him? How could he possibly think he could get away with this?"

I told her the first thing that came to mind: "They all think they can get away with anything!"

But that's not quite true. Elephants think like that. But donkeys know they can't get away with the sorts of things elephants get away with. Why would Eliot Spitzer think like an elephant (at least in this respect)?

Did he believe his having served as an usher for "The Big Wedding" would shield him? If so, he found out different in a big hurry. And now ... Will he spill the beans?

Um, no. It's bad enough he's disgraced and might have to resign. He really doesn't want to make things worse for himself by telling the truth about mass murder.

CAT 101: Introduction to Coincidence and Anomaly Theory

This really happened:

Anonymous

[R]obert w[h]at evidence point[s] to an inside job[?] [P]lease speak up.

Winter Patriot

I'm not Robert but I can speak up a bit.

If you really want evidence of an inside job you might want to start here:

Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment

Of course there are a thousand other places you could start ... if you really want the evidence.

Anonymous

[W]inter [P]atriot, the link you showed me is pathetic, is that what you [base your] inside job claims on, coi[n]cidences on 9/11[?] stop trying to turn anomalies into hard fact. [S]how me real evidence of a conspiracy.

Winter Patriot

Here's the interesting thing about Coincidences and Anomalies: If you're a good Coincidence and Anomaly Theorist (CAT) you never have to admit anything.

I say 2 + 2 = 4.

CAT says no it isn't.

I take two balls and put them on the table. Then I take two more balls and put them on the table. Then I count the balls. 1, 2, 3, 4. Here's my proof, I say: 2 + 2 = 4.

CAT says no it isn't.

But I just laid it out on the table, says I. That's the proof.

CAT says no that's just a coincidence.

So I do it again. Get the same answer. Is that a coincidence too? I ask.

CAT says no that's an anomaly.

Turns out you can pile up as many coincidences as you like and CAT says that's just an anomaly. Or you can pile up a bunch of anomalies and CAT says that's just a coincidence.

~~~

In real life the notable thing about coincidences is that they hardly ever happen. That's why they're remarkable. And the notable thing about anomalies is that they happen even less often than coincidences. An anomaly is an indication that something very strange is going on, and in science it's usually considered a good cause for rigorous (not to mention vigorous) investigation.

I'm not one of the people who say "in politics there are no coincidences" because clearly there are, sometimes. But normal rational people expect coincidences to occur relatively rarely.

So if we see a coincidence here and there we don't think much of it. But if we see several coincidences and several anomalies happening on a single date or centered around a single event, that's enough to raise serious suspicion.

When we see hundreds of coincidences and hundreds of anomalies all happening on a single date or centered around a single event, that's more than suspicion.

In other words, there's a point where the accumulated coincidences can no longer be explained away as an anomaly, and we've passed that point long ago.

In light of all the hundreds of "coincidences" and "anomalies" connected to this event, anyone who still claims there's no evidence for saying it was an inside job should be able to answer a few very simple questions ... like:

Who scheduled all the wargames that took the Air Force away from the Eastern Seaboard that day? Did Osama bin Laden schedule the wargames?

118 first responders (fire and medical personnel) who were at Ground Zero on the mor[n]ing of 9/11, reported seeing or hearing bombs or explosions in the bui[ld]ings before they crumbled. Why is that? Is this a conspiracy o[f] eyewitnesses?

Why did Bush and Cheney insist on testifying together, and not under oath, and why did they insist that no notes of their testimony could be kept? If they weren't trying to hide anything, why would they act like they were trying to hide something?

The FEMA report says that its best hypothesis about the "collapse" of WTC7 has a "low probability" of occurrence. In other words the report itself admits that its conclusion is incorrect. Six years after the event NIST still hasn't even issued their report about it. And while we were waiting we found out that BBC broadcast a report of the fall of WTC7 before it even happened. I say these are massive indicators of coverup and foreknowledge, respectively. What do you think they are? Coincidences? Or anomalies?

While we're waiting for an answer, we might as well sit back and watch a movie.

Who Killed John O'Neill?

See also: Endnotes For The Charge Of 'Conspiracy To Commit Mass Murder' | Delivered On April 14, 2007 By The San Diego Citizens' Grand Jury On The Crimes Of September 11, 2001 In New York City

Jerome Hauer, Onetime Giuliani Insider, Is Now a Critic

What have we here?

We'd better hang onto this one!

Onetime Giuliani Insider Is Now a Critic

By Russ Buettner, New York Times

As Rudolph W. Giuliani runs for president, his image as a chief executive who steered New York through the disaster of Sept. 11 has become a pillar of his campaign. But one former member of his inner circle keeps surfacing to revisit that history in ways that are unflattering to Mr. Giuliani: Jerome M. Hauer, New York City’s first emergency management director.

In recent days, Mr. Hauer has challenged Mr. Giuliani’s recollection that he had little role as mayor in placing the city’s emergency command center at the ill-fated World Trade Center.

Mr. Hauer has also disputed the claim by the Giuliani campaign that the mayor’s wife, Judith Giuliani, had coordinated a help center for families after the attack.

And he has contradicted Mr. Giuliani’s assertions that the city’s emergency response was well coordinated that day, a point he made most notably to the authors of “Grand Illusion,” a book that depicts Mr. Giuliani’s antiterrorism efforts as deeply flawed.

Mr. Hauer does not disparage Mr. Giuliani’s overall effort at emergency preparedness or appear to have actively sought out a role as a Giuliani scold. But he has emerged as one in several settings where his frank, often blunt, answers to questions have offered a rare view inside the often-insular Giuliani administration.

Mr. Hauer was once part of the coterie of high school chums, fellow former prosecutors and City Hall aides who remain the nucleus of Mr. Giuliani’s tight-knit set of advisers. From that perch, he helped Mr. Giuliani confront some of New York City’s most disquieting predicaments, like the West Nile virus and a potential millennium meltdown.

He emerged from four years of service to Mr. Giuliani as one of the country’s better known emergency preparedness experts and a frequent guest on television news programs.

But in recent years, Mr. Hauer and Mr. Giuliani have had a falling out, though they disagree on just why.

Perhaps a jealous spat over who would get top billing? (Click the "wanted" poster to enlarge it!)

Now from a distance, Mr. Hauer offers views of Mr. Giuliani’s management style, ones that depict him not only as highly competent and exceptionally hands-on, but also as insensitive and retaliatory at times.

Mr. Hauer, for example, recalls a conversation he had with Mr. Giuliani in 2001 when he had decided to endorse a Democrat, Mark Green, for New York City mayor over Mr. Giuliani’s own choice for a successor, Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican. Mr. Hauer said Mr. Giuliani, upset, called up to say his disloyalty was unforgivable.

“He was shouting, ‘If you do this, you’re done ... I’m going to end your career,’ or something along those lines,” Mr. Hauer said.

Joseph J. Lhota, a former deputy mayor, remembered the endorsement debate differently, suggesting that Mr. Hauer had put politics over principles in a way that “put his whole credibility in question.”

Fred Siegel, the author of “The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life” (Encounter Books, 2005), said the trust that members of Mr. Giuliani’s inner circle invested in each other was the reason no one apart from Mr. Hauer had ever emerged as even an occasional critic.

“The core of the administration was that these guys would always pull together,” said Mr. Siegel, who once served as speechwriter for Mr. Giuliani. “Once a decision was made, that was it. There wouldn’t be any second-guessing.”

Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Hauer began their relationship in January 1996 when Mr. Hauer was hired to lead the new Office of Emergency Management, created to coordinate the city’s response to crises. Mr. Hauer, who was little known before he became a Giuliani aide, had previously run emergency management programs for the State of Indiana and IBM.

In his book, Mr. Siegel describes Mr. Hauer, who is 6-foot-5, as “a big, plain-spoken and knowledgeable man” who “won wide-spread cooperation.”

One of Mr. Hauer’s first tasks was to find a home for an emergency command center to replace the inadequate facilities at police headquarters. Mr. Hauer suggested an office complex in downtown Brooklyn as a “good alternative” in a memorandum.

But Mr. Hauer said the mayor insisted instead on a site within walking distance of City Hall. Given that concern and others, Mr. Hauer said he decided that offices on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center, next to the twin towers and just a few blocks from City Hall, seemed the best choice.

The site was immediately controversial because it was part of the trade center, which had already been the location of a truck bomb attack in 1993. City officials, though, including Mr. Hauer, have long defended their decision, even after the command center had to be evacuated during the 2001 terror attack.

Last week, in an interview with Fox News, Mr. Giuliani again faced questions about the site. He put responsibility for selecting it on Mr. Hauer.

“Jerry Hauer recommended that as the prime site and the site that would make the most sense,” Mr. Giuliani said. “It was largely on his recommendation that that site was selected.”

Mr. Hauer took immediate exception to that account in interviews. “That’s Rudy’s own reality that he lives in,” he said. “It is not, in fact, the truth.”

Mr. Hauer has also expressed concern about the level of support he felt from Mr. Giuliani, in particular when he tried to bridge the divide between the city’s Police and Fire Departments, two disparate emergency response cultures that battled over turf.

Mr. Hauer said he ended up in something of a feud with the police commissioner at the time, Howard Safir, which came to a head in 1998 when, he said, he offered to help both departments prepare for a chemical disaster drill.

Police officials declined help, Mr. Hauer said, but then sent detectives to follow him and photograph his meeting with fire officials. During a subsequent meeting with the mayor, Mr. Safir held up the photographs, Mr. Hauer said, as triumphant evidence that Mr. Hauer favored the Fire Department.

“Any man worth his salt would have been outraged that the Police Department followed one of his closest commissioners,” Mr. Hauer said. “It was disgraceful.”

But Mr. Hauer said that when he complained to Mr. Giuliani, all he got was a blank stare.

Mr. Lhota, speaking for the campaign, said he was unaware of such an incident. Mr. Safir did not return a call for comment.

Mr. Hauer left his city job in 2000. A year later, Mr. Giuliani called him back into service after the terror attacks. He was assigned to help prepare for possible biological or chemical attacks and to help set up an assistance center for victims’ families.

Mr. Giuliani’s wife, Judith, who was then his companion, also had a role in setting up the center. But last week Mr. Hauer told New York magazine that the campaign’s depiction of her role was “simply a lie.”

The campaign’s Web site said that Mrs. Giuliani had “coordinated the efforts at the Family Assistance Center on Pier 94.”

Indeed, others were at least equally involved in that effort. Rosemary O’Keefe, who was then director of the Community Assistance Unit, said Mrs. Giuliani had helped during the first two days at the pier.

“Judith was a very important part in the very beginning,” Ms. O’Keefe said in an interview. “I ran it 20 hours a day from that point forward.”

Michael McKeon, a Giuliani campaign spokesman, said the campaign never meant to suggest that Mrs. Giuliani played a singular role in coordinating the center, only that she had helped set it up. He said the language on the Web site had been adjusted.

Mrs. Giuliani, Mr. McKeon said, is “the first one to give credit to other people.”

Mr. Hauer, Mr. McKeon said, is just bitter.

Mr. Siegel said that what is indeed singular is the role Mr. Hauer has now assumed, that of a high-ranking Giuliani insider who is now an outsider with pointed opinions on a central topic of the presidential campaign.

“To me, it’s unfortunate,” Mr. Siegel said, “that two people who did so much to prepare the city had a falling out.”

This is the best line I've seen in a long time!

Of course they did much to prepare the city! Of course they did!!

What exactly do you mean by "prepare"?

Gwynne Dyer And 9/11 Truth: Never The Twain Shall Meet

I've been waiting five and a half years for Gwynne Dyer to finally say something about 9/11. As it turns out, I shouldn't have bothered. Neither should he.

I'll spare you the details and get right to the conclusions...

On Loose Change:

pure paranoid fantasy and it is rotting people's brains

On MIHOP (the notion that certain key officials Made It Happen On Purpose):

I don't think that Tenet, Rice, Powell et al would have deliberately plotted the deaths of thousands of Americans.

I don't believe even Dick Cheney would have done that.

On the official conspiracy theory: not a word!

On the conspiracy theory presented by Loose Change:

The FBI was in on it, the CIA was in on it, the Air Force was in on it - except those who were killed at the Pentagon - and North American Aerospace Defence Command was in on it.

The security companies guarding the World Trade Centre were in on it, Mayor Rudy Giuliani was in on it, the Federal Aviation Administration was in on it, Nasa was in on it, and the Pentagon was in on it. At least 10,000 people were in on it. They had to be, or it couldn't have worked.

More than five years later, not one of them has talked. Nobody has got drunk and spilled their guts. Nobody has told their spouse, who then blabbed.

Not one of these 10,000 accomplices to mass murder has yielded to the temptation for instant fame and great wealth for blowing the whistle on the greatest conspiracy in history.

Oh yeah? Instant fame and great wealth?? How about instant unemployment?

If Gwynne Dyer had done some honest open-minded research, he could have found the answers to many of the questions he doesn't even treat as worthy of being asked.

For instance, there is considerable evidence indicating that the security companies guarding the World Trade Center were in fact in on it. We talked about that not very long ago.

We know how the Air Force was diverted -- with the heaviest concentration of war games ever scheduled. We know how NORAD was confused -- and we marvel at how many times the people who should have been handling the emerging crisis asked, "Is this real-world or an exercise?".

In an environment where following orders is everything, where information is made available on a "need to know" basis, it certainly would be possible to organize an attack on this scale without letting 10,000 people in on the guilty secret. And Gwynne Dyer should know it.

How many people would it take? Let's look at it this way: Spectacular crimes are always easier to pull off with some inside help than without any. We're supposed to believe the crime of the century was committed by 19 or 20 foreigners with no access to any inside help whatsoever. So why would it take 10,000 well-connected insiders to inflict the same damage? It makes no sense at all.

Iranian Terrorists Behind Cheney's Blood Clot -- Snowjob

The blood clot discovered in the vice president's left leg on Monday was placed there by Hezbollah terrorists with ties to radical Iranians, a White House spokesman said early this morning.

The blood-clot attack -- the first of its kind in the history of global terror -- may trigger a thermonuclear war between the United States and the rest of the world, beginning with Iran and Lebanon and not stopping "until every dirty little rag-head is entombed in a great huge glass crater," according to diplomatic sources.

Pressed for evidence tying Iran and Hezbollah to the attack, White House spokesman Tony Snowjob replied: "Did you notice what leg it was? We did! It was his left leg! What did you think? Did you think we were going to miss something that blatant? Do you think we're dummies or something?" Our correspondent thought it best not to answer that question.

Doctors say the clot will not threaten the vice president's life if it can be kept from his lungs:

"A major goal of treatment is to prevent further abnormal clotting in the body and to avoid complications such as the development of a blood clot in the lungs," said CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook.

A source in the medical community who wished to remain anonymous has pointed out that the vice president appears immune to two of the three most dangerous scenarios which threaten normal people who suffer from blood clots. He referred to the possibility that the clot could become mobile and lodge in the patient's heart -- or in his brain.

Fortunately for the vice president, he seems to lack these two vulnerable structures, so he is not threatened by either of these two scenarios. Fortunately as well, he's already on anti-coagulants. According to normally reliable sources, he began taking blood-thinners three weeks before the Iranian blood-clot terrorists struck, following secret advice he received from a friend of the White House.

Prison Planet Calls Out "Progressive Bloggers"

In a powerful article posted Thursday, Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet calls out the BBC, the rest of the mainstream media, Digg dot com, and so-called progressive bloggers in general.

You can click the link to read about the first three; here's what Paul says about the bloggers:

Kudos goes to Wonkette for covering the Building 7 story, but almost every other so-called "progressive" website has been mute. Crooks and Liars, one of the biggest liberal blogs on the web, today spotlights a story about lesbian koala bears. On Tuesday night they led with a gossip puff piece about Mitt Romney's hair. How can these gatekeepers claim to represent "alternative media" when they stuff this kind of crap down our throats on a daily basis, while ignoring massive stories like the WTC 7 fiasco?

Shucks, Paul; you caught me. I didn't say anything about the BBC/WTC7 fiasco myself. But I was busy, telling a different 9/11 story, the day it broke! ;-)

Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment

Jerome Hauer

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Jerome Hauer, director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness.

On September 11, 2001, Jerome Hauer was a national security advisor with the National Institute of Health, a managing director with Kroll Associates, and a guest on national television.

His background in counter-terror and his specialized knowledge of biological warfare served him well on that day.

Perhaps a little too well.

Anthrax Attacks

On September 11, 2001, Jerome Hauer advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax.

Mr. Hauer's advice was not made public. Its value may have been underestimated at the time, but it was clearly demonstrated a week later, when the first anthrax letters appeared, and again three weeks after that, when anthrax appeared in letters to Democratic Senators Daschle and Leahy.

The obvious question is: Did Jerome Hauer know about the anthrax attacks in advance?

Prior Knowledge?

Strangely, perhaps, this is not the first time questions of prior knowledge have surfaced in Jerome Hauer's wake.

Jerome Hauer joined New York City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) in 1998 and quickly obtained funding from the office of then-mayor Rudy Giuliani for the study of West Nile virus. The following year the virus appeared in the city, and Jerome Hauer led the fumigation effort.

Did Jerome Hauer know this was going to happen? Or did he just get "lucky"?

And how could anyone know such a thing was going to happen? Unless ... unless ...

The Sound Of Two Feet Dragging

Strangely, perhaps, Jerome Hauer managed the NIH response to the anthrax attacks. The anthrax used in the attacks was identified as an Ames strain, which means it had to have come from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Jerome Hauer received relatively good information for tracking down the origin of the anthrax. He even got a list of people from various institutes, including USAMRIID at Fort Detrick. But his response was slow and hidden behind a public relations campaign spreading Orwellian claims like "Suspects are Osama bin Laden and his Al-Q'aeda network and sympathizers to US right wing extremists".

Why would he act so slowly, and in such an inappropriate fashion? Perhaps because Jerome Hauer knew someone whose name was on that list?

Stephen Hatfill, at one time considered a prime suspect in this still-unsolved case, had worked for USAMRIID at Fort Detrick. Strangely, perhaps, he had also worked with Jerome Hauer, for Scientific Applications International Corporation, at the Center for Counterterrorism Technology and Analysis.

The World Trade Center

Jerome Hauer's connections with terror and counter-terror started with and concentrated on biological warfare, but they don't stop there.

On September 11, 2001, in addition to his job with the NIH, Jerome Hauer was also Managing Director of Kroll Associates, a well-established security firm serving clients in the military and the US government. In the 1980s, Kroll was known as the "CIA of Wall Street" because of the sorts of the people it hired, and the sorts of tasks they were assigned.

Strangely, perhaps, on 9/11, Kroll was in charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex.

The head of security at the WTC on September 11, 2001, was former FBI counter-terror specialist John P. O'Neill.

O'Neill, considered the world's leading expert on Osama bin Laden, had resigned his post as Deputy Director of the FBI during the summer, very unhappy with the Bush administration's head-in-sand "approach" to terror, after investigations into Osama bin Laden and al-Q'aeda had been blocked.

Who Killed John O'Neill?

John O'Neill started his new job at the WTC shortly before he was killed there. His having landed that particular job at that particular time raises some very interesting questions.

Among them: Why does this matter?

If, as many people believe, 9/11 was a false-flag operation designed to implicate Osama bin Laden, then a legend, or a cover story, involving bin Laden would have to be fabricated, disseminated very quickly, and swallowed whole -- not just by the American people but by the people of the world.

And John O'Neill was a most -- if not the most -- formidable obstacle in the way of such a cover story.

He was not only the world's leading expert on bin Laden, but he was also regarded as a "loose cannon", because of his record of working outside normal channels when normal channels were "blocked". He knew FBI investigations into bin Laden and al-Q'aeda had been shut down in the summer of 2001 and it is extremely unlikely that he would have remained quiet about it. He also knew whether or not Osama bin Laden was capable of inflicting the amount of damage the US suffered on 9/11.

In other words, if the conspirators were hoping to spread a Big Lie about Osama bin Laden, they would have had a short list of things they absolutely had to do.

Surely, one of the items on that list would be to silence John O'Neill.

And what better way than to entomb him at the scene of the crime?

So many questions!

Who got John O'Neill the WTC job?

Strangely, perhaps, John O'Neill was lured to the WTC position by his old friend Jerome Hauer, Managing Director of Kroll.

Very strange indeed, don't you think?

National Television

Which employer -- if any -- was Jerome Hauer representing on the morning of September 11, 2001, when he slipped the seeds of the official conspiracy theory to Dan Rather and his viewers on CBS?

A few weeks ago I blogged about a video which was hosted at Google at the time but which has now been taken down. Fortunately I was able to obtain transcripts from the video while it was available.

[UPDATE: The video is now available again, at YouTube, and it will be embedded below if possible.]

One segment of the video [starting at 2:30] documents the following exchange, from the morning of September 11, 2001:

Dan Rather: Based on what you know, and I recognize we’re dealing with so few facts, is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings, or would it have required the, sort of, prior positioning of other explosives in the, uh, in the buildings? I mean, what do you think?

Jerome Hauer: No, I, uh, my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building, uh, that burned, uh, the velocity of that plane, uh, certainly, uh, uh, had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat, uh, probably weakened the structure as well, uh, and I think it, uh, was, uh, simply the, uh, the planes hitting the buildings, and, and causing the collapse.

Jerome Hauer is certainly a remarkable guest, isn't he? On the very morning of the event, he had the whole thing figured out.

The collapse was simply due to the planes hitting the buildings, just the velocity of the plane and of course the fact that it was filled with fuel, and the fact that it burned and of course you had that intense heat which must have weakened the structure ... It's incredible, of course. It's also half of the official story!

But let's get back to the attack itself. Who did it? Who could have done it? If you were watching CBS that morning, you would have heard this:

Dan Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he’s been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence, uh, people at very high levels who say, listen, you can’t have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.

Jerome Hauer: Yeah, well I’m not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.

And that, of course, is the other half of the official story.

How did Dan Rather happen to have a guest with him on the morning of 9/11 who knew the entire official story before it became public knowledge?

Jerome Hauer was introduced to CBS's viewers as a former director of NYC's OEM. Strangely, perhaps, CBS News audiences were not told he was also a managing director of the security company responsible for the twin towers. And of course no one was told to start taking Cipro -- except the White House.

Planting The Seeds

The twin disintegrations of the twin towers certainly looked like explosives-driven demolitions to many reporters who covered them live -- but Jerome Hauer assured Dan Rather and his viewers that it was just caused by the intense heat that weakened the structure!

The attack of 9/11 was of such scope and ferocity that it was virtually unimaginable -- except to the people who planned it -- just a day before it happened. But when it did happen, Jerome Hauer was able to contradict the intelligence experts and claim it bore the fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden!

Jerome Hauer knew the entire official story before it became public knowledge.

Jerome Hauer helped the official story become public knowledge!

Watering The Seeds

In November of 2001, Jerome Hauer participated in the Council on Foreign Relations' "Independent Task Force on America's Response to Terrorism", along with Henry A. Kissinger and others; their task included the following items:

Release a White Paper explaining our goals and rationale for the war in Afghanistan, and outlining the evidence that the al-Qa'eda network was responsible for the 9/11 attacks

Disseminate stories of particular victims to convey the range of people killed in the 9/11 attacks -- stress range of religions, races, income levels, etc.

Counteract [the] myth that Mossad was behind the attacks by showing Jews killed, etc.

Routinely monitor the regional press in real time to enable prompt responses

Routinely Monitor This!!

You have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building, the velocity of that plane certainly had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat, probably weakened the structure as well, and I think it was simply the planes hitting the buildings and causing the collapse.
...
I’m not sure I agree that this is necessarily state-sponsored. It certainly has the fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.

Yeah, sure it does! Really, Jerome -- we believe you!

No, we don't!

Book 'em, Danno!

~~~

[SEE ALSO]

CRUCIAL VIDEO: Who Killed John O'Neill?

9/11 Encyclopedia: Hauer, Jerome
9/11 Encyclopedia: Kroll Associates
Demopedia: Jerome Hauer
Demopedia: Who Killed John O'Neill
Here In Reality: Who Killed 9-11 Hero John O'Neill?
Whistleblower Andrew Grove blames Kroll for 9/11
Wikipedia: Jerome Hauer
Wikipedia: John P. O'Neill
Wikipedia: Kroll Associates


[thanks to 99 for research assistance]