Revolutionizing Awareness

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

Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

Freedom from Fear

Posted by Admin on November 16, 2011

Freedom from Fear
by Owen Waters

The 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York is a wonderful time to remember that fear can be totally neutralized by love.

The trick is to know how to invoke that love in the face of stark events that are intended to bind you in fear:

http://www.infinitebeing.com/0810/fearnot.htm

*If you enjoyed today’s article, forward it to a friend! They will appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Owen Waters is the author of Love, Light Laughter: The New Spirituality, which is available both as a paperback and a downloadable e-book, at:

http://www.infinitebeing.com/ebooks/love.htm

Advertisements

Posted in Owen Waters | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Freedom from Fear

Top 5 Worst 9/11 Memorials

Posted by Admin on October 28, 2011

http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/top-5-worst-911-memorials/

By  | August 14th, 2009 | Category: Sinister Sites | 158 comments

9/11 has inspired a myriad of memorials who are scattered all across America. Some of them are of questionable taste, others contain strange occult symbolism while others simply piss people off. Here’s the five most offensive.

lead911

9/11 was a terrible tragedy, no matter who made it happen **cough** Rumsfeld **cough cough ** False flag terror ** cough**. Sorry, I don’t usually cough while typing. Since this event was the most terrible terrorist act committed on US soil, it is simply fitting that many memorials appear in honor of those who unjustly lost their lives. Some of them are very touching, inspiring and heartfelt. Others, not so much. Some even make you wonder if they were actually built for the victims or to serve an agenda. The monuments here are controversial, insensitive and slightly offensive…a little like this article. Enjoy.

#5 Boston Memorial

2008_09_boston911

It’s a glass and steel cube. Next to a thruway. How heart wrenchingly touching. When I look at it, I become moved by so many intense emotions. The main one is boredom. Don’t get me wrong, I can appreciate a good cube when I see one. And that is one fine cube. But does it make me reflect on 9/11 and the state of humanity? Not really. It however does make me want to go downstairs to get the latest Iphone though.

12305
Eerie resemblance to the Mac Store

Anyways, the memorial features two intertwining paths representing the two infamous flights who took off at the Boston Logan Airport. The top of the cube depicts a “fractured sky” because the sky was never the same since 9/11. It is true. In the words of Peter Griffin“9/11 changed everything, Brian. It changed EVERYTHING” Yes, even the sky is changed, it is now destroyed by terrorists. Here’s some nice comments from locals I’ve found on the internets.

“Why does Boston have all these modern international style monuments? that thing won’t last 30 years” -nonumental art

“It took seven years to build that? I can see why it’s taking so long for the Ground Zero projects to be built.” –Snoopy

“Follow the twisting flight paths? Tacky who wants to do that. Its a memorial not a reenactment” -Reflect

“This looks EXACTLY like Boston’s Holocaust memorial. Do they order these from a IKEA catalog?” -Gregoire

It is not the worst memorial I’ve ever saw, but it is painfully forgettable.

#4 Polish Plaque

309938877_7cdbae90c6

This plaque was installed at the base of the KATYN statue in New Jersey, which directly faced the Twin Towers. The statue (which is also depicted on the plaque), is of a wounded WWII soldier getting stabbed in the back…a little like America who got stabbed in the back on 911**cough**Bush did it **cough.

ExPlkatyn2
Katyn statue on which the plaque installed

Anyways, the plaque has been described as “awkward”, “weird” and “???”. At face value, it seems to be of Virgin Mary mourning the Towers. A closer look at the symbolism of the plaque quickly reveals a hidden, occult meaning. Writer “Ground Zero” perfectly sums up its esoteric symbolism:

“There is the goddess with a hexagramic eagle-pendant hanging from her neck, as well as the sun forming a halo behind her, grasping one of the burning towers like a phallus that is ejaculating. The sexuality inherent in these astro-theological themes should bemoan you that some kind of ceremonial magic is being invoked here, even if the artists who created the statue and/or plaque did not know about their art’s greater relevance to the 9/11 mega-ritual.” Source: wearechangenewjersey.org

In other words, this plaque would commemorate the planned and occult ritual that was 9/11 and the event is even likened to a sexual act. The woman is evidently not the Virgin Mary as the symbolism on and around her refer to the concept of female goddess who completes the solar deity. This is just sick, disgusting, awful, and I have no more adjectives for it so I’ll just spit on the computer screen.

3- All Seeing Eye Memorial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReBYOle12J4&feature=player_embedded

All I have to say about this ceremony is this:

allseeingeye

Is this ceremony telling us who’s behind 9/11? An interesting thing very few people know about is the “Oculus” artwork project, which was placed directly underneath the WTC in 1998.

52_thumbzoom
Oculus Artwork right beneath Ground Zero

The centerpiece of the work is an elliptical glass and stone mosaic floor, with a micro mosaic eye at the center of an ultramarine vortex with the image of the City of New York woven into the picture. This All-Seeing Eye, placed right under the actual Ground Zero sends shockwaves around the world. Those of you who know the myth of the eye of Horus, where Osiris experiences rebirth in the underworld, will surely find it interesting that this eye is located below ground level…in the “underworld”.

#2 Teardrop Memorial

The monument comprises a 100-foot-tall bronze tower with a jagged split down the middle and a 40-foot-long stainless steel teardrop suspended in the gap.

Tearsofgriefbayonne

Located in Bayonne, New Jersey, this monument was dedicated in 2006, with little to no media coverage. There are no signs or ads leading to it on the streets of New Jersey. It is billed as being a gift from Russian president Vladimir Putin to America and was  created by Russian artist Zurab Tsereteli. The monument was the source of many controversies and disputes. It was originally meant to be erected on the New Jersey waterfront but officials rejected it. It was finally placed in Bayonne, facing the New York skyline, but many still complain that this 10 story horror blocks the wonderful view of the city. The art community stated that “it was not just unpleasant, but to the point that it was offensive“. Others have said that it looked like a woman’s vulva and that it was Russia’s indirect of way of calling America a pussy…cat. IThere is also the fact that the memorial included huge pictures of Russia’s dictator Putin (who enjoys shirtless horsie rides) and America’s all-time worst President:

ZTEARDRO
Thank you Putin and Bush for your struggle against terror.

Now, here’s some comments from people I don’t know, taken from various articles, including NY Times’: “A Jersey City Teardrop for 9/11, Or a 10-Story Embarrassment?”.

“I’m amazed that you can discuss this topic without mentioning the massive controversy that has swirled around the statue, which has been nearly universally attacked as a monstrosity and been booted out every decent placed it might have been erected, ultimately being relegated to backwater Bayonne New Jersey.” -Jason Herr

“People, get real, OMG! It looks like a giant vagina! For Tsereteli it’s just a way to make a bigger name for himself. Putin doesn’t give a crap. And Tsereteli is also best buddy-buddy with Moscow’s mayor Luzkhov. Please. Really. This has nothing to do with our American tragedy.” -Georgian

”It’s insensitive, it’s heavy-handed, it’s simplistic, it’s a cliché, other than that, what’s not to like?” -Leon Yost

”an insensitive, self-aggrandizing piece of pompousness by one of the world’s blatant self-promoters.” -NJ Art Community

Those into symbolism might want to check into Horus, the Sky God, who was portrayed by ancient Egyptians as a Peregrine Falcon’s eye with a teardrop underneath it. Is this teardrop coming from the All-Seeing Eye in the sky?

#1- Crescent of Embrace

This memorial hasn’t been completed yet but it already has created more controversy than any other. The official story of 9/11 is that angry Islamic people “who hate our freedoms” have plotted this attack from a cave deep in Afghanistan, while eating hummus with their fingers. Let’s assume this is true… Would it make sense to create a huge memorial in the shape of the Muslim crescent? I mean, if the USA destroyed a building in Iran for no reason, would the Iranians build a huge memorial looking like the US flag? I don’t think so. Unless it was to burn it afterwards. Well, if the government is consistent with its Al-Qaeda story, it should maybe try not to incorporate blatant Muslim symbolism in its memorials, unless they want to piss people off big time. And they did. The memorial managed to anger Christians, Muslims, Jews and miscellaneous at the same time. Maybe that’s the memorial’s goal: to unite all religions through hating it.

FLIGHT 93 MEMORIAL

Above the winning design chosen for the memorial to commemorate Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. The memorial is shaped like a big moon crescent, which happens to be Islam’s main symbol. It was also proved to point directly to the Mecca. This has caused a huge uproar among citizens and all sorts of political commentators. There’s even internet petition calling for the investigation of the Islamic symbolism in the design. Here’s a description of the memorial’s features taken from the petition:

Many features of the chosen Flight 93 Memorial design are intolerable:

1. THE GIANT CRESCENT. The centerpiece of the original “Crescent of Embrace” design was a giant red Islamic shaped crescent. Every particle of this original crescent design remains completely intact in the so-called redesign, which only added a few irrelevant trees. The giant crescent is still there.

2. IT POINTS TO MECCA. The giant crescent points to Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a “mihrab,” and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. The Flight 93 Memorial is on track to become the world’s largest mosque.

3. THE ISLAMIC SUNDIAL. The minaret-like Tower of Voices is a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial (one of many typical mosque features that are realized in the crescent design, all on the same epic scale as the half mile wide central crescent).

4. THE 44 BLOCKS. There are 44 glass blocks on the flight path, equaling the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists. Intentional or not, these features are entirely unacceptable.

This travesty must stop and investigations must begin.

1) We the undersigned call on our state and federal legislators to undertake their own thorough and independent investigations of the Flight 93 Memorial design. The truth must come out.

2) We ask that the crescent design be scrapped entirely and that it be replaced with a new design that is not tainted by Islamic or terrorist memorializing symbolism.

3) We demand a fitting and proper memorial that HONORS the brave men and women of Flight 93. 
Source: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/HonorFlight93/

crescent1
Wow, talk about a bad idea.

So, if you’ve read correctly, the terrorists are also honored in the memorial. That’s a great way to anger people. Here’s what some people said about the memorial and recent redesign.

“The winning design for the Flight 93 memorial ‘Crescent of Embrace’ is extravagant, wasteful and ultimately does not convey the spirit of the resistance and defiance of the passengers who made the ultimate sacrifice that their plane would not be used to attack their own countrymen. (…) How would you stop this travesty of a memorial from blighting the Pennsylvania landscape? This is the intellectual masturbatory fantasy of an architect for the benefit of his peers.” -Simon Tan

“To those who prefer their monuments to be monumental, this may come as something of a disappointment, if not an outright betrayal. Even at this late date, seemingly ordinary citizens can perform extraordinary feats, as Flight 93’s heroic epic reminds us. The problem isn’t that we’ve run out of heroes in America. We just don’t know how to honor them anymore.” -John V. Last

“Redesigned Flight 93 memorial still an Islamo-fascist shrine.” -Alec Rawls

Alec Rawls has written a full book called “The Crescent of Betrayal” describing in detail the symbolism of the memorial. Here’s what he says on the “Tower of Voices”.

Up-TowerDrkHighlights40Mid-contr-1
The Tower of Voices…Scary name.

“Every place where the terrorists are memorialized in the crescent design, they are placed in the symbolic Islamic heavens (the crescent and star parts of the design). Every place where the 40 heroes are memorialized, they are depicted as symbolically damned, cast out of the symbolic Islamic heavens.

One example is in the Tower of Voices, where an Islamic shaped crescent soars in the sky above forty symbolic souls that literally dangle below: Forty symbolic souls, never to rest in peace, gonging for eternity in their symbolic damnation, strung like fish as they hang down from the symbolic Islamic heavens projected in the sky above. Is the Memorial Project trying to start a riot?”

Many Muslims have also protested against the memorial, arguing that a symbol associated with Islam is used to remind the world of a terrorist act. They believe that the use of the crescent will only add to the resentment against Islam resulting from 9/11. So this concept managed to piss pretty much everybody off except Bob Saget who found it “amazing”. For this reason, the Crescent of Embrace takes #1. Oh, and they’ve recently changed its name to “Bowl of Embrace”. Nice.

To Conclude

As you might have noticed, these memorials aren’t on this list simply because of their deficient looks, it is mostly due to  their symbolism. If something as honorable as a memorial dedicated to innocent victims manages to irritate regular people, it is because there’s something terribly wrong with it. Furthermore, those who are convinced that 9/11 was an inside job will see in the more occult memorials a terribly sinister meaning. Is there a  reason why they are planning to include the name of the “terrorists” on the Crescent memorial? Are they are considered heroes who sacrificed their lives for the 9/11 ritual?

911historysign

Posted in Vigilant Citizen | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Top 5 Worst 9/11 Memorials

Why the Death of the Man Who Was Not Behind 9/11 Was Announced on May 1st

Posted by Admin on August 3, 2011

http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/binladen-mayfirst/

By  | May 2nd, 2011


After the announcement of Bin Laden’s death, hundreds of people gathered in front of the White House chantingUSA! USA!”.

It is in times like these that a line is drawn between critical thinkers and those who get swiped by media crap-storms; Between those who understand the complexity of a situation and those who’d rather not know; Between those who comprehend the underlying motives of the elite and those who go outside chanting “USA! USA!”.

On the evening of May 1st 2011, Barak Obama’s statement was one of triumph and celebration. He claimed that, with the death of Osama Bin Laden, “justice was served”. The media spin following the announcement was equally as celebratory: “It is a great day for America and the world”…”The biggest piece of news since 9/11″…”We’ll all remember where we were when we’ve heard this news”…The entire “event” was artificially inflated, exaggerated and glorified.

Should the death of a man cause happiness and celebrations? Since when have we devolved into such a barbaric state? Because he perpetrated 9/11? Did he also cause the Building 7 to implode? Damn you Osama and your team of engineers!

I’ll spare you the entire “9/11 was an inside job” speech, as I know most of this site’s readers are all too aware of it. In this case, why should we care if Ben Laden is dead or not? Is he really dead? Did he die nine years ago? Who really knows? We’re living in an era of artificial, fully staged, media-generated events. Why was Bin Laden’s death announced on the evening of May 1st?  Because it was the required sacrifice of the “most magical time of the year”, which was launched with the Royal Wedding.

Beltane

A Wicker Man burnt during the Beltane Festival 2004

May 1st, or May Day, was considered by several cultures to be an important holiday, especially in occult circles due to celestial alignments. In Illuminati lore, it is regarded as the second most important day of the year. In fact, the Order of the Bavarian Illuminati was founded on May 1st 1776.

In Europe, it is called the Beltane festival, an ancient Gaelic celebration of sexuality, fertility…and blood sacrifices.

“Supposedly, animal sacrifices would be made each Beltane to ensure the fertility of their crops, however, every five years the Highland Celts would sacrifice humans, the numbers being made up of convicted criminals and prisoners of war. They would be sacrificed by the Druids, though the manner of their death would vary. Many were supposedly shot with arrows, but descriptions of Gaulish Celt ceremonies have them being burnt alive in huge wicker men.”
– Source

The origins of the Beltane festival can be traced back to the celebration of the Sumerian God Enlil – who is known to us as Baal. The name Beltane (pronounced “B’yal-t’n”) is said to originate from the word Baal. Celebrations of the Beltane festival are very similar to ancient rituals celebrating the ancient god. The mysterious similarities between these seemingly distant cultures could be the subject of an entire article. One thing is for sure: Baal is an important figure in Illuminati lore.

“In Middle-Eastern lore, Baal was killed and descended into the underworld, whereupon he was returned to life by the powers of his sister-lover, Anat. Baal is thus associated with the seasonal cycles and the coming of spring and crops. This was reflected in Beltane festivals, which culminated with the symbolic marriage of the Winter God and Spring Goddess (or King Winter and Queen May). Queen May, in the festivals, was a mother earth figure. The word Baal means lord or husband. In the mating of King Winter and Queen May, earth and sky were joined, and fertility and life were symbolically rekindled in animals, people, and nature.”
– Jane Adams, The Selected Papers of Jane Adams

“Through analogy and through the belief that one can control or aid the powers of nature by the practice of magic, particularly sympathetic magic, sexuality might characterize part of the cult of the Baʿals and ʿAshtarts. Post-Exilic allusions to the cult of Baʿal Pe’or suggest that orgies prevailed. On the summits of hills and mountains flourished the cult of the givers of increase, and “under every green tree” was practised the licentiousness which was held to secure abundance of crops. Human sacrifice, the burning of incense, violent and ecstatic exercises, ceremonial acts of bowing and kissing, the preparing of sacred cakes (see also Asherah), appear among the offences denounced by the post-Exilic prophets; and show that the cult of Baʿal (and ʿAshtart) included characteristic features of worship which recur in various parts of the Semitic (and non-Semitic) world, although attached to other names.”
– W. Robertson Smith and George F. Moore, Baal

Ancient beliefs and rituals are an intricate part of today’s Illuminati’s occult practices. As their symbolism and modus-operandi are slowly infused into society, their previously secret rituals are now conducted on a mass scale. The masses become clueless participants of their occult festivities, not knowing they actually adding their potency.

In Conclusion

The Mujahideen were recruited and formed in the late 70′s by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the United States National Security Advisor of Jimmy Carter (Brzezinski is today Obama’s main policy advisor). The military group was trained by the United States in order to repel Russian forces from Afghanistan. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the Communists and
the Taliban are a by-product of this US created movement.

Since the fall of the USSR, Bin Laden and his Taliban served a new agenda: providing an excuse for the invasion of key middle-eastern countries under the guise of a “war on terror”. In 2001, about 15 minutes after the second plane hit the WTC, the image of Bin Laden was shown on television. He was the ideal patsy on who to blame the attacks and the perfect boogey-man to scare the American people. This scapegoat allowed the unquestioned invasion of Afghanistan, of Iraq. He even facilitated the enactment of the aberration called the Patriot Act.

In 2011, Bin Laden’s usefulness to the Agenda has ran its course. Furthermore, the Obama administration needed an exploit to boost its poll ratings until the next elections. Consequently, in a classic combination of occult rituals with pragmatic politics, the death of Bin Laden was announced on May 1st 2011 with triumph and jubilation. Through CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX, millions of viewers rejoiced at the death of man in the same matter ancient peasants rejoiced at the offering of human sacrifices to Baal. In a dumbed-down, politicized and “Illuminati-sed” version of the Beltane Festival, the masses have celebrated the ritual sacrifice of a man and, without even realizing it, partook in one of the Illuminati’s most important holidays.

Beltane Fire Festival, May 1st
Hooray Osama is dead! May 1st.

Posted in Conspiracy Archives, Truthout Articles, War Quotient | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why the Death of the Man Who Was Not Behind 9/11 Was Announced on May 1st

ISI blames India of ‘playing dangerous game’ by funding ‘extremist elements’ in Karachi

Posted by Admin on January 29, 2011

Flag of the Pakistan Army

Flag of Pakistan Army

http://in.news.yahoo.com/isi-blames-india-playing-dangerous-game-funding-extremist-20110127-221955-789.html

By ANI | ANI – Fri, Jan 28 11:49 AM IST

Islamabad, Jan 28(ANI): Pakistan‘s intelligence and military officials have accused India of “playing a dangerous game” by attempting to “destabilise Pakistan”.

Senior officials from the Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) and the Pakistan Army said in interviews with Gulf News that they “have evidence” of Indian involvement in the terrorist attacks in Karachi and Lahore.

A senior ISI official alleged that India attempts to “destabilise Pakistan” by supporting militant groups in Karachi by “funds and arms”.

Karachi, the economic hub of the country, has witnessed dozens of attacks and target killings over the past few years. Pakistani officials say the attacks, especially those on shrines, were aimed at “fomenting sedition among religious communities” to destabilise the country.

“India is playing a dangerous game” in Karachi, a top ISI official was quoted as saying on the condition of anonymity. He said his agency had “evidence” that Indian intelligence was arming and funding “extremist elements” to weaken their neighbour.

“People are getting money from India to create problems for Pakistan in Karachi” and other areas, he stressed, adding, “India should understand that it will be affected most if Pakistan is destabilised.”

The Pakistan Army’s official spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said India realises that Pakistan’s military is “over-stretched” because of extensive anti-terror operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

“Therefore, they support elements that engage in terrorist campaign on our urban cities,” he added.

Abbas also said India was being suspected of arming and funding extremist elements, and even distributing ‘anti-Pakistan hate literature’ in the Pakistani province of Balochistan, which borders Afghanistan. (ANI)

Posted in Geo-Politics, India Forgotten, War Quotient | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ISI blames India of ‘playing dangerous game’ by funding ‘extremist elements’ in Karachi

Saudis say al Qaeda targeting France: minister

Posted by Admin on October 19, 2010

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101017/ts_nm/us_france_terrorism;_ylt=AkN3rnFBr2jog9pb0YyimZ134T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTJwa29lODhvBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAxMDE3L3VzX2ZyYW5jZV90ZXJyb3Jpc20EcG9zAzEyBHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDc2F1ZGlzc2F5YWxx

PARIS (Reuters) – Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said on Sunday that France had been warned by Saudi Arabia that al Qaeda was targeting Europe and especially France.

“Several hours or days ago, there was a new message from the Saudis that said al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was without doubt active or planning to be active in Europe, especially France,” he told French radio RTL.

“This is not about overestimating the threat or underestimating it,” he said. “I am indicating, based on all these elements, that the threat is real.”

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), an arm of al Qaeda thought to include Yemenis and Saudis, has stepped up attacks on Yemeni and Western targets since it claimed a failed U.S. airliner bombing in December.

Impoverished Yemen, which is struggling to end a civil war in the north and a separatist rebellion in the south, is trying with U.S. help to crush AQAP, which has been based in Yemen since 2006, when SaudiArabia mounted a counter-terrorism drive against its Saudi arm.

Hortefeux’s remarks indicated that the new warning was not connected with the heightened alert in France in late September based on a tip-off that a female suicide bomber was planning to attack its transport system.

police source told Reuters at that time that the information about the threatened attack had come from Algeria.

France has not suffered a major attack since 1995 when the Algerian Armed Islamic Group killed eight people and wounded dozens bombing a Paris metro station.

(Reporting by Thierry Leveque; writing by Nina Sovich; editing by Tim Pearce)

Posted in Geo-Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Saudis say al Qaeda targeting France: minister

A Macchiavellian “False Flag” from the Pentagon?

Posted by Admin on July 25, 2010

False Flag Cyber Attack – Restriction and control of the Internet has been widened on behalf of the pentagon and other government agencies in light of recent threats. The media has increasingly covered the threat of an “electronic pearl harbor” that could take place online. If the US was attacked online, it could potentially affect banking, power grids, rail networks and water sources, leaving the country in a position that would make it tough to defend itself. However, many of these claims have been over exaggerated.
According Evgency Morozov, a researcher and blogger who writes about threats and political events on the Internet,at times the threats are due to government agencies and cyber-security companies creating a false-hype around the subject. It is these agencies and companies that would likely be employed in the event of an attack, and they are trying to drum up business for themselves.

*Sponsored Links*

One piece of proposed legislation would give the US President the authority to declare a “cyber security emergency” and shut down or limit internet traffic to critical information in the interest of security. While the bill is nowhere close to being passed, it will be interesting to see how much steam the bill picks up over the coming weeks and months.
Giving the president power to shut down the Internet in the event of a threat is something that is unprecedented in America. As of now, it is not even certain that attacking American networks would be a viable option for most countries. The safeguards that we have in place have been tested be even the most skilled hackers.

Posted in Conspiracy Archives | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on A Macchiavellian “False Flag” from the Pentagon?

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

Talking to Taliban and Tribal Warlords

Posted by Admin on March 29, 2010

Talking to Taliban and Tribal Warlords

Sunday 28 March 2010

by: J. Sri Raman, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Across the sands

Across the sands

From October 7, 2001, until about a year ago, the world was hearing of the “war on terror” in the Af-Pak region as one on Taliban and tribal warlords allied to them. No longer. What assails our ears increasingly over the recent period is talk of a campaign to woo and win over a section of the same “enemies of civilization.”

All the avowed “anti-terror” warriors are engaged in the campaign. The US administration and the Afghanistan government are publicly committed to this policy change, with powerful quarters emulating the example despite protestations of uncompromising opposition to terrorism. Voices from within India, meanwhile, suggest pressures for a similar attempt by New Delhi. South Asia’s biggest power is being nudged to do business with forces officially regarded until the other day as implacably fundamentalist foes.

The campaign is approaching its culmination, with the highest international forum extending far-from-hidden support to the process. The United Nations, too, is now involved in not-so-secret talks with those considered not long ago as too terrorist for such UN-conferred legitimacy.

In one sense, it all began with President Barack Obama’s moves for a new Afghanistan strategy. Weeks before the strategy was announced on March 27, 2009, Obama said in a newspaper interview that the US “was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.”

Around the same time, speaking at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Vice President Joe Biden claimed that “at least 70 percent” of Taliban guerrilla fighters were “mercenaries” who could be “persuaded” to lay down their arms and join the “peace process.”

These signals could not but have strengthened the hands of those in Pakistan who were never excited about engaging in a serious conflict with Afghan insurgents – particularly the Taliban, perceived as largely a creation of Pakistan during the days of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Officially, of course, Pakistan is supposed to have abandoned all its reservations about an all-out “war on terror” with its offensive in the Swat region in May 2009. Ties with the Taliban, however, are still cherished in powerful quarters.

Shahbaz Sharif, the younger brother of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, caused much more than a ripple recently when he issued an appeal to the Taliban as the chief minister of Punjab, Pakistan’s largest and leading province closely identified with the country’s army. Shahbaz requested his “friendly” terrorists to spare Punjab because his party, the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N), had “something in common with them” (opposition to former President General Pervez Musharrf).

The appeal came in the wake of 12 terror attacks in less than a year, which left hundreds killed, including women and children, in Punjab’s Lahore, considered the country’s cultural capital. It has led to an outrage.

In a newspaper article captioned “The terror is next door, Mr. CM,” leading cultural activist Naeem Tahir says: “Rarely had he (Shahbaz) been noticed as much as he was noticed this time. Explanations followed, but these explained nothing. Everyone, including parliamentarians, journalists, government functionaries and the general public tried to figure out the meaning of this request.”

“Did he mean to suggest” – asked Tahir – “that the terrorists should spare Punjab and try Balochistan? Or Sindh or, for convenience of proximity to the Punjabi Taliban, try the capital Islamabad?” No convincing answer has been forthcoming.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani army has undertaken an agitprop operation alleging links between India and the Taliban. Military aircraft drop pamphlets in North Waziristan on ties between the Taliban and India’s external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). The pamphlets also talk of relations between Israeli intelligence outfit Mossad and Indian consulates in Afghanistan.

Until recently, the official Indian stand was against attempts to differentiate between “good Taliban” and “bad Taliban.” Of late, however, New Delhi has signaled its willingness to try out the line. The policy draws support from the thinking of the country’s security establishment over more than a decade of experience in the Af-Pak region as well.

A case for some ties with the Taliban is argued, for example, in an over-a-decade-old document authored by a former RAW official who is an informed and influential security analyst today. B. Raman, now a well-known columnist as well, talks in this paper titled “Bin Laden, Taliban and India” of the al-Qaeda leader’s ambiguous stance on Pakistan’s chief adversary.

Noting that the Taliban had issued no “call for killing Indians or Hindus,” Raman says: “The past anti-India comments of Osama and the Taliban were restricted to supporting the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination … It has repeatedly denied Indian allegations that its volunteers were active in Kashmir.”

Raman quotes the Taliban’s “most comprehensive statement to date on this subject (September 20, 1998)” as saying: “Afghanistan and India had friendly relations in the past. We don’t have any diplomatic ties now, but we won’t mind resuming relations with India as, at least, we won’t have to contend with an enemy India…. We obviously support the jihad in Kashmir… It is also true that some Afghans are fighting against Indian troops in Kashmir. The Taliban has not sent them…. We have no intention of exporting our jihad or revolution to any country.”

Raman’s counsel: “… India should test out the sincerity of the Taliban’s interest in a non-adversarial relationship with India by maintaining a line of communication with the Taliban leadership through their office in New York. Its professions of innocence should be tested out and not dismissed out of hand.” He adds: “The USA too, while taking strong action against the Taliban’s support to Osama and its violation of human rights, has at the same time maintained a dialogue with the Taliban leadership through their New York office and during the visits of US officials to Islamabad.”

Whether the counsel is heeded at last remains to be seen. Meanwhile, however, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai has opened talks with the country’s second-largest militant group linked to the Taliban. The Hizb-e-Islami has reportedly submitted to Karzai a 15-point plan for possible peace talks. The main point envisages withdrawal of all foreign forces from July this year, to be completed within six months.

At the helm of the Hizb-e-Islami stands Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a warlord and former prime minister classified as a terrorist by the US and the UN. This, however, has not stopped the world body from joining the bandwagon and initiating its own parleys with the insurgents.

First came former UN special envoy Kai Eide’s secret talks with Taliban leaders during his two-year tenure (from March 2008) in Afghanistan. The process was made public on March 25, 2010, with Staffan de Mistura, special UN representative in Afghanistan, meeting the men of UN-blacklisted Hekmatyar.

We do not know where the process will lead. It will be a strange end to the “war on terror,” however, if it leaves the Taliban and tribal warlords tyrannizing over their wild terrain and threatening peace over a larger South Asian region.

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 Talking to Taliban and Tribal Warlords

India warned of the coming Israeli False-Flag operation

Posted by Admin on March 28, 2010

India warned of the coming Israeli False-Flag operation



Two Mumbai (India) political activists, Feroze Mithiborwala and Kishore Jagtap has warned Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Opposition Leader Sonia Gandhi and Union Minister of Home Affairs P. Chidambaram that Israel is planning to carry out a massive terrorist attack in India during the Indian Premeir League (IPL 3) games being played currently. The reason being to divert world’s attention from Israel which is being isolated more and more due to country’s Zionzai policies against the native Palestinian Muslims and Christians and its political and military confrontation with Islamic Iran, Lebanon and now its ‘godmother’, the United States.

” We believe the Israeli Mossad is likely to stage a false flag terror attack during the ongoing IPL 3. We say it with conviction and basis of studied & thoughtful analysis of the international political situation, rooted in history. The reason we say so is the explosive political situation that exists in the Occupied Territories across Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Moreover, the Israeli government has clearly indicated to Joe Biden, the visiting US Vice-President that Israel would carry on the policy of expanding the (illegal Jewish) settlements. This has been rightly taken as a grave slight by the Obama administration and has invited remonstration from the White House. Never since 1975 have we witnessed such vituperative discord between Tel Aviv and Washington and this has been stated by Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren…”

“Israel also carries on with the policy of extreme provocation as they continue to violate the very sanctity and sovereignity of the Haram-e-Sharif that houses the Masjid-e-Aqsa and the Dome of Rock, which are amongst Islam’s most sacred shrines. Thus we are witnessing the outbreak of the “Third Intifada”, which is being met by brutal Israeli repression. Fanatical and extremist Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists Armageddonists’ are publically committed to the destruction of the two mosques and the construction of the Third Temple at the very site. A strong resonance of the Ram Jamma Bhoomi-Barbari Masjid crisis indeed, but with consequences that are fraught with danger and far too unimaginable for the world.”

“From the above it is apparent that Israel doesn’t want to negotiate a peaceful Two-State solution and is committed to annexation of all historical Palestine.”

“Another target in the aftermath of the false flag terrorist attack will be Iran and a major US-NATO military build-up has been and is currently underway in the Persian Gulf, as Iran is continued to be surrounded on all sides”.

London weekly, The Sunday Times, has reported that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his visit this week to Washington will press Barack Obama to release the advanced weapons needed for a possible strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. Meanwhile, the shipment of the 387 US smart bunker-buster bombs have arrived at US military base Diego Garcia, near Yemen. US military sources have admitted that the shipment was destined for Israel which Washington promised to Tel Aviv as part of US annual military aid to Israel in 2008. The Zionist entity needs these bombs to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

Paul Craig Roberts in his article, titled Expect a False Flag Terror Attack to Precede Invasion of Iran, wrote: “The next step will be a staged “terrorist attack,” a “false flag” operation as per Operation Northwoods, for which Iran will be blamed. As Iran and its leadership have already been demonized, the “false flag” attack will suffice to obtain US and European public support for bombing Iran. The bombing will include more than the nuclear facilities and will continue until the Iranians agree to regime change and the installation of a puppet government. The corrupt American media will present the new puppet as “freedom and democracy……. The U.S. population, it seems, is comprised of naifs whose lack of comprehension is bringing ruin to other lands.”

Posted in India Forgotten | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on India warned of the coming Israeli False-Flag operation

YEARS OF DECEIT: US OPENLY ACCEPTS BIN LADEN LONG DEAD

Posted by Admin on February 20, 2010

YEARS OF DECEIT: US OPENLY ACCEPTS BIN LADEN LONG DEAD

December 5, 2009 by Gordon Duff

screenhunter_10_dec._05_11.01_320BIN LADEN NEVER MENTIONED IN McCHRYSTAL REPORT OR OBAMA SPEECH

“HUNT FOR BIN LADEN” A NATIONAL SHAME

By Gordon Duff/STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Conservative commentator, former Marine Colonel Bob Pappas has been saying for years that bin Laden died at Tora Bora and that Senator Kerry’s claim that bin Laden escaped with Bush help was a lie.  Now we know that Pappas was correct.  The embarassment of having Secretary of State Clinton talk about bin Laden in Pakistan was horrific.  He has been dead since December 13, 2001 and now, finally, everyone, Obama, McChrystal, Cheney, everyone who isn’t nuts is finally saying what they have known for years.

However, since we lost a couple of hundred of our top special operations forces hunting for bin Laden after we knew he was dead, is someone going to answer for this with some jail time?  Since we spent 200 million dollars on “special ops” looking for someone we knew was dead, who is going to jail for that?  Since Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney continually talked about a man they knew was dead, now known to be for reasons of POLITICAL nature, who is going to jail for that?  Why were tapes brought out, now known to be forged, as legitimate intelligence to sway the disputed 2004 election in the US?  This is a criminal act if there ever was one.

In 66 pages, General Stanley McChrystal never mentions Osama bin Laden.  Everything is “Mullah Omar”now.  In his talk at West Point, President Obama never mentioned Osama bin Laden.  Col. Pappas makes it clear, Vice President Cheney let it “out of the bag” long ago.  Bin Laden was killed by American troops many many years ago.

America knew Osama bin Laden died December 13, 2001.  After that, his use was hardly one to unite America but rather one to divide, scam and play games.  With bin Laden gone, we could have started legitimate nation building in Afghanistan instead of the eternal insurgency that we invented ourselves.

Without our ill informed policies, we could have had a brought diplomatic solution in 2002 in Afghanistan, the one we are ignoring now, and spent money rebuilding the country, 5 cents on the dollar compared to what we are spending fighting a war against an enemy we ourselves recruited thru ignorance.

The bin Laden scam is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated against the American people.  We don’t even know if he really was an enemy, certainly he was never the person that Bush and Cheney said.  In fact, the Bush and bin Laden families were always close friends and had been for many years.

What kind of man was Osama bin Laden?  This one time American ally against Russia, son of a wealthy Saudi family, went to Afghanistan to help them fight for their freedom.  America saw him as a great hero then.  Transcripts of the real bin Laden show him to be much more moderate than we claim, angry at Israel and the US government but showing no anger toward Americans and never making the kind of theats claimed.  All of this is public record for any with the will to learn.

osama_bush_capturedHow much of America’s tragedy is tied with these two children of the rich, children of families long joined thru money and friendship, the Bush and bin Laden clans.

One son died in remote mountains, another lives in a Dallas suburb hoping nobody is sent after him.  One is a combat veteran, one never took a strong stand unless done from safety and comfort.  Islam once saw bin Laden as a great leader.  Now he is mostly forgotten.

What has America decided about Bush?

We know this:  Bin Laden always denied any ties to 9/11 and, in fact, has never been charged in relation to 9/11.  He not only denied involvement, but had done so, while alive, 4 times and had vigorously condemned those who were involved in the attack.

This is on the public record, public in every free country except ours.  We, instead, showed films made by paid actors, made up to look somewhat similar to bin Laden, actors who contradicted bin Ladens very public statements, actors pretending to be bin Laden long after bin Laden’s death.

These were done to help justify spending, repressive laws, torture and simple thievery.

For years, we attacked the government of Pakistan for not hunting down someone everyone knew was dead.  Bin Laden’s death hit the newspapers in Pakistan on December 15, 2001.  How do you think our ally felt when they were continually berated for failing to hunt down and turn over someone who didn’t exist?

What do you think this did for American credibility in Pakistan and thru the Islamic world?  Were we seen as criminals, liars or simply fools?  Which one is best?

This is also treason.

How does the death of bin Laden and the defeat and dismemberment of Al Qaeda impact the intelligence assessments, partially based on, not only bin Laden but Al Qaeda activity in Iraq that,not only never happened but was now known to have been unable to happen?

How many “Pentagon Pundits,” the retired officers who sold their honor to send us to war for what is now known to be domestic political dirty tricks and not national security are culpable in these crimes?

I don’t always agree with Col. Pappas on things.  I believe his politics overrule his judgement at times.  However, we totally agree on bin Laden, simply disagree with what it means.  To me lying and sending men to their deaths based on lies is treason.

Falsifying military intelligence and spending billions on unnecessary military operations for political reasons is an abomination.  Consider this, giving billions in contracts to GOP friends who fill campaign coffers, and doing so based on falsified intelligence is insane.  This was done for years.

We spent 8 years chasing a dead man, spending billions, sending FBI agents, the CIA, Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, Special Forces, many to their deaths, as part of a political campaign to justify running American into debt, enriching a pack of political cronies and war profiteers and to puff up a pack of Pentagon peacocks and their Whitehouse draft dodging bosses.

How many laws were pushed thru because of a dead man?

How many hundreds were tortured to find a dead man?

How many hundreds died looking for a dead man?

How many billions were spent looking for a dead man?

Every time Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stood before troops and talked about hunting down the dead bin Laden, it was a dishonor.  Lying to men and women who put their lives on the line is not a joke.duffster

Who is going to answer to the families of those who died for the politics and profit tied to the Hunt for Bin Laden?


Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues.

Posted in War Quotient | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off on YEARS OF DECEIT: US OPENLY ACCEPTS BIN LADEN LONG DEAD

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