Revolutionizing Awareness

helping humanity, make choices, more so through awareness, than ignorance

Archive for June 3rd, 2010

Memo to U.S. Congress: prima facie evidence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed treason on 9/11

Posted by Admin on June 3, 2010

This article is the third of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.

A Memorandum to the U.S. Congress presented to then incoming Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), following the November 2006 mid-term elections sets out prima facie evidence for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to prosecute then U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and numerous Jane and John Does for treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution for acts committed on September 11, 2001.

Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution provides: “Sect. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on open confession in open court.

United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. is the upcoming trial of five alleged Al-Qaeda members for “masterminding” the September 11, 2001 attacks. Regardless of whether U.S. President Barack H. Obama chooses to have these defendants tried in a U.S. Military Commission or in a U.S. Federal court, the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress contains prima facie evidence that the sitting U.S. President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense committed actionable Article III (3) treason on 9/11. Consequently, one can characterize the forthcoming trial in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. as a political show trial, no different in effect – the wrongful execution of the defendants and the attempted hoodwinking of the U.S. and world population – from other political show trials in recent history.

There is a substantial segment of U.S. and world public opinion that believes that 9/11 was a false flag operation. In a 2006 paper entitled, “False Flag Operations, 9/11, and the Exopolitical Perspective”, Dr. Michael E. Salla writes:  “According to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in what occurred.  A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11 Commission were covering up the truth.”

This Examiner.com article contains the first of two installments setting out the compelling prima facie case of why an independent prosecutor should be appointed to investigate actionable treason on 9/11.

The law of treason and constitutional accountability

The Memorandum to the U.S. Congress addresses the issue of the law of treason and constitutional accountability for the events of September 11, 2001.  The Memorandum is designed to set out the prima facie evidence which supports the appointment by the U.S. Congress (or other entity) of an independent or special prosecutor to “prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.”

For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this Examiner.com article do not contain the footnotes and full references in the original Memorandum.  Examiner.com readers are encouraged to download a copy of the original Memorandum to the U.S. Congress (PDF) here or here.

Memorandum to the U.S. Congress – parts I – III

The following are Parts I – III of the Memorandum.  Please note that the Memorandum contains this caveat:

CAVEAT LECTOR: This memorandum is based upon the best public research resources presently available. It is presented not as a full treatment of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the appointment of an independent prosecutor.


AP: Cheney at National Press Club, June 1, 2009

MEMORANDUM

The September 11, 2001 Attacks as Acts of Treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution

“The United States Constitution, in Article 3, Section 3, says that it is treason for a citizen of the USA to engage in “levying war” against the United States. If U.S. citizens consciously participated in planning the attacks of 9/11 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this participation would clearly be treasonous. There is considerable prima facie evidence that named members of the U.S. Executive Branch—U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld—participated in this planning.

“This prima facie evidence sustains a constitutional, Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress to appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the authority of Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.

“An investigation of these acts of prima facie Treason was not carried out by the 9/11 Commission. This Commission, directed by an insider, Philip Zelikow, who was directly connected to the named U.S. President George W. Bush of the U.S. Executive Branch, took as its starting point the Bush-Cheney administration’s claim that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by members of al-Qaeda. The Commission examined only facts and allegations that were consistent with this theory.

“All evidence pointing to complicity by the named individuals—U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld—along with other John and Jane Does, was ignored or, in a few cases, distorted.  The U.S. Congress in its constitutional jurisdiction needs to authorize the appointment of an independent prosecutor to conduct a genuine investigation of this prima facie evidence of Treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, which is summarized below in terms of six questions.”

I.  How Could Hijacked Airliners Have Struck the WTC and the Pentagon?

“If the standard operating procedure of the FAA and the US military had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 would have been intercepted before they reached Manhattan, and Flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could have reached the Pentagon. (Such interceptions are routine, being carried out about 100 times a year.) As to why these interceptions did not occur, the public has never been given a plausible explanation. Indeed, we have received three mutually inconsistent stories.

“In the first few days, military officials said that no fighter jets were sent up by NORAD until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38, even though signs that Flight 11 had been hijacked were observed at 8:15. That would mean that although interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes, in this case over 80 minutes had elapsed before any fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that a “stand-down” order had been issued.

“Within a few days, a second story was put out, according to which NORAD had sent up fighters but, because FAA notification had unaccountably come very late, the fighters did not arrive soon enough to prevent the attacks. Critics showed, however, that even if the FAA’s notifications had come as late as NORAD claimed, there would have been time for interceptions to occur.  This second story did not, therefore, remove the suspicion that a stand-down order had been given.

“The 9/11 Commission Report gives a third account, according to which, contrary to NORAD’s timeline of September 18, 2001, the FAA did not notify NORAD about Flights 175 and 77 until after they had struck their targets. This third story, besides contradicting the second story and also considerable evidence that the FAA had notified the military in a timely manner, contains many inherent implausibilities.  It does not, accordingly, remove grounds for suspicion that a stand-down order had been issued—a suspicion for which there is ear-witness testimony.”

II. Why Did the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the WTC Collapse?

“The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney has also failed to provide a credible explanation of the total collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. According to the official explanation, the Twin Towers collapsed because of the impact of the airplanes and the heat from the ensuing fires. But this explanation faces several formidable problems.

“First, Building 7 also collapsed, and in about the same way. This similarity implies that all three buildings collapsed because of the same causes. But building 7 was not hit by a plane, so its collapse must be explained by fire alone. That would lead to the conclusion that all three buildings collapsed from fire alone.

“Second, however, the fires in these three buildings were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting, compared with fires in some steel-frame high-rises that did not induce collapses. In 1991, for example, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, and in 2004, a fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither of these fires resulted in even a partial collapse, let alone a total collapse.  By contrast, the World Trade Center’s north and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed. Building 7, moreover, had fires on only a few floors, according to some witnesses  and all the photographic evidence.

“Third, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never, either before or after 9/11, been brought about by fire alone, or fire combined with structural damage from airplanes. All such collapses have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as ‘controlled demolition.’

“Fourth, the collapses of these three WTC buildings all manifested many standard features of controlled demolition, such as: sudden onset (whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag); straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over); collapse at virtually free-fall speed (indicating that the lower floors were offering little if any resistance); total collapse (indicating that the massive steel columns in the core of each building had been sliced into many pieces—which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions); the production of molten steel;  and the occurrence of multiple explosions, as reported by dozens of people—including journalists, police officers, WTC employees, emergency medical workers, and firefighters.  The official theory cannot explain one, let alone all, of these features—at least, as physicist Steven Jones has pointed out, without violating several basic laws of physics.  But the theory of controlled demolition easily explains them all.

“Fifth, although the question of whether explosives were used could have been answered by examining the buildings’ steel columns, virtually all of the steel was immediately sold to scrap dealers, trucked away, and sent to Asia to be melted down. Moreover, although it is usually a federal crime to remove anything from a crime scene, in this case the removal was overseen by government officials.

“Sixth, al-Qaeda terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for the enormous number of hours it would have taken to plant the explosives. But the question of how agents of the Bush-Cheney administration could have gotten such access can be answered by pointing out that Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III—the president’s brother and cousin, respectively—were principals of the company in charge of security for the WTC.  It is also doubtful that al-Qaeda terrorists would have had the courtesy to ensure that the buildings would come straight down, rather than falling over onto other buildings.”

[Examiner.com note:  Please see also, “Scientist: Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into nanoparticles on 9/11

http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m3d23-Scientist–Directed-energy-weapons-turned-World-Trade-Center-into-nanoparticles-on-911 ]


Wiki: Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense on September 11, 2001

III. Could the Official Account of the Pentagon Possibly Be True?

“According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. This account is challenged by many facts.

“First, Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes, even though it was then known that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons and even though the US military has the best radar systems in the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace.”

“Second, the aircraft, in order to hit the west wing, reportedly executed a 270-degree downward spiral, which according to some experts would have been impossible for a Boeing 757. Hanjour, moreover, was known as “a terrible pilot,” who could not even fly a small airplane.

“Third, how could a pilot as poor as Hanjour have found his way back to Washington without guidance from the ground?

“Fourth, the Pentagon is surely the best defended building on the planet.  It is not only within the P-56-A restricted air space that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, but also within P-56-B, the three-mile ultra-restricted zone above the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. It is only a few miles from Andrews Air Force Base, which, assigned to protect these restricted zones, has at least three squadrons with fighter jets on alert at all times. (The claim by The 9/11 Commission Report that no fighters were on alert the morning of 9/11 is wholly implausible. ) Also, the Pentagon is surely protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft without a US military transponder entering the Pentagon’s airspace.  (So even if Flight 77 had entered the Pentagon’s airspace, it could have escaped being shot down only if officials in the Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses.)

“Fifth, terrorists brilliant enough to get through the US military’s defense system would not have struck the west wing, for many reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a strike anywhere else would have been; it was still being renovated, so relatively few people were there; the secretary of defense and all the top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted to kill, were in the east wing; and hitting the west wing required a difficult maneuver, whereas crashing into the roof would have been easier and deadlier.

“Sixth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757. For one thing, unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, the strike on the Pentagon did not create a detectable seismic signal.  Also, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not produced by the strike on the Pentagon, according to both photographs and eyewitnesses. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of ‘a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.’

“Photographs show that the façade of the west wing remained standing for 30 minutes after the strike and that, during this time, the hole in this façade was only about 16 to 18 feet in diameter.  A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of about 125 feet, and a steel engine is mounted on each wing. And yet there was, as Former Air Force Colonel George Nelson has pointed out, no visible damage on either side of this hole.  Former pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing both debris and damage on the basis of the photographic evidence, writes: ‘there is no doubt that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757. . . . There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. . . . There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 ‘crash.’”

“Additional evidence that no large airliner hit the west wing is provided by the fact that the fourth-floor office of Isabelle Slifer, which was directly above the strike zone (between the first and second floors), was not damaged by the initial impact.

“There is considerable evidence, moreover, that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was instead a US military missile. This evidence consists partly of testimony. Lon Rains, editor of Space News, said: ‘I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.”  The upper management official at LAX, quoted earlier as saying that he overheard members of LAX Security receiving word of a stand-down order, says that they later received word that “the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.’  Professor David Edwards of Salisbury University reports that on the morning of 9/11, a young couple burst into his subway car at L’Enfante Station and started shouting: ‘We were standing at the Pentagon Station, waiting for the train to come, and we saw a missile fly into the Pentagon! We saw it, we saw it!’  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an apparent slip of the tongue, referred in an interview to ‘the missile [used] to damage this building.’

“The missile hypothesis is also supported by physical evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman of Alexandria reports that shortly after the strike her Geiger counter showed the radiation level, about 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon, to be 8-10 times higher than normal. Two days later, Bill Bellinger, the EPA radiation expert for the region, said that the rubble at the crash site was radioactive, adding that he believed the source to be depleted uranium. These findings are what one would expect, says a former scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory—if the Pentagon had been struck by a military missile with a depleted uranium warhead.

“On the basis of all this evidence, retired Army Major Doug Rokke has said: ‘When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts [and] the size of the hole left in the building . . . , it looks like the work of a missile.’

“A seventh reason to be dubious about the official story is that evidence was destroyed. Shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris from the Pentagon in front of the impact site, put it in a large container, and carried it off.  Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, with the result that any remaining forensic evidence was covered up.  FBI agents also immediately confiscated the videos from security cameras on two nearby buildings.  Although the Department of Justice, responding to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, has acknowledged the FBI’s possession of at least one of these videos, the Department of Justice has refused to release it.

“These seven problems, besides challenging the official account, collectively indicate that the strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own government—an act that would clearly constitute treason.”

Parts IV – VII of the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress

Parts IV – VII of the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress will be covered in a succeeding Examiner.com article. For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this article do not contain the footnotes and full references in the original Memorandum.  Examiner.com readers are encouraged to download a copy of the original Memorandum to the U.S. Congress (PDF) here or here.

Read the entire Examiner.com series on 9/11:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m4d2-Memo-to-US-Congress-prima-facie-evidence-that-Bush-Cheney-and-Rumsfeld-committed-treason-on-911

Advertisements

Posted in Conspiracy Archives | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on Memo to U.S. Congress: prima facie evidence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed treason on 9/11

False Flag Operations, 9-11 and the Exopolitical Perspective

Posted by Admin on June 3, 2010

© Michael E. Salla, PhD

September 11, 2006

http://www.exopolitics.org

Introduction
On the fifth anniversary of the ‘9-11’ attacks, more citizens than ever before are questioning official versions of the attacks and the adequacy of the 9-11 Commission Report. According to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in what occurred. A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11 Commission were covering up the truth. There has been a steady stream of authors, journalists, researchers and media personalities coming forward to declare that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’. Some of the more prominent include the theologian Dr David Ray Griffin author/editor of a number of books on 9-11 including 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2003), Michael Ruppert author of Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (2004), and actor Charlie Sheen who went public with his views on March 2006. Finally, a website was recently created by a committee of scholars criticizing official explanations and also arguing that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’.
With the ever growing number of those claiming 9-11 was an inside job and that there was an official cover up, it comes as no surprise that many now view the 9-11 attacks as part of an historical pattern of governments using ‘false flag’ operations to overcome opposition to their policy objectives. A false flag operation is best described as a covert operation conducted by “governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.”
An increasing number of books and videos are now discussing historic false flag operations in relation to 9-11. The more prominent include David Griffin’s, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004); Barrie Zwicker’s more recent, Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11 (2006); and Alex Jones recent video, TERRORSTORM: A History of Government Sponsored Terrorism (2006). Griffin, Zwicker and Jones examine historic ‘false flag’ operation to present the historical context for analysis of events surrounding 9-11 and the contrived “war on terror”.  In historic ‘false flag’ operations such as the burning of the Reichstag in 1933, the 1953 Iranian coup, the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, intelligence operatives from governments staged events that would be blamed on targeted groups in a way that would facilitate government polices to increase their power or topple foreign governments. More controversially, Griffin argues that the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack was a false flag operation and that this demonstrates the magnitude to which false flag operations can be conducted.
Zwicker and Jones discuss how the Nazis directly benefited by covertly orchestrating the burning of the Reichstag and blaming it on communists. Similarly, they describ how US and British policies directly benefited by false flag operations aimed at the popular nationalist Prime Minister of Iran, Muhammad Mossadeq, who was accused of pro-communist sympathies. This led to a coup in 1953 whereby the Shah of Iran was able to assume dictatorial powers that reversed the controversial nationalization policies of Mossadeq. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident according to Zwicker, Jones and Griffin was another false flag operation whereby communist North Vietnam was blamed for two attacks on US warships. Documents later released conclusively showed that the second attack never occurred. They also describe failed false flag incidents such as the attack on the USS Liberty by the Israeli Airforce in 1967 during the six day war. They claim that the sinking of the Liberty would have put great pressure on the US to enter the war in support of Israel which planned to shift responsibility to Egypt.

Griffin, Zwicker, and Jones have all cited the Operation Northwoods documents that showed the Joint Chiefs of Staff had approved false flag operations in the early 1960s that involved terrorist attacks against American infrastructure and even cities. These covert actions would have been blamed on

Cuba and used to justify a military invasion but were never approved by the Kennedy administration (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ ). Griffin, Zwicker and Jones use this and other cases as evidence that false flag operations have a long history in the covert actions of many governments including the US.

Having persuasively presented evidence that governments have in the past used false flag operations, Griffin, Zwicker and Jones turn their attention to the 9-11 attack; and, to varying degrees, a number of other ‘terrorist attacks’ in Britain, Spain and Bali. In all these cases, Griffin, Zwicker and Jones present evidence that these were false flag operations. They cite historic documents, interview whistleblowers, identify inconsistencies in official versions, and circumstantial evidence that all point to these recent terrorist attacks being false flag operations. In terms of the 9-11 attack in the US and the July 7, 2005  (7-7) attack in Britain, they examine security drills that led to much confusion on the part of security forces that permitted security lapses that may have allowed the attacks to occur. Zwicker and Jones argue that such drills are a characteristic of false flag operations where it is critical to have security forces not involved in such covert operations stand down. They present persuasive evidence that the war on terror is contrived with the goal of depriving citizens in the US and western democracies of their civil liberties, and to neutralize domestic opposition to the war in Iraq.
Who was really behind 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, and why?
With regard to the question of who was really behind 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, a number of 9-11 authors provide what they believe to be the real factors driving the contrived war on terrorism. To facilitate this study, I will concentrate on four that represent the major thrust of 9-11 arguments: Griffin, Zwicker, Jones, and Ruppert, and simply refer to them collectively as the 9-11 authors. To varying degrees the 9-11 authors point to efforts led by the US and Britain to capture the oil resources of ‘rogue nations’ such as Iraq in order to gain control of the oil industry. By capturing Iraq, driving oil prices up, corporate interests in the US and Britain stand to make enormous short term profits. As the supply of oil reaches peak production, an idea most strongly championed by Michael Ruppert, this ensures that US/British corporate interests are in the driver’s seat for benefiting in the long term from skyrocketing oil prices as industrializing nations such as India and China generate increasing demand for oil. Control over the vital oil industry would therefore enable US corporate dominance in global financial markets well into the next generation. This would make China and India, potential future competitors to US global dominance, more subservient to US policies.

The 9-11 authors argue that it is not just oil interests seeking to benefit from wars in Iraq, but also the armaments industries in the US which are by far the world’s largest weapons suppliers. Essentially, US corporate contractors need a contrived war on terrorism to continue to sell their military products to the Pentagon which needs to conduct punitive missions against rogue nations. The ultimate rationale for the arms industry is driven by corporate greed to take advantage of security threats to maintain a perpetual war economy that is funded at the expense of the ordinary tax payer. Eisenhower’s famous farewell address warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex is most commonly cited as evidence of such a danger.

In addition to US financial dominance and corporate greed, the 9-11 authors offer their ultimate rationale for the contrived war on terrorism. This is the theory of Pax Americana that what drives US policy is the need to establish US hegemony around the planet. Griffin, Jones, Ruppelt and Zwicker argue that by the Bush administration claiming that ‘rogue states’ are ‘harboring terrorists’, and developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that would be given to the terrorists, the US has the rationale to launch preemptive wars and establish control over nations opposed to US dominance. They cite neo-conservative figures associated with the New American Century Project as exponents of this imperialist agenda to establish US global dominance. Consequently, the war on Iraq was justified using the WMD thesis that Saddam Hussein was allied with terrorist groups that he would have used as proxies to launch such weapons on the US. While US global hegemony would be justified on the need to make the world safe for democracy, the true rationale according to 9-11 authors is to make the world profitable for key US corporations allied with the oil and armaments industries.

The assessments of the 9-11 authors of false flag operations as being rooted in the greed of the oil and armaments industries, and  the imperialist designs of neo-conservatives continues to attract much support from many disenchanted with official explanations for terrorist attacks on the US and Britain; the spinning of the intelligence data used to justify the war on Iraq; and the enormous profits generated by corporations involved in the oil and armaments industries. In particular, Griffin’s, Zwicker’s and Jones’ analysis of false flag operations is helpful in identifying the catalyst for government policies that result in diminished civil liberties and dampen domestic opposition to preemptive wars ostensibly aimed to “protect democracy”, but which provide windfall profits for large US corporations. The 9-11 authors analyses focusing on US imperialism helps identify the enormous influence of neo-conservatives in the Bush administration in dictating official government policy. There is however a missing factor in the analyses of the 9-11 authors focusing on the trifecta of the oil industry, the military-industrial complex, and US imperialism. A factor that provides a deeper level of analysis for what is really driving US policies in the Middle East and elsewhere around the planet. The 9-11 authors are missing the exopolitical factor.

Understanding the Exopolitical Perspective
Exopolitics is based on extensive evidence that extraterrestrial civilizations are visiting the Earth and that this evidence is systematically covered up by both government agencies and military departments in the US and other major nations in what has been described as a “Cosmic Watergate”. The mainstream scientific view that the speed of light presents and insurmountable obstacle to the physical presence of extraterrestrial visitors has been increasingly challenged by new theories concerning faster than light speed travel. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) suggests that our understanding of science periodically undergoes a paradigm shift. Exopolitics represents a paradigm shift in political thinking about the underlying forces driving domestic and international affairs.
Not only is evidence of extraterrestrial visitation in the contemporary era being covered up; but, perhaps more significantly, evidence of an historic extraterrestrial presence that has sponsored past human civilizations is also covered up. This means that both the knowledge and technology of extraterrestrials currently visiting the Earth, and historic evidence of earlier extraterrestrial visitations, have become paramount national security concerns that are kept hidden from the general public. The true extent of the national security implications concerning public disclosure of an extraterrestrial presence is revealed in a Brookings Institute study for NASA in 1960 claiming that public discovery of an extraterrestrial intelligence could lead to the collapse of Western civilization. The impact of an extraterrestrial presence and its implications for politics, science, economy and culture, could very quickly lead to a collapse of vital institutions for every country on the planet thereby threatening the sovereignty of major nations. Furthermore, according to a number of former military whistleblowers, UFOs have disabled or destroyed US nuclear missiles on a number of occasions. This partly reveals the secret concern of policy makers over extraterrestrial visitors. In short, the national security implications of an extraterrestrial presence trumps every other national security issue, and is the Rosetta Stone for understanding the true dynamics underlying global politics and international finance.

Evidence for the cover-up of an extraterrestrial presence is extensive and persuasive. Hundreds of credible whistleblowers have emerged from the military, government and corporate sectors to describe the cover up various aspects of UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The testimonies of many of these government whistleblowers are available through private organizations such as the Disclosure Project. Furthermore, leaked classified documents have disclosed critical features of the national security system created to deal with the extraterrestrial presence. Many of these documents are available through the popular “Majestic Documents” website. Numerous websites, books and organizations have presented the evidence and testimonies of thousands of witnesses, ‘experiencers’, researchers and whistleblowers revealing the extent of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth.

The 9-11 authors fail to identify a number of key exopolitical factors behind false flag operations. These factors have to do with the political management system created for extraterrestrial affairs; the technology and knowledge about extraterrestrials that are located on the territory of different foreign governments; and with the ‘black budget’ needed to finance covert operations based on acquiring extraterrestrial technologies and information. Given the highly classified nature of extraterrestrial affairs, all these activities occur without any congressional or legislative oversight in the US and other major nations such as Britain, Russia and China. I will now examine five exopolitical factors that need to be considered when analyzing false flag operations in general.
Five exopolitical factors and False Flag Operations
The first factor is the existence of a covert web of interlocking governmental and military agencies in the US and around the world created to manage extraterrestrial affairs. Often described as the ‘secret government’, this organization operates in parallel with the more conventional political system comprising elected representatives and appointed government officials. This is similar to Lewis Lapham’s distinction between the “provisional government” and the “permanent government” wherein the former comprises elected officials while the latter comprises special interest groups drawn from corporations, military and educational sector. Individuals in the conventional system of government, Lapham’s “provisional government”, are only briefed on the basis of “need to know” and not due to their rank or position. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that sitting Presidents can be kept out of the loop as occurred in the cases of presidents Carter and Clinton. President Clinton reportedly said to senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon: “Sarah, there’s a secret government within the government, and I have no control over it.” The ‘secret government’ managing extraterrestrial affairs sits at the apex of the unelected “permanent government” and has been described as MJ-12 or PI-40.
Major false flag operations such as 9-11 almost certainly involve the ‘secret government’ using such operations as part of its broader agenda in managing extraterrestrial affairs. It is very unlikely that transitions in the “provisional government”, such as the 2000 election of George Bush and the appointment of neo-conservatives to prominent positions would be capable of producing false flag operations on the order of 9-11. The ascendancy of neo-conservatives to high government positions would not be sufficient to enable false flag operations to proceed due to the potential opposition of many career bureaucrats and government officials. Only a more long term and secretive management system that exists outside of the rotation of elected political officials could hope to rein in career bureaucrats and government officials. Consequently, given the magnitude of the 9-11 attacks, this could only have occurred with the assent of the secret (or permanent) government that used neo-conservatives appointed to senior positions in the Bush administration (the ‘provisional government’) as the instruments for achieving the former’s policy goals. The uncritical support of major governments such as Britain and Australia in subsequent policies adopted by the Bush administration, is due to the ‘secret governments’ of these nations coordinating their policies in a global management system created for extraterrestrial affairs. This involves many quasi governmental organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and the Council of Foreign Relations that supply the resources and leadership for dictating long term secret government policies around the planet.
The second factor to consider for false flag operations is the need by the secret government to maintain exclusive control of all extraterrestrial technology and evidence found around the world. This involves the removal of any physical evidence of extraterrestrial visitation from the public realm, and the relocation of this to the classified scientific laboratories of the US or other major nations. There are numerous instances of extraterrestrial vehicles crashing around the planet. These have been documented and analyzed in a recent book by Ryan Woods, Majic Eyes Only. In all these cases, governments are expected to comply either through inducements or sanctions with these covert efforts led by the secret government which is global in scope. National leaders who do not comply run the great risk of being removed from office.
For example, the 1979 coup that removed the Prime Minister of Granada, Sir Eric Gairy, was a false flag operation designed to prevent Gairy from getting the United Nations to seriously move forward in investigating the UFO issue. Gairy was instrumental in Grenada’s sponsorship of the only United Nations Resolution dealing with UFOs (passed in 1978) and was scheduled to meet with UN Secretary General on 13 March 1979, to discuss further UN initiatives on UFOs based on extraterrestrial material recovered in Grenada. On the same day of his meeting, his government was removed from power in a revolutionary coup led by Maurice Bishop. Gairy’s case suggests that false flag operations resulting in coups led by disgruntled elites may be a result of a policy of forcing out of office non-compliant national leaders to the global system covering up UFO/extraterrestrial information. Such leaders are replaced by more compliant individuals who can be easily discredited or removed in the future.
The third exopolitical factor is the need to gain control of any territory that once hosted ancient civilizations that contain artifacts providing valuable information or technology left by extraterrestrials. These ancient civilizations have buried within their ruins much information and even technology gained through extraterrestrial intervention that allegedly occurred millennia ago. For example, there is much evidence that the ancient Sumerian civilization was sponsored by an extraterrestrial civilization known as the Anunnaki. Sumer, known as the cradle of western civilization, was located in southern Iraq and was subjected to a number of archeological excavations supported by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
There is growing evidence that the 1991 and 2003 US led military interventions in Iraq were aimed at gaining access to some of the ancient archeological sites in Iraq in order to find any information or technology concerning the Anunnaki. The fabrication of intelligence data concerning Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and alliance with terrorist organizations was a false flag operation intended to justify US military intervention in 2003 in order to ensure Iraq’s extraterrestrial assets could not be exploited by Hussein’s regime or fall into the hands of strategic competitors such as Russia and China. Evidence for this fabrication came in the September 2006 Report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that confirms that intelligence data used to justify the Iraq war was ‘overstated’.
The fourth exopolitical factor concerns the use of weather modification technologies that former Secretary of State William Cohen confirmed as existing in 1997. False flag operations using weather modification technologies are used to shift blame onto ‘unpredictable’ environmental factors, when in fact such technologies are being used as an instrument of national policy. Such technologies can be used to create natural disasters or events that coerce nations into complying with the global secrecy system concerning extraterrestrial affairs. This global secrecy system ensures that scientific information, alternative energy technologies and information concerning extraterrestrials is not released into the global media. For example, the December 2004 Asian Tsunami affected a number of nations including the Indian sub-continent. At the time, India had been at the forefront of a growing number of disclosures concerning extraterrestrial visitation.
It is very possible that the Asian Tsunami served as a signal to India that weather modification technologies could be used if India pursued its disclosure policies. Subsequently, the Bush administration signed in July 2005 an extraordinary agreement to help India develop its nuclear industry, and continued to allow US industries to outsource jobs to India. This suggests that a mix of inducements and sanctions using weather modification technologies is used to gain the compliance of rising nations such as India that might otherwise challenge the global secrecy system.
The final exopolitical factor concerns the ‘real’ black budget in the US. Official estimates of the black budget by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) focus on CIA disclosures revealing the true size of the budget funding the activities of all US intelligence agencies. Revealed by the CIA to be 26.7 billion dollars for fiscal year 1997, this money appears in single line items on the annual Pentagon budget, and has been estimated by the FAS to be 30.1 billion for fiscal year 2007. Conventional wisdom is that the ‘black budget’ is funded by the Pentagon which creates dummy projects and exaggerates the costs of actual defense expenditures (e.g., toilet seats), and channels all these funds into ‘deep black’ projects. However, the real size of the black budget is estimated to be closer to one trillion dollars per calendar year which is more than double the whole Pentagon budget of $420 billion for Fiscal Year 2006. This vast sum of money is accumulated by the CIA not for ensuring US corporate profits nor for financial dominance, but to fund a secret network of deep black projects that constitute a second Manhattan Project.
In his book, The Dark Alliance, Gary Webb revealed compelling evidence that the CIA was involved in the drug trade, and that local law enforcement agencies were deliberately undermined in their efforts to capture the major players in the drug trade due to CIA intervention. Evidence for this has been amassed by Michael Ruppert on his From the Wilderness website and book, Crossing the Rubicon. If the CIA is complicit in the funneling of drugs into the US in order to generate an enormous pool of illicit funds, the main purpose of these funds is not to enrich ‘drug barons’ or corrupt politicians, but to fund the second Manhattan Project. Furthermore, profits generated from the armaments, oil and other industries, both legal and illicit, are accumulated by CIA front companies that are also funneled into deep black projects that escape Congressional scrutiny. These highly immoral funding activities are tolerated on the basis of the national security concern of hiding the true extent of the extraterrestrial related projects created in response to an extraterrestrial presence.
Conclusion: Incorporating the Exopolitical Perspective on 9-11 and False Flag Operations
False flag operations can lead to US military intervention in areas that can help maintain the drug trade that the CIA uses to generate funding for black budget projects. False flag operations such as the Tonkin incident and the September 11 attack led to military intervention in areas vital for the drug trade: Indochina and Afghanistan. According to Zworkin and Jones, the Tonkin incident was orchestrated to ensure that the US would enter the war in Vietnam to maintain US global hegemony through military efforts to prevent communist expansion in Indochina, and provide armaments industries with new weapons orders. However, the Vietnam war fulfilled deeper exopolitical purposes for the US, one of which was to help the CIA to profit from lucrative drug running operations. This is something that Ruppert himself identifies but he opposes an exopolitical perspective due to his refusal to consider evidence substantiating UFOs. Similarly, the US intervention into Afghanistan was also motivated, according to Ruppert, by the desire to restore the drug trade that had been threatened by the policies of the fundamentalist Taliban regime that had all but eliminated the heroin production cycle.
The 9-11 authors provide a cogent case that recent terrorist attacks in the US, Britain and other countries have the distinguishing features of false flag operations that have been used in the past by governments to target potential opponents, create contrived threats, and to erode civil liberties. The various books and videos dealing with 9-11 as a false flag operation are powerful warnings of the extent to which governments can go in order to augment their power. In explaining the ultimate goal of these false flag operations, the level of analysis of the most well known 9-11 authors, Jones, Zwicker, Ruppert and Griffin do not go deep enough into revealing the true agenda and beneficiaries.
According to Jones, Zwicker and many others, the ultimate beneficiaries of false flag operations are the corporate barons behind the oil and armaments industries, and the imperialistic designs of US neoconservatives currently dominating the Bush administration. This supposedly provides a persuasive explanation for who is ultimately behind the war on terrorism and why it is being pursued. Rather than corporate greed and imperialistic intentions driving the war on terrorism, there are deeper factors that concern covert policies involving deeply classified projects involving extraterrestrial technologies funded by illicit black budget sources that use front companies in the oil and armaments industries. This is where the explanations for 9-11 offered by Griffin, Jones, Ruppert and Zwicker do not go far enough in identifying the true parameters of the ‘inside job’ that led to 9-11. Corporate greed and neo-conservative imperialism are not the driving force behind the war against terrorism, but the vehicles used to generate funds for a second Manhattan project that trumps all other national security concerns in the US and other major nations.
With the internet and increased communications threatening to undermine the global secrecy system covering up evidence confirming an extraterrestrial presence, the war on terror provides a means of distracting the public, discrediting researchers seeking to expose this evidence. The war on terrorism also provides a useful cover for continuing to generate enormous sums of revenue for a second Manhattan project that escapes government oversight and to increase the power of the secret government in control of the distribution of this revenue. The authors and researchers associated with the thesis that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ have pointed us in the right direction in terms of government complicity. They deserve credit for helping open the eyes of the American public to what really transpired in 9-11 as evidenced in the recent Zogby and Scripps polls.  However, the 9-11 authors do not identify the different exopolitical factors that reveal the deeper agenda behind false flag operations. This is understandable given the way in which advocates of a ‘Cosmic Watergate’ concerning UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation have been ridiculed in the past. Invoking evidence pointing to a “Cosmic Watergate” could easily be perceived by some as a means of jeopardising public consideration of objective studies of 9-11. Even worse, considering exopolitical factors may even lead to accusations of mis-information designed to throw 9-11 researchers off track. However, surveys such as the 2002 Roper Poll show that approximately 70% of the American public believes the government is not telling the truth about UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation. This suggests that there is great benefit in connecting the 9-11 and UFO cover ups to better understand the key actors and institutions involved in false flag operations and possible exopolitical factors. It is only through a systematic understanding of the exopolitical perspective that the true motives underscoring the ‘war on terror’ and the nature of the ‘secret government’ can be fully gauged, and a durable solution found that prevents future false flag operations.

Michael SallaAbout the Author: Michael E. Salla, PhD., is the author of Exopolitics: Political Implications of the Extraterrestrial Presence (Dandelion Books, 2004) and founder of the popular website: Exopolitics.Org. He has held full time academic appointments at the

Australian National University, and American University, Washington DC. He has a PhD in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia. During his professional academic career, he was best known for organizing a series of citizen diplomacy initiatives for the East Timor conflict funded by U.S. Institute of Peace and the Ford Foundation. He is the Founder of the Exopolitics Institute (www.exopoliticsinstitute.org ); Chief Editor of the Exopolitics Journal and Convenor of the “Extraterrestrial Civilizations and World Peace Conference” (www.etworldpeace.com )

Posted in Conspiracy Archives | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off on False Flag Operations, 9-11 and the Exopolitical Perspective

CONGRESSIONAL MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF 9/11 TREASON

Posted by Admin on June 3, 2010

MUST READ…

The SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TREASON INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ACT

Joint Res.  _______ 1__th CONGRESS ____ Session

Joint Res.  _______

SUMMARY OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF TREASON UNDER
ARTICLE III(3) OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
COMMITTED BY
U.S. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
U.S. VICE-PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY
U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD H. RUMSFELD

PURPOSE OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TREASON INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ACT:

To appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the authority of Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TREASON INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ACT:
There is a sufficient legal threshold of evidence to issue an indictment for the crime of Treason against the above-named individuals under the US Constitution, which in Article III(3) provides: “Sect. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on open confession in open court.”

MEMORANDUM

The September 11, 2001 Attacks as Acts of Treason under Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution, in Article 3, Section 3, says that it is treason for a citizen of the USA to engage in “levying war” against the United States. If U.S. citizens consciously participated in planning the attacks of 9/11 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this participation would clearly be treasonous. There is considerable prima facie evidence that named members of the U.S. Executive Branch—U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld—participated in this planning.

This prima facie evidence sustains a  constitutional, Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress to appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the authority of Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.

An investigation of these acts of prima facie Treason was not carried out by the 9/11 Commission. This Commission, directed by an insider, Philip Zelikow, who was directly connected to the named U.S. President George W. Bush of the U.S. Executive Branch, took as its starting point the Bush-Cheney administration’s claim that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by members of al-Qaeda. The Commission examined only facts and allegations that were consistent with this theory.

All evidence pointing to complicity by the named individuals—U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld—along with other John and Jane Does, was ignored or, in a few cases, distorted. The U.S. Congress in its constitutional jurisdiction needs to authorize the appointment of an independent prosecutor to conduct a genuine investigation of this prima facie evidence of Treason under Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution, which is summarized below in terms of six questions.

I.  How Could Hijacked Airliners Have Struck the WTC and the Pentagon?

If the standard operating procedure of the FAA and the US military had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 would have been intercepted before they reached Manhattan, and Flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could have reached the Pentagon. (Such interceptions are routine, being carried out about 100 times a year.) As to why these interceptions did not occur, the public has never been given a plausible explanation. Indeed, we have received three mutually inconsistent stories.

In the first few days, military officials said that no fighter jets were sent up by NORAD until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38, even though signs that Flight 11 had been hijacked were observed at 8:15. That would mean that although interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes, in this case over 80 minutes had elapsed before any fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that a “stand-down” order had been issued.

Within a few days, a second story was put out, according to which NORAD had sent up fighters but, because FAA notification had unaccountably come very late, the fighters did not arrive soon enough to prevent the attacks. Critics showed, however, that even if the FAA’s notifications had come as late as NORAD claimed, there would have been time for interceptions to occur. This second story did not, therefore, remove the suspicion that a stand-down order had been given.

The 9/11 Commission Report gives a third account, according to which, contrary to NORAD’s timeline of September 18, 2001, the FAA did not notify NORAD about Flights 175 and 77 until after they had struck their targets. This third story, besides contradicting the second story and also considerable evidence that the FAA had notified the military in a timely manner, contains many inherent implausibilities. It does not, accordingly, remove grounds for suspicion that a stand-down order had been issued—a suspicion for which there is ear-witness testimony.

II. Why Did the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the WTC Collapse?

The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney has also failed to provide a credible explanation of the total collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. According to the official explanation, the Twin Towers collapsed because of the impact of the airplanes and the heat from the ensuing fires. But this explanation faces several formidable problems.
First, Building 7 also collapsed, and in about the same way. This similarity implies that all three buildings collapsed because of the same causes. But building 7 was not hit by a plane, so its collapse must be explained by fire alone. That would lead to the conclusion that all three buildings collapsed from fire alone.

Second, however, the fires in these three buildings were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting, compared with fires in some steel-frame high-rises that did not induce collapses. In 1991, for example, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, and in 2004, a fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither of these fires resulted in even a partial collapse, let alone a total collapse. By contrast, the World Trade Center’s north and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed. Building 7, moreover, had fires on only a few floors, according to some witnesses and all the photographic evidence.

Third, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never, either before or after 9/11, been brought about by fire alone, or fire combined with structural damage from airplanes. All such collapses have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as “controlled demolition.”

Fourth, the collapses of these three WTC buildings all manifested many standard features of controlled demolition, such as: sudden onset (whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag); straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over); collapse at virtually free-fall speed (indicating that the lower floors were offering little if any resistance); total collapse (indicating that the massive steel columns in the core of each building had been sliced into many pieces—which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions); the production of molten steel; and the occurrence of multiple explosions, as reported by dozens of people—including journalists, police officers, WTC employees, emergency medical workers, and firefighters. The official theory cannot explain one, let alone all, of these features—at least, as physicist Steven Jones has pointed out, without violating several basic laws of physics. But the theory of controlled demolition easily explains them all.

Fifth, although the question of whether explosives were used could have been answered by examining the buildings’ steel columns, virtually all of the steel was immediately sold to scrap dealers, trucked away, and sent to Asia to be melted down. Moreover, although it is usually a federal crime to remove anything from a crime scene, in this case the removal was overseen by government officials.
Sixth, al-Qaeda terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for the enormous number of hours it would have taken to plant the explosives. But the question of how agents of the Bush-Cheney administration could have gotten such access can be answered by pointing out that Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III—the president’s brother and cousin, respectively—were principals of the company in charge of security for the WTC. It is also doubtful that al-Qaeda terrorists would have had the courtesy to ensure that the buildings would come straight down, rather than falling over onto other buildings.

III. Could the Official Account of the Pentagon Possibly Be True?

According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. This account is challenged by many facts.

First, Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes, even though it was then known that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons and even though the US military has the best radar systems in the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace.”

Second, the aircraft, in order to hit the west wing, reportedly executed a 270-degree downward spiral, which according to some experts would have been impossible for a Boeing 757. Hanjour, moreover, was known as “a terrible pilot,” who could not even fly a small airplane.

Third, how could a pilot as poor as Hanjour have found his way back to Washington without guidance from the ground?

Fourth, the Pentagon is surely the best defended building on the planet. It is not only within the P-56-A restricted air space that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, but also within P-56-B, the three-mile ultra-restricted zone above the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. It is only a few miles from Andrews Air Force Base, which, assigned to protect these restricted zones, has at least three squadrons with fighter jets on alert at all times. (The claim by The 9/11 Commission Report that no fighters were on alert the morning of 9/11 is wholly implausible.) Also, the Pentagon is surely protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft without a US military transponder entering the Pentagon’s airspace. (So even if Flight 77 had entered the Pentagon’s airspace, it could have escaped being shot down only if officials in the Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses.)

Fifth, terrorists brilliant enough to get through the US military’s defense system would not have struck the west wing, for many reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a strike anywhere else would have been; it was still being renovated, so relatively few people were there; the secretary of defense and all the top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted to kill, were in the east wing; and hitting the west wing required a difficult maneuver, whereas crashing into the roof would have been easier and deadlier.

Sixth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757. For one thing, unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, the strike on the Pentagon did not create a detectable seismic signal. Also, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not produced by the strike on the Pentagon, according to both photographs and eyewitnesses. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of “a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.” Photographs show that the façade of the west wing remained standing for 30 minutes after the strike and that, during this time, the hole in this façade was only about 16 to 18 feet in diameter. A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of about 125 feet, and a steel engine is mounted on each wing. And yet there was, as Former Air Force Colonel George Nelson has pointed out, no visible damage on either side of this hole. Former pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing both debris and damage on the basis of the photographic evidence, writes: “there is no doubt that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757. . . . There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. . . . There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 ‘crash.’”

Additional evidence that no large airliner hit the west wing is provided by the fact that the fourth-floor office of Isabelle Slifer, which was directly above the strike zone (between the first and second floors), was not damaged by the initial impact.

There is considerable evidence, moreover, that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was instead a US military missile. This evidence consists partly of testimony. Lon Rains, editor of Space News, said: “I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” The upper management official at LAX, quoted earlier as saying that he overheard members of LAX Security receiving word of a stand-down order, says that they later received word that “the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an apparent slip of the tongue, referred in an interview to “the missile [used] to damage this building.”

The missile hypothesis is also supported by physical evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman of Alexandria reports that shortly after the strike her Geiger counter showed the radiation level, about 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon, to be 8-10 times higher than normal. Two days later, Bill Bellinger, the EPA radiation expert for the region, said that the rubble at the crash site was radioactive, adding that he believed the source to be depleted uranium. These findings are what one would expect, says Dr. Leuren Moret—formerly a scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory—if the Pentagon had been struck by a military missile with a depleted uranium warhead.

On the basis of all this evidence, retired Army Major Doug Rokke has said: “When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts [and] the size of the hole left in the building . . . , it looks like the work of a missile.”

A seventh reason to be dubious about the official story is that evidence was destroyed. Shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris from the Pentagon in front of the impact site, put it in a large container, and carried it off. Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, with the result that any remaining forensic evidence was covered up. FBI agents also immediately confiscated the videos from security cameras on two nearby buildings. Although the Department of Justice, responding to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, has acknowledged the FBI’s possession of at least one of these videos, the DoJ has refused to release it.
These seven problems, besides challenging the official account, collectively indicate that the strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own government—an act that would clearly constitute treason.

IV. Why Did the President and His Secret Service Agents Remain at the School?

President George W. Bush reportedly believed, upon hearing that a plane had struck one of the Twin Towers, that it was an accident. It was not terribly strange, therefore, that he decided to go ahead with the photo-op at the school in Sarasota. Word of the second strike, however, should have indicated to him and his Secret Service agents—assuming the truth of official story, according to which these strikes were unexpected—that the country was undergoing an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the Secret Service allowed him to remain at the school for another half hour.

This behavior was very strange. The president’s location had been highly publicized. If the attacks were indeed unexpected, the Secret Service would have had no idea how many planes had been hijacked, and they would have had to assume that the president himself might be one of the targets: What could be more satisfying to foreign terrorists attacking high-value targets in the United States than to kill the president? For all the Secret Service would have known, a hijacked airliner might have been bearing down on the school at that very minute, ready to crash into it, killing the president and everyone else there—including the Secret Service agents themselves. It is, in any case, standard procedure for the Secret Service to rush the president to a safe location whenever there is any sign that he may be in danger. And yet these agents, besides allowing the president to remain in the classroom another 10 minutes, permitted him to speak on television, thereby announcing to the world that he was still at the school.

Would not this behavior be explainable only if Bush and the head of the Secret Service detail knew that the planned attacks did not include an attack on the president? And how could this have been known for certain unless the attacks were being carried out by people within our own government? The 9/11 Commission, far from asking these questions, was content to report that “[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did not think it imperative for [the president] to run out the door.” A serious inquiry into this matter, therefore, remains to be made.

V. Why Did the 9/11 Commission Lie about Vice President Cheney?

One sign of the complicity of Vice President Cheney is the fact that the 9/11 Commission evidently felt a need to lie about the time of two of his activities: his entry into the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House and his giving the order to shoot down any unauthorized airplanes.

It had been widely reported that Cheney had gone down to the PEOC shortly after the second strike on the WTC, hence about 9:15. The most compelling witness was Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who testified to the 9/11 Commission that when he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20, Cheney was already there and fully in charge. The 9/11 Commission Report, however, claimed that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.” Mineta’s testimony, given in an open hearing, was simply omitted from the Commission’s final report. Why would the Commission go to such lengths to conceal the true time of Cheney’s entry into the PEOC?

One possible reason would involve the content of Mineta’s testimony. He said:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President . . . said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

Mineta said that this conversation—evidently meaning the final exchange—occurred at about 9:25 or 9:26.

This testimony creates a problem for the official story. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s spokesman, in explaining why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was struck, claimed that “[t]he Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.” The 9/11 Commission claimed that there was no warning about an unidentified aircraft heading towards Washington until 9:36 and hence only “one or two minutes” before the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. Mineta’s account, however, says that Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft more than 10 minutes earlier. There would have been over 12 minutes for the Pentagon to be evacuated.

Mineta’s account also seems to suggest that Cheney had issued stand-down orders. Mineta himself did not make this allegation, saying instead that he assumed that “the orders” were to have the plane shot down. But besides the fact that that interpretation does not fit what actually happened–the aircraft was not shot down—it would make the story unintelligible: The question whether the orders still stood would not make sense unless they were orders to do something unexpected—not to shoot the aircraft down. By omitting Mineta’s testimony and stating that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, the 9/11 Commission implied that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order to allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon.

The lie about Cheney’s entry into the PEOC was also important to the controversy over whether the US military shot down Flight 93. The 9/11 Commission, simply ignoring a vast amount of evidence that the military did so, supported the official claim that it did not. The Commission provided this support by claiming that Cheney, having not arrived at the PEOC until almost 10:00, did not issue the shoot-down order until after 10:10—which would have been seven or more minutes after Flight 93 had crashed (at 10:03). But in addition to the evidence that Cheney had been in the PEOC since about 9:15, we also have evidence—including statements from Richard Clarke and Colonel Robert Marr, the head of NORAD’s northeast sector (NEADS)—that Cheney’s shoot-down order was issued well before 10:00.

The 9/11 Commission’s obvious lies about Cheney’s activities give reason to suspect that it, under the leadership of Philip Zelikow, was trying to conceal Cheney’s responsibility for the Pentagon strike and the downing of Flight 93.

VI. Did Members of the Bush-Cheney Administration Have Reasons to Desire the Attacks of 9/11?

Besides having the means and opportunity to orchestrate the events of 9/11 and their subsequent cover-up, high officials in the Bush-Cheney administration would also have had motives.

Afghanistan: Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, had said that establishing military bases in Central Asia would be crucial for maintaining “American primacy,” partly because of the huge oil reserves around the Caspian Sea. But American democracy, he added, “is inimical to imperial mobilization.” Brzezinski, explaining that the public had “supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,” suggested that Americans today would support the needed military operations in Central Asia only “in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Support for these operations was generated by 9/11 plus the claim by the Bush-Cheney administration that the attacks had been planned in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden—-a claim for which it refused to provide any proof.

A more specific motivation was provided by the “pipeline war.” The Bush-Cheney administration supported–as had the Clinton-Gore administration until 1999–UNOCAL’s plan to build an oil-and-gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban, being unable to provide sufficient security, had become regarded as an obstacle. In a meeting in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush-Cheney administration, trying to get the Taliban to share power with other factions, reportedly gave them an ultimatum: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” When the Taliban refused, the Americans reportedly said that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”

Given the fact that the attacks on New York and Washington occurred on September 11, the U.S. military had time to get logistically ready to begin the attack on Afghanistan on October 7.

Iraq: Some key members of the Bush-Cheney administration—including Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney himself—had in the late 1990s been active members of an organization, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), that advocated attacking Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, establish a strong military presence, and control the oil. PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, released late in 2000, reiterated the idea of a permanent military presence in the Gulf region, saying that the “unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification” but “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Immediately upon taking office, the Bush administration—two former members have revealed— was intent on attacking Iraq. Then in 2003, after its war in Afghanistan, the administration used 9/11 as a pretext for attacking Iraq, partly by suggesting that Saddam was involved in the attacks, partly by playing on the American people’s sense, created by 9/11, of being vulnerable to a major attack from abroad.

Increased Military Spending: A second possible motive was provided by PNAC’s more general goal of further increasing America’s military superiority to be able to achieve global domination. This goal had already been asserted in the draft of the “Defense Planning Guidance” written in 1992 by Wolfowitz and Libby under the guidance of Cheney, who was completing his tenure as secretary of defense. (In an essay that was entered into the Congressional Record, this draft was portrayed as an early version of Cheney’s “Plan . . . to rule the world.”)

In 2000, Wolfowitz and Libby were listed as participants in the project to produce PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in which this goal showed up again. This document also contained an idea perhaps derived from Brzezinski’s book: After saying that the desired Pax Americana “must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence” and that such preeminence will require a technological transformation of the US military, it adds that this process of transformation will “likely be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event–like a new Pearl Harbor.”

When 9/11 came, it was immediately treated as “the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century,” as President Bush reportedly called it that very night. It was also characterized as, in Bush’s words, “a great opportunity,” with Rumsfeld adding that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” This idea then showed up in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, which brazenly said: “The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new opportunities.”

A central dimension of the desired technological transformation of the military is the weaponization of space, euphemistically called “Missile Defense.” In January of 2001, the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization, which was chaired by Rumsfeld, published its report. Speaking of the need for massive funding for the U.S. Space Command, the Rumsfeld Commission asked whether such funding would occur only after a “Space Pearl Harbor.”

On the evening of 9/11, Rumsfeld held a press conference. In attendance was Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who was asked this question: “Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense. . . . Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending. . . ? Congress immediately appropriated an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and much more later, with few questions asked.

VII. Summation: The 9/11 Attacks as Acts of Treason

The facts recited above constitute prima facie evidence that the named individuals—U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld—and other John and Jane Does are independently and jointly guilty of Treason against these United States under Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution, because:

I. The attacks of 9/11, as portrayed in the official account, could not have succeeded if standard operating procedures between the FAA and NORAD had been followed. The Pentagon, under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, has provided three mutually inconsistent accounts of NORAD’s response, which means that at least two of them are false. Moreover, the third account, articulated by the 9/11 Commission, is contradicted by a wide range of facts, including evidence that the FAA had notified NORAD in a timely fashion. There must have been stand-down orders, and these could have come only from the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House.

II. Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition. But al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the buildings come straight down. The controlled demolition, therefore, had to be the work of insiders. That President Bush was one of those insiders is suggested by the fact that his brother and cousin were principals in the company in charge of WTC security. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by the removal of evidence (the collapsed steel), which is normally a federal offense. Finally, if the airplane strikes could have occurred only with the consent of the president and the secretary of defense (as suggested in the previous point), the coordination of these strikes with the demolition of the buildings implies their involvement in the latter as well.

III. Overwhelming evidence also exists for the conclusion that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job. That the official story could not be true is evident from many facts: Hani Hanjour’s incompetence; the choice of the west wing as the target; the impossibility of a commercial airliner’s coming back to Washington undetected and hitting the Pentagon unless permitted; and the lack of physical evidence consistent with an attack by a Boeing 757. That the strike was an inside job is implied by the falsity of the official story, the evidence that the strike was made by a military aircraft, the removal of evidence, and the government’s refusal to release videos of the strike. This operation could hardly have been planned without the involvement of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

IV. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by President Bush’s remaining at the school after it was evident—given the truth of the official account—that the United States was experiencing a surprise attack. This behavior makes sense only if Bush and his lead Secret Service agent knew that there would be no attack on the school.

V. The complicity of Vice President Cheney in the attack on the Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93 is implied by the testimony of Secretary Mineta in conjunction with the false claims of the 9/11 Commission, under the guidance of administration insider Philip Zelikow, as to when Cheney went to the PEOC and when he issued the shoot-down authorization.

VI. The conclusion from the evidence that members of the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 is reinforced by the fact that they had some huge projects—prosecuting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and obtaining funding to accelerate the technological transformation of the military—that would likely be possible only in the event of “a new Pearl Harbor.”

On the basis of this and other evidence, the conclusion that the Bush-Cheney administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks has been reached by many Americans, including intellectuals and former military officers. It is time for an independent official investigation into this evidence.

CAVEAT LECTOR: This memorandum is based upon the best public research resources presently available. It is presented not as a full treatment of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the appointment of an independent prosecutor.
ATTACHMENTS

My Observation of LAX Security Events on 9/11
By an Upper Management LAX Official

I was employed in upper management at LAX involved with security in the APO (Air Port Operations—where the planes are, not the passengers). I will not otherwise identify myself in this statement, since I, for both personal and professional reasons, need to remain anonymous. But I will give as much detail as possible about security-related events in the APO that I overheard on September 11, 2001, and will also suggest ways in which my account could be corroborated.

“Security” in the APO involves the CHP, LAWA PD, LAPD, and the FBI, herein referred to as “Security” (but the CHP was not in proximity to me during the period my account covers).

My Account

As on other days, there was “chatter” on LAX Security walkie-talkies, so what Security was saying could easily be heard. On some of the walkie-talkies I could overhear both sides of the conversations, on others only one. I do not know who was at the other end of the walkie-talkies, but I can only assume that it was LAX dispatch or command.

While there, I observed and heard the following:

At first, LAX Security was very upset because at that time it seemed to Security that none of the Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs) tracking the hijacked airliners had notified NORAD as required. Security was well aware that LAX was a target and Emergency SOP were already in progress in that there was discussion of evacuating the airport.

More chatter revealed that the ATCs had notified NORAD, but that NORAD had not responded because it had been “ordered to stand down.” This report made Security even more upset, so they tried to find out who had issued that order. A short time later the word came down that the order had come “from the highest level of the White House.” This seemed inappropriate, so Security made attempts for more details and clarification, which was not resolved in my presence.

3 planes were grounded and swapped out in Atlanta, Georgia, simply because they did not pass the routine pre-flight inspection checklist. Those planes were found to be fully loaded with automatic weapons. LAX Security surmised that could only have been accomplished by Maintenance, the Caterers, but, in their view, most likely by “House Keeping.”

LAX Security believed that the terrorists did not board the planes through the passenger terminals, but rather by similar means, i.e. via House Keeping. Other airports were mentioned, but I was unable to get it all down. Therefore, I don’t have an accurate accounting for the status and location of the other planes.

Another piece of information that I overheard was that the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.

There was also a radio station identifying itself as LAX Radio, from which the following was heard:

There were 11 planes and 11 targets. But at the time only 10 of the targets were mentioned: the WTC; the Pentagon; the White House; the Capitol; Camp David; the Sears Tower; the Space Needle; the Trans America Bldg.; LAX; and Air Force One–“if it could be found.”

Two fighter jets had been scrambled and had successfully shot down a hijacked airliner over Pennsylvania. The point of deployment of the fighter jets was also mentioned, but I can’t remember the name of the military base.

Points of origin mentioned included Newark, Atlanta, and other locations, but it was confusing to me in that I couldn’t determine if they were with respect to hijacked planes or fighter jets being scrambled. Unfortunately the names of these airports were not all familiar to me or it would have been easier for me to account for them.

As I was leaving there was an order to evacuate the airport.

In 2001 and 2002 I tried to notify the media of the events at LAX, but they made it clear they were not interested.

Possible Corroboration

I can think of four ways in which my account of what I heard could be corroborated:

1st     LAWA PD, LAPD, and FBI records will reveal the names of the security officers on duty in the APO during the time of the attacks.

2nd    I believe the head of LAX Security in the APO at that time was Captain Gray. He should be able to confirm the fact that my account reflects what happened that morning.

3rd    The audio recordings of radio transmissions at LAX would reveal the comments of all the Security officers and LAX dispatch/command.

4th    The audio recording of the LAX Radio broadcast would reveal what was broadcast on 911.

Note: Items 3 and 4 would reveal if I have inadvertently confused information attained from LAX Security with information received from LAX Radio. (For example, I believe I heard the comment about a rocket hitting the Pentagon during the walkie-talkie conversations, but it is possible that I heard it later on the radio.

FOOTNOTES

See David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton, Mass.: Interlink Books, 2005), 7-12, 282-85.

2 Ibid. For a summary statement of the omissions and distortions discussed in that book, see Griffin, “The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie,” 9/11 Visibility Project, May 22, 2005  (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php).

3 The FAA reported in a news release on August 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald reported on October 13, 2001, that NORAD had scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000. A few days after 9/11, Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, told the Boston Globe that “[NORAD’s] fighters routinely intercept aircraft” (Glen Johnson, “Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt the Attacks,” Boston Globe, Sept. 15, 2001 [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print]).

4 Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 139-48.

5 Ibid., 155-226. A briefer version of the problems is provided in Griffin, “Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales,” 911Truth.org, Dec. 5, 2005 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051205150219651).

6 An upper management official at LAX has reported that he overheard members of LAX Security (including officers from the FBI and LAPD) using their walkie-talkies shortly after the attacks. In some cases, he could hear both sides of the conversation. At first, the LAX officials were told that the FAA’s Air Traffic Controllers had not notified NORAD about the hijackings. Later, however, they were told that NORAD had been notified but did not respond because it had been “ordered to stand down.” When LAX security officials asked who had issued that order, they were told that it had come “from the highest level of the White House” (“My Observation of LAX Security Events on 9/11,” by an Upper Management LAX Official [attached]; although this official wants to remain anonymous, he would willingly take a polygraph test).

7 “High-Rise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” FEMA (http://usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/techreports/tr049.shtm); “Fire Practically Destroys Venezuela’s Tallest Building” (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/venezuela_fire.html).

8 Chief Thomas McCarthy of the FDNY said that while the firefighters “were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down,” there was “fire on three separate floors”  (Oral History of Thomas McCarthy, 10-11). Emergency medical technician Decosta Wright said: “I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out?” (Oral History of Decosta Wright, 11). These quotations are from the 9/11 oral histories recorded by the New York Fire Department at the end of 2001 but released to the public (after a court battle) only in August 2005, at which time they were made available on a New York Times website (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html).

9 A photograph taken by Terry Schmidt can be seen on page 63 of Eric Hufschmid’s Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint Software, 2002) or on Schmidt’s website (http://www.nycwireless.net/Images/wtc2/). According to Schmidt, this photo was taken between 3:09 and 3:16 PM, hence only a little over 2 hours before Building 7 collapsed. It shows that on the north side of the building, fires were visible only on floors 7 and 12. Therefore, if there were more fires on the south side, as some witnesses have claimed, they were not big enough to be seen from the north side.

10 Whereas several witnesses have testified to the existence of molten steel, a few have reported that the ends of some of the steel beams were molten—which would be the case if explosives had been used to slice them. For example, Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the clean-up efforts, said with regard to a beam that he saw lifted from deep below the surface: “It was dripping from the molten steel” (Jennifer Lin, “Recovery Worker Reflects on Months Spent at Ground Zero,” Knight Ridder, May 29, 2002 [http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm]). Another witness—a vice president of his company—reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” (Trudy Walsh, “Handheld APP Eased Recovery Tasks,” Government Computer News, 21/27a, Sept 11, 2002 [http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html]).

11 See David Ray Griffin, “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories,” 911Truth.org, January 18, 2006  (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192). Fire captain Dennis Tardio, for example, said: “I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom” (Dennis Smith, Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center [New York: Penguin, 2002], 18. Another firefighter said: “It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions” (Oral History of Richard Banaciski, 3-4 [see note 8, above]).

12 Stephen E. Jones, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” In David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink, 2006); also available at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html. For videos of the WTC collapses, see “9/11/01 WTC Videos” (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html).

13Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 31-32.

14 For discussions of these six points, see the essay by physicist Stephen E. Jones, mentioned above, and David Ray Griffin, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True,” in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, March, 2006; also available at 911Review.com, December 9, 2005 [http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html]).

15 “PAVE PAWS, Watching North America’s Skies, 24 Hours a Day” (www.pavepaws.org).

16 Russ Wittenberg, who flew large commercial airliners for 35 years after serving in Vietnam as a fighter pilot, says that it would have been impossible for Flight 77 to have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” It would, he adds, have been “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner” (Greg Szymanski, “Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job,” Lewis News, Sunday, January 8, 2006 [http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623]). Hanjour’s incompetence was reported by the New York Times, May 4, 2002, and CBS News, May 10, 2002. The 9/11 Commission Report in one place calls Hanjour “the operation’s most experienced pilot” (530n147). But it elsewhere acknowledges that he was known to be a “terrible pilot” (225-26, 242).

17 Besides the fact that this is what we would expect, this is evidently what Pentagon officials tell their employees. April Gallop, who was working in the Pentagon on 9/11, has reportedly said that during her classified tour when she was first assigned to the Pentagon, she was told that it was the best-defended building in the world (John Judge, “Pentagon and P-56 Preparations and Defenses and the Stand-Down on 9/11,” Ratville Times, Jan. 11, 2006 [www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A.html]).

18 See Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 159-64.

19 Thierry Meyssan, who has referred to these anti-missile batteries (Pentagate [London: Carnot, 2002], 112, 116), has said with regard to his source of information: “The presence of these anti-missile batteries was testified to me by French officers to whom they were shown during an official visit to the Pentagon. This was later confirmed to me by a Saudi officer.”
John Judge, co-founder of 9-11 Citizens Watch, has reported that one day his father—John Joseph Judge, a WWII Army Air Corps veteran who worked at the Pentagon until his death in 1965—showed him the location of an air-to-surface missile.
Judge also reports that in 1998, he was given a tour of the Pentagon by Colonel Robinson, the long-time director of security. While they were outside talking about threats from terrorists, Robinson pointed to the roof and said, “we have cameras and radar up there to make sure they don’t try to run a plane into the building.” Since cameras and radars by themselves would not stop anything, Judge concluded, Robinson’s statement implicitly referred to anti-aircraft missiles (John Judge, “Pentagon and P-56 Preparations and Defenses and the Stand-Down on 9/11,“ Ratville Times, Jan. 11, 2006 [www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A.html]; Judge, incidentally, intends with these accounts to argue that there must have been a stand-down order, not to support the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon).
The Pentagon, to be sure, has denied that it had any anti-aircraft batteries at that time, saying that they had been considered “too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas” (Paul Sperry, “Why the Pentagon Was So Vulnerable,” WorldNetDaily, Sept. 11, 2001 [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24426]). But can anyone believe that Pentagon officials would have let such considerations prevent them from protecting themselves?

20 Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum, “Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack” (http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf).

21 Karen Kwiatkowski, “Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory,” in Griffin and Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. For a more technical discussion of the debris, see “The Missing Wings” (http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm), in which A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh argue that the absence of wing debris alone is sufficient to disprove the claim that a huge airliner hit the Pentagon. With regard to debris inside the building, both Ed Plaugher, the county fire chief, and Lee Evey, the head of the renovation project, reported seeing no big pieces from an airplane (DoD News Briefings, September 12 and 15, 2001).

22 For photographic evidence and discussions thereof, see Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions, Chap. 9, and Dave McGowan, “September 11, 2001 Revisited: The Series: Act II,” Center for an Informed America (www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html).

23 Nelson spoke on The Power Hour, April 27, 2005 (http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press12.htm).

24 Ralph Omholt, “9-11 and the Impossible: Part One of an Online Journal of 9-11” (http://www.physics911.net/omholt.htm).

25 Nikki Lowe, “Pentagon Survivor Donates $500 in Lieu of a Retirement Party: Isabelle Slifer Shares Her Story,” Pentagon Memorial Fund Site (http://www.pentagonmemorial.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5773). By contrast, when the airliners crashed into the Twin Towers, several floors of each building were immediately damaged.

26 “Eyewitness: The Pentagon,” Space.com, June 30, 2005 (http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html). Also relevant is testimony that it appeared to be a small military airplane, because some such planes and some missiles look very much alike. Danielle O’Brien, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles, said on the basis of the radar data: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane” (ABC News, Oct. 24, 2001). Another witness, seeing the aircraft from a 14th floor apartment in Pentagon City, said that it “seemed to be able to hold eight or twelve persons” and “made a shrill noise like a fighter plane” (“Extensive Casualties in Wake of Pentagon Attack,” Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2001). There were, to be sure, many people who reported seeing an airliner, perhaps even one with American Airlines markings, headed towards or even hit the Pentagon. For an assessment of the credibility of these testimonies, which shows that they should not be given more weight than the physical evidence and the contrary testimony, see Dave McGowan, “September 11, 2001 Revisited: Act II: Addendum 2” (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html).

27 Upper Management LAX Official, “My Observation of LAX Security Events on 9/11.” Below.

28 “News Transcript: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine,” US Department of Defense, Oct. 12, 2001 (www.defenselink.mil/news/nov2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html).

29 Greg Szymanski, “Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon after 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used; High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon, Not Commercial Airliner,”,” Arctic Beacon, Aug. 18, 2005 [http://www.arcticbeacon.com/18-Aug-2005.html], and W. Leon Smith and Nathan Diebenow, “DU: A Scientific Perspective: An Interview With Leuren Moret, Geoscientist,” Lone Star Iconoclast, Crawford, Texas, Nov. 20, 2005 [http://lonestaricon.com/2005/News/2005/11-20/19news03.htm]).

30 Szymanski, op. cit.

31 Karen Kwiatkowski, who was working at the Pentagon that morning, reports that “any physical remains of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon were quickly carted away to some unknown location, so we have no physical evidence that the aircraft really was Flight 77 or even a Boeing 757” (“Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory”). Photographic evidence of this removal can be seen on Eric Hufschmid’s video, “Painful Deceptions” (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net).

32 A photograph showing this literal cover-up can be seen in Ralph Omholt, “9-11 and the Impossible: Part One of an Online Journal of 9-11” (http://www.physics911.net/omholt.htm).

33 On the confiscation of the film from the Citgo gas station and a nearby hotel, respectively, see Bill McKelway “Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, Dec. 11, 2001 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html), and Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside the Ring,” Washington Times, Sept. 21, 2001.

34 Scott Bingham, who has tried to get videos of the Pentagon strike released under the Freedom of Information Act, has his lawsuit and the revealing response posted on his website, Welcome to Flight 77.info (http://www.flight77.info). A summary of this response is provided in “Government Responds to Flight 77 FOAI Request,” 911Truth.org, Aug. 2005 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050824131004151). Further evidence of a cover-up is provided by investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who reports that he learned from both a senior Pentagon official and a U.S. Army employee that a strict anti-leak policy was enacted after 9/11, which forbad all employees to discuss the Pentagon strike and the FBI’s confiscation of the security video tapes (Wayne Madsen Report, Jan. 15, 2006 [http://www.waynemadsenreport.com]).

35 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 39.

36 See Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 241-44.

37 The 9/11 Commission Report, 40.

38 “Statement of Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, May 23, 2003” (available at www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2003/commissiontestimony052303.htm).

39 Ibid.

40 “Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates Weaknesses,” Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001.

41 The 9/11 Commission Report, 34.

42  During the Senate Armed Services Committee’s interview with General Richard Myers (who was nominated to become chair of the Joint Chiefs) on September 13, 2001, the chair, Senator Carl Levin, said that “there have been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down.” Myers replied that “the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft” (“Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C., September 13, 2001” [available at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040814220906511]).

43 See Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 238-39. Additional evidence that Flight 93 was shot down came from an apparent slip by Secretary Rumsfeld during his visit to Iraq on Christmas Eve, 2004, when he referred to “the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon” (“Surprise Trip for Donald Rumsfeld,” CNN, Dec. 24, 2004 [http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html]). Evidence of a more explicit nature came from Paul Cellucci, Washington’s envoy to Canada in February of 2005. Seeking to convince Canada to support the missile defense shield, he told his audience in Toronto that a Canadian general was in charge of NORAD on 9/11 when it, under orders from President Bush, scrambled military jets to shoot down a hijacked aircraft headed for Washington (Colin Perkel and Beth Gorham, “Missile Rejection Perplexes U.S.,” Canadian Press, Feb. 23, 2005 [available at http://www.curevents.com/vb/showpost.php?p=51773&postcount=1]).

44 Clarke reports that he received the authorization from Cheney shortly after 9:45, when the evacuation of the White House began (Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror [New York: Free Press, 2004], 7-8). According to James Bamford and an ABC News program called “9/11” (Sept. 11, 2002), Colonel Marr, after receiving Cheney’s shoot-down order, “sent out word to air traffic controllers to instruct fighter pilots to destroy the United jetliner,” saying: “United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C.” (Bamford, A Pretext for War [New York: Doubleday, 2004], 65-66). “These testimonies contradict the 9/11 Commission’s claim that the military did not even know about the hijacking of Flight 93 until it had crashed.”

45 For additional evidence, see Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 237-40.

46 Why exactly the military denied shooting down Flight 93, rather than taking credit for preventing a second attack on Washington, is unclear. But the very fact that the military and the White House have steadfastly denied shooting down Flight 93 suggests that this was a criminal act, which as such needed to be covered up.

47 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 24-25, 35-36, 212.

48 Secretary of State Powell promised a White Paper presenting this proof, but it was never produced. Also, although the Taliban said that it would hand bin Laden over if the United States presented evidence of his involvement in 9/11, Bush replied that there would be no negotiations or even discussion (“White House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat You,’” CNN.com, Sept. 21, 2001). Four weeks after the attacks began, a Taliban spokesman said: “We will negotiate. But . . . [w]e are not a province of the United States, to be issued orders to. We have asked for proof of Osama’s involvement, but they have refused. Why?” (Kathy Gannon, AP, “Taliban Willing To Talk, But Wants U.S. Respect” [http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/focus/terrorism/archives/1001/w01taliban.html]).

49 See Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), Chs. 12 and 13, entitled “Romancing the Taliban: The Battle for Pipelines.”

50Julio Godoy, “U.S. Taliban Policy Influenced by Oil,” Inter Press Service, Nov. 16, 2001.

51 This according to Niaz Naik, the highly respected Pakistani representative at the meeting, as reported in George Arney, “U.S. ‘Planned Attack on Taleban,’” BBC News, Sept. 18, 2001. According to a story in the Guardian, “Threat of U.S. Strikes Passed to Taliban Weeks Before NY Attack” (Sept. 22, 2001), one of the American representatives confirmed that this discussion of military action did occur.

52 See Paul D. Wolfowitz and Zalmay M. Khalilzad, “Saddam Must Go,” Weekly Standard, Dec. 1997; PNAC, “Letter to President Clinton on Iraq,” Jan. 26, 1998  (www.newamericancentury.org); and PNAC, “Letter to Gingrich and Lott,” May 29, 1998 (www.newamericancentury.org). The signers of the latter two letters included Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

53 The Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, September 2000 (www.newamericancentury.org), 14.

54 Paul O’Neill, who was secretary of the treasury and hence a member of the National Security Council, has stated this in Ron Susskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), and in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on January 11, 2004. The main topic within days of the inauguration, O’Neill says, was going after Saddam, with the question being not “Why Saddam?” or “Why Now?” but merely “finding a way to do it.” Susskind, whose book also draws on interviews with other officials, says that in its first weeks the Bush administration was discussing the occupation of Iraq and the question of how to divide up its oil (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml). Richard Clarke, who had been the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, has confirmed O’Neill’s charge, saying: “The administration of the second George Bush did begin with Iraq on its agenda” (Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror [New York: Free Press, 2004], 264).

55 David Armstrong, “Dick Cheney’s Song of America,” Harper’s, October, 2002 (entered into the Congressional Record on October 10, 2002). One long section of the 1992 draft, Armstrong points out, began by acknowledging “definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defense.”

56 Rebuilding America’s Defenses, 50-51.

57 According to the Washington Post, Jan. 27, 2002.

58 Quoted in Bob Woodward, Bush at War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), 32.

59 “Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with the New York Times,” Oct. 12, 2001.

60 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Sept. 2002 (www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html).

61 Report of the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization (www.defenselink.mil/cgi-bin/dlprint.cgi).

62 “Department of Defense News Briefing on Pentagon Attack, 6:42 PM, Sept. 11, 2001” (available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/dod_brief02.htm). The transcript, incidentally, has the question coming from Secretary Rumsfeld. But the flow of the discussion suggests that it came from a reporter. In either case, the 9/11 attacks were interpreted to mean that greater defense spending was needed, “especially for missile defense.”

63 See at least most of the contributors to Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006 [March]); David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006 [fall]); and Kevin Barrett, John B. Cobb, Jr., and Sandra Lubarsky, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006 [fall]). These intellectuals include John B. Cobb, Jr., one of America’s eminent Protestant theologians; Rosemary Ruether, one of America’s leading Catholic theologians; Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University; and Morgan Reynolds, the chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor during part of the first term of George W. Bush.

64 Retired USAF Colonel George Nelson, for example, has written of the “nightmarish probability . . . that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history” (“911: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to Their Identity: The Precautionary Principle,” Rense.com, April 23, 2005 [http://www.rense.com/general64/prec.htm ])

Posted in Conspiracy Archives | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on CONGRESSIONAL MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF 9/11 TREASON