A former Princeton international law professor has been condemned by the UN Secretary General and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for alluding to “an apparent cover-up” of the events of September 11th, 2001.
On January 11, 2011, UN Special Envoy to Palestine Richard Falk posted on his personal blog an article entitled “Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance.”[1]
Dr. Falk made a tangential point in his blog-post that governments too often abuse their authority by treating “awkward knowledge as a matter of state secrets”.
To illustrate the point, he referred to gaps and contradictions in the official account of the 9/11 attacks, which have been documented in the scholarly works of Dr. David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology.
“What seems most disturbing about the 9/11 controversy is the widespread aversion by government and media to the evidence that suggests, at the very least, the need for an independent investigation that proceeds with no holds barred,” wrote Falk.
On January 20th, executive director Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, a European NGO, called upon UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to condemn the remarks made by Falk, and to fire him, claiming that Falk had “endorsed the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government and not Al Qaeda terrorists.” [2]
On January 24th, in a reply to Hillel Neuer, Vijay Nambiar, Ban Ki-moon’s Chief of Staff, responded that the Secretary-General “condemns these remarks. He has repeatedly stated his view that any such suggestion is preposterous — and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.”[3]
The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, called for Falk’s removal, stating that “Mr. Falk’s comments are despicable and deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest terms.” [4]
Surely, in light of what Falk actually said, these indignant cries on behalf of the victims seem more than a little apoplectic.
If Falk’s suggestions were so “preposterous” and “offensive”, they might have been dismissed as the ravings of a madman.
So why did officials bring out their cannons to shoot at a sparrow?
Well, turning to the work of Professor Griffin we find that there were 115 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, though Falk did not, in his brief remarks, provide details. [5]
A search of the Internet reveals 12 professional organizations calling for a new investigation, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400 professional members), Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
In August, 2005, the New York Times printed the oral testimonies of 118 firefighters and emergency workers who reported stunning, graphic evidence of enormous explosions, including mysterious blasts in the deep sub-basements of the buildings long before the towers fell.[6]
More recently, a nine-author peer-reviewed study, which showed that the World Trade Center dust appeared to contain residue of explosive material (nanothermite), made headlines for the first week of February 2010 in major Danish newspapers. [7]
This news never reached the North American media.
A December 2010 poll by the prestigious Emnid Institute showed that 89.5% of Germans doubt the US official story about the September 11th attacks.[8]
The 9/11 commissioners themselves, in a 2008 op-ed piece to the New York Times, bemoaned the withholding of witness evidence to the 9/11 Commission by the CIA: “What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.” [9]
Perhaps this sparrow is worth a cannon or two.
In other words, was Falk attacked so strongly to try to make people fear suggesting in public even the possibility that the official story is problematic?
the American states were united at war with Great Britain and had just declared their Independance. But what did it mean? What does it mean now? - Independence. This nation acted like one of England’s colonies for hundreds of years and in that time had grown to become one of Great Britain’s most productive resources. Then the French American War began and England came to defend the “colonists” incurring great debts and finally winning the war. Britain decided that it needed to keep troops here even though it did not have sufficient forts and that it could not afford to build such forts; therefore they decided to compel the people here to quarter the British troops in their homes with room and board; for protection of such troops they confiscated the peoples guns; the King also created a sales tax. The rights of the colonists became so abused that it became necessary to stand against Great Britain’s abuse over, “the last straw” — though most of the sales taxes were dropped, on a few key imported items like tea and shugar they went from from 3% to 6%. In response, rather than paying the increased tax, some of the colonists had a party (the Boston Tea Party) and threw a load of tea into the harbor; while others formed the Declaration of Independence and went to war.
When the War was over they formed a new foundational document, The Articles of Confederation, that document recognized this nation as a nation made up of independent sovereign United States, and gave the name “The United States of America” to the new government. Many of the people of this new nation felt that it was wrong to leave England. Sure there were rights violations but those were livable and their future was a certainty as an English Colony. Now that they were on their own nothing at all was sure.
Over the next ten years conditions in this country continually got worse. The individual States gave little regard to any other State and paid nearly no attention at all to the central government. After ten years of independence from Great Britain conditions were far worse than they had ever been under Great Britain’s rule and protection. Many wanted government officials to go back to Great Britain and beg the King to take us back, and they almost did.
“To form a more perfect Union”
That movement was considered too severe to take without first attempting to resolve the problems of this new nation by the sitting of what later became known as the Constitutional Convention. Each of the Sovereign States gave authority to (deputized) a few men to form a college to review and reform the present form of government and to eliminate the errors made in thier first attempt at the Articles of Confederation. In other words those few men were collectively entrusted with the peoples’ sovereign authority to reform the government. The Deputies created a Trust Indenture. Though some people say the Indenture had no title, because there was no Title written in bold letters at its head, its title, “The Constitution for the United States of America”, was given in its Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”It containes VII Articles, concluding with the signatures of the twelve States’ Deputies present at the convention. Once agreed to on, September 17th, 1787 and signed by the Deputies, the Trust was formed. This Indenture, (Constitution) with the intent and authority of the sovereign people, created a “Constitutional Republic” form of government in trust. Though the Deputies were empowered to reform the government to more perfectly align it with the will of the people, the States had not fully expected that their sovereignty and control over the land would be removed, wherefore the Deputies resolved to take the Trust back to the individual States for their respective ratification. The States conditionally refused ratification until limits were placed upon the new government that would secure man’s God given inherent rights.
Remember, under the Articles of Confederation, these individual States were recognized as individually Sovereign States, which was the problem with the Articles of Confederation, there was no accountability or control over the individual States. Without accountability whoever was in power simply ignored the central government and moved forward literally however they saw fit (in violation of individual rights, or not). In essence, they were each absolutely powerful kingdoms. It was obvious that if something wasn’t done to unite the Union of States as, “United States” they would be destroyed from within or without. So when offered the Trust Indenture, the individual sovereign States’ leaders could see that they would no longer be sovereign if they accepted the Trust, and they would be destroyed if they didn’t accept it.
Not much of a choice, but the war with England ended only a little over ten years earlier and they didn’t want to go back, so they demanded that if they were to give up their sovereignty, the people’s rights must be preserved from the central government. Thus they conditionally refused the Trust until the insisted on “Bill of Rights” were added. Therefore, the Trust document was first created to create a Trust known as the “United States”. The Trust created a government controlled by the Trust. Government officials were set up within the Trust as Trustees with specific defined responsibilities and functions. The People were set up as the beneficiaries of the Trust and when any government official takes office he/she is required to swear an oath of allegiance [make a contract with the people to uphold the Constitution]. Remember, at this point the government has already been created in trust, by the signed Constitution.
As yet the Trust has nobody sitting in the offices of government, however, the States are not willing to support the Trust and authorize its officers to function with control over them unless the people’s rights and the State’s rights are secured. The Conventioneers went back to work to draft the requested, Bill of Rights, which were later provided as the First Ten Amendments to the, Constitution of the United States of America, a document that was created to bind officers in an Oath to uphold the Trust of the people and securing the peoples rights.
Then the Trust, the Constitution for the United States of America (still signed and unchanged from its original version as first presented to the states), along with the “Bill of Rights” as the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, were returned to the individual States and were ratified by each of those States and returned to the Constitutional Convention where the new government was made effective and put in operation on or after, December 15th, 1791, the “Effective date of the Constitution which was then rewritten with the Title, The Constitution of the United States of America, including the Bill of Rights.
Now let’s go back and again review the documents created in the process by name. (Names are about to become (more…)
The team at Infowars.com is very pleased to announce that Netflix has put several of our films on their website on a trial basis including The Obama Deception and Fall Of The Republic, as well as our newest titles Invisible Empire and Police State 4. If enough people put these items in their queue list it will ensure that Netflix will carry these powerful info-weapons and more people will be exposed to the true political paradigm we live under.
This is a wonderful opportunity to spread the word to those who may not be aware of Infowars.com or Alex Jones and would not otherwise view the DVD’s. If this push is successful enough it will also be available for download on your Xbox360, Playstation 3, and Roku, a market that is desperately in search of content with actual substance and not establishment programming.
We ask you to please take this opportunity to send our Netflix links to your un-awakened friends and family across the globe. With your help we can reach thousands more in this fight for humanity. This is a call to action to all Infowarriors to help us expand our presence in all avenues of media.
Let me introduce to you my family and your Power to the People Committee!
My mother and father, Billy and Leola McKinney.
My son, Coy, who just graduated from college in Canada!
I want you to know that there is no way I could do this without their love and support.
Your Power to the People Committee members who are with us today:
You’ve all shared e-mails with her and heard her lovely voice on the telephone: Lucy Grider-Bradley, the campaign manager of my 2004 comeback campaign and FEC Compliance team leader for the Power to the People Committee!
I’ve known him all of my political life. You’ve known him for years if you’re a Green party member. Hugh Esco, website man with the Power to the People Committee!
In two long road trips from Georgia to Maine, one trip through California, Oregon, and Washington, and by way of numerous e-mails, you all have come to know my friend, personal assistant, proud Haitian-American activist, et aussi, l’homme avec qui je pratique mon français, David Josué, standing firm against the occupation of Haiti.
John Judge is my friend. He shared U.S. government COINTELPRO documents with me that few except researchers have ever seen. John Judge is an expert on the murders of Malcolm X, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, COINTELPRO, other government covert operations directed at certain U.S. citizens, and what really happened on 9/11. Maybe John can tell me how our military and intelligence infrastructures failed four times in one day after the taxpayers invested trillions of dollars in them.
Janet Young, proud accountant for the Power to the People Committee! Learned the true meaning of politics when she saw what happened to me after I put impeachment on the table.
This is an hour and a half conversation between inarguably two of the most influential figures in the global truth movement. Each segment is educational, insightful and provocative, and overall the conversation (believe it or not) is very encouraging…
This is the new Alex Jones 9/11 documentary. It focuses on the passionate group of activists who are demanding answers from the government and other powerful and influential people. Please buy a copy from prisonplanet.tv if you have the means. Your support is what keeps all of this going. Either way, SPREAD TRUTH.
Critics called for the resignation of Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, for bias against Israel and his support of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Critics are calling for the resignation of a U.N. official who publicly supports investigating theories that the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an “inside job.”
Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, investigates alleged Israeli violations of human rights law for the U.N.’s Human Rights Council.
But the former Princeton professor would also like to investigate whether “some sort of controlled explosion from within” destroyed the Twin Towers, he told FOXNews.com.
“I do think there are questions that haven’t been answered, questions about the way the buildings collapsed and the failure to heed a variety of signals that there was danger coming,” Falk said.
“I think [his beliefs are] fruitcake city, but among many delegations to the U.N. it’s probably the conventional wisdom,” said John Bolton[Under Secretary of Defense on September 11 2001], a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. known for his straight talk on U.N. hypocrisy.
But Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, a non-governmental organization that monitors the U.N., wants Falk removed from his job.
“He should resign,” said Neuer, who raised concerns about
Comments Off
