Wednesday, November 30, 2005

911 for Very Busy People

You're really busy, right? You've heard something about 9-11 and conspiracy theories, but you don't have time for it. Right?

Well, here is a very brief executive summary for you of some of the facts about 9-11 which you likely have never heard (and which will bring you up to speed on the issue in around 2 minutes):

• The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

• The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building

• Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House

• A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations recently said

"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!"

• Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba

• The Secret Service, which is highly trained to whisk the president away from danger and to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached all standard procedures and allowed President Bush to remain at a highly-publicized location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack

• The U.S. defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run

• The military had also conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon

• On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. And the drills apparently included the injection of false "radar blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers

• The government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building on the morning of 9/11

• While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, the Secretary of Transportation testified before the 9/11 Commission that Vice President Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon

• A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone

• USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

• MSNBC stated that police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

• The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

• NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

• The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"

• Eyewitnesses have testified that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had even hit

• A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed

• Numerous, credible ex-government officials are warning that the U.S. government might very well attack its own people to justify a further clampdown on civil rights and to justify additional wars

All of the above-described facts are documented, with original source material (virtually all from mainstream news sources or extremely credible witnesses) here. If you are sceptical about any of the above-described facts, click and see for yourself.



22 comments

Monday, November 28, 2005

Introduction to 9/11 for Those Who Still Believe the Official Story

The administration's claim that terrorists crashing planes into buildings was not foreseeable is flatly disproven by the following evidence:

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland, had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the World Trade Center, were run.

Indeed, on the morning of September 11, 2001 itself, the government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

The military had also conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon. For example, see this official military website showing a military drill conducted in 2000, using miniatures.

Moreover, a 1998 report forwarded from the FBI to the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that "a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center"

The CIA Director had also warned Congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio

Indeed, it was widely known within the FBI in the weeks before 9/11 that an imminent attack was planned on lower Manhattan.

And an employee who worked in the south tower stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on"

In addition, a guard who worked in the world trade center stated that "officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks"

And Sibel Edmonds -- the former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that the government did have fairly specific foreknowledge of the time frames of the attacks.

This is in addition to the numerous warnings from foreign intelligence services of an imminent attack on the U.S, and the known history of plans to use planes as bombs.

And remember the supposed Al-Qaeda statements of 9/10 that"tomorrow is zero hour" and "the match begins tomorrow"? The government claims these intercepts were not translated by the intelligence services until after 9/11. But given the administration's lies about pre-war intelligence on Iraq, and given that Sibel Edmonds also testified that the government pressured her to CHANGE THE DATE of her translations of pre-911 intelligence, do you buy that?

Given these facts, the government clearly possessed foreknowledge of at least the basics of the 9/11 attacks, including the general targets and timeframe.

This essay discusses only foreknowledge, and not who actually carried out the 911 attacks, or why they were carried out. If you have now learned for the first time that the government had foreknowledge, we invite you review the fuller story of 9/11 for yourself by clicking here


8 comments

Friday, November 25, 2005

Video of Construction of the World Trade Center

In searching for blueprints of the World Trade Centers, I stumbled upon an 18-minute film made in 1983 of the construction of the Twin Towers called "The Center of the World".

I have not seen this video referenced anywhere before. In fact, I have never before seen any video on the construction of the Twin Towers.

This video should provide source material for 9-11 researchers analyzing the construction, strength and heat-dispersing properties of the towers. I have not yet had time to analyze the video in detail, and so I cannot yet say what useful evidence the film contains. I'll leave that up to the physicists, engineers and other dedicated 9-11 researchers to determine.

Postscript: I have also found a lead for at least a small portion of the blueprints for the Twin Towers. Stay tuned...


1 comments

Osama bin Laden - Evil Supergenius?

A reader sent me this essay called "Osama bin Laden - Evil Supergenius?". I think it is a very interesting analysis of why Bin Laden would not have carried out 9/11 the way it actually occurred on that terrible way.

Note: Contains foul language. But the ideas are well worth reading.


1 comments

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Interview with Scott Forbes

Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.

I spoke with Scott Forbes by telephone for around a half hour in late 2004. I also arranged a video interview. However, due to delays by a third person in releasing that video, Scott and I agreed to post a written interview now to fill in some of the details of Scott's experience.


GENERAL BACKGROUND

GW: In 2001, you were working as an information technology specialist for Fiduciary Trust. Were you the main IT person for Fiduciary Trust, or were you an assistant IT person?

SF: I worked within an IT department of around 100 as a senior DBA [database administrator] and team leader.

GW: Fiduciary Trust had floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower at that time. Did you work on a specific floor, or did your duties normally keep you roaming on several floors?

SF: I and my technology colleagues worked on the 97th floor ... in the course of the day we would have meetings or give support on other floors but most our time would have been spent on the 97th floor.

THE WEEKEND OF SEPTEMBER 8TH AND 9TH

GW: You've previously stated that on the weekend of September 8 and 9, 2001, there was a "power down" condition in world trade center Tower 2, the South Tower, and that this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. Do you know what time the power-down started?

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

GW: You've previously stated that you were aware of the power down since you worked in the IT department and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. How many other Fiduciary Trust folks were you working with? Can any of them verify your story?

SF: Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information.

GW: You said the reason given by the World Trade Center or Port Authority for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded. Do you know what parts of the building or how extensive the area would have been for upgrading cabling? In other words, would the area being worked on have been near the outer walls of the tower? Near the core? In the middle?

SF: I have no knowledge about this and can't comment ...

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were no security cameras. How do you know that? Could there have been backup generators which powered the security cameras?

SF: Within my company security cameras were monitored and videos retained for reference. They were powered from the usual power supplies so they would ave been out of action like all other electrical appliances.

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were security locks on doors. Are you just referring to outside doors, or also office doors? Were the locks electrical or key? If electrical, were they battery-operated?

SF: I was referring to the secure doors accessing my companies floors (and other companies). I do not believe there were any battery operated doors.

GW: You also stated there were many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. Did you see any of these folks yourself?

SF: Yes. By “engineers” I mean there were workmen on site, in overalls.

GW: Did these folks look "middle eastern"?

SF: No, not particularly, I mean I don't recall registering that the
guys were of one racial group or another.

GW: Did you recognize any of them from previous "work" in the tower?

SF: No.

THE MORNING OF 9/11

GW: You were home on the shore of Jersey City on the morning of 9/11, and -- according to what you have said previously -- you were "convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work". Why did you think that?

SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on. I became more suspicious several months later when the power down condition was never acknowledged and in some instances was denied by authorities.

THE 9/11 COMMISSION

GW: Finally, you've stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)

SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.

GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?

SF: No

GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?

SF: I have another piece of interesting information ... after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events ... but I've often wondered why us authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best ... negligence at worst.

Postscript: Scott did not wish to speak with me concerning reports of explosions above the impact zone in the tower, perhaps because of privacy concerns for the family members of those who died in the tower. Scott told me that he was recently interviewed for a Dutch TV Documentary. So stay tuned: 2 videos of Scott should be coming out soon. .


30 comments

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Professor Jones is Right: Government Refused to Examine Trade Center Collapses

BYU Physics professor Steven Jones has stated that the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any evidence regarding the buildings’ impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses, apparent demolition squibs, the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air, the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings, or the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree.

I just ran across an article from a respected civil engineering trade journal which backs up Professor Jones' claim that the government did not really examine the conditions immediately prior to collapse or the collapses themselves. Specifically, the article from the journal of the 180-year old UK Institution of Civil Engineers states:

"World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers".

The article goes on to state "a leading U.S. structural engineer said 'By comparison [to the modelling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated' . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.'”
(free subscription required; copy posted here).

In other words, the U.S. structural engineer is saying that even the non-visual computer models which NIST used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty.

So this article from an old and respected engineering society shows two things:

(1) NIST (the government agency examining the collapse of the world trade centers) refuses to show any computer visualizations of the collapses themselves, while NIST has released models of much of the pre-collapse events with extravagant (even if incorrect) animation; and

(2) NIST pushed its software "to new limits", and used "simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls" to reach a pre-established conclusion: that the towers collapsed due to fire and jet impact alone (a tricky feat, since the data actually indicates controlled demolitions).


2 comments

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

9/11 Lies: Another Basis for Impeachment

"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda".

In addition, a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.

And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed and continue to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. See this analysis. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Indeed, President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Therefore, Bush expressly justified the Iraq war to Congress by representing that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks.

Grounds for impeachment based on 9-11 lies are just as important as those based on lies regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because the administration's false claims about Saddam and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to support the invasion of Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Saddam-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.

Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since that terrible day, the American people have been terrified, and thus irrational, based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues until "we get the bad guys."

Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any cost. Thus, I would argue that the Saddam-911 deception was a necessary precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.

And polls show that almost 90% of the troops in Iraq are under the mistaken belief that the U.S. mission in that country is “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.” In other words, our kids are fighting and dying because of this lie.

Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. (As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries.) Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans are a good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of their countries? I believe not, without first exposing that the Reichstag fire -- the sole event which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power. The Germans were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader.

Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.

The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time.

But Can They Really Be Impeached for 9/11 Lies?

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has stated that "Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals" is grounds for impeachment (see paragraph 10) and see paragraph 7 here ("Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information . . . .")

Lying about Saddam's connection to 9/11 may thus be an impeachable offense.

Postscript: On December 16, 2005, Bush admitted "There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11" (and see this video). However, Bush and Cheney continue to frequently invoke 9/11 as justification for the Iraq war (and see this).

A bipartisan Senate Report from 2006 found that
Bush misled the press on Iraq link to Al-Qaeda

On April 24, 2007,
Congressman Kucinich submitted articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney which include Cheney's false linkage of Iraq and 9/11.

It has also just been revealed that 5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said "my interest is to hit Saddam".
This confirms previous reports that hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time", is the statement "Hard to get a good case." In other words, top officials knew that there wasn't a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.

This article does not discuss the evidence that elements of the U.S. government actually carried out or aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks themselves. However, if articles of impeachment were filed concerning the administration's lies about 9/11, then the truth of who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks would be relevant, and a door opened to examine such evidence.


17 comments

Monday, November 21, 2005

Why the Use of White Phosphorus (and Depleted Uranium) IS a War Crime

Now that the Pentagon has admitted that it used white phosphorous as an offensive weapon in Iraq (and not, as first claimed, solely as a flare), the U.S. is predictably arguing that it did not commit war crimes, since the U.S. did not sign Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons ("Protocol III"). It is true that the U.S. never ratified Protocol III -- which outlaws the use of incendiary devices in war.

However, in trying to defend against war crime allegations, the U.S. may have escaped from the frying pan by jumping into the fire.

Specifically, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases". The U.S. has ratified the 1925 Protocol.

The 1925 Protocol is part of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act of 1996, in turn, specifically makes it a crime to commit a "grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party." See Section (c)(1) of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The U.S. National Safety Council states that "White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.

Since the cloud is "asphyxiating or poisonous", then whoever ordered the white phosphorous attacks in Iraq, whether Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, 5-star generals, or lower down the chain of command, could conceivably be tried under the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The use of White phosphorus ("WP") may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets." Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds.

Depleted Uranium

The U.S. military's bombardment of Iraq in the current war and in the first Gulf War is also likely a war crime which violates the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of Depleted Uranium ("DU") was a war crime.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission [on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights], laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.


Since the use of DU violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, it also likely violates the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The use of white phosphorous as a weapon against civilians and the use of thousands of metric tons of DU could thus probably be prosecuted as war crimes. Such actions -- especially when taken together with the numerous war crimes discussed previously -- could provide the basis for imposing life sentences or even the death penalty against the high-level U.S. officials who ordered, condoned or covered up such crimes, including those who provided the philosophical framework which allowed such crimes to occur.


6 comments

Able Danger is a Red Herring

Recent revelations concerning Able Danger, the U.S. government program which identified later-named hijackers more than a year before 9/11, are a red herring. Specifically, they are an attempt to take the wind out of the growing 9/11 truth movement and to divert attention from the growing public awareness that 9/11 was an inside job. In propaganda language, Able Danger is a "limited hang out".

Why? Because Able Danger is receiving tremendous press, and yet it feeds into the "incompetence" theory of 9/11 -- Bush and the administration were negligent in failing to see the signs and follow the leads that would have prevented 9/11 -- instead of addressing the fact that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition or that the U.S. military was intentionally "stood down" through the use of multiple war games, the injection of false radar blips onto air traffic controllers' screens, etc.

However, that doesn't mean that -- if people bring up Able Danger -- we can't use it to our advantage. Specifically, in discussing Able Danger, some heavyweights are questioning the 9/11 Commission. For example:

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh said there was a "cover up" by the Commission, and he understood why the 9/11 families were calling for a new commission

Representative Chris Shays (R-CT), the Chair of the 9/11 Caucus and the Gov't Reform Subcommitee on National Security and Emerging Threats, said "If this wasn't reported by the Commission, what else wasn't reported." (CQ Weekly, Aug. 12)]

And Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer (Bronze Star recipient and Able Danger Liaison) said "Plus the 9/11 Commission may not have 'connected the dots' as completely as they could and should have - and that is my concern - and the concern of others working this issue - what else have we missed? Where else are we vulnerable? Was there an effort to ignore specific information? Why is there the appearance of a cover-up?"

Moreover, the efforts by 9/11 Commissioners themselves to smear the people leaking the Able Danger story shows that the Commission was never interested in the truth of what happened on 9/11, and will viciously attack anyone who questions the "official" 9/11 story.

In other words, the fact that "pillars of the establishment" are questioning the 9/11 Commission may help to discredit that cover-up operation. Once the main disinfo effort is discredited, maybe Americans will start engaging their brains in thinking about what really happened on 9/11.

So those spreading 9/11 truth should not raise Able Danger -- it is a red herring and a limited hang out (and anyone pushing Able Danger to the exclusion of more important 9/11 facts may be part of the disinfo effort). But if someone else raises Able Danger, you can use it as a bridge to talk about the real 9/11 issues: seize the opportunity to respond by pointing out that even the former FBI director has acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission engaged in a cover up, that prominent congressmen have said the Commission missed many other and more important facts and will smear anyone who brings up such facts, and THEN launch into what those facts are: controlled demolition of the world trade centers; the intentional and very active stand-down of the U.S. military, etc.

This is information judo: if the opponent tries to poke you in the eye to blind you, use his own motion to flip him on his back.


8 comments

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Vote Fraud in the U.S.?

Nah ... that's impossible!

Well, hold on just one second. How much do you really know about voting in the U.S. You probably know all 20 of these facts. Right?

But that couldn't happen in the U.S. Right?! Let's look at what some folks have said in their own words:

"The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
- Joseph Stalin, Communist dictator

"The authority of the Führer has now been wholly established. Votes are no longer taken. The Führer decides."
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

"The election is over. We won." (Reporter's voice - "How do you know that?") "It's all over, but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."
- U.S. Congressman Peter King (R-NY), before the 2004 election (watch the video)


0 comments

Friday, November 18, 2005

Would the U.S. Terrorize Its Own People?

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". - Adolph Hitler

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin

But could this happen in modern America? Initially, it is now fairly well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a fabrication. See
this article.

More importantly, official, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following
ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (click link entitled "Joint Chiefs Guilty-Northwoods").

But Al-Qaeda is different -- powerful, organized, and out to get us, right? Maybe, but take a look at
this Los Angeles Times Article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares".

And did you know that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 world trade center bombing, but had -- at the last minute -- cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake power for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view)?

And did you know that the CIA is alleged to have met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11?

And did you see the statement by the CIA commander in charge of the capture that the U.S. LET Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan?

And have you heard that the anthrax attacks -- which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists -- used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility, the Fort Detrick military base? Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong"; and see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer. It is also interesting that the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing Patriot Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of congress into passing that act without even reading it. And it might be coincidence, but White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred.

Even the threat of terror works, as shown by this brief essay showing that the administration issues terror alerts when its poll numbers go down.

If we do not learn our history, we are doomed to repeat it. See this article on the Reichstag fire, and this article on the perennial ploy of those grabbing power.

Indeed, many credible people are now warning that the U.S. government may very well use terror (again) on the American people:

On November 15th, the former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury expressed his dire warning that the Neo-Cons in the Bush administration may be set to stage another terror attack in the US as part of a black operation to demolish growing dissent and coerce the public to rally behind the government once again.

Also in November, an allegedly leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline.

In October, a retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag.

That same month, current U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated that the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

Also in October, the Former UN Weapons Inspector who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, is now hinting at the same thing.

And a member of the British Parliament recently stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

Would the U.S. government terrorize its own people? Yes, unless we expose their tricks.



5 comments

Thursday, November 17, 2005

High-Level Officials Warn of Government-Sponsored Terror

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag
.

Congressman Ron Paul has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran" (see also this).

A member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

One of the 1000 most influential political thinkers, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and the former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration,said:
Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

***

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconservatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline.

In addition, many high-level people have hinted at a false flag attack.

For example, a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation (or watch the video)

And a former prominent republican congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the Bush administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.

And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.


0 comments

There's Never Been a Real 9/11 Investigation

You might reasonably assume that the 9/11 Commission investigated September 11th, and concluded that Osama Bin Laden and his group of terrorists were solely responsible.

Unfortunately, a quick look at the government's investigations reveals that -- not only has there never been a real investigation -- but the behavior of government representatives in willfully obstructing all attempts at investigation comprises evidence of guilt. Specifically, in all criminal trials, evasiveness, obstruction, and destruction of evidence all constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the accused is guilty or, at the very least, not to be believed. 9/11 is no different.

For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

And former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

But let's back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures", so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the "pre-emptive war" doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).

The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As stated by the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government's international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, "there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about."

For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director's urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission's investigation. There are literally hundreds of examples of entire lines of evidence which contradict the government's account which were ignored by the Commission.

Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now "question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report", and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"?

Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found?

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?

And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime.

Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11?

Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.


1 comments

There's Never Been a Real 9/11 Investigation

You might reasonably assume that the 9/11 Commission investigated September 11th, and concluded that Osama Bin Laden and his group of terrorists were solely responsible.

Unfortunately, a quick look at the government's investigations reveals that -- not only has there never been a real investigation -- but the behavior of government representatives in willfully obstructing all attempts at investigation comprises evidence of guilt. Specifically, in all criminal trials, evasiveness, obstruction, and destruction of evidence all constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the accused is guilty or, at the very least, not to be believed. 9/11 is no different.

For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

And former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

But let's back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures", so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the "pre-emptive war" doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).

The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As stated by the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government's international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, "there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about."

For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director's urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission's investigation. There are literally hundreds of examples of entire lines of evidence which contradict the government's account which were ignored by the Commission.

Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now "question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report", and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"?

Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found?

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?

And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime.

Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11?

Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.


5 comments

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The War Games of September 11th

On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that ON 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS.

On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that "Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject,' is purged from the screens". This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers' screens as part of the war game exercises.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were MOVED UP to September 11th by persons unknown.

Interestingly, Vice President Cheney was apparently in charge of ALL of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this previously-cited essay.

And while the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, this short video clip of the Secretary of Transportation's testimony before the 9/11 Commission shows that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon. How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Moreover, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor for the two planes which hit the Twin Towers "like the back of my hand" and who has handled two actual hijackings, says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and further says that the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights continuously from the time they were hijacked to the time they hit their targets (part of statement is contained in this interview).

Additionally, this diagram shows that the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. See also this essay about the war games; this essay regarding the stand down of the military; and see this war game proposal created before 9/11 revolving around Bin Laden and including "live-fly exercises" involving real planes, later confirmed by this official Department of Defense website.

Which scenario is more likely from a strictly logistical perspective:

(1) An outsider sitting in a cave defeating the air defense system of the sole military superpower; or

(2) Someone like Cheney -- who on 9/11 apparently had full control over all defense, war game and counter-terrorism powers -- rigging and gaming the system?

Remember that for the attacks to have succeeded, it was necessary that actions be taken in the middle of the war games and the actual attacks which would thwart the normal military response. For example, Cheney watched flight 77 approach the Pentagon from many miles out, but instructed the military to do nothing (as shown in the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, linked above). Could Bin Laden have done that?

Fighter jets were also sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), so as to neutralize their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners. Could Osama Bin Laden and his sent-from-the-cave band of followers have exercised this degree of control over the military? Obviously not.

And air traffic controllers claim they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down, long after the military claims they purged the phantom war-game-related radar signals. Could Bin Laden have interfered with the full purging of false radar blips inserted as part of the war games? In other words, could Bin Laden have overridden the purging process so that some false blips remained and confused air traffic controllers? The answer is clear.

Therefore, it is statistically much more likely that Cheney and/or other high-level U.S. government and military officials pulled the 9/11 trigger than that Bin Laden did it. At the very least, they took affirmative steps to guarantee that the hijackers' attacks succeeded.


11 comments

Tucker Carlson Just Told Me To Stop Paying Taxes!

Tucker Carlson wrote today, regarding Dr. Steven Jones' belief that the world trade centers were brought down with bombs:

"If you really thought this - or even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here? You couldn't . . . CONTINUING TO PAY TAXES TO A GOVERNMENT CAPABLE OF SOMETHING SO EVIL WOULD MAKE YOU COMPLICIT IN THE CRIME."

Personally, I've always paid my taxes. And yet, after looking at the evidence, I am convinced that bombs brought down buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the world trade center.

I guess I should stop paying taxes now? The popular commentator and de-facto government spokesperson just instructed me to do so. I am a law-abiding citizen, and I don't want to be complicit in a crime. Being complicit in a crime like 9/11 might end me up in the pokey.

I haven't looked into whether or not it is illegal to stop paying taxes. Some pretty smart people have said that it is not. But, being somewhat conservative, I've always kept paying 'em.

But even if illegal, wouldn't non-payment be excused by the "necessity defense" -- in other words, committing a crime in order to avoid a greater evil?

I may have to reconsider this whole tax thing.

Legal disclaimer: I am not a tax or a criminal lawyer, and so I am obviously not providing legal advice. I am not recommending that you do or do not take any actions or non-actions. Think for yourself. I do.


2 comments

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Crooked Cops and 9-11

Every defendant in a criminal trial tries to argue that he was framed. On the other hand, anyone who's watched a tv detective show knows that crooked police officers do sometimes plant false evidence in order to frame an innocent person for the crime (and see this video).

If a detective is any good, he will take a look at whether the evidence was planted or real. While he won't accept the defendant's word at face value, he will discard any evidence which was obviously planted. If he determines that evidence is planted, he will ask the follow up questions of who planted the evidence and why. His investigative instincts and street smarts will also lead him to ask whether the person who planted the evidence was the real criminal -- because the real perpetrator of the crime often has the biggest motivation to frame someone else.

Are you with me so far? Do you agree?

OK, let's turn to September 11, 2001. Believe it or not, the top expert on Osama Bin Laden has said that Bin Laden's "confession" is fake.

And the flight manuals and other evidence supposedly "accidentally" left behind by the terrorists were in fact planted. For example, the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam wrote:

"Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, 'Whatever trail was left was left deliberately -- for the F.B.I. to chase'"
.

Additionally, at least 7 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are still alive (see also this BBC article). However, the FBI apparently continues to this day to stick to its list of 19 hijackers. If identifying the names and identities of the hijackers were of real concern to the government (instead of framing a bunch of patsies), why wouldn't the government have modified the list after discovering that they had mistaken identities for at least 7 of the hijackers?

And imagine if a piece of evidence could not be authenticated according to basic science. For example, let's say an apparent confession note was found at an arson crime scene where the entire building had been turned to fine ash particles and nothing else survived. That would raise suspicions, right?

Well, a passport from one of the alleged hijackers was "found" a couple of blocks from the Twin Towers. And yet the government claims that the areas inside the Twin Towers where planes crashed were infernos so hot that they caused the collapse of the massive steel cores in the center of the towers. Indeed, the passport-owner's hijacked plane was allegedly almost completely lodged in the building's core. How could the passport have survived and ended up a couple of blocks away?

It is thus clear that evidence was planted to frame the hijackers on 9/11. Even a simple tv detective would ask who had the opportunity and motive to frame these patsies. He would also ask whether the persons who planted the evidence were the real culprits.

Perjury, Destruction of Evidence and Cover-Up

Everyone knows that when a witness is caught lying or changing his testimony, it effectively discredits him. If the witness is himself the accused criminal, then perjury, inconsistent testimony or destroying evidence tends to implicate the defendant's guilt.

Well, even the 9/11 Commission now states that Norad intentionally lied about what happened on 9/11. Indeed, Norad has given 3 separate, inconsistent versions of what happened that terrible day.

And Vice President Cheney changed his testimony and lied by stating that he did not enter the Presidential Emergency Operations Center until around 20 minutes after the Pentagon strike. In other words, Cheney changed his testimony in order to avoid damaging evidence.

And the government destroyed evidence and then completely covered up what happened on 9/11.

And what if a Defendant threatened important witnesses against him? Wouldn't that be a hint that the Defendant might be guilty? Well, the government has used frivolous arguments to silence a 9/11 whistleblower. Indeed, due to the government's efforts to silence her, she has become "the most gagged person in history".

Is that how an innocent party acts?

Postscript: Hani Hanjour was supposedly the pilot of the plane which crashed into the Pentgagon. But Hanjour's "name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket." Not on the flight manifest? If he didn't have a ticket, how'd he get on the flight? Is it possible that he was not the pilot, but that his name was used for some reason of convenience? In fact, Hanjour was such a terrible pilot that some have argued he could not have physically performed the "fighther jet" like maneuvers of the plane which crashed into the Pentagon.

I am NOT saying that planes did not crash into the Twin Towers: they did. Instead, I am saying that the people who planted the phony evidence did not want any questions about who the hijackers really were, who let them in the country, who masterminded the attacks, who stood down our military so that fighter jets did not intercept the planes, who planned the attacks on the same day that 5 war games were being conducted by the U.S. military (including at least 1 "live-fly" exercise using real planes), and whether someone else brought down the world trade centers with controlled demolitions. See www.911Proof.com regarding all of these claims. I'm saying the planted evidence casts doubt on the entire official story.

And falsifying and destroying the actual, existing evidence further reinforces the implication of guilt.


9 comments

Monday, November 14, 2005

9-11 End Game

We are finally there: the idea that explosives brought down the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center is now starting to go mainstream. Dr. Steven Jones, the physics professor from Brigham Young University, was interviewed tonight on MSNBC's The Situation Room with Tucker Carlson (if you have trouble viewing the video, you can see it here), after being interviewed Thursday by Utah's largest television station. Dr. Jones argues that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition. Jones, along with David Ray Griffin and other writers on controlled demolition, are starting to get exposure throughout the country.

The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks and their allies undoubtedly long-ago realized that the truth about the bombs in the towers would eventually come out. Therefore, I can guarantee that they've thought of a cover story to deal with this eventuality: namely, that Osama and the boys planted explosives in the buildings.

This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Dr. Jones is not stating who planted the bombs. Therfore, in addition to attempting to smear Dr. Jones, the disinformation agents will likely try to fall back on an argument like this: "we don't think there were bombs (and these guys are crazy who say so); but if there were bombs, Bin Laden and his followers planted them".

I have kept quiet about this for many months, as I did not want to telegraph our punch too early. But I believe that the time is now right to force the issue, and that the harm from discussing the end game is far outweighed by the need to come up with a strong counterargument to the "Osama did it" story. So here are my thoughts:

(1) The story that Al-Qaeda planted bombs logically fails. First of all, a couple of truck bombs wouldn't have done it. It took a coordinated and controlled demolition, involving bombs in the basements and throughout the buildings. Controlled demolitions of large buildings take many months of planning, expert timing, and complete control and coordination.

(2) The Twin Towers were some of the world's largest buildings, and they were demolished with near perfection, causing very little damage to surrounding buildings. This is not something that a bunch of rag-tag terrorists could have done on their own.

(3) Additionally, the sudden "straightening out" of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree could ONLY have been accomplished through very sophisticated demolition techniques. There are only a handful of demolition experts in the world who could have changed the direction of a toppling building in mid-air through destruction of the support structures underneath the falling building, so that the building would not topple sideways and destroy surrounding buildings. Osama and the boys? Impossible.

(4) Security for the trade centers was provided by a Bush-linked company. How did a couple of sent-from-the-cave terrorists, unconnected with the military or intelligence resources of the United States (with help from Israel?), have gained the access necessary to have installed the elaborate network of explosives and triggers required to implement these controlled demolitions?

(5) Even if the first tower had been brought down by Al-Qaeda, why didn't the government jam the radio frequencies or cell phones which would have been needed to orchestrate the controlled demolition of the second tower and of building 7? Why didn't the military send in an AWACS plane and jam all communications signals in the entire area (its easy to do)?

(6) Why did the 9-11 Commission and NIST lie and say fires brought down the buildings? This is evidence of guilt, and a cover-up. "We didn't want to scare the people" does not cut it. Covering up with a lie is evidence of guilt.

9/11 researchers and writers who are better informed than me will be able to add points I missed, and to take points off the list which are weak or unimportant. I'm providing a rough first draft, not a finished product.

If we can refute the coming limited hang out story that Al-Qaeda done it, we can win the 9-11 end game -- getting the full truth out there and imprisoning all of those responsible.


8 comments