Daily Archives: November 7, 2007

Former NFL Star Latest To Question 9/11 Official Story

Ex-Dallas Cowboys lineman Stepnoski tells Indiana newspaper of doubts

Prison Planet | Nov 5, 2007

by Paul Joseph Watson

Former Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers lineman Mark Stepnoski has become the latest notable public figure to question the government’s official 9/11 story, speaking to an Indiana newspaper about his fascination with the 9/11 truth movement and his doubts about Building 7, insider trading, and the alleged hijackers.

Stepnoski was a highly regarded offensive lineman in the 90’s, winning two Super Bowls while with the Cowboys and was a five time Pro Bowler, attending the game from 1992 through 1996. Since his retirement from the game in 2000 he has become politically active in arguing for the decriminalization of marijuana.

In an interview with the Indiana-based Eerie Times-News published yesterday , Stepnoski speaks at length about his deep research into the events of 9/11 and why the official explanation seems suspect.

    “It interests me because I don’t think we’re being told truth about what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. I’m highly skeptical of government accounts of what really happened. It’s one of those things that really won’t go away. I’ve been reading about that event and studying about it a great deal. I’ve read several books and a lot online pretty much since it happened, just because I’m curious about it and just because of other events in our historical past, like the Kennedy assassination for example,” the newspaper quotes Mark Stepnoski as saying.

“Before anyone wants to try and pigeonhole me as conspiracy theorist, it’s like a lot of things. If you’re just willing to scratch beneath the surface and do a little research maybe you can find out some things, maybe more people would be more skeptical about our government’s involvement with 9/11,” he added.

Stepnoski goes on to highlight the collapse of WTC 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell into its own footprint in under seven seconds at 5:20pm on 9/11 despite not being hit by a plane. News networks like BBC and CNN reported the collapse of the building before it happened , leading some to allege that the perpetrators of the attack were feeding the media a script of events yet to unfold.

    “We’re being lied to. That’s what bothers me the most. There’s a lot of evidence in almost any area of the entire event, and you can bring up a lot of inconsistencies and unanswered questions just about the event itself. Two of the three steel-frame buildings that day collapsed due to fire, and that’s never happened before, never in history. But that day it happened three times, including one building that didn’t get hit by a plane. Building Number 7 didn’t get hit by a plane and it went straight down in six and a half seconds. In the vast majority of U.S. cities that would have been the tallest building in the city. It had nothing but a couple of small fires on a couple of floors, but it fell down at free-fall speed in six and a half seconds. There are several engineers and architects who have made the argument that it was a controlled demolition because, again, there’s never been a steel building collapse due to fire. So how can it happen three times in one day?” said Stepnoski.

He went on to discuss insider trading in the days before the attack as well as the disputed identities of the alleged hijackers.

“A whole lot of insider trading occurred beforehand, and that’s a huge red flag that there was foreknowledge of the event. There were large financial transactions made ahead of time, a lot of trades made to buy stock in United and American airlines beforehand with the expectation that those stocks were going to go down drastically. A lot of the hijackers from the list released by FBI — a lot of those guys are alive. Many, many guys on the list are the wrong identity. One guy was a pilot for Saudi Airlines, another guy is living in Lebanon and is suing the U.S. government to clear his name.”

Stepnoski concluded by questioning the flight that hit the Pentagon as well as the fabled impartiality and scope of the 9/11 Commission.

“I’m compelled because as time goes on there is a greater and greater growing voice among people in areas involved with different aspect of that day. You have pilots speaking about what would be involved with trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon that day in the way that it was portrayed. You have architects and engineers speaking out over the actual explanation that jet fuel could melt steel and cause buildi ngs to collapse. You have former people who worked in the Bush administration or the military who have come forward to express doubt about the official story,” he said.

“Consider the fact that the Bush administration really fought the formation of the 9/11 Commission the whole way. It fought over who was going to head it and who was going to be on it. Initially Henry Kissinger was supposed to be the chairman, but he stepped aside because of conflict of interest issues. The commission didn’t come together until a year and a half after the event. … And you think about how the government spent $15 million on the commission to investigate 9/11, which sounds like a lot. But then you make the comparison that the government spent $40 million to investigate the Monica Lewinsky affair. I certainly share a lot of those views.”

Refreshingly, the usual sardonic dismissal of such comments on behalf of the article’s author was absent this time, leaving the reader to make up their own mind.

Stepnoski is the fourth public figure inside ten days to speak on the record about 9/11.

Last week comedian George Carlin , along with actors Mark Ruffalo and the legendary Martin Sheen all spoke publicly about their suspicions regarding the official story.

Why is it noteworthy that an ex-NFL star is talking about 9/11 truth? For one it shows that beyond the hundreds of scientists, physicists, professors, other experts, and ex-government and military officials who have all gone public in questioning 9/11 , a large body of the general public from all walks of life are now getting educated about 9/11 truth.

In addition, celebrities have instant access to a vocal platform and can use their influence to bring attention to an important subject, instantly bypassing the gatekeeping media and forcing a national debate about 9/11 truth.

Voters say no to water fluoridation

Southland Times | Nov 3, 2007

By AMY MILNE

Forty-nine percent of voters in the Southland, Central Otago and South Otago districts are against water fluoridation, results from a non-biding referendum have shown.

When voters in Central Otago and parts of Southland and South Otago opened their local election ballot papers last month, they were also given a chance to take part in a poll asking whether they would like their water fluoridated.

Results from that poll show 49 percent of voters were against adding fluoride, while 36.5 percent were for, and 14.5 were neither for nor against.

Both pro and anti-fluoride campaigners had spent weeks before and after the elections calling for people to look into the issue.

Fluoride supporters said it was a proven safe and effective way of reducing tooth decay in children and adults. Those against argued it could cause health problems.

The Fluoride Deception (Interview With Christopher Bryson)

In Southland, Ohai was the only town of eight polled to support fluoridation, with residents narrowly voted for fluoride by 30 votes to 26.

However, in neighbouring Nightcaps, the majority voted against, 41 to 28.

The two towns share the same water supply.

Lumsden residents were evenly divided with 62 votes recorded either side.

Tuatapere residents strongly opposed fluoridation, voting 134 to 63. Despite this, nearly 80 percent of 5-year-olds have had tooth decay in some areas of western Southland.

Voting took place in Tuatapere, Te Anau, Riverton, Otautau, Winton, Ohai/Nightcaps, Oamaru, Tapanui, Milton, Kaitangata, Cromwell, Clyde and Alexandra.

Southland District Council communications officer Kerry Dohig said council would discuss the results later.

Diana crash “virtually impossible to engineer” expert claims

The Times | Nov 7, 2007

by Will Pavia

Shortly before it smashed into the 13th pillar of the Alma Tunnel, the Mercedes carrying Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed collided with a white Fiat Uno, an incident that would be “virtually impossible” to engineer deliberately, an accident reconstruction specialist told their inquests yesterday.

After weeks of innuendo over the mysterious white car and accounts from witnesses attempting to recall the vehicle, its driver and the dog in the back, the jury were hearing the confident testimony of a British police officer and holding solid fragments of plastic, said to be part of a Fiat Uno’s brake light.

Anthony Read, a senior collision investigator from Scotland Yard, was discussing his investigation of the accident with two other experts for Lord Stevens’s investigation into the deaths of the Princess and Mr Fayed. He said that all three experts agreed that there was a collision near the entrance to the Alma Tunnel between the Mercedes driven by Henri Paul and a white Fiat Uno. The jury was handed three bags containing 21 red and 55 clear pieces of plastic. Mr Read said that all three investigators had been satisfied that “the red pieces of plastic were from the rear break cover of the left-hand side of a Fiat Uno, as fitted . . . between May of 1983 and September of 1989”. The car that has never been traced conclusively. They were equally satisfied that the clear pieces were from the front-right indicator of the Mercedes, he said.

The wreck of the Mercedes itself had been brought to Britain in two shipping containers for examination. Mr Read said that they had found “indications of white paint” on the crumpled front right wing of the car, as well as black plastic that “scientific examination showed had a composition consistent with the rear bumper of a Fiat Uno” of the same period.

Mr Fayed’s father Mohamed, the owner of Harrods, believes that the Fiat played a key role in a plot to murder the Princess.

The three investigators examined whether this collision could have been deliberately engineered. Mr Read thought it “virtually impossible”. He said that the Princess and Mr Fayed were in a Mercedes that was twice the weight of a Fiat Uno, and travelling twice as fast. “Had the impact been any more than a glancing blow the effect on the Fiat is going to be much greater than any sustained by the Mercedes.” The driver of the Fiat was far more likely to be killed, he said.

Mr Read said that it was “complete luck, if that is the right word, that the vehicle swerved right and then left”, striking the very corner of pillar 13, a narrow point of impact which meant that the Mercedes bonnet “didn’t deform quite as progressively as it was designed to” to absorb the impact.

The car struck the pillar at 60-70mph, he said. Had the passengers worn seat belts they would have had “an increased chance of surviving”, and had the car also been travelling at the speed limit of 31mph “I think we can almost guarantee it would be survivable”, he said.

He allowed that much of their investigation was based on “secondhand” evidence, on a day when the inquests were being denied first-hand evidence.

The coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, expressed his “disappointment” that the paparazzi who pursued the Mercedes that night would not be compelled by the French authorities to give evidence. The French had decided that to compel them to do so raised questions of “order publique” as it could “damage relations between the media, the government and the general public”, the coroner said. Michael Mansfield QC, who represents Mr Al Fayed, argued that there was “missing film” from the paparazzi about which the photographers had never been questioned, and that the citation of “order publique” was incorrect.

. . .

Related

Lady Diana was Killed by a Team of Specialists of the British MI-5

Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence
…read the testimony of former SAS officer and world famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who confirms that the ‘Boston brakes’ is indeed a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired ‘hit squads’, and that it involves the use of a device which remotely controls the target-vehicle’s steering and brakes.

Assassination by car accidents
“For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.”

Princess Di ‘feared she’d be killed by royal family’

Prince Philip ‘told MI6 to murder Diana and lover’

Flashgun aimed at Diana’s car blinded driver Henri Paul

Diana coverup unraveling: Fiat driver worked for British Intelligence, shot in the head twice

DIANA: VITAL NEW EVIDENCE BLOWS APART POLICE CASE


Poll: 89% SAY DIANA WAS MURDERED

Diana charged Prince Charles in “royal plot” to eliminate both her and Camilla

Diana: 18 key witnesses ignored by inquiry

Princess Diana’s Death: The Mystery of The Stolen Mercedes

Princess Diana’s Death: Why Was The Computer Chip Stolen From Car Involved In Crash?

MI6 and Princess Diana: Unpublished document pertaining to the “Car Accident Plot”
Text of sworn testimony of former MI6 Agent Richard Tomlinson
The 1999 sworn testimony of MI6 Agent Richard Tomlininson made available to French police investigators and judicial authorities was first  posted on Global Research in October 2003. This testimony which was never made public, reveals certain circumstances  pertaining to the death of the Princess of Wales ten years ago in late August 1997.

DRIVER ‘MET MI6 SPY’ ON CRASH NIGHT
Renegade spy Richard Tomlinson will tell the Princess Diana inquest that he believes Ritz hotel security chief Henri Paul met an MI6 handler on the night she died. Today we also reveal a French spy chief allegedly seen chatting to Paul on the night of the crash is refusing to give evidence at the inquest. Mr Tomlinson, a former MI6 officer once jailed for leaking Government secrets, will make sensational claims via a videolink from his bolthole in France to the inquest in London. He is refusing to return to Britain to give evidence in person because he fears he will be arrested and jailed. Cambridge-educated Mr Tomlinson, 40, will give evidence supporting the claim by Harrods tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed that there was an Establishment plot to kill Diana to stop her marrying his son, Dodi, a Muslim.

Ousted spook to finger MI6 for Diana’s death
Richard Tomlinson says the way the Princess and her boyfriend died closely resembles a British secret service plan to eliminate Slobodan Milosevic. A New Zealander’s evidence could form a crucial piece of the puzzle as the world waits to hear the true story behind the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Richard Tomlinson, a renegade British secret service spy who was born in Ngaruawahia, is due to give evidence to the Royal Courts of Justice in London during the inquests into the 1997 deaths of the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed. Lord Justice Scott Baker, who is heading the inquests, has listed 20 key issues that he will focus on. And one of those is whether Mr Tomlinson’s evidence throws any light on the collision. Mr Tomlinson, a highly controversial figure who worked for MI6 and was later sacked by the organisation, claims the Princess’ death was curiously similar to a fate planned by MI6 for Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic in the early 1990s. He also claims the Princess and Al Fayed’s driver, Henri Paul, who was also killed in the crash, worked for MI6.

Maldives Police to be Granted Preemptive Arrest Powers

Police will be empowered to arrest anyone they believe may commit a crime

Minivan News | Nov 5, 2007

By Ajay Makan

The police will be constitutionally empowered to arrest anyone they believe may commit a crime, after an amendment to the draft Bill of Rights was passed last night.

The Home Minister, Justice Minister and Attorney General all voted in favour of the amendment, which some lawyers say gives the police a green light to detain political dissidents.

But the measure was proposed by a leading critic of police powers, the prominent human rights lawyers Husnu Al Suood. Activists from Suood’s opposition Maldivian Democratic Party have reacted furiously to his apparent about turn.

Abusive Arrests

Clause twenty five of the draft bill of rights had read, “no person shall be arrested or detained…. [without] reasonable and probable grounds to believe he has committed an offence.”

But Suood’s amendment allows a police officer to detain anyone, “he believes may commit an offence.”

Hundreds of opposition activists have been detained without charge in the Maldives since the pro-democracy movement took off in 2003.

Mariya Ahmed Didi, a lawyer and Suood’s colleague in the MDP parliamentary group, said “the amendment could be interpreted to give the police the green light to continue abusive arrest practices.”

Mariya was one of several MDP and independent MPs who voted against the proposal. But it carried with sixty votes, three more than the minimum number required to pass a motion.

Government ministers, including the Home Minister who oversees the police, and the Justice Minister responsible for the country’s legal system, backed the motion uniformly, as did President Gayoom’s appointees to the Special Majlis.

Both groups turned out for last night’s vote in large numbers, suggesting the President endorses this entrenchment of police powers.

But the motion could not have passed without the support of opposition members. MDP parliamentarians Ahmed Shafeeq and Ilyas Hussain Ibrahim voted with Suood, as did a handful of independent critics of the Government.

International Norm

In the face of further criticism of his amendment in this morning’s Special Majlis session, Suood said police needed the power to act when there is firm evidence a crime is going to be committed.

Government lawyers supported his stance. Mohamed Anil, the Commissioner for Legal Reform said the amendment, “is in line with measures worldwide.”

Suood and Anil also pointed to other clauses in the constitution and pending legislation, which should prevent the police from abusing the power.

But there is anger among the opposition that pre-emptive arrests have been enshrined in the constitution. Suood’s own legal partner, Ahmed Muizzu, who voted against the amendment, said, “it gives too broad powers to the police.” He said pre-emptive arrests should have been part of legislation instead.

Advocates of the amendment countered that it is increasingly common for constitutions to be more detailed and codify specific powers.

But Douglas Schmeiser, the Canadian expert who has helped the Special Majlis draft much of the constitution appeared to disagree. He told Minivan News, “a constitution should be a lifetime document, while legislation provides the necessary flexibility.”

“The only restrictions in a constitution should prevent violations of human rights, which has not always been the case recently,” he added.

Symbolic

The constitution is of huge symbolic importance in the Maldives reform process. The current document, passed in 1997, entrenched President Gayoom’s authority as head of the judiciary and effectively gave the police power to extend pre-trial detention indefinitely.

Amending the constitution has been a central demand of the reform movement since its birth in 2003.

One MDP activist, Imran Zahir (Bakuree) told Minivan News, “the only thing I was expecting from the constitution was to make the police accountable to the people. But if our own members are proposing measures like this, what exactly is the point of amending it.”

Suood has achieved notoriety within the opposition movement for defending MDP members arrested for political activities. But some activists today said they felt, “betrayed.”

One former client, Mohamed Ziyad (Ziyattey) said he was “shocked,” to hear Suood had been behind the measure. “It goes against the whole reform movement. If the MDP plan a protest, the police will be able to pick me up, just like they do now.”

Government admits almost 150,000 children are on the UK DNA database

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP said:

“These figures underline the shocking extent to which this database has intruded, often without parental consent, into the lives of our children.”

Public Technology | Nov 7, 2007

Almost 150,000 children currently under the age of 16 have their details on the Government’s DNA database, figures uncovered by the Liberal Democrats have shown.

The headline figure masks extremely wide variations between forces, with Northamptonshire retaining just 845 DNA profiles of under-16s, whilst West Midlands Police have over 10,000 and the Metropolitan Police have over 16,000.

The number of samples taken may be even higher, as figures show the current age of the individual sampled, rather than their age at the time.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP said:

“These figures underline the shocking extent to which this database has intruded, often without parental consent, into the lives of our children.

“Thousands of these children will have been found guilty of no crime, yet samples of their DNA will remain on file for life.

“The disturbing and illiberal policy of adding a child’s most personal information to a massive government computer system, simply on the grounds of an accusation, must stop immediately.

“The Government has to come up with a proportionate and sensible way of using this technology, not the unfair scattergun approach that currently prevails.”

<n>The figures were released in a Parliamentary Answer to Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Willott:

Jenny Willott, Cardiff Central: To as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many and what proportion of DNA profiles on the National DNA database relate to individuals aged (a) under 16, (b) 16 to 18, (c) 19 to 20, (d) 21 to 30, (e) 31 to 40, (f) 41 to 50, (g) 51 to 60 and (h) over 60 years, broken down by police force area; and if she will make a statement. [160737]

Meg Hillier: The information requested is set out in the following table. The figures given are the number of subject sample profiles retained on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) at 25 October 2007 which were taken by forces in England and Wales only. They include over 26,000 subject sample profiles taken from volunteers. The data is based on the current age of the subjects as at 25 October 2007.

It is currently estimated that 13.7 per cent. of profiles held on the NDNAD are replicated, i.e. that a profile for a person has been loaded on more than one occasion. (one reason for this is that the person gave different names, or different versions of their name, on separate arrests). Thus, the number of individuals on the database is approximately 13.7 per cent. less than the number of subject profiles. The presence of these replicate profiles on the NDNAD does not impact on the effectiveness and integrity of the database. Nonetheless, a long-term exercise in under way to identify issues associated with the removal of all such redundant replicate profiles.

Alarm raised as child DNA database skyrockets

Daily Post | Nov 6, 2007

by Tom Bodden

NORTH Wales Police added 55,694 DNA profiles to the Government’s national database since its launch in 1995.

Of those, some 1,534 (2.8%) samples were from children aged under 16, according to figures obtained by the Welsh Lib Dems.

North Wales AM Eleanor Burnham, party spokesperson for children and young people, said: “The dramatic increase in those DNA profiles gathered in Wales, particularly those of children, since the start of DNA profiling is cause for alarm.

Across Wales, the four police forces collected more than 260,000 DNA profiles for the database, including 7,155 of under 16-year-olds.

A fifth of these children are based in North Wales.

The figures were obtained through a series of Parliamentary Questions by Lib Dem MP for Cardiff Central Jenny Willott.

The numbers in North Wales has risen tenfold since 1995 from just 620 DNA profiles a year to more than 6,000 in 2006.

Eleanor Burnham said:“These records are open to the abuse of outsiders and the Home Office has already allowed a number of genetic studies using DNA samples without the knowledge of the individuals involved.

“It is unjustifiable for the police to hold the DNA profiles of innocent people and the Government must act now to destroy these records.”

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

George Washington’s Blog | Nov 7, 2007

9/11 family member and “Jersey Girl” Patty Casazza has just revealed that whistleblowers told her that — before 9/11 — the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets.

Why is this important? Because, previously, some of the best-known whistleblowers have been willing to give only vague information about the government’s foreknowledge. For example, they said only that the government knew of the general timeframe for the attacks, or that the government had a list of potential targets, on which the World Trade Center was one of many potential targets (of course, other whistleblowers have been more specific).

Casazza further stated that these whistleblowers saw how Sibel Edmonds was being harrassed and gagged, and were fearful that the same thing would happen to them. So they approached the Jersey Girls to ask them to demand the 9/11 Commission subpoena the whistleblowers. The Jersey Girls tried to bring the whistleblowers before the 9/11 Commission, and the Commissioners agreed, but then never let the whistleblowers testify, let alone subpoena them.

Why is this important? Because defenders of the official government story have argued that 9/11 couldn’t have been an inside job or else whistleblowers would have come forward. Ms. Cassaza confirms what many have said: there are a lot of 9/11 whistleblowers who are afraid to come forward — especially without a supboena — for fear of being attacked and harassed.

A video of Ms. Cassaza’s statement has just been released:

“Jersey Girl” Patty Casazza and Bob McIlvaine

Ms. Cassaza’s statements were made at the 9/11: Families, First Responders & Experts Speak conference.

Many whistleblowers have, in fact, already come forward. See for example this video. And for a more comprehensive refutation of the argument about a lack of whistleblowers, see this.

Thanks to Jon Gold for his key participation in the conference, and for the tip.