Revolutionizing Awareness

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

Posts Tagged ‘genocide’

Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50? 3/11 was Japan’s 9/11. It’s all documented folks!

Posted by Admin on March 1, 2012

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukushima1.html

Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50?

This is the article that sparked the fight between Makow and Rense. If Rense was honest, why would he avoid this?

This article needs greater exposure and distributed protection. It needs more than the few million reads it has had so far. Post it everywhere – even on your site, I don’t make money from this – the truth just NEEDS TO BE KNOWN. It really is US against the lie machine. Cache the pictures locally also, they MUST be available if I get taken down. If this truth does not get spread we WILL see more disasters just like Japan.

NHK released a bogus report – NHK PULLED IT, PROBABLY IN RESPONSE TO THIS SITE! – On Feb 26 2012, claiming they have the first aerial footage of Fukushima when far better aerial footage has been posted on this site since May of 2011! Furthermore, NHK modified their photos! What are they hiding? Well, what is reported here, of course!

DEAR NHK NEWS IN SENDAI JAPAN: If you really cared about the Japanese people, you would show them THIS picture of reactor 3!

3/11 was Japan’s 9/11. It’s all documented folks!

This report is based on official records and evidence which cannot be silenced. The whole truth could not be definitively dug up with 9-11, but this was NOT the case with Japan’s disaster.

Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist, Updated Tuesday, Feb 28, 2012

This is a massive and technical report. If you have troubles understanding it, just look at THIS classified picture of the vanished reactor, THIS classified picture of the destroyed facility and THIS picture of Magna BSP’s camera. Then scroll down to the photos which prove there was no actual quake damage to Japan and the original Japanese seismic charts which prove there was no 9.0. The linked public records prove that the very real tsunami which destroyed everything in it’s path could not have been natural. The fact that what happened in Japan did not occur naturally has been very well documented by a skilled investigator, who spent hundreds of hours getting to the bottom of this story.

https://i1.wp.com/www.jimstonefreelance.com/reference.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/www.jimstonefreelance.com/camera.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/www.jimstonefreelance.com/containment.jpg

NEW INFO: Japan offered to enrich uranium for IRAN!

HERE ARE THE LINKS: Ynet newsInside Japan News NetworkThe New AmericanRianovosti newsHindustan TimesZee News

AND FOUR MONTHS LATER, THE DIMONA DOZEN SHOWED UP WITH A REALLY FANCY CAMERA!!

This report includes classified photos and the schematics for Fukushima to support it’s claims.

They are,

1. Reactor 3 is completely missing, which means the press and anyone who has claimed anything about pressures, temperatures, containment, ect at reactor 3 after March 14 is lying and people need to pay attention to it, because failure of the public to realize the massive extent of the lies about what is going on there will leave the door open to a repeat event.

2. Reactor 4 is Building 7, demolished by explosives. Reactor 4 had been defueled and was undergoing replacement of it’s internal stainless steel shroud, yet blew it’s containment anyway. That is the FINAL smoking gun, an empty reactor is inert, and cannot produce an explosion, yet one happened at 4 that was so powerful it destroyed the structure leaving it in danger of falling over. Overheated open fuel pools cannot produce hydrogen because in an open fuel pool the water boils off at 100 Celsius, and won’t be present in pressurized form at 2,000 degrees Celsius to liberate it’s hydrogen by losing it’s oxygen to the zircon cladding in the fuel rods. The rods will prefer the free oxygen in the air and burn long before attempting to claim the oxygen in whatever humidity there might be. Fuel rods only contain 20 percent fissionable material, and therefore could not have produced the “prompt criticality” in the fuel pools Arnie Gundersen, “The most qualified nuclear engineer in the world” has spoken of. This report includes a background investigation of Arnie Gundersen which proves he is a fraud who is hiding how big the disaster at Fukushima is. He is making statements which defy the laws of physics, and hide what really happened at Fukushima because if it became widely known serious questions would be asked. When have you heard Gundersen talk about a totally missing reactor? SOMETHING had to cause #3 to vanish. It weighed over a million pounds, where did it go?

Reactor 4’s dome was removed for defueling. Drone photos prove it. This dispels the rumors surrounding unit 4’s explosion. Some people have said that this reactor was secretly in operation to enrich plutonium. This photo proves it was disassembled for shroud replacement as stated. Tepco is going out of it’s way trying to explain the explosions, especially at reactor 4 because they did indeed occur, so an explanation is needed. As a result they are giving reasons that cannot happen just to say something. They need to see this post and get the Arava perspective(Arava is a district surrounding Dimona).

3. That the destruction of the facility is so severe it could only have been accomplished with nuclear weapons. Hydrogen gas produces a non-ideal subsonic explosion. It cannot turn concrete into dust. It can produce high pressures if sealed off, but the metal roof on all the reactor containments should have provided the relief and been the only thing destroyed. It takes a high intensity explosive to strip concrete off rebar, a blast wave many times faster than supersonic. This means that whatever happened at Fukushima did not have blast characteristics that fit the “official” story. If you missed it in the high resolution photo of the destroyed facility, I took a car that was laying around in the remains and placed it on top of one of the blown away walls at reactor 3, which clearly gives the reference that the walls had support columns at least 15 feet thick. Fukushima was built with the Mark 1 containment design, but beyond Mark 1 standards which was a common upgrade(reference is the included photos, it is obvious). It is true that gas explosions can be very destructive, but only in facilities that were not designed to handle them. Even the basic mark 1 containment was many times beyond capable of withstanding the worst hydrogen blast.

4. That nuclear weapon(s) were placed inside of the reactor containment(s) disguised as security cameras installed under contract this year by Arava based security firm Magna BSP (Arava is a district around Dimona, not a city.) Their “security cameras” weighed over 1,000 pounds and were the size and shape of gun type nuclear weapons.The reason Magna BSP gave for the odd shape, enormous weight, and giant proportions of their cameras was that they were stereoscopic. A stereoscopic camera could be plausible at an airstrip, where the camera would need depth perception out miles, but not indoors where focal lengths are short. Depth perception going out miles could also be accomplished with two separately mounted cameras weighing only a few pounds; the giant thousand pounder is a dead giveaway. Why this giant thing, when smaller nukes are possible? Nuclear weapons always produce a certain amount of heat, and if a small design was used it would be obvious the “camera” was warm, even when turned off and sitting on the shelf. This would cause questions to be asked, especially in a nuclear power facility. The enormous size and weight helped conceal the decay heat.

. . . . . . . . . .9/11, 4/11, 3/11? see a pattern? Let’s not see another X/11. Your time and effort in spreading the word may really make a difference.

The quake was not what we were told.

In fact, the quake was a bold faced lie, packing a political agenda. The proof goes beyond the linked Japanese chart. This original seismic data is the smoking gun, however, I have something better. I analyzed the falsified charts put out by the USGS, and from them wrote this sad, sad story about how it had to be according to those charts, not what you will see in the newsroom video I have linked farther down the page which documents what really happened. Keep in mind that precise top speeds of flying debris cannot be determined with complete accuracy, but this story will at least be close to the numbers put out by the USGS.

The people in the newsroom did not die, this story is what would have happened if the USGS charts were true.

Meet Atsuo, Airi, and Akiyoshi. They were all the best and most dedicated people at the NHK newsroom, in Sendai Japan. Akiyoshi loved Airi, and Atsuo was the one who introduced them. Unfortunately, all 3 died in the quake. Akiyoshi got a severe cut and bled to death when he hit a display screen behind him at 44 miles an hour, and was then thrown out through a hole in a collapsed wall. Airi followed pretty much the same path, and died beside him in the rubble. Atsuo flew through the open door behind him, then crashed through a window and was crushed when he landed in a massive seismic crack in the road, which closed in on him. Others in the newsroom died also, but I never thought up names for them. At least, according to the official USGS charts. The laser printer was never found, but the table it was on ended up on top of the rubble, smashed to pieces, where one of the few survivors used a piece of the metal frame to splint his broken leg.

The chart is from station MYG012, which is less than 1/2 mile from the NHK newsroom. THIS PROVES THE USGS LIED. THERE WAS NO 9.0

The USGS charts are phony folks, that’s all there is to it! Scroll down to the video of the quake represented in the above chart, which represents a 9.0 and was reportedly from a seismic station only one half mile away from where the video was shot.

The implications of this run deep. The seismic chart, in conjunction with the following video, proves that the US government is also involved in the lie about the quake at some level. The video proves the USGS falsified records.

Some people keep typing on their computers as the quake happens.

Also, note that most of the stuff stays on the desks, at the end, a laser printer is still sitting on a cheap table, ect. some things fall but things return to normal quickly, all the while the English announcer is reading a script of devastation with all the pep of some paid fool who does not believe what he is saying in a cheezy infomercial. The quake was significant, but only in a 6.0 sense, as recorded by the JAPANESE seismographs, and FAKED to a 9.0 by the USGS. This is important footage, because it proves the earthquake measured at a 6.8 was an instrumentation based richter reading. Confusion between the Shindo and Richter scale is being used to cover this up . I chose this video because it’s location is documented to have been the worst affected, and was recorded in a news room with a known fixed location.

This video gets deleted off youtube occasionally, if it does not work check back later and I might have re-linked it.

Remember that this video is proof of what really went on. This means there never were significant aftershocks, never was a natural tsunami, and if they lied about that, what else? This video is pivotal and vital to exposing the truth. Sure there was a quake, but at this newsroom it was not much over a six if it even was a six. I chose this video because the news room is within eyeshot of station MYG012, which was used by the USGS to make these graphs which represent an 8.8 AT THAT STATION, as was stated in this (English) newscast and was probably used as a guide to fudge the lie due to the closeness of the newsroom to the seismic station. Here is the full chart put out by the USGS Of course, they offer no reading from MYG011, which was closest to the 9.0 “epicenter” by a long shot, because it only got a 5.63’s worth of shaking. I will do that work for them. That map is below.

I challenge ANYONE to send me pictures of this quake showing me devastation in an area not hit by the tsunami.

All we have, all the pictures are tsunami damage. Let’s see pictures of quake damage. The Kobe quake was a 6.9/7.2 depending on source. That makes this quake, at a 9.0 100X as powerful. Sendai was near the epicenter, where station MYG012 was and would have been devastated if it really happened as stated by the USGS. Look at the earthquake photos of damage from the Kobe quake, and try to find ONE THING SIMILAR in SENDAI. Just try. They do not exist. Outside of the tsunami, the quake which supposedly hit Sendai with many times the power of the one in Kobe, did not destroy a single building there. Sendai was only 48 miles from the epicenter of this “9.0” which would have devastated everything in an area 1,000 miles across if it was real. All of Japan would be toast. Try to find a photo of seismic damage in Sendai. I challenge you. Try to find it in any of the coastal cities, as little as 25 miles from the “epicenter”. I looked for 5 hours, and except for some tanks that fell at a brewery not a single one exists. No pictures of collapsed skyscrapers or high rises equals NO 9.0. You will not find a single skyscraper photo where the windows got broken either. You will find no downed power poles, no flipped over cars, no uprooted trees, no derailed trains (except for one the tsunami hit), and the road damage is typical of even a 5.0. You will not find pictures of a single damaged multi story building or even a structurally damaged wood framed house outside the tsunami zone. In Sendai the quake messed up grocery stores and kitchens and that really is about it.

And now, I will say it like I knew it had to be.

I believe the phony 9.0 story was used as seismic cover for a tsunami nuke, which produced the tsunami of a 9.0 when detonated in the Japan trench (where no earthquakes of significance happen) as punishment for Japan offering to enrich uranium for Iran. The rest of the story, the concealment, is black ops. Bet on it. In the tsunami videos, the tsunami rips through pristine and undamaged cities, where business as usual is obvious and the tsunami is an ambush; not 9.0 earthquake ravaged debris. The quake is a paper thin story taped together by the undeserved trust of a gullible public. And the stories? The CIA did not hire a million people last year for nothing. If there is evidence of a 9.0 SHOW ME. A 9.0 will devastate an area over 1,000 miles across.That is how big a 9.0 is. The entire nation should be in ruins, especially judging from the damage the 6.9 Kobe quake did, and no where, no where outside the tsunami zone in the entire country is there a single damaged multi story building, a single collapsed bridge, a single structurally damaged wood framed house, or skyscraper. If a picture exists that can be definitively pinned to this quake, show me. The only collapsed structure in all of Japan was an old welfare shelter near station MYG004, the true epicenter.

Take a look at these frame captures, and ask a question – Why is no one trying to run? Why are the cars all just parked peacefully as the tsunami arrived? Why was there no warning? Why did the tsunami sirens only go off after the tsunami arrived? Could it be that the people and the governement had not felt a significant earthquake and did not measure one either?

Question: Why are none of the roads packed with people trying to flee the approaching tsunami?

Could it be that the people and government were not expecting one? Tsunami sirens blare only when it arrives, rather than 40 minutes before, which is how much warning they would have had if a real quake in the ocean had been detected. Consider that. Parking lots full of cars, everyone at work, no one trying to leave. AMBUSH!!.

When people keep typing at their keyboards during the quake, it’s obviously not what we were told.

When reviewing the seismic data for the supposed 9.0, I knew there were instead 3 small simultaneous inland epicenters. This made me suspicious right from the start that the quake was artificially triggered and used as seismic cover for a tsunami bomb. But I needed a reason to believe an artificial quake could have been done. I suspected that either Japan was testing nukes and Israeli intelligence was onto it and used the tests as the “start of clock” for their operation, or Israel managed to smuggle nukes into lava tubes and tunnels far underground to trigger earthquakes and contain the blasts. So I was hunting for tunnels and lava tubes near each of the three epicenters, and wanted to find them before writing this into this report. As it turns out, I did not need to. This military briefing with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, dated all the way back to 1997! shows that even then, Cohen knew about EM weaponry that could trigger quakes and set off volcanoes. I have ignored everything regarding this subject, I thought it was the realm of kooks. I thought EM weaponry would be effective in weather modification only, but I am not going to argue with the Secretary of Defense. There are obviously then, energy technologies which have never been publicized, such weaponry would need far more energy input than the electrical grid could provide. And the systems Cohen spoke of in 1997 would be outdated now.

Cohen stated: “Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important. – William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, April 28, 1997. Left unsaid by William Cohen is that such systems would be developed by DARPA and owned by America first!

I would expect with 14 years of advancement that these technologies could now trigger devastating earthquakes in non-seismic zones.

The following picture is the strongest reading for this quake on any seismogram anywhere in Japan. This was before the lie machine got running smoothly. Early on there were a few sputters and this REAL chart got out. As you can see on this chart, it was a 6.67 on the Richter scale, (not shindo scale, confirmed by PGA reference) This would fit in with NO structural damage in Sendai and the level of shaking in the video

This quake was initially asessed a 6.8, and the seismic data will show anyone the epicenter was inland, not at sea. So it started a 6.8, then got upgraded to a 7.9, then got upgraded to an 8.4, then got upgraded to an 8.8, then got upgraded to a 9.0, and had the epicenter put out in the ocean. Now many are saying it was a 9.1 which would bump up MYG011’s number to 1200 from 1070, and it is all based on tsunami effects, not seismic data.

The following seismograms clearly show epicenters from 3 separate small quakes all occuring simultaneously. This is what would be expected of an attack, rather than a natural occurence.

One problem with people grasping how big a 9.0 is, is exponential charts which will hide how much energy is really being released behind confusing gradient marking. To answer the need for clarity, I got out the calculator and produced a chart that shows you how big a 9.0 earthquake is on a linear scale. Make sure you expand and scroll it, it is 5,000 pixels tall. Due to its large verticle height it opens on the left side of the screen and is almost invisible until you expand it. Confusion over how GIANT a 9.0 really is has helped the elite scammers enormously in their lie. There is simply no way much of anything will remain standing, yet as the tsunami rolls in . . . . . .

And now, I will bite. This is what I did not want to publish, but I know it has to be true. Call this creative journalism, because I never called Netanyahu, but here is the most rational conclusion I can draw, based on all info gathered so far including the original not faked seismic data.

I honestly believe Japan is being held a nuclear hostage. It all makes sense.

1. Japan offers to enrich uranium for Israel’s GREAT SATAN, Iran

2. Immediately, Israel sets up front companies masquerading as security companies, and one of them succeeds in getting a security contract at a Japanese nuclear facility. 4 months later the Dimona Dozen shows up, and under the cover of a security contract gets unlimited access to the heart of Fukushima. They plant the virus, install real cameras outside the facility, and functional poorly disguised nuke cameras inside the facility. In addition to this, they install an unauthorized data connection to allow control of all the guts of the facility via the virus. (they admitted to this connection, as discussed later on this page)

3. After installing Stuxnet and the nukes they scram

4. Israel waits for one of the many natural quakes in Japan to provide cover for a tsunami bomb, and they already have it at the bottom of the Japan trench. VLF communications are established with the bomb to penetrate the water. David in Dimona gets seismic reading from Japan. 6.67 in progress, BOOM. (new evidence shows the quake most likely was not natural)

Tsunami comes in, swamps stuxnet infected power plant, direct video feed from legitimate cameras security company installed gets to David via totally unauthorized channel, and David knows just when to cut the generators off. Others on the team do all they can to counteract measures taken by the employees at fukushima, who are unaware an attack is taking place and do not understand why everything is going crazy

5. Israeli Prime Minister calls Japan, and says TAKE THAT for offering help to Iran, and ya know, there are FIVE MORE NUKES in the ocean off the coast of Japan, and we are going to set those off and destroy your coastal cities if you do not forget that 6.67, and say it was a 9 to cover for tsunami effects. AND NOW we are going to make your people DEMAND you move away from nuclear power so you can NEVER threaten us like that again. We are BLOWING UP FUKUSHIMA DIIACHI and you are going to go along with whatever story we tell you to. SO THERE!!

6. David and his pals close ALL valves to the reactors via the remote data link they admitted to installing, and put them full throttle, to melt them down while the virus keeps control room readouts displaying false info, like nothing is going on even though the place is coming apart. After enough mayhem ensues to provide plausibility, they set off planted nukes and blow the place sky high.

And even if the quake was real, there are nukes that can reach an 8.4. Close enough. Though I have yet to work out the final details, I probably have enough to hang them because:

1. I got the real seismic data that proves beyond a doubt the quake is not what we were told and was in fact an inland 6.8, (calculated higher than the seismogram due to the triangulated true epicenter being a little higher) which would get noticed but not feared in quake ridden Japan.

2. Numerous referenced sources prove Stuxnet really was written by Israel

3. Japan really did offer to enrich Uranium for Iran, and Israel has been documented to have attempted to destroy the reactor in Iran, and probably did. Japan contributing to Iran’s nuclear future would make them just as much an enemy to Israel as Iran. Israel would want them taken out.

4. It is documented that a team from Israel, with a history consisting only of working in Israeli defense, got unlimited access to a Japanese nuclear facility, which then went boom

5. Reactor 4 had been defueled and proven disassembled, and therefore no explosion there was possible. What should have happened at reactor 4, if anything at all? the fuel pools should have melted down and caught fire once the water boiled off from lack of recirculation AT Worst, and badly contaminated the containment structure, NOTHING ELSE. NO explosions, NOTHING ELSE. Reactor 4 is building 7, PERIOD. Why did an explosion there happen that was so severe it blew the outer containment walls (4 feet thick) and inner containment walls that were much thicker? Reactor 4 is reportedly now in danger of falling over. HOW?

6. The Japanese government is going along with the story of a scientifically proven false 9.0. There is a reason, and my guess is that Israel has made threats to wipe out Japanese coastal cities with additional tsunamis if the government of Japan speaks a word of what went on, there should be no reason for Japan to go along with this other than a continued threat.

Is it not interesting this “quake” reportedly happened at the bottom of the Japan trench, which would be perfect for hiding an atomic bomb blast?

Is the Department of Homeland Security trying to keep American industries (and nuclear facilities) in the dark about Stuxnet? After Fukushima fell victim to unwary operators, I would think such a conference would be a TOP priority here! The genie is out of the bottle. It is a fact that the writers of Stuxnet intend to use it. So cancelling a well researched conference about the vulnerabilities of the Siemens SCADA system to Stuxnet in the name of “keeping hackers from getting info” seems to me like an effort to keep the threat alive. Ignore the fluff at the beginning, and read the “About TakeDownCon” summary near the bottom so you know what they actually cancelled rather than settle for the no-panic fluff at the beginning. This is SERIOUS. I fear that by the time the Hacker Halted conference happens in October, the summer of disaster may have passed. And if it has not, I bet any discussion of Stuxnet at Hacker Halted will also be cancelled. Stuxnet is too good a toy for a very powerful group to let go of. Something is fishy here.

Other publications picked up this story now, and are poo pooing the issue into the ground. They are obviously attempting to morph responsibility for Stuxnet style attacks away from Israel so that they can regain cover and use the weapon as a false flag tool to destroy internet freedom. This is where they are going to go with this – count on it, and when the disasters happen there will be a cozy blanket of lies shielding Israel from all blame. Never forget, THIS IS THEIR BABY, NEVER FORGET. Prior to them doing this, WE NEVER HEARD OF IT.

About “prompt criticality” – As it turns out, Arnie Gundersen, mister “prompt criticality” with regard to the massive explosion at #3 is very poorly credentialed. His crowning achievement was playing with a 100 watt open water tank reactor in a classroom for a short period of time.

Fuel rods are only 20 percent fissionable, sometimes even less, and until you reach over 90 percent purity in U238 and about 70 percent purity in Plutonium NO “prompt criticality” is possible in ANY case no matter how much of it you have laying around. Furthermore, even with 100 percent pure material you need a precision trigger slamming or crushing material together to get a detonation. Even if 100 percent pure material is slammed together at high speed, if it is not done right you will get only a nuclear “sputter” that pushes the pieces apart, and no detonation. Nukes are hard to do! Why have so many of us seemed to have forgotten that nuclear detonations are hard to accomplish? The “prompt criticality” in spent fuel story is something I would have expected to hear from an Ewok praying to a gold robot. I can’t believe even a scammer would have the guts to suggest it, let alone allow it to be spread around in his name. For an explanation for the explosions, just look at the cameras the Dimona Dozen brought in. If someone is waving a degree as an anchor for this “prompt criticality” bull hockey, remember that there is such a thing as a paper trained idiot and if you look into Gundersen’s background you will discover he is barely that, with his ONLY hands on experience outside a classroom being an intern at a nuclear facility two years before he got his degree!

If the mainstream media wanted the facts, why did they pick this guy? Because he said what they wanted, truth be damned.

“We at Vermont Yankee are well acquainted with Arnie and his exaggerations. He plays to a public and a legislature that has zero knowledge of nuclear power or engineering and is willing to accept any negative claim as truth.” And since he gave an impossible “prompt criticality” explanation which diverted attention away from the only real explanation for the magnitude of the explosion at #3 – a nuke, they gave him a ton of air. Enough said.

Arnie Gundersen’s consulting firm, which has only him (no employees yet or ever, and therefore it’s easy to be “senior engineer”) was curiously founded within months of the release of the spider man villain Critical Mass, who, as Spider man’s fourth grade classmate went by the name of ARNIE GUNDERSEN. Critical Mass had the ability to project explosions from his fingertips. Hmm, perhaps THAT gave birth to the “prompt criticality” in a 20% fuel pool when 90+ percent is needed for an explosion of any sort no matter what the circumstance? If you need 90 or more percent and you have only 20 percent, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS WILL BE OBEYED. Folks, In perfect form, the scamming media hunted out a fraud and rammed him down your throats. Arnie Gundersen has a phony company and was inspired in his fraud by a Spider Man comic. NO ONE at the college Arnie supposedly attended even heard of him, I went down that rabbit hole and the man is a mystery.

This post has been greatly improved via input from readers. If you have information proving any points wrong, or think something should be clarified, as well as new info that can further solidify the case, contact me. Thanks!

If you read this far, I invite you to take part in the Truth Project

The article about Fukushima follows.

_______________________________________

Fukushima was impossible. The swamping of the external generators by the tsunami was irrelevant, because the real emergency backup systems are driven by steam from the reactors themselves. No electricity is needed to operate three separate emergency systems at each reactor, each of which will keep a reactor safe even if only one works. Interesting it is then that all 9 non electrical backup systems across the three fueled reactors failed. This is technically impossible outside of willful intent, and was likely the result of a Stuxnet attack.

Stuxnet was designed specifically to target Siemens SCADA controllers and is most effective at tampering with fluid control systems. The centrifuges it attacked in Iran were ideal. So are the fluid control systems at a nuclear facility. Oil refineries are equally at risk, Stuxnet is most dangerous when affecting a system which needs to control the flow of any liquid, be it hydraulic, for cooling, or combining chemicals. Stuxnet is documented to have been produced by the Israeli Defense Forces, for the purpose of destroying any industrial system that can be destroyed by improper fluid flow.

Magna BSP, a Dimona based company with no history outside of IDF contracts prior to Fukushima has a suspiciously short domain history despite a 10 year claimed history. Magna BSP had a full time internet linked two way connection to the Fukushima reactor room(s) all the way through the disaster. They told TEPCO about that connection on March 15 (after everything blew sky high) via an article printed in the Jerusalem Post. Why did Manga BSP wait until everything was blown sky high to tell Tepco the data link existed, and then did not tell them face to face? I find it hard to believe that TEPCO would not have been interested in viewing a reactor that was about to explode. It seems impossible that Tepco would not have wanted to view the reactor, and probably did not ask because the link was kept a secret. It is a simple fact that internet connections are never allowed inside a reactor’s containment. The connection was mentioned in the Jerusalem Post AFTER the destruction was finalized.

Stuxnet has two modes, random and administrative. It can be administered to optimize the damage and can also transmit setup information and industrial system information to a remote computer. Once installed on the host system via a flash drive it causes that system to violate it’s normal security protocols and internet administration becomes possible if a connection exists. Tampering is not visible on the control room readouts, because Stuxnet learns what “normal” looks like and keeps the temperature, pressure, and other readouts within normal limits so that the operators are oblivious to the destruction happening in secret. Stuxnet appeared in Japan in June of 2010, shortly after Magna BSP arrived. Remote administration mode can be adjusted on demand to suit any need. No doubt the people at Fukushima sat there in idle mode thinking all was well until something screamed or went boom and at that point it would be too late to do anything other than cry.

I am a lifer in the types of control systems Fukushima and it’s clone, TVA owned Browns Ferry have. BOTH have been upgraded to modern Siemens controllers running the Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system Stuxnet was designed to attack; upgrades are the norm in any major facility. On many blogs people say the controls were old and therefore Stuxnet immune; they are out of touch or have no knowledge of industrial control systems. I actually ferreted it out.

And now I will explain in detail why the problems before the explosions had to be sabotage

The diesel generators were not out in the open as we were led to believe, they were in fact located in the basements of the turbine buildings which were sealed off and never significantly flooded. One of them stayed running the entire time, but the electrical switch gear attached to it disconnected it for an unexplained reason which made it useless. Each of the backup generators at Fukushima were capable of running 14,000 households each, which means they had to be over ten megawatts each. It is obvious then that Fukushima was set up to survive on only ONE of 13 backup generators, and ONE did keep running. One would be many times larger than needed to run last ditch backup systems at all reactors, but would not keep business as usual. But that is not the real story, which is that even others which were high and dry stopped as well.

I hypothesize that the ONE generator that kept running was kept as a lone reserve, never hooked up to a SCADA controller. Why did the switch gear disconnect a working generator? That is the type of thing Stuxnet was designed to do. On top of these things, emergency generators arrived on scene within 9 hours, before anything bad happened at all but were not able to provide power because the switch gear would not let them. This deceptively written report from the World Nuclear Association contains all this information, but it is presented in a way which will cause you to overlook these things if you are not careful while reading it. This report contains accurate information presented in a very misleading way, which will protect the liars who wrote it – they actually did speak the truth here but in a way it would be missed by virtually anyone. Study the facts presented here with the full ramifications of those facts in mind, not their shallow misleading conclusions.

From this report you can get:

1. The generators never got submerged – you have to connect the dot between them being in a contained area and the tsunami thereby not being able to get to them. Some water got into one of the the turbine buildings where several were located and flooded the lowest point in that building to a depth of 4 feet, which means that even if the generators were on the floor at the lowest point they likely would not have been swamped because they are too big – the water would not get past the footings. Perhaps a one megawatt generator would have swamped; certainly not one of the big diesels, which were, according to this report enough to run 14,000 homes each. In addition to this, there were several generators in a second location that never got flooded at all. One of these generators kept running but was not able to get power into the facility because the switchgear prevented it.

2. You have to have watched the robot videos, which clearly show the switch gear that malfunctioned after the tsunami never got wet – there was a non tsunami reason for the failure. Also look at the high resolution photos referenced below. There is no switch gear for the diesel generators outside the facility, it is all indoors in areas higher than the water got. Remember that there was no emergency when the off site generators arrived, which means that they could work efficiently to get things up and running. With my experience in this area, Assuming it DID get soaked, a complete replacement of high capacity switch gear should only take an afternoon if done with an emergency attitude. A truck mounted crane or a forklift does all the heavy lifting and the stuff is modular. In every major facility there are spares galore. It is not that hard to make the terminations. A worst case scenario could have been addressed before things went horribly awry, that is, unless a virus did not let the new switch gear activate either. It would take days to conclude a virus was messing things up. You would not expect that. I am sure there is a LOT we never heard about.

3. That batteries held, leaving only a one hour gap in time where there was no power present to run things before adequate off site power drove into the facility on the road all nice and ready to hook up, but was denied to by switch gear which this report says was swamped but that is likely an assumption because swamped switchgear could have been replaced even before the batteries died. The fact that the offsite generators were able to be driven into the facility also proves that other lies told about the earthquake in general – employees leaving only to find cracks in the road so bad they had to walk home; Why? Why lie like this? AT LEAST this report has some modicum of honesty.

4. You have to look at the chart that shows the thermal output of the reactors 8 hours after the earthquake, which is when the batteries running the electrical cooling pumps died, the output at that time was less than 20 megawatts from each reactor, which means that they would not have had troubles before the off site generators were hooked up to restore power if it was not denied by what I suspect was stuxnet infected switch gear. The real critical time is in the first 3 hours after shutdown.

5. Reactor 3 exploded entirely, yet this reactor had the most functional backup systems. At least this report says the explosion remains “unexplained”. Perhaps those who wrote the report should take a look at this for an answer.

6. The reactors are stated to be an “early 1960’s design” apparently to mislead people into believing they were outdated even when installed. This was not the case. Their design was an early 60’s concept but in fact a late 60’s design, and since installation takes years, what more could you expect in the early 70’s? The reactors were in fact a very safe design. This report at least states that the facility was very well updated. Identical reactors at TVA owned browns ferry have been certified safe and licensed to operate through the year 2035. These reactors were also converted over to run the Siemens Scada system. The reactors at Fukushima were not garbage. The fastest cars in production still function on a late 1800’s concept.

I hypothesize that the situation at Fukushima is not being properly assessed by facility controllers because STUXNET is STILL giving false readings to the control panels, readings which obviously have to be false because they show containment pressure when confidental leaked photographs prove beyond a doubt no containment exists AT ALL at reactor 3. There is not even a reactor there.

This report is perfectly inaccurate with regard to reactor 3 containment. Perhaps the people who wrote this report have not actually looked at the facility or seen the confidential photographs.

This report supports what I have said here entirely. It was written by an experienced reactor operator. I found this on May 10. I was absolutely right!

Each reactor has 8 separate emergency backup systems, each capable of saving the reactor on it’s own. Three are designed to function perfectly if all power is lost and even the generators fail. Fukushima did not need any electrical systems operating AT ALL to keep itself from blowing up, when power is lost steam from the reactors is automatically diverted from the generator turbines to two totally separate steam turbines connected to totally separate water pumps needing only reactor steam to power them. Even that backup system has dual redundancy, only one of the two is needed for the job. But the valves which have to activate to re-divert the steam, all 6 valves on a total of 3 fueled reactors, eventually failed to. At reactors 1 and 3 these systems worked, but switched off at reactor 1 within an hour and off at reactor 3 after running for more than two days. No one has been able to explain why these systems switched off all by themselves, when they need a powered command to switch off. At reactor 2 they were never allowed to activate. This can only happen if the control system tells them to shut off or stay off, absent intervention from the controller they automatically and seamlessly switch cooling modes to passive rather than electrical.

Some readers may remember that the real issue at Fukushima was malfunctioning valves, and the need to get someone past the radiation to open them. These are the valves that were spoken of. Because Stuxnet kept the readouts normal, no one knew this system did not function until major problems happened as a result flooding the area where the valves are with radiation. This prevented last ditch efforts (running and cutting the wires). One automatic valve jamming and mechanically failing would be a surprise,6 failing can only be sabotage.

In addition to this, another completely independent separately piped backup with an entirely different electronic decision tree which injects borated water at a pre charged 3,500 PSI into the reactor to irrevocably shut down all chain reactions (reactor rebuild required) also simultaneously failed at all 3 fueled reactors. The borated water systems have explosive operated valves so reliable that even one out of 3 failing would be a ten thousand to one possiblity, if that. The reliability of the borated water systems is technically theoretically assured. All three failing at the same time at Fukushima can only mean sabotage.

High pressure in all of the reactors proves the quake did not damage any of the infrastructure at fukushima because any leaks would have let the pressure go. In addition to this, the seismic readings at Fukushima were 6.07 Fukushima was designed to handle being at the epicenter of an 8.

The media keeps harping about how all the water went away. It only did because these three backup systems were prevented from cooling the reactor which caused the water to boil off and never be replaced. High pressures were talked about constantly in the press; This means beyond a doubt that all 6 steam powered backup systems were intact, and all 3 borated water systems were intact also because if they were not the pressure would have escaped through them. Absent emergency backup control power keeping the virus alive; (control power Magna BSP admitted was there the whole time by mistake when they said their cameras and supporting computers captured the explosions and maintained a data link) the valves which control these systems would have opened when the generators failed and there would have been no disaster. 3 worst case scenarios where all 9 automatic valves across 9 separate emergency backup systems are held shut by the controller when no power should have been present to prevent them from activating can only mean sabotage.

A historical perspective of Fukushima shows the hydrogen blasts were bogus.

Hydrogen blasts could not have damaged Fukushima so badly, this is a media fed lie. If hydrogen gas alone mixed with air could produce blasts strong enough to blow reactor containment buildings to pieces, which are among the strongest structures on earth (exceeded in strength only by ones like Hoover Dam,) then hydrogen gas filled bombs would be the prime military option. In reality, the Three Mile Island incident proved hydrogen ignition in open air after reactor meltdown is likely to only scare employees, while causing no damage at all to the facility, as was the case there. It is extremely important to know the differences between the boiling water reactor design and the design of Chernobyl. At Chernobyl, a hydrogen blast DID cause destruction of the facility, but it was because the reactor design caused hydrogen and oxygen at a perfect ratio to ignite at thousands of PSI inside the reactor pressure vessel. That’s a big difference from hydrogen alone igniting in relatively oxygen starved open air at one atmosphere (14.5 PSI). The difference would be similar to the difference between a small firecracker and a case of dynamite; there were many orders of magnitude lower blast potential at Fukushima.

Just to be absolutely safe after the Three Mile Island incident, many nuclear facilities installed hydrogen hard vent stacks hooked directly up to the relief valves on their reactors, and Fukushima was one of them. This was to prevent a hydrogen buildup in the containment building in the event of a core meltdown, which caused a minor explosion at Three Mile Island. These stacks are the tall white towers you see in the photographs of Fukushima, and they are effective in getting rid of hydrogen buildup, are directly piped, and vent completely outside. “Hard piped” means that the electrical failures would have had nothing to do with the blasts, because a hard vent is exactly that – no fan needed at all because the system is sealed. Even if the hard piping at all 3 fueled Fukushima reactors failed entirely, it should not have been any worse than Three Mile Island which did not have any hard venting to begin with. While hydrogen venting might be a problem if it ignited, it would not mean the death of a facility. It makes no sense that at Fukushima we got a nuclear weapon style mushroom cloud far in excess of the highest yield conventional bomb.

Below are the classified photos

What then, caused the explosions? The containment walls were at their thinnest points in the lowest allowed General Electric design a minimum of 4 foot thick steel reinforced concrete, were likely to be a minimum of 8 feet thick, and were totally blown away. All concrete was stripped from the rebar, which was left dangling. Reactor 3 vanished entirely,as seen in the classified photo used to compare the destruction to the diagram and reactor 4 appears to have been blown to pieces as seen in this classified photo The yellow dome which should be sitting on top of reactor 4 can be clearly seen on the wrong side of the containment building. This type of destruction is is indicative of hard weaponry in use; a hydrogen air mix will not do that. Reactors are not made out of tinfoil. On top of this, there was no potential for an explosion at reactor 4 at all, it had been defueled. SO WHAT, PRAY TELL, BLEW IT APART? That’s the dirty question no one is asking – how did that happen?

To give you an idea of how big the reactors at Fukushima were, look at this. It’s the top of the same make and model at Fukushima’s American twin, TVA owned Brown’s Ferry, and it is only the top. The yellow dome sits above this, and is even bigger. (here the yellow dome has been removed for refueling). over 150 feet of reactor sits below that cap. Hydrogen will not vaporize that, which appears to be what happened to #3, only a nuclear weapon would. Reactors are about 14 digits beyond incapable of going supercritical even with a complete core meltdown. The reactors did not explode, something placed in their vicinity did.

Magna BSP had access to the reactors at this facility. They were based in Dimona, which is a military base that manufactures nuclear weapons. Stuxnet was made in their yard. They are stated to be a military company.

There is extremely strong evidence that Dimona based Magna BSP placed nuclear weapons at the exploded or vanished reactors at Fukushima, possibly hidden inside one of their unbelievably GIANT stereoscopic cameras. These cameras were installed inside the reactor containment of Fukushima reactor 3 under the cover of a security contract in the year prior to the disaster. These cameras are identical in size and appearance to a gun type nuclear weapon. Since previous hydrogen explosions at boiling water reactors have never caused any sort of damage to equipment or buildings, even during complete meltdowns, it begs the question how on earth one at reactor 3 produced a mushroom cloud. Three Mile Island sits in the evidence pool against what we have been told about Fukushima. History does matter.

One problem with the reporting in the mainstream media is that it failed to convey just how massive and strong the containment structures really were, as seen in this classified photo. A hydrogen explosion would only blow the sheet metal off the steel framed roof if it even did that, at Three Mile Island the hydrogen ignition did nothing at all. It just scared employees. Another thing the reporting failed to convey is the gravity of the disaster. Compare the containment diagram to the remains of reactor 3. It is painfully obvious that many tons of highly radioactive plutonium in the containment pools is nowhere to be found, the entire floor they were on is completly gone. We are getting lied to.

That was a LOT more than a hydrogen blast, and as a result there are thousands of pounds of plutonium scattered everywhere. TEPCO was ridiculed for initially stating that the radiation from the facility was “immeasurable”. I think they at first told the truth. Now they have this story about the Fukushima 50. Is it in fact a “wag the dog”? No one could be there and live. Why is remote controlled heavy equipment doing the cleanup? The official story is hydrogen blasts, not nukes, so the story line has to at least be within the far outer limits of what a hydrogen blast could actually accomplish; not missing reactors and entire fuel pools blown away.

I suggest you ponder the pictures and materials presented and reach your own conclusion. A government issued training manual for the reactors at Fukushima is here

Now that Osama, who has been dead for 10 years is officially dead, Al Quaida is going to use a nuke, so they say; I strongly urge you to consider this article if a nuke actually does go off somewhere or if other nuclear facilities start acting like Fukushima.

The only reason I believe the management at Fukushima is not telling it like it really was is because victim status has been so well asserted by the ethnic group in question that it is career suicide to point the finger at them, even when they try to kill you. I find it interesting that all 12 Non Japanese employees of Magna BSP returned to Israel a week before the tsunami . . . . .

I might have understood the need for Stuxnet if it’s use would have ended with Iran. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. I do hope this article breaks their toy.

For those of you who are reluctant to re-post this because the wording is too strong, I ask you to consider this;

The real answer came out of Fukushima. We have a member of the international community which has already done horrendous damage to a very advanced and (presently) innocent civilization and we simply cannot continue to tolerate it. Consider what ignoring this will cost you. Are you prepared to have a major disaster at the convenience of the couch; because you sat there watching TV rather than dragging your butt over to the computer to at least spread the word? Are your video games, ball games, 4×4 and porno really worth continuing to lose everything for? Is your religion going to keep you silent as well? We really need a serious wake up call. Please let this post be it, rather than some other unforseen disaster.

Thank you to the many readers who pointed out flaws, gave tips, and suggested clarifications, you studied this indeed! My thanks also goes out to the radio hosts who have had me on the air and invited me to appear to discuss this subject. BTW, this article was written via code entry, without spell check. Consider that.

These references included as e-mail compatible links.

www.threemileisland.org/science/what_went_wrong/index.html
www.defense-update.com/products/m/magna.htm
www.jimstonefreelance.com/turbine.jpg
www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8326274/Israeli-security-chief-celebrates-Stuxnet-cyber-attack.html
www.english.pravda.ru/history/22-02-2011/116985-Israeli_general_boasts_authoring_Stuxnet-0/
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8326387/Israel-video-shows-Stuxnet-as-one-of-its-successes.html
www.reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=magnabsp.com&type=domain
www.magnabsp.com
www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=212168
www.infosecisland.com/blogview/12628-Japans-Nuclear-Crisis-Stuxnet-and-SCADA-Defenses.html
www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T101004003493.htm
www.jimstonefreelance.com/door.jpg
www.jimstonefreelance.com/borated.jpg
www.news.discovery.com/earth/2011/03/12/fukushima-zoom.jpg
www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/25/25climatewire-us-experts-blame-fukushima-1-explosions-and-19903.html?amp=&pagewanted=all
www.jimstonefreelance.com/reference.jpg
www.jimstonefreelance.com/containment.jpg
www.jimstonefreelance.com/reactorlid.jpg
www.pcworld.com/article/224811/fukushima_daiichi_workers_clear_debris_by_remote_control.html
www.jimstonefreelance.com/03.pdf
www.jimstonefreelance.com/core.jpg
www.jimstonefreelance.com/camera.jpg
www.rense.com/general93/hid.htm
www.pinktentacle.com/2011/04/high-resolution-photos-of-fukushima-daiichi/ (source of high resolution photos)

Jim Stone visits anti-Iran war protest in DC

“Joe” did not Stack up.

NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL

Nasa noticed Haarp anomalies in Hurricane Katrina

Face it, the Election was STOLEN

Jim Stone visits Occupy Los Angeles

Power Grid Tampering to End an Era

An open letter to the Israeli Mossad

BUSTED!!

Fukushima SABOTAGE!

Mails from Japan, the true perspective

WHY THE SILENCE IN NEBRASKA?

Special update for Japanese readers

Tainted Nightmare

Truth Project

Upcoming Articles

Is Intel’s Sandy Bridge on a road to nowhere?

Antidepressant Nightmare

Mut

Advertisements

Posted in Conspiracy Archives, Earth Changes, Economic Upheavals, Exopolitical Interventions, Geo-Politics, Rated R, Truthout Articles, War Quotient | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50? 3/11 was Japan’s 9/11. It’s all documented folks!

Fresh NATO raids target Libyan capital

Posted by Admin on May 28, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110528/ts_afp/libyaconflict_20110528083220

Fresh NATO raids target Libyan capital
 Smoke billows behind the trees following an air raid on the area of Tajura, east of Tripoli on May 24
by Imed Lamloum 51 mins ago

TRIPOLI (AFP) – Fresh NATO-led air strikes on Saturday targeted the district of Tripoli where Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi has his residence, after G8 world powers intensified the pressure on the strongman to step down.

For the fourth successive night, powerful blasts rocked Bab Al-Aziziya near the city centre, an AFP correspondent said as Libyan state media reported air raids on the Al-Qariet region south of the capital.

The strikes came after US President Barack Obama told a summit of G8 world powers that the United States and France were committed to finishing the job in Libya, as Russia finally joined explicit calls for Kadhafi to go.

Russia’s dramatic shift — and an offer to mediate — came as British Prime Minister David Cameron said the NATO mission against Kadhafi was entering a new phase with the deployment of helicopter gunships to the conflict.

“We are joined in our resolve to finish the job,” Obama said after talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the G8 summit of industrialised democracies in the French resort of Deauville.

But the US leader warned the “UN mandate of civilian protection cannot be accomplished when Kadhafi remains in Libya directing his forces in acts of aggression against the Libyan people.”

G8 leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US called in their final statement for Kadhafi to step down after more than 40 years, in the face of pro-democracy protests turned full-fledged armed revolt.

“Kadhafi and the Libyan government have failed to fulfil their responsibility to protect the Libyan population and have lost all legitimacy. He has no future in a free, democratic Libya. He must go,” it said.

But the Libyan regime rejected the call and said any initiative to resolve the crisis would have to go through the African Union.

“The G8 is an economic summit. We are not concerned by its decisions,” said Libya’s deputy foreign minister, Khaled Kaaim.

Tripoli also rejected Russian mediation and will “not accept any mediation which marginalises the peace plan of the African Union,” he said. “We are an African country. Any initiative outside the AU framework will be rejected.”

Kaaim said it had no confirmation of a change in Moscow’s position after President Dmitry Medvedev toughened Russia’s stance at the G8 meeting by declaring: “The world community does not see him as the Libyan leader.”

African leaders at a summit in Addis Ababa on Thursday called for an end to NATO air strikes on Libya to pave the way for a political solution to the conflict.

The pan-African bloc also sought a stronger say in resolving the conflict.

Kaaim meanwhile confirmed the visit on Monday of South African President Jacob Zuma, without indicating whether the exit of Kadhafi from power would be discussed as the South Africans have claimed.

On Thursday, the Libyan regime said Tripoli wanted a monitored ceasefire.

But NATO insisted it would keep up its air raids in Libya until Kadhafi’s forces stop attacking civilians and until the regime’s proposed ceasefire is matched by its actions on the ground.

Meanwhile Kadhafi’s wife Sofia on Friday slammed strikes against the Libyan leader and his family, and accused NATO forces of “committing war crimes” with its action against the regime.

Arab League chief Amr Mussa said there was a yawning gap between Tripoli and the rebel National Transitional Council on Kadhafi’s fate, with the rebels demanding he go immediately and the regime saving his exit for “later.”

“I was not there. But I wished that I was so I may die with him,” she told CNN in a telephone interview, describing the reported death of her son Seif al-Arab from a NATO air strike.

“My son never missed an evening prayer. We had strikes every day, and the strikes would start at evening prayer. Four rockets on one house!” she said in the rare interview.

International forces, which have been attacking Kadhafi forces under the terms of a UN resolution to protect civilians, “are looking for excuses to target Moamer. What has he done to deserve this?” asked Sofia.

NATO, she said, is “committing war crimes” in the North Africa country.

“They killed my son and the Libyan people. They are defaming our reputation, she said.

“Forty countries are against us. Life has no value anymore,” she lamented, in the wake of her son’s death.

Doubts have been raised in recent days of the veracity of reports on Seif al-Arab, Kadhafi’s youngest son, being dead.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi pointed out Wednesday that the international coalition had no information on his demise, and said the report from a Libyan government spokesman was “propaganda.”

Posted in Geo-Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fresh NATO raids target Libyan capital

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

The Most Important Issue

Posted by Admin on February 13, 2010

The Most Important Issue in the History of the Universe

December 11th, 2009 10:37 AM

By Robert Singer

My goal in writing is to help wake up the huddled masses. To that end, the “Most Important Issue in the History of the Universe” is:

The Story Behind the Story Behind the Story of how the World Trade Center I and II collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Why? Because if you don’t know how the twin towers collapsed, you can’t be sure you are waking up the masses from the right dream.

9/11/01

I’ll get right to the point, I have read the books and watched the documentaries on September 11 for three years and the 9/11 official story is:

    Nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, crash airplanes into steel skyscrapers because they “hate our freedom to consume”. Inexplicably the jet fuel, which is basically kerosene that burns at about 400c, took on the qualities of an explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke and causing 110-story buildings to collapse into a pile of rubble.

Is such a stupid story that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn’t really expect you to believe it.
A jet fuel fire brought down two of the tallest buildings in the world: Improbable, to say the least. [1]

Millions believe a LIHOP (Let it Happen on Purpose) version thanks to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, because their brain tells them the U.S. government killed 3,000 American citizens to pass the Patriot Act, build up the military and invade Afghanistan and Iraq. [2]

Everyone else, after you point out the obvious (110 stories of steel and concrete collapsing at free fall speed), thinks about it for a New York Second and realizes the official story is ridiculous and couldn’t be true.

Then, they come to the false conclusion it was a MIHOP (Made it Happen on Purpose): Bush, Cheney, and the Neocons killed 3,000 Americans so they could pass the Patriot Act, build up the military and invade Afghanistan and Iraq, an inside job.

In other words, The Powers That Be (TPTB) expected us to believe the 9/11 Truth story: A rogue element of the US government used controlled demolition to bring down the twin towers.
Let me be clear, I agree the US government or some proxy did exploit the events of 9/11: Building 7, the Pentagon and Flight 77. [3]

The “Experts” on 9/11

Professor Steven “Cold Fusion” Jones lectures ad nauseam about the obvious, that 110 stories of steel and concrete do not collapse into a pile of rubble from a kerosene fire. Jones’ research, allegedly peer reviewed, has not proven the building collapsed from controlled demolition.

Dr. Judy Wood, former professor of mechanical engineering, with expertise in material science concludes the buildings were destroyed using some type of “field effect technology” related to the Hutchison Effect and the presence of Hurricane Erin. [4]

Jones, sweet and innocent, looks like he belongs in the Bush administration not in the counterculture community.

Wood, marginalized and tossed out of the 9/11-Truth Movement happens to look like a hippie.

Dr. Wood raises important questions about the so-called collapse and the dip of the Earth’s magnetic field at the precise moment of the supposed first plane “impact” but the 9/11 Truthers refuse to acknowledge her research and her work has been left out in their search for the Truth. [5]

David Ray Griffin, retired professor at the Claremont School of Theology and spokesman for the 9/11 Truth Movement, has written numerous books questioning the 9/11 official story. Inexplicably he and co-founder, John B. Cobb, Jr., of the Center for Process Studies hang around with David Rockefeller. Griffin’s major project at present is in fact, “to develop a theology for a New World Order.” [6]

Dr. Griffin, like Jones, lectures frequently at universities and public places explaining in repetitive detail that September 11 was not the result of 19 Arab terrorists and a kerosene fire.

However, neither of them will discuss anything that contradicts the controlled demolition theory of the twin towers.

The government would not allow the openly treasonous behavior of David Ray and Steven Earl unless the 9/11 Truth Movement was a Counter Intelligence Program (Cointelpro). [7]

No Plane

The “no plane” theory, asserts both plane impacts with the WTC were faked with CNN Video Fakery/ Cartoon CGI. [8]

The following image of the second impact, taken from a news helicopter, depicts a video composite of a Boeing 767 accidentally appearing from behind a Layer Mask.

Nico Haupt and Morgan Reynolds, formerly the chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration argue that no planes were used in the attacks.

Reynolds “claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175, being largely aluminum, could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video.”

    “There were no planes, there were no hijackers,” Reynolds insists. “I know, I know, I’m out of the mainstream, but that’s the way it is.” Of the two Boeing 767’s, which vanished into the Twin Towers, Reynolds asks: How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?

Discussion of “no plane” theories can get you banned from conspiracy theory websites and threatened with violence from members of the 9/11 community if you “no plane” too loudly.

The idea that there were “no planes”, keeps just about everyone confused about “what really happened” on 9/11.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Or if you want to read a thousand words, visit 911 Revisited – CNN Video Fakery / Cartoon CGI. [9]

And when I say everyone is confused, I mean EVERYONE is intentionally kept in confusion by the Alex and Steven Joneses, the Davids Griffin and Icke and the 911 Truth Movement that promotes the controlled demolition “theory” of the collapse of the twin towers.

Alex Jones is the “Minister of Truth” over a flock of “Truthers”, whose church is the “9/11 Truth Movement.”

The faithful followers are not concerned that Pastor Alex is now being given significant exposure and airtime by the mainstream media – specifically by Disinformation-Central Fox News.

The media attention he is getting is quite bewildering until one digs deeper and understands Alex Jones is part of a Cointelpro operation.

“The Truth Movement has the dual purpose of vectoring genuine truth seekers to dead ends, where anger, hype and paranoia endlessly stress the seeker and those around him or her, and to facilitate the mainstream media’s task of branding those who ask questions of authority and the true nature of reality as insane.”

Why does Jones appear to be closely aligned with that which he seeks to subvert and destroy?

The fact that Jones exposes government schemes – and extraordinarily loudly at that – becomes evidence that he may very well be Cointelpro.

    “What people fail to understand however, is that serious Cointelpro operations are never obvious. They are by definition, very closely aligned with that which they seek to subvert and destroy because they would not get very far at infiltration and subversion if they were not.” [10]

“The Best Way To Control The Opposition Is To Lead It Ourselves” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

While Minister Jones vociferously promotes the controlled demolition theory of the collapse of the twin towers a tiny fringe of 911 researchers with no political or monetary capital, led by Morgan Reynolds, the above-mentioned Dr. Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson, make a compelling case that “no planes hit the World Trade Center” (“TV Fakery”), and that controlled demolition cannot explain the energy released when the twin towers collapsed. [11]

911 Truthers acknowledge there are problems with the official 911 Truth story.

    It’s an obvious computer generated-image of a 757 hitting the North Tower because you can’t see a break in the building wall between the port engine and fuselage. Think about how the jet engines, wings, fuselage and the tail section of an aluminum airplane just disappear through steel and reinforced concrete……and then appear to come through the other side.

But Minister Jones and his elders Physicist Steven Jones, author David Ray Griffin, architect Richard Gage in charge of 911 Truth, all with New World order connections [6], will not allow anyone to question a controlled demolition theory.

Why would the 911 Truth Movement promote a theory they know is untrue?

Professor James Fetzer, another well known 9/11 activist, said

    “It’s Tactical. “Even if they (the advocates of No Plane Theory) are right, it hurts the movement. Many feel that there is so much evidence of government complicity beyond the issue of big passenger jets that diverting attention to the one thing most people believe that they “saw” is not to our tactical and strategic advantage.”

“Our Tactical and Strategic Advantage”

Should we trust the “creepy side of the 911 Truth Movement” to tell us whose tactical and strategic advantage is served by discrediting the “no plane, no thermite” theories? [12]

What if the 9/11 Truth is nothing more than a pseudo-movement promoting a government “alternative official” story?

Who are the likely agents of disinformation?

Woods and Reynolds want to hijack the movement so the naïve public will be confused about the planes and will believe the government’s lie about nonexistent “terrorists.” Huh?

OR The Church of 9/11 Truth and the Joneses keep anyone from attempting to find out why Dr. Judy Wood calls the twin towers collapse, “The New Hiroshima” [11], and why at the precise moment of the alleged first plane “impact” did the Earth’s magnetic field dip.

My money is on Disinformation agent Alex Jones.

Google “Disinformation Agent” and the first result exposes Jones as a member of Project Mockingbird, Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor and alternative Media Gatekeeper for the Vatican: Alex Jones Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor CIA Disinformation Agent, http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Jones-CIA.htm

Disinformation agents of the New Worldly Order (David Icke, Alex Jones, Zeitgeist) is worth 9 minutes of your time.

No Thermite

Chris Bollyn’s recent discovery of Super-Termite (nanothermite) at “Israel’s Super-Thermite Lab” is nonsense and should be dismissed immediately:

    “The main reason for 9-11 was to change the military equation in the Middle East and bring the United States and NATO into the region on a permanent basis to wage war against the foes of Israel. But how could they possibly think they would get away with such an audacious and heinous crime of false-flag terrorism?”

He then goes on to make the ludicrous statement:

    “What they didn’t expect is that a few Americans would dig into the evidence and uncover every stone to find the real culprits. They certainly didn’t expect that a careful and independent scientific analysis of the dust would reveal that a nano-composite form of super-thermite was used to pulverize the World Trade Center.”

“What they didn’t expect is that a few Americans would dig…” I can hardly stop laughing!

But when I did stop (laughing) and contacted Andrew Johnson at Check The Evidence, he pointed out:

Q) What is thermite anyway? Answer: Aluminum powder and Iron Oxide (rust).

    Fact: The exterior of WTC towers contains aluminum and there were some rusty beams inside the buildings. Therefore we can dismiss any smoking gun theory of super-thermite because you would expect to find Aluminum powder and Iron Oxide in the remains of the World Trade Centre.

Q) What does thermite do to metal? Answer: It melts through it.

Q) What happened to the towers? Answer: They turned largely to dust.

Thermite cannot have been responsible for turning towers to dust. Let’s see this nanothermite in action please!

It’s an explosive but the towers didn’t explode -they turned into a fountain of dust. [13]

The 2001 Invasion of Iraq… That Was Called Off… When the Twin Towers Collapsed

    Paul O’Neill’s revelations that the Bush administration planned to invade Iraq long before September 11, 2001 have been widely publicized. The decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was made in July 2001 and the plans were on Bush’s desk by Sept 9. [14]

During the 2008 Presidential election a comment about “John McCain’s Dirt on the Cross Lies” appeared on greenusa.blogspot:

    “I served in the Navy as a Nuclear Plant Operator for over 14 years. I served onboard the USS Texas (CGN-39) in Operation Desert Storm. I served onboard the USS Arkansas (CGN-41) in support of Operation Desert Fox. I was a crewmember of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) when airplanes struck the Twin Towers on 9/11, and our ship was the first ship that was flying attack missions into Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.” [15]

Some time later I read the following:

On September 10th the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) chopped (turned around) in the straits of Hormoz, went to Battle Condition II, and prepared to invade Iraq. The order to stand down came 5 hours after the 2nd tower collapsed. [16]

The USS Carl Vinson was in the Persian Gulf with orders to invade Iraq, logic would dictate the invasion would go forward when the buildings collapsed and not be called off.

Hence, if you want the answer to the Most Important Issue in the History of the Universe you better be reading and listening to someone telling you:

  • Why the invasion was called off after the second tower collapsed and
  • What the dip of the Earth’s magnetic field at the precise moment of the alleged first plane “impact” has to do with “what really happened.”

Footnotes:

[1] Many official government stories are so ridiculous that a select group of people some call the puppet masters don’t expect you to believe them. Disinformation is misleading information that is true, deliberately announced publicly or leaked by a government or an intelligence agency to sow confusion and undermine credibility. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, which is deliberately intended to deceive, 9/11, What’s Wrong With This Picture? http://dprogram.net/2009/03/26/911-whats-wrong-with-this-picture, Robert Singer.
[2] There are three reasons why most Americans are in denial and cling to the official story:

  1. I am a Patriot, the US is a great country they wouldn’t kill 3,000 American citizens to pass the Patriot Act, build up the military and invade Afghanistan and Irak (Kill3000toPassBuild&Invade).
  2. I like my life I’m having a good time don’t bother me with the Kill3000toPassBuild&Invade nonsense.
  3. I can’t do anything about it anyway, so don’t bother me with the Kill3000toPassBuild&Invade story.

[3] Let me be clear, I agree the US government or some proxy did exploit the events of 9/11 to:

  • Demolish Building 7 that wasn’t even hit by a plane, home of the SEC investigation files and Rudy Giuliani’s command center.
  • Fire a cruise missile into the newly renovated wing of the Pentagon, killing 189 people, including the five “alleged” hijackers and
  • 34 civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts working for the Resource Services department. And, in another one of those coincidences that don’t happen very often, the accountants and bookkeepers were investigating, according to Donald Rumsfeld, 2.3 trillion Dollars that “just vanished”, September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld spoke to Congress and confessed the Pentagon is missing 2.3 trillion Dollars. Just vanished.
  • Shoot down flight 77 over Pennsylvania and kill the passengers from flight 93 and a second mysterious airplane that made an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. Flights 11, 12 (9+3), 13 (1+7+5), 14 (7+7). UAL Flight 93 Landed Safely At Cleveland Hopkins Airport Plane Lands In Cleveland – Bomb Feared Aboard 8-7-4 Reported by 9 News Staff Web produced by: Liz Foreman 9/11/01, At 10 A.M. on 9/11 Cleveland airport was evacuated due to rumors of a bomb scare. People around the airport were told to go home.
  • Remove the rubble from the Twin Towers with GPS tracked debris trucks before anyone could perform a forensic analysis. WTC Steel Removal The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html#ref2. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired. GPS on the Job in Massive World Trade Center Clean-up, securitysolutions.com, 7/1/2002,http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/

[4] http://www.drjudywood.com
http://www.prlog.org/10048184-scientists-see-wtc-hutchison-effect-parallel.html
http://www.prlog.org/10073301-new-study-by-former-professor-examines-hurricane-erin-on-9-11-01.html

[5] Dip of the Earth’s magnetic field on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:40http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin5.html
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/mpics/H4.jpg
[6] July 23. Connect Griffin to New World Order on angieon911, www.angieon911.com

[7] COINTELPRO is the FBI acronym for a series of covert action programs directed against domestic groups. In these programs, the Bureau went beyond the collection of intelligence to secret action defined to “disrupt” and “neutralize” target groups and individuals. The techniques were adopted wholesale from wartime counterintelligence, and ranged from the trivial (mailing reprints of Reader’s Digest articles to college administrators) to the degrading (sending anonymous poison-pen letters intended to break up marriages) and the dangerous (encouraging gang warfare and falsely labeling members of a violent group as police informers).

[8] Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths, CB_Brooklyn

[9] 911 Revisited – CNN Video Fakery / Cartoon CGI, ww.freedomdomain.com/911/911revisited.html
[10] The strategy of supporting sides that at first glance appear to be in direct opposition is similar to the way things are staged by the “Secret Team”. L Fletcher Prouty described in great detail how the flow of information is successfully managed by a few hands to produce precisely the reaction the Powers That Be require from their unwitting targets. The Secret Team” and “JFK”, L Fletcher Prouty

[11] 9/11 – The New Hiroshima, http://www.drjudywood.com/videos/Hiroshima_videos.html

[12] The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement, www.angieon911.com

[13] The World Trade Center (WTC) towers did not “collapse” on 9/11/01, they were pulverized (Blown to Kingdom Come) before a gravity-driven collapse was even a possibility. Pulverized to dust, a paucity of remaining material. Where are the concrete floors? Where is the office furniture? Where is the office machinery? Where are the filing cabinets? Where is the wall board? Where are the bookcases? They were not there, so most of it appears to have turned to dust, as illustrated in Figure 31. Pulverized to dust,http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

[14] Going back all the way to the Bush administration’s build-up for invading Iraq, there has been much written and said about the reasons for the invasion. Now Paul O’Neill’s revelations that the Bush administration planned to invade Iraq long before September 11, 2001 have been widely publicized. Iraq Was Surviving the Sanctions, Why They Wouldn’t Wait By Tom Jackson

[15] August 20, 2008 John McCain’s Dirt on the Cross Lies,http://greenusa.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-mccains-dirt-on-cross-lies.html

[16] Note: Strategic information about the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) is classified by the U.S. Military. If the Carl Vinson wasn’t ordered to Battle Condition II, let someone from Naval Command come forward and dispute that:

  1. Ship control stations were fully manned
  2. All lookout stations were fully manned
  3. All detection apparatus manned
  4. Water-tight Integrity Watch posted

“Chopped” is a naval term used when a ship changes course. I can no longer find this post on the Web. Personal Web sites and blogs come and go, and it’s common knowledge that technology exists to scrub content off the web.
Posts, blogs and comments just don’t disappear. Posts, blogs and comments are scrubbed…from the Internet

World Trade Center Collapse: Kerosene Fire, Controlled Demolition or a Third Story

-###-

Robert Singer is an Entrepreneur and the author of a forthcoming book on the Federal Reserve. His articles cover politics and the financial and environmental implications of our consumer society. The articles have been main headlined and can be found on numerous popular websites: Marketoracle, Silverseek, Pakistan Daily, Silver Bear Café, Goldseek, Dissident Voice, The Peoples Voice, LAprogressive, Canadafreepress, disinformation.com, Opednews, and many of the WordPress sites. Richard Daughty, The Mogambo Guru, proclaimed him a Junior Mogambo Ranger (JMR).

Posted in Conspiracy Archives | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Most Important Issue

US MILITARY: A Mindset of Barbarism

Posted by Admin on February 8, 2010

The US Military: A Mindset of Barbarism, Part 2

by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Interview

photo

Uncontrolled

Yesterday, Truthout ran the first part of an interview with Dr. Stjepan Mestrovic, a Professor of Sociology at Texas A&M University who has written three books on US misconduct in Iraq: “The Trials of Abu Ghraib: An Expert Witness Account of Shame and Honor,” “Rules of Engagement?: Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq” and “The ‘Good Soldier’ on Trial: A Sociological Study of Misconduct by the US Military Pertaining to Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq.” He has three degrees from Harvard University, including a Master’s degree in clinical psychology, and has been an expert witness in psychology and sociology at several Article 32 hearings, courts-martial and clemency hearings involving US soldiers accused of committing crimes of war in Iraq, including the trials of prison guards involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Dr. Mestrovic’s books meticulously document how the US Army, as an institution, has become dysfunctional, and how illegal rules of engagement (ROE) are issued by officers and politicians at the top of the Army’s hierarchy, but only low-ranking soldiers are punished for carrying out those same rules and orders. As an example, in one of the several hearings Dr. Mestrovic has attended as an expert witness, US soldiers openly admitted they had shot a 75-year-old man who had emerged unarmed from his house, but because the soldiers were following the rule to shoot all “military aged males,” neither they nor their officers were charged for that death.

In the second part of his interview with Truthout, Dr. Mestrovic examines the fallacious nature of the rules of engagement, Operation Iron Triangle in Iraq, the rampant nature of atrocities in the US military today, and the possibility of a solution. In Operation Iron Triangle, Iraqi detainees were murdered by US soldiers under the command of a legendary American colonel, Michael Steele. On May 9, 2006, American soldiers executed three unarmed men they had captured in an operation in the so-called Sunni Triangle in Iraq. Several of these soldiers were court-martialed and imprisoned, but some within the military say that responsibility ultimately lies with Colonel Steele.)

Truthout: What are your thoughts about the “Rules of Engagement?” How are these brought into being? Are they truly expected to work in the field? Given that they are clearly not working, why is that?

Dr. Mestrovic:There is insufficient information to answer the first question at the present time. The creation and actual wording of the written ROE are shrouded in secrecy. At the courts-martial of the accused soldiers in the Operation Iron Triangle killings, the government forbade the introduction of the actual, written ROE into testimony. It only allowed verbal testimony as to what the soldiers heard as to the ROE. The soldiers testified that the order was “to kill every military-aged male.” The brigade commander who apparently issued the order, Col. Michael D. Steele, refused and still refuses to testify and to be cross-examined, so that the question you are asking may never be answered. Presumably, he would know how the ROE are and were brought into being.

Are these ROE expected to work in the field? Again, there does not exist sufficient public information as to what commanders and Pentagon officials believe with regard to this and similar ROE in theory. But I can give you an answer that is concrete and specific to this case. On November 5, 2009, Col. Nathaniel Johnson testified at William Hunsaker’s clemency hearing in Alexandria, Virginia. Hunsaker is one of the convicted soldiers from the Operation Iron Triangle case. Colonel Johnson was one of Colonel Steele’s battalion commanders, and was the “convening authority” who sets the courts-martial into motion. I was an eyewitness to Colonel Johnson’s mesmerizing testimony. He testified that Colonel Steele had created a “toxic command climate” by constantly threatening to remove any of his subordinates, from battalion commanders to first sergeants, who disagreed or questioned his orders. Johnson gave the example that when Steele told the soldiers, “We do not give warning shots,” he would tell his men, “We do give warning shots.” These simmering discrepancies and discontent among the commanders clearly confused the soldiers.

Obviously, in the field, the soldiers encounter many problems in carrying out this ROE. What if the alleged target is holding a child or hiding behind women? In fact, such tactics are so common among the targets that the Army refers to them as a “tactical training point,” namely, that insurgents use human shields to avoid being killed. What should a soldier do in that situation? Do they give warning shots? Do they shoot to wound? Do they take prisoners? Do they carry out the order regardless of consequences? Common sense suggests that the soldier cannot be expected to act as a legal scholar in the heat of battle and debate or discuss what he should do. It is an open question how often situations like this arise in combat. But what I do know is that Colonel Johnson testified that the soldiers were confused, and he recommended that Hunsaker’s sentence be reduced to time served and upgraded to a general discharge so that he could use VA benefits to get treated for PTSD. The clemency board ignored his recommendation and offered no clemency or explanation.

These ROE do not work for the straightforward reason that the “targets” are not abstractions but are human beings who associate with women, children and civilians who are not targets. Therefore, one can rarely “take out the target” without also “taking out” innocent civilians. Moreover, the targets are pre-designated based upon “intelligence.” But in all the cases on which I have worked, I have found that the so-called intelligence was grossly inaccurate. In the Abu Ghraib cases, the government now admits that 90 percent of the detainees were not terrorists or insurgents and were not a threat to Americans. In the Operation Iron Triangle case, the government never determined whether the “targets” were real “bad guys” or just innocent farmers. Who are these secret “sources” that have the power to pre-designate targets for execution? Next to nothing is known about them or the process of using such “intelligence.” What is clear is that the local populations in Iraq and Afghanistan come to hate Americans when innocents are killed by mistake on missions of this sort.

But again, the Army is not a democratic society, so I do not foresee seminars, discussions or public airing of these important issues. These issues are covered up for the most part, and emerge – only partially – through the window into Army society that is offered through the court-martial process. On the other hand, the US is a democratic society and the public has a right to know the ROE that are being carried out in its name.

Truthout: What did you find in your research about Operation Iron Triangle that led to that atrocity?

Dr. Mestrovic: Well, that’s the problem: the killings were apparently routine and were not regarded as an atrocity. Soldiers told me that they were routinely sent out on missions to kill designated “targets.” Their graphic descriptions included finding a shopkeeper and killing him in front of his wife and children. The court transcripts also refer to testimony of “kill-kill” orders, which apparently mean that the target does not have the option to surrender (which would be a “kill-capture” order). In effect, a lot of the missions seem to amount to the “execution squads” that Vice President Cheney mentioned while he was in office. So, in the eyes of the Army, government and soldiers, missions of this sort were not considered “atrocities.”

What made this one episode of Operation Iron Triangle different does not seem to lie in the acts that were committed. As court documents show, at the same time that these particular soldiers who went to prison were carrying out their mission, a different platoon was carrying out a similar mission on another part of the island. The platoon leader, Lieutenant Horne, is quoted as ordering his soldiers, “Kill them all.” Nobody was prosecuted for any of these other killings on the mission.

So the question becomes, why were Hunsaker, Clagett and Girouard prosecuted and sent to prison? Part of the answer lies in the prosecutor’s opening and closing statements. Apparently, the Army wants to send a “message” to the world that it is better than the enemy. And it seems that one way it does this is to periodically send some of its soldiers to prison as a way of making the statement that it does not tolerate war crimes, even though the routine kill-kill orders may be construed as being war crimes. In other words, this particular case, and some related murder cases, appear to be politically motivated, and the soldiers who are picked for prosecution appear to be random, and are definitely treated as expendable by the Army.

In a similar case of killings that CNN dubbed the “Baghdad Canal Killings,” (hyperlink “Baghdad Canal Killings” with HYPERLINK “http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/17/army.tapes.canal.killings/index.html” http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/17/army.tapes.canal.killings/index.html) it is well-known that the entire platoon participated in the killings, although only three were prosecuted. One of the soldiers, Joshua Hartson, admitted to CNN that he thinks he should have been sent to prison as well, but instead, the government granted immunity from prosecution to him and some of his comrades to testify against the soldiers who were chosen for prosecution.

It is important to note that in all these cases, scores of “atrocities” are included in the court records but were never prosecuted. The real atrocities at Abu Ghraib occurred in the interrogation rooms at the hands of intelligence personnel, and some detainees were murdered, but the government went out of its way to exclude these events from the courts-martial. In every case I have studied, sworn statements report scores of atrocities similar to the ones prosecuted, but again, all references to these other events are excluded from evidence. There appears to be a definite, politically motivated, “social construction” of reality to issues pertaining to how acts are defined, prosecuted or ignored as “atrocities” and war crimes.

Truthout: How rampant do you believe instances like this are, in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Dr. Mestrovic: Even though no one has access to the secret ROE or the secret ways in which they are devised, it is clear that ROE similar to the ones used at Operation Iron Triangle are still being used, including in Afghanistan. Numerous news stories report that the government is currently using drones to kill pre-designated human targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan based upon “intelligence.” These news stories also routinely report that women, children, and civilians are often killed in the process. The mechanical drones are used exactly the same way as human soldiers are used: to carry out the same ROE that applied to Operation Iron Triangle. Incidentally, news stories suggest that the drone operators who execute these missions while sitting in remote control areas in the US are developing PTSD rates faster than the soldiers who actually engage in battle.

It seems to be the case that we are supposed to be mesmerized by the “postmodern” technology that leads to the use of “simulacra” soldiers and missions. The “target” becomes an image on a screen. But real human beings are carrying out the same ROE, whether in face-to-face confrontations or “simulacra” remote control engagements. And the human toll on both the soldiers and the civilian populations is not “simulacra,” but is very real.

Truthout: What would need to happen in the Army in order for soldiers to behave more along the lines of international law whilst abroad?

Dr. Mestrovic: The most important thing would be for the government to decide to adhere to international law, and the soldiers would follow orders. In any case, the low-ranking soldiers always follow orders. It really comes down to following the letter as well as the spirit of the Nuremberg Principles. In his opening remarks at the Nuremberg Trials, chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson said: “The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched.” I put emphasis on Jackson’s phrase, “common sense.” Even though he was a lawyer, he did not refer to the law, which often uses law-speak to justify such crimes. He referred to “common sense,” which resonates with usages of this term by pragmatist philosophers (William James, John Dewey, George Herbert Mead). In other words, everyone knows that it is wrong to kill people who do not show an active hostile intent, no matter how one justifies such acts legally. The “little people” to whom Jackson refers are, in this case, the low-ranking soldiers who were sent to Fort Leavenworth for carrying out the orders of many civilian and military commanders above them in the chain of command. It is a fact that not a single commissioned officer has ever been prosecuted for all the war crimes in the current war, from Abu Ghraib to Operation Iron Triangle. In a complete reversal of Nuremberg Principles, the government prosecutes and imprisons only the “little people” or low-ranking soldiers.

Jackson also specifically referred to the “men of station and rank who do not soil their own hands with blood” as the ones who should be prosecuted for war crimes. I do not foresee a day when the US will prosecute its colonels, generals or high-ranking civilian officials for establishing the policies and ROE that result in atrocities. There is simply no precedent for such a move in the US in the past century. The last time the US prosecuted a high-ranking officer for atrocities committed by his soldiers was in 1860, when it hung the commander of the infamous Andersonville Prison, in which Union soldiers were systematically exterminated by Confederate soldiers. But in other similar historical incidents, the government went out of its way to protect its “men of station and rank.” For example, the Biscari Massacre of 1943 was most likely the result of Gen. George Patton’s speech in which he told his soldiers to take no prisoners and to show no mercy. (In fact, General Patton’s and Colonel Steele’s speeches to their troops are very similar.) But Patton was not indicted, while a Sergeant West was given a life sentence and a Captain Compton was acquitted on the grounds that he was following Patton’s orders. Similarly, many historians believe that Lieutenant Calley was made to be a scapegoat for the “search and destroy” policies that led to My Lai.

In general, and despite its democratic base, the US does not resort to the established doctrine of command responsibility to prosecute “men of station and rank” whose orders result in atrocities. Again, this is not merely a military or legal issue, but a wider, cultural issue. In the recent Wall Street meltdown, the “robber barons” (as Thorstein Veblen called them) who caused the current economic crisis have escaped responsibility, and are rewarding themselves with bonuses. Meanwhile, many average Americans are losing homes, businesses and futures due to the errors in judgment made by the robber barons. The government bailed out the Wall Street firms, but not the average American in economic trouble. A similar principle seems to operate in today’s Army. Colonel Steele, whose ROE resulted in the Operation Iron Triangle tragedy, will no doubt retire with all his benefits intact. Meanwhile, the low-ranking soldiers who carried out his orders are languishing in prison. This American, cultural discrepancy between elitism and democracy has already been explored by sociologists such as C. Wright Mills in “The Power Elite and White Collar.” But without some great cultural awakening, it does not seem that this strange feature of American culture will change anytime soon.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Posted in Truthout Articles | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on US MILITARY: A Mindset of Barbarism