portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

9.11 investigation

Daniel Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11

Kevin Smith & Alex Jones
I can't help wondering if one of the ships
being used to ferry foreigners from Lebanon
won't be the target of an "Iranian" missile.
Would make great Propaganda ...

Pentagon Papers Author Daniel Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11

Predicts Bush Regime Will Stage Terrorist Attack to Provide Pretext for Iran, Syria Invasion, And Justify Internment Camps for American People

Infowars | July 19, 2006
By Kevin Smith & Alex Jones

Daniel Ellsberg is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national firestorm in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military's account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. The release awakened the American people to a systematic program of organized deception carried out by the Pentagon against the population to continue the Vietnam War.

Daniel Ellsberg, speaking on air to GCN radio host Jack Blood, stated his concerns that criminal elements of the US government were psychologically capable to have carried out 9/11. He warned that within days after a US military strike on Iran that Bush's handlers would probably stage some type of terror attack in the West to legitimize the new war.

"If there's another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Pentagon Papers

Ellsberg went on to state that another major Reichstag-like state-sponsored attack would be followed by a martial law scenario which might include detention camps for American dissenters.

Ellsberg said that he worked with individuals at the highest levels of government who staged war provocations several times to whip up pro-war sentiment in the US. Daniel Ellsberg now joins the ranks of hundreds of prominent engineers, physicists, economists, military officers, pilots, high-level intelligence analysts, and cabinet ministers who are exposing the 9/11 hoax.

Each day more and more respected professionals are going public with their questions about the official 9/11 fable. The 9/11 cover-up dam is breaking under the weight of these truthseekers' efforts and the perpetrators of 9/11 are watching them in horror while wondering who will be the next to speak up.

Here is a partial transcript of the interview:

Jack Blood: Have you had a chance to take a look at a lot of this information coming from America's leading scholars, physicists, engineers, etc. Who have taken a look now at 9/11 and are now, not only questioning what might have happened on 9/11, but really being very direct including a number of high level ...

Daniel Ellsberg: Actually, I have looked at a lot of that, and I'll tell you without going into it all which would take a lot of time, I find some of it very implausible and other parts of it quite solid, and there's no question in my mind that there's enough evidence there to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of a kind that we've not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, and raising the release of a lot of documents, there's no question that (D.E. chuckles) put it this way, very serious questions have been raised, about how much they knew beforehand and how much involvement there may been. Is the, is a administration capable, humanly and physiologically of engineering such a provocation?

Yes, I would say that, I worked for such an administration myself, Johnson, ah, President Johnson put destroyers in harm's way in the Tonkin Gulf not only once, but several times, with the, with a lot of his people hoping that it would lead to a confrontation and claiming that it had. And could have resulted in the lost of many lives in the course of it. And what I'm saying now, by the way though is this, and here there's a very strong analogy, to this day there is a controversy gone back and forth historically, as to who caused the Reichstag fire, the burning of their parliament, the Reichstag, on February 27 th 1933. Goering, at one point, the number two man in the Nazi regime, said "I set that fire", later he denied that at Nuremberg, and I've noticed that the latest history suggests, that it wasn't the Nazi's. The point is that all this time later is there is still a controversy about that. But, what there's no controversy about is the use the Nazi's made of it, that very night and the next day.

J.B. Cui Bono, who benefits

D.E. February 28 th, there was a Reichstag fire decree that ended freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, all in the Weimar Constitution, and privacy of the postal system and of communications and of telephone, what ended here to, more than we knew four years ago right after 9/11. If there's another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country, detention camps for middle-easterners and their quote "sympathizers", critics of the President's policy and essentially the wiping-out of the Bill of Rights.

J.B. I know your walking very carefully here Daniel Ellsberg, but that's pretty strong medicine and we have to look at the history of the world, governments do this, as you mentioned, governments are liars, governments are murderers, they, this is not above them, I'm sure your familiar with the Northwoods Document.

D.E. Ah yes, indeed. Yeah talking about a manufactured provocation which could have involved even the shooting down of an American or some other airliner, with American support. Yes I would say by the way, that Americans definitely play this game, I'm sure that it's happening now.

We, I expected by the way, Bush to manufacture a kind of Tonkin Gulf incident before he went into Iraq and then I decided well I'd been wrong they didn't feel they needed that. It is interesting that the memos that came out, in conversations between Blair and Bush, (aka The White House Memo), show that Bush was pressing for the possibility of sending over a U-2 and getting it fired on and using that as an excuse.

J.B. A U-2 painted like a U.N., ah, a United Nations airplane.

D.E. Yes, but they couldn't do that again for sure. But, what is happening right now is that Israel is clearly seeking a generally provocative act by both Hammas and Hezbollah, which I think were not wise acts some people are applauding those in the Middle-East passing out sweets and so forth, very short-sighted I would say, a lot of innocent people are going to die as a result.

 link to www.infowars.com

Kevin Smith & Alex Jones
Kudos To Ellsberg!!! 20.Jul.2006 17:14


Ellsburg is risking his reputation, credibility, career, and his life to warn Americans here. If only he had spoken out sooner, but Americans seldom pay attention until a major crisis is at hand. Can America afford to ignore these possibilities any longer?

Hopefully Ellsberg will not be "suicided."

things are off the handle... 20.Jul.2006 19:45

this thing here

there's so many goddamn blinking red lights and alarm bells going off right now on this planet. shit's out of control, locally and globally, everywhere, everything. are there any cooler heads anywhere? where are the smart people at? where are the leaders who actually have vision? where are the brave people who will tell us the things we need to know, even if it get's them in serious trouble? down down down we list and sink into the dark the sun fading away...

"son, you've got to understand, it's all just a big, sick circus in this place. you lookin' for something real to hold onto, but it's just a freak show son. makes your eyes spin. ain't nothin' real no more."

Just so you know... 21.Jul.2006 15:43


Most historians of the period reject the the theory that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire as unsupported by sufficient evidence. (I highly recommend Richard J. Evans' recent book "The Coming of the Third Reich.") Using unexpected events as justification for what you wanted to do anyway (i.e. invade Iraq) is a common tactic of political rhetoric. One should not assume that the powerful are always so powerful that everything that happens must be under their control.

The world is a chaotic place, and as the saying goes, shit does happen. Making shit up that never happened (Gulf of Tonkin 'incident,' Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, Nigerian uranium shipments, etc.) is common enough and apparently effective enough [studies have shown most people will believe anything if they hear it repeated three times by three different sources, but remember that 47% of all statistics are made up on the spot] that staging actual attacks on your own assets (human and otherwise) seems like an unnecessary and inefficient use of resources.

A bunch of fanatics trained and equipped by leaders of an organization financed for years by the CIA managing to penetrate the limited security measures of American civilian aviation doesn't seem that implausible to me.

no... 21.Jul.2006 16:33

this thing here

the fact that you might find something plausible does not automatically mean that it is true.

like it or not, some people in america DON'T believe the official version of 9-11. there is room to doubt it's veracity. plenty of room.

OK 21.Jul.2006 22:56


but "sending over a U-2 and getting it fired on" or something similar is different from the government "carrying out" an attack on its own citizens. Ellsberg says that government figures are psychologically capable of putting token forces in harm's way for the sake of publicity to rally support for a war. I don't see how that adds up to the government carrying out a terrorist attack. The "official version" is no doubt full of omissions and distortions, but the government is generally eager to omit and distort evidence of miscoduct or incompetence that fall far short of plotting and carrying out a high-profile domestic attack and then implicating someone else. I think governments, particularly American governments, generally don't exhibit the kind of single-mindedness that such a conspiracy would require. Al-qaida certainly appears to be an actual terrorist organization, so why not just wait for them to do something (or appear to do something) and use that as a pretext for a large retaliation? And why implicate a group who you know has no connections to the government you want to overthrow?