Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
#1
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 3112738404
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#2
WOW.....

My Thoughts Exactly Keith !!!

when the hell are people going to wake up about 9/11? I mean never mind all the glaring inconsitencies with the hijackers, airplanes, and security of the WTC just before 9/11..... they can't even explain the collapse of the buildings accurately. I mean, just look at the collapse of building 7!!! Not only did building 7 not get hit, but it was actually further away then a few other buildings which did not collapse...hell those closer buildings only got a little damage to some windows and small fires. I've seen video footage of it, clearly outling explosions going down the buildings (especially clear footage in building 7 of this) as they collapse.

Something very corrupt and ridiculously foul went on that morning...
-----------------------------------
Reefer synthesizzler Reefer
Careful with that Axe, Eugene
Reply
#3
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bump.gif" alt="Bump" title="bump" />
Some more interesting gear
Here
Reply
#4
AWWW...I can't read all that...can't we just hang the bastards already? There's more than enough evidence to try em and hang em for their other crimes.
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/brucelee.gif" alt="Brucelee" title="Bruce Lee" />
Reply
#5
Even <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/nibble.gif" alt="Nibble" title="nibble" /> doesn't have that many "HOLES" :scream:
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#6
http://www.oilempire.us/
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#7
Quote:Yet Another Bush Lie
By Robert Parry
February 8, 2006


George W. Bush has assured Americans that they can relax about his warrantless wiretapping because the program is reviewed by lots of lawyers and intelligence professionals. What he doesn’t say is that officials who object too much find themselves isolated, ridiculed and pushed out of their jobs.

For instance, when Deputy Attorney General James Comey refused to recertify the spying program in March 2004 – while Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital – Bush gave Comey a derisive nickname, as “Cuomey” or “Cuomo” after New York’s former liberal Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo, Newsweek has reported.

Similarly, a high-ranking intelligence official who questioned the wiretapping program told the Washington Post that his objections soon made him an unwanted outsider. He encountered awkward silences when he attended meetings where the eavesdropping rules were discussed.

“I became aware at some point of things I was not being told about,” the intelligence official said. [Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2006]

Another outcast from the Bush administration’s clique of insiders was Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, who reportedly led an internal rebellion of Justice Department lawyers who protested Bush’s assertion of nearly unlimited presidential powers for the duration of the War on Terror.

“Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law,” Newsweek wrote. “They did so at their peril; ostracized, some were denied promotions, while others left for more comfortable climes in private law firms and academia.”

White House Nerves

Goldsmith – a Republican conservative but not a believer in the absolutist Presidency – started getting on the White House’s nerves in fall 2003 after taking over the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).

First, Goldsmith argued that Iraqi prisoners were protected by the Geneva Conventions and couldn’t be subjected to coercion. Then, Goldsmith challenged a legal memo that had supported Bush’s right to authorize torture.

Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief counsel David Addington addressed Goldsmith with dripping sarcasm, accusing him of undermining the powers of the President, Newsweek reported in its Feb. 6, 2006, edition.

“Now that you’ve withdrawn legal opinions that the President of the United States has been relying on,” Addington reportedly told Goldsmith, “I need you to go through all of OLC’s opinions (relating to the War on Terror) and let me know which ones you still stand by.”

Goldsmith’s opposition to Bush’s program for warrantless wiretapping of Americans brought the tensions to a head. He drew support from Comey, who refused to sign a recertification of the wiretap program in March 2004 when he was filling in for ailing Attorney General Ashcroft.

White House chief of staff Andrew Card and Bush’s counsel Alberto Gonzales rushed to visit Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery. Faced with Comey’s objections – and the resistance from Goldsmith – Ashcroft also balked at continuing the wiretap program, which was temporarily suspended while a compromise was reached on more safeguards. [NYT, Jan. 1, 2006]

The battle over the warrantless wiretaps reportedly earned Comey the derisive nickname from Bush as “Cuomey” or just “Cuomo,” a strong insult from Republicans who deem the former New York governor to be both excessively liberal and famously indecisive.

Comey – previously a well-respected Republican lawyer who was credited with prosecuting key terrorism cases including the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 U.S. servicemen in 1996 – had been deputy attorney general since December 2003.

Plame Case

But by 2004, Comey already was wearing out his welcome with the White House. He also was responsible for picking Patrick Fitzgerald to be special prosecutor to investigate who leaked the identity of a covert CIA officer after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized Bush’s misuse of intelligence on Iraq.

In 2003, when Ashcroft was still handling the investigation, Bush had expressed confidence that the leakers would never be identified. But Ashcroft stepped aside because of conflicts of interest and his deputy, Comey, selected U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald.

By mid-2004, Fitzgerald was proving himself to be a dogged investigator as he zeroed in on Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby and Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove as two officials suspected of exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Demanding testimony from prominent journalists, such as New York Times correspondent Judith Miller, Fitzgerald was too high profile for the White House to easily remove. But the days of Comey – Fitzgerald’s chief ally – were numbered.

After the “torture memo” leaked to the Washington Post in June 2004, Comey and Goldsmith threw down the gauntlet again, leading the fight to repudiate the memo and pressing for a revised version that deleted the most controversial elements, again angering the White House, according to Newsweek.

Facing withering criticism from White House hardliners, Goldsmith was the first big name to go. In summer 2004, a battered and exhausted Goldsmith quit the Justice Department to become a professor at Harvard Law School.

Comey’s Departure

A year later, Comey followed Goldsmith out of the department, going into private law practice. On Aug. 15, 2005, in his farewell speech, Comey urged his colleagues to defend the integrity and honesty of the department.

“I expect that you will appreciate and protect an amazing gift you have received as an employee of the Department of Justice,” Comey said. “It is a gift you may not notice until the first time you stand up and identify yourself as an employee of the Department of Justice and say something – whether in a courtroom, a conference room or a cocktail party – and find that total strangers believe what you say next.

“That gift – the gift that makes possible so much of the good we accomplish – is a reservoir of trust and credibility, a reservoir built for us, and filled for us, by those who went before – most of whom we never knew. They were people who made sacrifices and kept promises to build that reservoir of trust.

“Our obligation – as the recipients of that great gift – is to protect that reservoir, to pass it to those who follow, those who may never know us, as full as we got it. The problem with reservoirs is that it takes tremendous time and effort to fill them, but one hole in a dam can drain them.

“The protection of that reservoir requires vigilance, an unerring commitment to truth, and a recognition that the actions of one may affect the priceless gift that benefits all. I have tried my absolute best – in matters big and small – to protect that reservoir and inspire others to protect it.”

Bush first tried to replace Comey with Timothy Flanigan, a former deputy White House counsel who had become general counsel of Tyco International. But Flanigan’s nomination foundered over questions about his dealings with corrupt Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Flanigan’s role in developing White House interrogation policies.

‘Torture Memo’

In 2002, as deputy to then-White House counsel Gonzales, Flanigan joined other right-wing lawyers in advocating legal strategies for protecting administration officials implicated in abuse of detainees.

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo – prepared by hardliners in the Justice Department and signed by Jay Bybee, then-chief of the Office of Legal Counsel – defined torture so narrowly that interrogators would have wide latitude in abusing prisoners to extract information.

The memo also sought to give Bush authority to order outright torture of detainees. This “torture memo” argued that U.S. government operatives should be spared prosecution for torture if they had Bush’s approval.

Flanigan sat in on at least one meeting during which lawyers discussed various torture techniques, including telling detainees that they would be buried alive and subjecting them to “waterboarding” which involves tying a person to a board and using water to simulate drowning.

Flanigan and Addington reportedly tried to shepherd this policy through the government by limiting the opportunities for critical comments. As Newsweek reported, Flanigan and Addington “came up with a solution: cut virtually everyone else out.”

During questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to replace Comey, Flanigan declined to say whether he voiced support for the “torture memo” in its original version, although he did say he supported a revised – less sweeping – version in December 2004.

Flanigan also told the committee that he saw ambiguities in setting limits on the abuse of detainees, saying that he did “not believe that the term ‘inhumane’ is susceptible to succinct definition.” As the fight over his nomination grew more contentious, Flanigan asked Bush to withdraw his name on Oct. 6, 2005. [Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2005]

With Flanigan’s nomination in flames, the acting deputy to now-Attorney General Gonzales became Paul McNulty, who also has a strong pedigree as a hardline Republican legal operative, a Bush loyalist and a member of Gonzales’s inner circle.

McNulty was chief counsel to the Republican-run House Judiciary Committee when it pressed for impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1998. McNulty also headed Bush’s Justice Department transition team after Election 2000. [NYT, Oct. 21, 2005]

Plame Probe

Since Gonzales – like Ashcroft – has recused himself on the Plame leak investigation, McNulty also has inherited the job of overseeing Fitzgerald. In that position, the deputy attorney general can apply subtle pressure on the special prosecutor through the allotment of staff and other bureaucratic means.

The notion of constraining the work of a special prosecutor by gaining control of his oversight is not unprecedented.

After Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh broke through a long-running White House cover-up of that scandal in 1991, Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist engineered a behind-the-scenes coup against the senior judge overseeing Walsh.

In 1992, Rehnquist ousted moderate Republican Judge George MacKinnon as chief of the three-judge panel that picked and oversaw independent counsels. MacKinnon had staunchly backed Walsh, another old-time Republican jurist, as he peeled back the secrets of the complex Iran-Contra schemes, which threatened George H.W. Bush’s reelection.

At that key moment, Rehnquist replaced MacKinnon with Judge David Sentelle, one of President Ronald Reagan’s conservative judicial appointees and a protégé of Sen. Jesse Helms, then one of the most right-wing Republicans in the U.S. Congress.

Earlier, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, Sentelle had teamed with another Republican judge, Laurence Silberman, to overturn the felony convictions of Oliver North in 1990. Sentelle also provided one of the two votes in 1991 to throw out the convictions of North’s boss, National Security Adviser John Poindexter.

Faced with these obstructions, Walsh had come to view the Reagan-Bush loyalists on the U.S. Court of Appeals as “a powerful band of Republican appointees [who] waited like the strategic reserves of an embattled army.” Sentelle, who had named his daughter Reagan after the President, was one of those “strategic reserves.”

A dozen years later, George W. Bush executed a similar maneuver, replacing a relatively non-partisan Republican (Comey) with two candidates who are considered more politically reliable – or some might say pliable (Flanigan and McNulty).

With Comey gone, Fitzgerald still pressed ahead with his investigation of the White House leak of Plame’s identity, but he had lost the strong institutional support that Comey had provided.

On Oct. 28, 2005, Fitzgerald indicted Libby for lying to investigators and obstructing justice, but the special prosecutor backed off from his expected indictment of Rove, who had become Bush’s deputy chief of staff.

(Significantly, Libby was replaced as Cheney’s chief of staff by David Addington, who had helped formulate the White House policy on torture.)

On Feb. 6, 2006 – with few Americans knowing or understanding the significance of this history – Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, avoiding any details about the internal disputes on the legality of Bush’s warrantless wiretaps.

Gonzales simply told the senators that the administration’s reading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 let Bush bypass its seemingly clear language requiring warrants from a special secret court for wiretaps of communications originating in the United States.

Even Republican senators Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham objected to the administration’s strained interpretation of the law.

But Bush, in effect, is buying time while he builds federal judicial majorities in favor of his vision of an all-powerful presidency.

Bush took a big step in that direction with the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito, an architect of the so-called “unitary executive” theory. The U.S. Supreme Court now has at least four of nine justices who favor granting the President virtually unlimited powers as Commander in Chief.

In the meantime, Bush is relying on shrewd bureaucratic maneuvers – neutralizing and removing skeptics – in order to fend off harassing actions by Democrats and other Americans, including traditional Republican lawyers, who oppose Bush’s extraordinary assertions of power.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Back to Home Page
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/020706.html
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#8
http://www.conspiracycafe.net/index.php ... 202&st=180
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#9
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/newman/newman1.html

Quote:It's Your War! You Go Fight It!

by Doug Newman

According to the Denver Rocky Mountain News, a survey of high school students in Jefferson County, Colorado, just west of Denver, revealed that 25 percent of them opted out of allowing military recruiters to contact them. This is up from 13 percent one year before. In highly affluent Douglas County, south of Denver, the number is 55 percent.

As one high school junior in Boulder told "the Rocky": “The whole getting-shot-at thing - I have better things I want to do.”

This survey comes on the heels of a recent Pentagon study stating that the US Army “has become a ‘thin green line’ that could snap unless relief comes soon.” I know exactly where the Army can find such “relief.”

Millions of Americans who support America’s policy of perpetual war have never served one day in the military. Most of the pundits, politicians and policymakers who promote and vote for America’s troop presence in 130 countries, as well as the Iraq war and – this is a safe bet – a war with Iran, fall into this category. For some "sacrifice" means reading an e-mail from a Democrat.

Dick Cheney is a classic example. While those less fortunate and well-connected than he were doing the “getting-shot-at thing” in Vietnam, the young Mr. Cheney “had other priorities.” There is a black wall in Washington, DC, with 58,000 names on it. Most of these folks also “had other priorities.” (I’ll go to my grave saying one thing and one thing only on John Kerry’s behalf: for better or worse, he put himself in harm’s way for four-and-a-half months during the Big Muddy.)

These chicken hawks get substantial mileage out of the hypocrisy of limousine liberals like Ted Kennedy and ivory tower academics like Ward Churchill. However, these couch commandos become most indignant when you ask about their military service.

If you desire perpetual war, go fight it yourself. Enlist in the infantry. If the military won’t have you for whatever reason, form your own volunteer unit. There are precedents.

Prior to America’s entry into World War I, a group of American fighter pilots formed the Lafayette Escadrille and fought alongside the French. Although America never entered the Spanish Civil War, a few hundred Americans formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and fought in that conflict. (Yes, they were Communist sympathizers, but I’ll give them this: They were willing to spill their blood for their convictions.) Prior to America’s entry into World War II, a few hundred Americans joined the Flying Tigers and fought in China and Burma against the Japanese. (1)

Your right to your opinion does not mean that your opinion has value. If you want to believe that the earth is flat, believe it! If you want to start a new religion devoted to the worship of Mungabunga, go do it. It just does not give your opinion any validity.

The first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan were not gratuitous. Iraq in 2006 -- like Omaha Beach in 1944 -- is not a football game. It is war! It is the gravest step a government can undertake. If you are going to wring your hands about where oh where America is going to find the raw meat for the perpetual war that you glorify, look in the mirror. If you have never served, now is the time. It’s your war! You go fight it! Yeah you, Rambo!

War is like any other government program. People love to talk about it in theory. Just do not bother them with the details.

It is not their head being shot off; it is the head of some kid from South Central Los <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angelic005.gif" alt="Angel" title="" />es whose name they will never know. It is not their intestines being ripped out and strewn all over the ground; it is the intestines of some kid from Colorado’s eastern prairie whose name they will never know. It is not their dead body being dragged through the streets of some Third World stink hole they had never heard of when they enlisted; it is the dead body of some coal miner’s son from West Virginia whose name they will never know.

One other point: I have heard quite a bit of whining from people who never served in the military about the French “wimping out” of the Iraq War. If it is “wimping out” when the French won’t fight, what is it when you won’t fight? Yeah you, Rambo!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Please read this column by fellow Christian Patriot Jeff Adams.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#10
http://www.ditrianum.org/Artikelen/artikel33en.htm

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hmm2.gif" alt="Hmm2" title="hmm2" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#11
Quote:Have you had your morning Wookie !
Wub
Thank you for that. I needed it.
"Love is the only shocking act left on the face of the Earth."<br />Sandra Bernhard
Reply
#12
Herethere

Easier to find pot of gold at end of rainbow than to catch a Wookie! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/naughty.gif" alt="Naughty" title="naughty" />

'President's gone insane' – 9/11 dad


BY JIMMY VIELKIND
DAILY NEWS WRITER

Peter Gadiel (l.), whose son died in 9/11 attacks, joins Sen. Chuck Schumer at yesterday's press conference.
Peter Gadiel just doesn't get it.
How, asks Gadiel, whose son James died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, can a company owned by a terror-linked country get control of our nation's ports?

"I'm a lifelong Republican and I think the President's gone insane," said Gadiel, 58, who heads 9/11 Families for a Secure America.

Two of the 19 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Dubai, the Arab emirate whose bid to run ports in New York, New Jersey and four other cities was okayed by the White House even though investigators have found signs that money used to finance terrorism flowed through Dubai banks.

"How the hell could this happen?" fumed Bill Doyle, 58, a retired Staten Island stockbroker whose son Joseph also died when the Trade Center fell.

"We're not securing our country in any way by selling our ports to foreigners," he said.

Gadiel and Doyle stood with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday at the harbor to express their outrage.

Bruse DeCell, 55, whose son-in-law died in the attacks, said that homeland security should be the highest concern when approving the activities of foreign business interests.

"This administration is putting the selling of our country on a fast track," he said. "There are a lot of loose ends that caused 9/11 to happen. I'm trying to close them."

Only 5% of the cargo containers entering U.S. ports are inspected, said Schumer, who has called for upgrades in port security for years.

Originally published on February 20, 2006
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#13
Applause
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#14
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#15
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cow.gif" alt="Cow" title="cow" />

Quote:This note, written by Department of Defense staffer Stephen Cambone on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, details Rumsfeld’s strategy to link Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as culprits of the attacks. I’ll say again, this was written on the only hours after we were attacked on 9/11.

Here’s a description of the text from outragedmoderates:

The released notes document Donald Rumsfeld’s 2:40 PM instructions to General Myers to find the “[b]est info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” (as discussed on p. 334-335 of the 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack).

In addition, the documents confirm the contents of CBS News’ Sept. 4, 2002 report “Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11,” which quoted Rumsfeld’s notes as stating: “Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” These lines were not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report or Woodward’s Plan of Attack, and to my knowledge, have not been independently confirmed by any other source. After the Rathergate fiasco, I wondered if CBS had been fooled into publishing a story that, from a publicity perspective, seemed too good to be true.

Finally, these documents unveil a previously undisclosed part of the 2:40 PM discussion. Several lines below the “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time” line, Cambone’s notes from the conversation read: “Hard to get a good case.”

More of the documents are available on Flickr

http://www.teambio.org/2006/02/scrapboo ... ck-on-911/
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#16
http://www.h-files.hraunfjord.org/boz/database.php

http://www.h-files.hraunfjord.org/boz/database.php

http://www.gandhitoday.org/hiroshima.html



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0222-02.htm

Quote:
Watchdogs Urge Full Probe of Bush Propaganda Spending
by Niko Kyriakou

SAN FRANCISCO - Media reform groups are calling for a deeper investigation of Bush administration advertising and propaganda efforts following the release of a report that concludes the White House has spun a web of public relations (PR) contracts larger than previously thought.

At issue are agreements to produce everything from advertisements to video news releases--government-vetted spots designed to air alongside and to be indistinguishable from regular televised news reports.

Critics of the state-sponsored content said it constitutes part of a broader government attack on press freedom and that it amounts to a subversion of democracy.

''When elected public servants use taxpayer dollars to manipulate or deceive the very people whose consent they require for their legitimacy, our public servants then become our masters,'' said Sanho Tree, a fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies.

The official Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported last week that government agencies have spent about $1.6 billion over the past 30 months on PR and advertising contracts. Investigators said they found no breach of the law and added that all spent funds came from the agencies' budgets.

The document overlooked considerable government spending to cast President George W. Bush's policies in a favorable light, media reformists said, because it covered neither all types of PR spending nor all federal agencies.

''We need a full accounting of the Bush administration's spending on advertising, PR, and fake news,'' said Craig Aaron of advocacy group Free Press. ''It's time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role as a counterweight to the executive branch and permanently cut off funding for covert propaganda. We must ensure that taxpayer money isn't being spent by the White House to secretly manipulate the American public.''

The administration's drive to shore up popular support for its self-styled ''war on terror'' and to keep up armed forces recruitment appears to have fuelled the spending, according to Diane Farsetta of the Center for Media and Democracy, publisher of the quarterly PR Watch.

Of the $1.6 billion total outlined in the GAO report, the Pentagon spent $1.1 billion--much of it on recruitment, Farsetta said.

The U.S. Army has failed to meet recruiting targets despite increasing the proportion of those accepted with problems in their background, the Baltimore Sun newspaper reported last week.

In all, 73,000 men and women joined the Army last year, down from 77,000 in 2004, the daily said, adding that the Army reached its recruiting goal in 2004 but fell about 7,000 recruits short last year.

To be sure, there is nothing new or unique about the Bush administration spending money to recruit warriors, said propaganda expert and author Nancy Snow.

''Historically, propaganda has always merged with recruitment because people must first be conditioned to become soldiers and fight strangers in distant lands,'' Snow said. ''It's not a natural condition but must be manipulated to get people to join unpopular realities.''

That kind of spending likely will remain largely hidden and is unlikely to shrink without public pressure for transparency and budget cuts, she said.

''The activities of these groups [contracted companies] should be out in the open, but unless and until the public clamors for hearings on the subject, we'll have to settle for occasional op-eds and white papers that have a short shelf life.''

For its report last week, the GAO surveyed seven of 15 government agencies and relied on self-reported information from them, critics said. The GAO did not mention task orders on existing contracts, subcontracts, or PR work done by government staffers without the use of outside contractors, and failed to investigate those agencies responsible for scandals that initially sparked the investigation, they added.

But the Interior Department, the only one to respond to the report, said the GAO incorrectly flagged a number of legitimate contracts, for example ones covering the production of brochures and exhibits for National Parks.

Congressional Democrats requested the GAO study last year after two scandals emerged.

The first involved several government departments issuing illegal video news releases produced by outside firms to promote department initiatives. The second involved revelations, followed by an official acknowledgement, that the Bush administration had paid journalists Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher to promote administration proposals.

The GAO did not say whether government spending on PR had risen but earlier studies suggest they have.

The U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform Minority Office, in a report last year, said the Bush administration unloaded twice as much on PR in its first term as did the Clinton administration in its second term, with payments jumping from $128 million to $250 million.

Conservative media watchdog Accuracy in Media faulted the report as based on an incomplete accounting of Clinton PR spending. The GAO would never undertake a more thorough study because the three-year statute of limitations governing such reviews has passed, the group said, adding that the democratic legislators had this fact in mind when they commissioned their study.



http://www.teambio.org/2006/02/scrapboo ... ck-on-911/


Quote:
I saw this first in Krugman’s column and then via Whatever It Is, I’m Against it, but it was originally obtained by outragedmoderates.org.

This note, written by Department of Defense staffer Stephen Cambone on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, details Rumsfeld’s strategy to link Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as culprits of the attacks. I’ll say again, this was written on the only hours after we were attacked on 9/11.

Here’s a description of the text from outragedmoderates:

The released notes document Donald Rumsfeld’s 2:40 PM instructions to General Myers to find the “[b]est info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” (as discussed on p. 334-335 of the 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack).

In addition, the documents confirm the contents of CBS News’ Sept. 4, 2002 report “Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11,” which quoted Rumsfeld’s notes as stating: “Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” These lines were not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report or Woodward’s Plan of Attack, and to my knowledge, have not been independently confirmed by any other source. After the Rathergate fiasco, I wondered if CBS had been fooled into publishing a story that, from a publicity perspective, seemed too good to be true.

Finally, these documents unveil a previously undisclosed part of the 2:40 PM discussion. Several lines below the “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time” line, Cambone’s notes from the conversation read: “Hard to get a good case.”


COAST TO COAST RE. 9/11

Posted By: LightEye <Send E-Mail>
Date: Saturday, 25 February 2006, 12:24 p.m.

Listen for free ;-)

02/23/06 Coast to Coast re: 9/11
Part 1 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A001I06022400 ... 0-911a.MP3 (2.34MB) 10 min 15 sec
Part 2 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A002I06022400 ... 0-911b.MP3 (6.78MB) 29 min 38 sec
Part 3 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A003I06022401 ... 0-911c.MP3 (5.21MB) 22 Min 46 Sec
Part 4 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A004I06022401 ... 0-911d.MP3 (4.56MB) 19 Min 55 Sec
Part 5 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A005I06022402 ... 0-911e.MP3 (4.41MB) 19 Min 16 Sec
Part 6 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A006I06022402 ... 0-911f.MP3 (4.49MB) 19 Min 39 Sec
9-11 Attack on America
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm
PowerPoint Presentation/Movies:
9/11 Attack on America Part 1
The Irregularities of 9/11 10.5MB
http://www.apfn.org/movies/911.ppt
9/11 Attack on America Part 2
Omissions & Distortions (David Ray Griffin)13.9MB
http://www.apfn.org/movies/911-2.ppt


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html

Quote:
The 1975
World Trade Center Fire

The February 13, 1975 North Tower Fire has been carefully hidden from you. Here are a few reports concerning it.

This 110-story steel-framed office building suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 13, 1975. The loss was estimated at over $2,000,000. The building is one of a pair of towers, 412 m in height. The fire started at approximately 11:45 P.M. in a furnished office on the 11th floor and spread through the corridors toward the main open office area.
A porter saw flames under the door and sounded the alarm. It was later that the smoke detector in the air-conditioning plenum on the 11th floor was activated. The delay was probably because the air-conditioning system was turned off at night. The building engineers placed the ventilation system in the purge mode, to blow fresh air into the core area and to draw air from all the offices on the 11th floor so as to prevent further smoke spread.

The fire department on arrival found a very intense fire. It was not immediately known that the fire was spreading vertically from floor to floor through openings in the floor slab. These 300-mm x 450-mm (12-in. x 18-in.) openings in the slab provided access for telephone cables. Subsidiary fires on the 9th to the 19th floors were discovered and readily extinguished. The only occupants of the building at the time of fire were cleaning and service personnel. They were evacuated without any fatalities. However, there were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown.


Also, from the New York Times (Saturday 15th February 1975):

Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
As Commissioner O'Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Tower's 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.

The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.........

Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.


More from the New York Times (Saturday 14th February 1975):

"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.


So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.

So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was a serious fire.

Much was learned from the 1975 WTC fire. In particular, the fact that the fire had not been contained to a single floor but spread to many floors, caused much concern. The points of entry of the fire to other floors were identified and the floors of each building were modified to make sure that this would never happen again. For some strange reason, the modifications failed to perform on September 11, 2001 and again the fires spread from floor to floor.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also:

1975 New York Times Newspaper Clippings
The 9/11 WTC Fires: Where's the Inferno?



Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.

But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let’s say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. With this kind of “situational non-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all”—somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let’s not mull over that little point.)

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “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.”

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)

The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

Bests,
John


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 01,00.html

Quote:
NEWS


Saddam warned US of terror attacks, secret tapes reveal
David Nason, New York correspondent
February 17, 2006
SECRET tapes recorded in Saddam Hussein's inner sanctum in the mid-1990s reveal the former dictator discussed the inevitability of terrorist attacks on the US.

The tapes, recorded by Saddam in his palace office, also provide strong evidence that Iraq's chemical weapons program was hidden from UN inspectors.

On one of the tapes, Hussein Kamel, a Saddam son-in-law who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, speaks candidly about deceiving the UN.

"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in a meeting with Saddam and his top henchmen. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use: none of this was correct."

The tapes, broadcast yesterday on the ABC television network in the US, support claims that the 2003 "coalition of the willing" invasion of Iraq was justified because Saddam was intent on developing WMD and could have provided them to terrorists.

But Saddam is also heard telling aides that Iraq would not launch terror attacks on the West and that he had even warned the US and Britain that they were terrorist targets. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans and told the British as well," Saddam says on the tapes.

"I think Hamed was there keeping the meeting minutes with one of them, that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.

"What prevents this technology from developing and people from smuggling it? In the future, what would prevent that we see a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?

"This is coming, this story is coming, but not from Iraq."

On the same tape, Iraq's former deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz tells Saddam a biological attack would be easy to arrange.

"It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000," he says.

"This is not done by a state. An individual can do it."

The ABC said it had obtained the tapes from John Tierney, an Iraqi-speaking former UN weapons inspector who was hired to translate them for the FBI.

The CIA had recovered the tapes in Baghdad after Saddam was deposed in 2003.

Mr Tierney said he leaked the tapes because he felt they were "too important" for the US to keep secret. The US State Department had no comment, but Charles Duelfer, head of the US-led search for weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, told ABC News the tapes supported the view that Saddam was intent on rebuilding weapons of mass destruction.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Michigan Republican Pete Hoekstra, said the US was sitting on 35,000 boxes of Saddam tapes and documents that were yet to be translated or analysed.

Mr Hoekstra said they needed to be examined urgently.

US officials confirmed the Tierney tapes were authentic, and that they were among hundreds of hours of tapes Saddam recorded in his palace office.

Mr Tierney intends to publicly release 12 hours of the tapes at a non-government intelligence summit this weekend.

"Because of my experience being in the inspections and being in the military, I knew the significance of these tapes when I heard them," he said.
_________________


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bricks.gif" alt="Bricks" title="bricks" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I

http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html

___________________________________________________________-_


Stephen M. St. John
Get Over It, America: Osama bin Laden Didn't Do 9/11!
Tue Feb 28, 2006 02:40
162.84.213.49


Get Over It, America: Osama bin Laden Didn't Do 9/11!
Copy of fax broadcast:
Citizen of the USA Stephen M. St. John addresses the international community, all members of the US Congress, both Senate and House, and other individuals and organizations, and in this fax broadcast brings to their attention definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by explosives in a controlled demolition. To this end Citizen St. John encourages all readers to view Richard A. Siegel's professional-quality video of the events of 9/11 as seen and heard from the west bank of the Hudson River in New Jersey [www.911eyewitness.com or http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e12018.htm]. Citizen St. John assures each reader that he or she will hear the thunder-like blasts that were also recorded by the seismograph at Columbia University's Lamont-Doheny Earth Observatory with spikes of a much greater magnitude than the immediately subsequent building collapses of 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale. Citizen St. John also refers each reader to his A Dissenting Critique of the 9/11 Commission Report [http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps] where he notes that molten steel glowing cherry-red was found in the sub-basement levels of WTC 1, 2 and 7 by recovery-team engineers seven -- repeat: seven -- full weeks after the 9/11 attacks; the implications of these discoveries indicate a highly-coordinated, well-planned and expertly executed attack including "mini nukes" set in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7, all of which could not have been carried out by Osama bin Ladin and company from a tent or cave in Afghanistan. Citizen St. John notes a Praxis of Evil and a Fungus Among Us when contemplating the end result of a false flag intelligence operation which has wrought death and destruction and plunder of two non-belligerent states-members of the United Nations and instability to the entire Middle East. Citizen St. John calls for justice to be done to the real perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11.
_________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. Voltaire

Basta Ya! Vamos a ver...

_____________________________________________________________________

30 years of 9/11 medical monitoring urged
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The federal government must pay to monitor and treat thousands of Sept. 11 first responders and Lower Manhattan residents and workers still suffering from illnesses stemming from their exposure to Ground Zero for at least 30 years, doctors told a congressional panel yesterday.

Without long-term monitoring and screening, doctors will be unable to determine if their patients will develop cancer, heart and lung disease or other conditions, they told a House subcommittee hearing testimony on Sept. 11 health issues.

At least $320 million is needed to maintain current health programs monitoring Sept. 11 health effects, said Stephen M. Levin, co-director of the World Trade Center Work and Volunteer Screening Program, which monitors about 14,000 Ground Zero workers.

"We are much more interested in trying to intervene so people's health can be protected and improved," Levin said.

Kerry J. Kelly, chief medical officer for the New York City Fire Department, said treatment must include help for mental health issues as well.

"When we asked people about their health concerns, people truly believed that their lives would be shortened by their exposure" to Ground Zero, Kelly said. "This is a health and mental health issue."




© 2006 The Star Ledger
© 2006 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

____________________________________________________________

http://www.rense.com/general69/show911.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/ ... eb352979_1

http://www.total411.info/2006/02/garofo ... e-job.html
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002496.htm
"EXCLUSIVE: FBI WHISTLEBLOWER SIBEL EDMONDS IS READY TO TALK!"


Quote:
9/11 Related:



Information omitted and covered-up regarding documented and confirmed case of a long-term FBI Informant & Asset who provided the FBI with specific information and warnings in April & June 2001 regarding 9/11 terrorist attacks.


Information omitted & covered up regarding documented information in the procession of the FBI in July 2001 regarding blue prints and building composite information of Sky Scrapers being sent to certain groups in the Middle East by certain Middle-Eastern suspects in the State of Nevada.


Information omitted & covered up regarding arrangements made between the State Department and certain countries to deport certain Middle-Eastern and Central Asian detainees from jails in New Jersey & New York off the record and without having them interrogated in November 2001. (Documents related to these suspects were forged at the FBI).


Information omitted & covered up regarding nuclear related information illegally obtained by certain foreign entities and US persons (government officials) from several US labs being sold to a certain Middle-Eastern group in the United States in 1998-2000. The operation involved individuals with Diplomatic cover, foreign Ph.D. students, and US employees.


Information omitted & covered up regarding money laundering & narcotics operations, some of which involved entities from the Middle East and the Balkans, in several US cities.


Information omitted & covered up regarding certain Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI)-related activities linked to the 9/11 attacks between August & October 2001.


Certain terrorist related Counterintelligence/FISA information & investigations were prevented from being transferred to counterterrorism & criminal division by the Department of State and the Pentagon; "preserving sensitive diplomatic relations" and "protecting certain US foreign business relations (mainly involving weapons procurement)" were cited as reasons.


Intentional mistranslation & blocking of foreign language intelligence of FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations.


Penetration of FBI, Department of State and Department of Defense:


Melek Can Dickerson: FBI; formerly employed by the American Turkish Council (ATC) and American Turkish Association (ATA).


Major Douglas Dickerson: Air Force, DIA; formerly worked with the American Turkish Council (ATC), had on going relationship with International Advisors Inc (IAI) principles who worked as lobbying arms for certain foreign nations and foreign non-state entities (some of whom were engaged in illegal activities in the United States and against US interests and national Security.)


Cases reported by John M. Cole, Veteran FBI Counterintelligence Operations Manager, to the DOJ-IG & Congress involving Hadiya Roberts (ISI-Pakistan), and several other individuals.


Documented cases under FBI counterintelligence surveillance between 1997 and 2002, involving US government officials from the Department of State, DOD, and certain elected officials who were recipients of regular payments made by state and non-state foreign entities, some involved in criminal operations against US interests & national security. These cases were prevented from being transferred to actionable criminal and/or counterterrorism divisions/investigations.


A reported case of penetration of FBI New York Field Office by an Iranian rouge agent.


Corruption & illegal activities involving US persons:


Illegal payments to several elected officials in Congress; on going (1997-2002).


Joint illegal activities between certain foreign agents (state & non-state) and US lobbying firms, government officials (Pentagon and the Department of State) and several elected officials. These activities include obtaining and passing highly classified and sensitive DOD documents & bribery and/or coercion of US individuals.


Nuclear black market related activities carried out by certain foreign groups/lobbying firms/businesses/individuals & US persons (former & current US government employees and officials).


FBI: incompetence:
(Refer to DOJ-IG report confirming all & more)


Hiring unqualified translators based on nepotism & cronyism, some of these translators did not even pass elementary English proficiency tests; some were granted Top Secret Clearance despite their highly questionable background.


Language specialists charging the United States government for hours not worked and/or services not rendered (Fraudulent invoices, etc.)


...much more; please refer to the DOJ-IG Report


Convinced yet that we need to hear from her? Please fill out this petition.

Ask a few friends to do the same. Let's take our country back.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#19
http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm
Quote:Eyewitness Account of Pentagon Attack
By: Terry Morin
An eye-witness account of the aircraft impact into the pentagon and subsequent rescue efforts...written by a former USMC aviator working as a contractor at the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#20
March 8, 2006

Dear Gerald:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the issue
of electronic surveillance of individuals within the United States by the
National Security Agency (NSA). I appreciate you taking the time to write
on such an important issue.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were the deadliest attack of
aggression ever on American soil. These attacks not only destroyed
significant architectural landmarks, but also took the lives of almost
3,000 innocent men, women and children. Additionally, these attacks
exposed the vulnerabilities of our system to groups of terrorists who are
committed to nothing less than the total destruction of our nation and our
way of life.

While Americans across our nation dealt with the aftermath of this
devastation, our leaders had to take necessary steps to prevent any future
attacks on American soil. President Bush promised that he would direct
every resource at his command to disrupt and defeat the global network of
terror. Military leaders, Members of Congress, the media, and the
American people praised President Bush for stepping forward and
immediately addressing the issue.

On September 14, 2001, Congress passed the authorization "to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organization, or
persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons."

As you know, President Bush publicly acknowledged his decision to
authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor international
communications of people who are believed to be associated with terrorist
organizations or their members. In fact, he has reauthorized the program
every 45 days to ensure that innocent Americans are not being targeted and
that the program is working successfully to detect and prevent another
catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States.

Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress have been briefed on this
program more than a dozen times since 2001. Attorney General Alberto R.
Gonzales explained the legal justification of the program to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary on February 6, 2006. Finally, on February 9,
2006 Attorney General Gonzales and former NSA director Michael V. Hayden
briefed Members of Congress in a classified hearing on additional
procedural information about the program.

The Administration's goals are to defeat the terrorists and prevent
further devastation of our people and property. I share these goals, and
I am committed to defeating terrorism overseas and in our country. I
respect the rights of individuals, but believe we need to use all the
tools available by law to defeat terrorism.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing
from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to
Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at
http://allard.senate.gov.


Sincerely,
A
Wayne Allard
United States Senator


Dear Gerald:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the USA PATRIOT Act. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.

On March 1, 2006, I joined 94 of my colleagues in the Senate to pass this most recent PATRIOT Act reform bill. As former Attorney General of Colorado, I know the importance of providing law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to keep our Nation safe and secure. The PATRIOT Act is critical to protecting the safety of our Nation, and I was glad to see the Senate come together in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize the law. Throughout the reauthorization process, I worked with the SAFE Act Six to strengthen the civil liberties provisions in the bill. While the compromise our group struck is not perfect, it does more to protect the civil liberties of Americans than the earlier law and the initial conference report.

The reauthorized version of the PATRIOT Act version, S. 2271, allows recipients of subpoenas the explicit right to challenge a judicial gag order after one year of receiving it, prohibits most unwarranted searches of library records, and prevents the F.B.I. from demanding the names of attorneys consulted by people who have been served with government requests for information. While this compromise is not perfect, I believe this version does a better job of giving law enforcement the tools and techniques it needs to protect the American people, while protecting the civil liberties of Americans, than the earlier law and the initial conference report.

While I recognize that our law enforcement officials and agencies must have the tools necessary to protect our homeland security and our citizens, a balance must be struck between providing those tools and protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. I believe that this version of the PATRIOT Act does a better job of striking the balance between those tools and protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. That being said, I intend to continue closely monitoring the implementation of the PATRIOT Act to ensure that constitutional rights and liberties are not brushed aside in the name of national security.

While I support the PATRIOT Act, I believe additional protections for civil liberties should be enacted to compliment the law enforcement regulations the Act provides. Within the next several days, Senator Arlen Specter will introduce a companion bill to the PATRIOT Act to push for further civil liberty protections. I believe Sen. Specter’s bill appropriately ensures those civil liberties in a fair and appropriate manner. I have joined a bi-partisan group of Senators as an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#21
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish ... _593.shtml

Commentary
Moussaoui takes the fall for 9/11
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Mar 14, 2006, 01:00




Why is it that a hapless loner, Zacarias Moussaoui, faces a death sentence or life imprisonment for 9/11? He is blamed for all the deaths and destruction in what may be the only trial we’ll ever see to address the real perpetrators of America’s stunning tragedy.

Moussaoui was described by two former students and admissions director of the Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, where he showed up in February 2001, “flush with cash, but erratic in his studies and unable to master piloting skills. Most students were ready to fly solo after 15 hours of training, but Moussaoui was grounded after 57 hours and never flew alone.” Does that sound like Mr. Lynch Pin of the largest air attack on America ever?

The above information above comes from a March 9 Los <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angelic005.gif" alt="Angel" title="" />es Times article, Witness Details Moussaoui’s Ambitions, by Richard A. Serrano. The witness Serrano refers to is Faiz Abu Bakar Bafana, described as “a terrorist financier from Malaysia” who testified against Moussaoui via a video played to the Alexandria courtroom where Moussaoui is being tried, or one might say, kangarooed.

Bafana told us, all via IPM (International Parrot Media), that this same incompetent pilot “dreamed of flying a plane into the White House and that he also discussed ammonium nitrate and powder, bank robberies and brazen kidnappings in the Southeast Asian country.” He may also have dreamt of being Puff Daddy and sleeping with a thousand virgins. That doesn’t mean he did.

In addition, Bafana said Moussaoui “Talked about jihad, bringing down America, and robbing a bank or considering kidnapping to get money.” According to Bafana, Moussaoui said, “it will give us power.” Now there’s a tour de force guerilla plan. Get some power.

Yet, during the six-hour showing of the video, Moussaoui asked Bafana, face to face, “Haven’t you been led to believe that your cooperation will give you a favorable treatment?” That is from US authorities to reduce Bafana’s sentence in Singapore. Seems he raised funds to pay for bombings in Manila that reportedly killed 22 people. Bafana replied, “No.”

“So,” countered Moussaoui, “you are cooperating out of your free will because you like to help the United States?” “No,” again replied Bafana. “Then why are you cooperating with the United States?” Bafana said eventually, “I believe the killing of innocent civilians is opposed to Islam. That’s why I’m giving my cooperation, to stop this killing.”

But then what about the 22 souls Bafana helped blast out of this world? What would Islam think of that? Facing a limitless amount of jail time for his crimes, he suddenly had a change of heart and purpose. And was this the star witness for the prosecution? How about a few hash junkies from Morocco, the home of the French citizen Moussaoui?

And was not Bafana the same man who said Moussaoui was in Malaysia about the same time as some of the Sept. 11 “hijackers.” Though, as Serrano reports that “there was no evidence to directly link him [Moussaoui] with them.” Although Serrano continues, “Bafana’s recollections suggest that Moussaoui was moving along the same path to strike the United States.”

No evidence to link Moussaoui to the “hijackers,” but recollection that he was on the same path with them to strike. Wow, there’s classy reporting, not to mention a dubious argument for the prosecution, provided by a “terror banker” facing a lifetime in an Asian slammer.

This kind of crapola is typical of what’s happening in the Moussaoui case: half-truths, shadings of implications, ignoring basic facts, a lynch-mob mentality. The fact is Moussaoui couldn’t fly to save his life, let alone to take some or all of the 3,000 lives lost on 9/11.

Consider, too, as far back as April 27, 2005, David Johnston and Neil A. Lewis tell us in the New York Times, “Officials Say There Is no Evidence to Back Moussaoui’s Story.” Here’s the story . . .

“WASHINGTON, April 26 -- Counterterrorism officials said on Tuesday that they did not believe that Zaccharias Moussaoui’s statements that he had been involved in a plot to fly an airplane into the White House as part of a plan to free an Islamic cleric serving a life sentence for terrorist acts.

“Mr. Moussaoui, in pleading guilty last Friday to six counts of conspiracy to engage in terrorism, insisted that although he was a member of Al Qaeda and had trained to fly planes into buildings, he was not part of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington. Instead, he said, he was preparing to participate in a different plot on a different day to free Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Muslim scholar serving a life sentence for conspiracy to blow up New York landmarks in 1993.”

Apart from his feigned heroics, the real issue is that Moussaoui’s misleading investigators the month before the attacks is “when he told them he had enrolled in flight school for the pleasure of it.” That was Moussaoui’s big sin. To boot, we’re told in the next paragraph, “In August of 2001, Mr. Moussaoui could barely have flown a small plane by himself, much less piloted a wide-bodied airliner.” Then, why is this misguided puppy on trial alone for the deaths of 3,000 people?

Now let me say this. I have great feeling for the families of 9/11 victims. Some of each group are or were friends and neighbors. But I think the families’ grief and anger are being basely exploited here. I am also not soft in any way about getting the right guys that perpetrated 9/11, and hanging them by their thumbs. But I smell a railroading here. Moussaoui couldn’t fly. His boasting lies cover his incompetence. They didn’t kill 3,000 of my fellow New Yorkers.

Scent Of A Hanging Mob

And look at this headline written by Jerry Markon and Timothy Dwyer in the March 7 Washington Post, “Moussaoui’s Lies Led to 9/11, Jury Told.” Jury told? But what do you guys, the writers, have to say? Well, the next paragraph says . . .

“The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would have been prevented and nearly 3,000 lives would have been saved if Zaccharias Moussaoui had not lied to cover up the terrorist plot, prosecutors said yesterday as they began the long-awaited death penalty trial for the al-Qaeda conspirator.”

Again, the lie was that Moussaoui said he took flying lessons for pleasure. And then there’s the article’s phrase “The long-awaited death penalty trial . . ." Is this supposed to be an advertisement for a beheading, blood lust on the half-shell, a rewrite of a Department of Justice press release? Where is journalism in service of justice? The paragraph condemns Moussaoui with a half-truth: that lying about why he took flying lessons is tantamount to the total enabling of the 9/11 attack. Gimme a frigging break.

Ah, but the theater of it all. The media parroting the hours of accusations of strutting prosecutors, the lineage bringing back every rigged detail of the 9/11 mythology, and blindly parroting the very government people who ignored intelligence, who did nothing, who actively conspired to commit the attacks, and hence, whose entire system of protection collapsed on 9/11, and who walked away innocent as the morning dew. Hey, you want to hang another American catastrophe on a lone gunman and call it a day, it’s your business. Not me, not my game.

What I strongly suggest you do is click the linked 9/11 video right here, Loose Change 2nd Edition. It’s probably the best 90 minutes of your time you’ll invest in this lifetime. And you can stop, go back, listen, see over and over the 9/11 footage and facts, and write things down, till you’ve got the real story straight.

September 11 was an inside job, acted out with ruthless military precision and for purely political motives by the administration and the elite power entities which run it. Take that to the memory bank and save it.

Saying Moussaoui was responsible for 3,000 deaths is like saying Hani Hanjor flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon. This was another guy who could barely fly a Piper Cub, let alone a 757. And as Loose Change will show and tell you a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. There were no pieces of the 124-foot wing span, the 44-foot high tail, the 155-foot long body, the two, 9 by 12 feet, six-ton titanium Pratt and Whitney engines; no luggage, no bodies strewn on the bare lawn. The heat of the explosion was said to have evaporated everything -- everything! Nevertheless, the Army labs were able to provide DNA identification of all the casualties. If everything was consumed in flame, where did the DNA come from?

What was found was a rotor from a JD8D turbo jet that propelled the remote-controlled drone that carried the missile that blasted through the Pentagon. It spiraled down some 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes to within a hundred feet of the ground, then made a right angle turn to level itself off and head at 469 nautical mph straight towards the Pentagon wall, exploding through on impact. Even a great pilot can’t fly a 757 that way, let alone a numb-nut like Hanjor.

What hit the Pentagon was a reconfigured Air Force drone carrying a guided missile, most probably flown from a former Air Force facility now called Raytheon ( right, Raytheon) in Van Nuys California. Also, the entry hole in the Pentagon was only 16 feet wide. The missile pierced three rings (9 feet) of steel enforced concrete, exiting from ring C, leaving an 8-foot wide hole. Does that sound like a 757?

In fact, there are three tapes of the hit, one made by a video camera in the nearby Sheraton Hotel, one by a nearby gas station, and one by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The FBI immediately snatched all three of those tapes after the hit and warned the owners of them not to say a word, and has not released one of the tapes to this date. All they’ve released is a few seconds of footage of the moment of blast impact, which doesn’t make their case at all, but rather suggests the drone/missile, given the cordite-produced silver gold color of the explosion. And this is just one piece of the total 9/11 ops.

So before rushing to judge Moussaoui, consider some homegrown types. They should be the ones given the lethal injections or put away in prison for life. The facts Loose Change will supply may shock you. But they may also save your life and the future of America. Just so we know what’s at stake.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at <a href="mailto:gvmaz@verizon.net">gvmaz@verizon.net</a>.

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#22
Also a Scholar for 9-11 Truth has been murdered.
Michael Zebuhr


http://tinyurl.com/z6uom
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#23
'Scholar for 9/11 Truth' SHOT DEAD [ Post 294509665 ]


Category: News & Opinion (Specific) Topic: Conspiracy: 9/11 - Alleged Coverups
Synopsis: Killer still loose
Source: Humint Events Online
Published: March 23, 2006 Author: Humint Events Online
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.




'Scholar for 9/11 Truth' SHOT DEAD
The death of Michael Zebuhr:

Michael Zebuhr didn’t intervene when two men stole his mother’s purse, but one of the men shot him anyway. The 25-year-old Buckhannon resident and recent Davis & Elkins College died a day later.

According to reports, Zebuhr and his mother, Dr. Suzanne Strong of Virginia, were in Minneapolis visiting Zebuhr’s sister, a student at the University of Minnesota, when the shooting took place at about 9:55 p.m. Saturday.

Inspector Kris Arneson of the Minneapolis Police Department’s Fifth Precinct said the family trio and a friend were approached by two male subjects as they were returning to their vehicle following dinner at a restaurant in the Uptown area.

Reports indicate that the suspects demanded Strong’s pursue which she was turned over without resistance. One of the suspects then shot Zebuhr in the head for no apparent reason, officials said.

Zebuhr died at 11:30 p.m. Sunday in the Hennepin County Medical Center as a result of a gun shot wound to the head, according to the county medical examiner.

Zebuhr is a 1998 graduate of Buckhannon-Upshur High School and 2005 graduate of Davis & Elkins College with a bachelor of science degree in mathematics and chemistry. He was currently enrolled at Clemson University in South Carolina working on his doctorate degree in bioengineering.

“Mike Zebuhr was a young man of rare personal and intellectual qualities,” said D&E President Tom Mann. “His premature death, especially under such tragic circumstances, cannot help but haunt the Davis & Elkins College community. Our hearts go out to his family and loved ones. I hope there can be comfort for them in knowing that the deep loss they are feeling is echoed in the sense of loss felt by his many D&E friends, his faculty members and all of us who knew him. I trust there will be comfort for all of us in knowing that we are richer for the years he shared with us.”

While a D&E student, Zebuhr was listed frequently on the dean’s list and was included in Who’s Who in American Universities and Colleges in 2005. He received the Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics Department Award in 2004, the Chemistry Department Award in 2005 and the faculty’s Senior Award in 2005. This award is granted to a senior student, with at least a 3.8 grade point average, who has achieved excellence in a wide range of academic areas and in the quality of personal and intellectual leadership provided. During his junior year, Zebuhr was named a Distinguished Scholar by the Appalachian College Association and received an Appalachian College Association Scholarship.

He also earned The American Chemical Society’s Polymer Education Award in Organic Chemistry in 2004 and an undergraduate research internship at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida funded by the National Science Foundation in 2003. He was also a four-year member of the college’s ski team and was active in the Computer Club, Student Assembly, the Mountain Bike Club and Alpha Psi Omega, a theatre honorary. According to officials, a memorial service will be conducted on the D&E campus at a later date, pending arrangements with Zebuhr’s family.

“Mike was a hard working, dedicated, self motivated student,” said Dr. Lisa Benson, Zebuhr’s advisor at Clemson. “He appreciated every opportunity and took nothing for granted. That kind of student is a joy to work with.”

Benson, the education director at the Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films and the research director professor at the Department of Bioengineering, said Zebuhr was highly respected by faculty, staff and students and was an extremely generous and compassionate person.

“Everyone here is in shock,” she said.

According to Benson, Zebuhr was interested in space flight and had spoken of becoming a university professor.

“Mike was in the process of developing hands-on projects for middle and high school students with intentions of sparking an interest in science and engineering,” Benson said. “He would have been a great mentor for kids.”

According to Benson, donations in Zebuhr’s memory may be made online at the Clemson University Foundation Web site at http://www.clemson.edu. Checks may be made payable to Clemson University Foundation with a notation at the bottom stating “in memory of Michael Zebuhr” and mailed to: Clemson University Foundation, P.O. Box 1889, Clemson, S.C., 29633-1889; or by calling the Clemson University Foundation Gift Receiving at (864) 656-5666.

The university will create a holding account for the donations, and a decision will be made with Zebuhr’s family regarding a memorial service, she said.

“Mike was simply an outstanding students and a compassionate person,” Benson said. “We are all feeling this loss very deeply.”

He is the son of Strong and Richard Zebuhr of Buckhannon.


We [sic] was also a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth:
Michael Zebuhr (SM)
Bioengineering, Clemson University

So... since when do two muggers hit on a group of four people, then randomly shoot one of the people in the head when the money is given and there is no resistance?

The killer is so far at large.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.ph ... 09697&t=-1
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#24
US Dictatorship - Belligerent
To The Bitter End
If You Can't Win One
War, Start Another

By Paul Craig Roberts
4-9-6

The Bush regime currently has wars underway in Afghanistan and in Iraq and can bring neither to a conclusion. Undeterred by these failures, the Bush regime gives every indication that it intends to start a war with Iran, a country that is capable of responding to US aggression over a broader front than the Sunni resistance has mounted in Iraq.

The US lacks sufficient conventional capability to prevail in such widespread conflict. The US also lacks the financial resources. Iraq alone has already cost several hundred billion borrowed dollars, with experts' estimates putting the ultimate cost in excess of one trillion dollars.

Moreover, the Bush regime's belligerent foreign policy extends to regions beyond the Middle East. The Bush regime has recently declared election outcomes in former Soviet republics as "unacceptable."

The Bush regime with the support of both political parties preaches democracy to the world while ignoring it at home. Polls show that Americans are opposed to open borders and amnesties for illegals. But a government willing to dictate to the world is willing to dictate to its own citizens.

The "unacceptable" outcomes are those that do not empower parties aligned with the US and NATO. Russians view the Bush regime's "democracy programs" for Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus as an effort to push Russia northward and deprive it of warm water ports.

Russian leaders speak of the "messianism of American foreign policy" leading to a new cold war.

An article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, long regarded as a voice of the American foreign policy establishment, concludes that the Bush regime "is openly seeking primacy in every dimension of modern military technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces." The article suggests that the US has now achieved nuclear superiority and could succeed with a preemptive nuclear attack on both Russia and China. Considering the extreme delusions of the neoconservative warmongers who control the Bush regime, the publication of this article will encourage more aggressive assertions of American hegemony.

The article has "had an explosive effect" in Russia, according to former prime minister Yegor Gaidar. The fact that Russia's nuclear missiles are no longer seen to be sufficiently robust to serve as deterrents could dangerously unleash restraints on the neoconservatives' proclivity to impose their will on the world. The authors of the Foreign Policy article write that America's nuclear primacy positions the US "to check the ambitions of dangerous states such as China, North Korea, and Iran." Neocons, of course, never see their own ambitions as dangerous.

The Bush regime has succeeded in committing America to a belligerent and messianic foreign policy that means years of wars at a minimum and likely preemptive US nuclear attacks against other countries.

How will Americans pay for the decades of war that the neocons are fomenting? The Afghan and Iraqi wars are being financed by the Chinese and Japanese whose loans cover the Bush regime's budgetary red ink. Can US nuclear primacy succeed in forcing the indefinite extension of this financing as a form of tribute? Can the neoconservatives subdue the Islamic Middle East with nuclear weapons without endangering the flow of oil?

The classic method of war finance is inflation. The Romans destroyed the intrinsic value of their coinage with lead. When the US can no longer sell its bonds, it can print money.

The US might have nuclear primacy, but it no longer has economic primacy. The US economy has been living on debt. In 2005 American consumers overspent their incomes for the first time since the Great Depression. The rising trade deficit is cutting into economic growth. Middle class jobs for Americans are being lost to offshore outsourcing and to foreigners brought in on work visas. Salaries in the jobs that remain are being forced down. Adjusted for inflation, starting salaries for university graduates are declining. Business Week's Michael Mandel (September 15, 2005) compared starting salaries in 2005 with those in 2001.
Adjusted for inflation, starting salaries for university graduates are declining.

He found a 12.7% decline in computer science pay, a 12% decline in computer engineering pay, and a 10.2% decline in electrical engineering pay. Psychology majors experienced a 9.3% fall in starting salaries, marketing a 6.5% decline, business administration a 5.7% fall, and accounting majors were offered 2.3% less.

Economist Alan Blinder, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, estimates that 42-56 million American service sector jobs are susceptible to offshore outsourcing. Whether or not all of these jobs leave, US salaries will be forced down by the willingness of foreigners to do the work for less.

By substituting cheaper foreign labor for US labor, globalization boosts corporate profits and managerial bonuses at the expense of workers pay. We are seeing the end of the broadly shared prosperity of the post-WWII era. Education and re-training are no protection against offshoring and foreign workers entering America on work visas.

Americans at the lower end of the income scale are being decimated by massive legal and illegal immigration that has dramatically increased the labor supply in construction, cleaning services, and slaughterhouses.

With incomes flat or falling and prices rising, increased taxation to finance the neoconservatives' wars of aggression is not in the cards.

The Bush regime with the support of both political parties preaches democracy to the world while ignoring it at home. Polls show that Americans are opposed to open borders and amnesties for illegals. But a government willing to dictate to the world is willing to dictate to its own citizens. We are witnessing the American citizen's loss of his voice and the rise of concentrated power. The primacy that the neocons are seeking over the world will prevail over the American people, too.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: <a href="mailto:paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com">paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com</a>




LITTLE MEDIA INTRIGUES SEEN BUT THE NEO-CONS
CONTINUE UNCHALLENGED!

Bush And Cheney Must Be Impeached

By Ted Lang
4-8-6


All the indications are there. No semblance of doubt is left. With the sneering arrogance of a man who knows he is supreme dictator, not only in the United States of America but worldwide, his total control of the most powerful nation on Earth terrifies all nations and all people. Has there ever been a president with such unlimited power before in America? Never! Bush is the first!

He signs documents authorizing illegal searches, seizures, arrests, kidnappings, torture and "preemptive strikes," thereby providing unquestionable and irrevocable evidence for his impeachment. He has authorized the outing of a CIA intelligence agent during wartime, a war he initiated by lying to the American people and the members of both Houses of the United States Congress. He lied in his constitutionally mandated State of the Union Address. He and his suit-and-tie polished and highly paid "advisors" repeatedly smile and politely tell the people's representatives in Congress to drop dead and go to hell. The president has divine right, god's blessing and therefore supreme power.

How can there be any modicum of doubt that this cruel and evil administration planned, executed and covered up the so-called terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? How can there be any doubt when no effort was made to immediately and quickly remove Bush from that Florida school on that horrible day? And who but Vice President Dick Cheney was sitting in a bomb shelter bunker yelling at an aide to back off, and yes, the "drill" was still on, and yes, shoot down that plane over Pennsylvania. The Bush administration did it! They murdered 3,000 Americans to piss US off into a profitable war for oil, Carlyle and Halliburton. They did it coordinating the interests of Israel, Larry Silverstein, and all the big money barons that have purchased power in America with cold hard cash.

Why is nothing happening? Why can't this criminal and extremely dangerous internationally organized gang of high profile mass murderers and torturers be brought down? The reasons are the same as those that led to the rise of Hitler. The greatest factor in enabling organized gangsters and mobsters to ride herd over the people is secrecy. A small group sitting in the corner of their favorite beer hall or tavern, talking trash, discovering injustices, real or imagined, getting worked up into a frenzy, and then another round of drinks. Someone assumes or takes a leadership role. Someone articulates his contempt and hatred for the status quo. They meet more often, create the formalities of meeting routines, scheduled topics, and appoint "officers" and deputy leaders. Sound familiar?

The Jewish-based establishment media is jumping through hoops to cover for Bush. They marvel at what he's accomplishing for Israeli supremacy in the Middle East. And in doing so, they are facilitating the Bush crimes thereby satisfying his voracious appetite for more power. He's a little man sitting on the most powerful throne on Earth. The media cover-ups preclude an informed citizenry, and with his control of the media, and their control of television and therefore the American people, we here in America are just as uninformed and propaganda vulnerable as were the German people before World War II.

Propaganda and disinformation are how Adolf Hitler came to power. With little education, he had astonishing skills of oratory. Benjamin Franklin also had no formal education but possessed a level of intelligence and inquiry rare for even the most highly educated intellectual. If it were possible to bring them both back among the living, and to have them face off in a debate, Hitler would have torn Franklin to shreds. Franklin's papers and memoirs exposed his poor oratory skills as uncovered in H.W. Brands' biography of the man. But oratory is "show-and-tell," a "dog-and-pony" show. It is a level slightly higher than that of snake oil salesman.

Bush has neither the intelligence nor the speechmaking skills of Hitler. Bush was merely placed in this most powerful position by monetary arrangement. And with his limited and severely checked intellect, he is all the more dangerous. Cheney is our true dictator, but that matters little. The only way to stop the most dangerous government that has ever existed on Earth is the immediate, if not sooner, impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. This must happen quickly!

The growing and mounting evidence of crimes committed and continuously intended by this dangerous regime must be addressed as soon as possible. Bush wants to level Iran. Israel has ordered him to do this. They are getting impatient. But Bush's military is in a shambles due to the supervision of his criminal invasion of Iraq by empty Pentagon suits and the perfumed political princes of the military. The fool on the hill will now strike with nuclear weapons, triggering World War III. When America becomes most vulnerable sometime during its next war against one sixth of the world's population, the rest of the world will join forces and take this nation out.

Bush cannot invade Iran. He will have to carpet-bomb it with bunker buster bombs and nuclear warheads. The rest of the world will wait for the right time ­ and it will come! The only question is how will Bush pull it off? Will there be another 9-11, perhaps around Easter, and this time using a nuclear device? They've already slaughtered 3,000 innocent Americans, killed about 2,300 of our own military, slaughtered by bombing 100,000 or more innocent and defenseless Iraqi people, and caused well over 15,000 military casualties. So what's a few hundred thousand or a million more?

As offered often in this space, the sure sign of a criminal regime is their manufacture of other news distractions. If another incriminating memo, document, or report is uncovered, or more damaging testimony is revealed, and any such event considered an imminent threat to the Bush administration, a news distraction will be created to throw off a possibly errant member of the controlled press to allow the rest of the media to cover up the crime. As the continuing and upward-spiraling magnitude of criminal activity is revealed, however, Bush and his advisors may get more and more desperate, and the need for a "big event" will be considered and in all likelihood be deployed.

The unprecedented power of this most dangerous criminal regime must be dealt with now. The exposed crimes will get worse and will be of increasing magnitude as courageous little people, and others slightly higher up, continue to nibble at Bush's false front. This time, the man behind the curtain is a real terror, one who can unleash fire, smoke and death to millions. And this unprecedented criminal power must now be met by unprecedented resolve. Both Bush and Cheney must be impeached! They have provided all the evidence needed for Congress to act on. This is the Congress' last chance, as it is ours s and the world's.

© 2006 THEODORE E. LANG 4/08/06 All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#25
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#26
Ed Asner Talks On RBN Radio Show, The Investigative Journal, Calling For 9/11 Truth and Backing Charlie Sheen

Asner pulled no punches as he blasted the Bush administration and Congress over 9/11, the Iraqi War, the Patriot Act and the POW issue, 29 Mar 2006

By Greg Szymanski


Actor and long time human rights activist, Ed Asner, on a radio talk show program Tuesday demanded the government come clean about 9/11, saying he supports re-opening a new investigation and backs up statements made last week by fellow-actor Charlie Sheen that 9/11 looks like an inside government job.

Asner, an Emmy ward winning actor and former President of the powerful Screen Actors Guild, made the plea for 9/11 truth on Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative Journal on the Republic Broadcasting Network.

The famous television star appeared on the radio show to champion the issue of POW accountability, making a guest appearance with activist Bob Dumas who has been searching for his officially "missing and presumed dead" brother since the Korean War.

Dumas claims his brother, Roger, still may be alive despite being lied to about by the government and despite a Congress unwilling to get at the truth about thousands of GI's unknowingly left behind enemy lines.

Besides the POW scandal championed by Dumas now brewing in Washington thanks to Asner's help in narrating a video in the hands of every member of Congress, the vocal and free-talking actor not only demanded 9/11 accountability but gave the Bush administration and Congress a tongue lashing over the illegal Iraqi War and the passage of the Patriot Act

"As for 9/11, I was suspicious from the beginning, but nothing short of getting at the truth is acceptable for the 3,000 people who died on that tragic day" said Asner, adding from everything he has researched the government is obviously covering-up the truth. "AS for the Patriot Act, how can a law be passed when only a handful of legislators even bothered to read it."

Asner, who in 2004 also demanded for 9/11 accountability, joined Sheen who recently went public on the absurdity of the government's 9/11 story on the Alex Jones radio show, in what now has become a good "one-two Hollywood insider punch" by Sheen and Asner, a punch directed right into the credibility of the Bush administration.

With Sheen and Asner both calling the 9/11 government story a fraud in the span of a week, the outspoken Hollywood pair have taken the lead amongst their show business peers in seeking 9/11 truth in what some call a "hot potato issue" since it could lead to a loss of money and film jobs.

After Sheen's comments on the Alex Jones show, his 9/11 claims went national on CNN's Showbiz Tonight, where he trumpeted his 9/11 truth call for the entire nation to hear.

Asner was also scheduled to appear on the same CNN show Tuesday after he appeared with Szymanski, but Showbiz Tonight pulled the segment at the last minute with Asner and Sander Hicks of the Green Party because they couldn't find anyone to take the opposite viewpoint, according to Mike Berger, media representative of 9/11Truth.org.

Asner's entire Tuesday radio interview can be heard on http://www.rbnlive.com at the archives page under The Investigative Journal 2006 shows.

In April 2004, Asner wrote a letter in support of the 9/11 families seeking the truth, a copy of the letter appearing on the 9/11 Visibility Project web site. The letter said in part:


"I would like to suggest to you emphatically that the 9-11 truth movement is the most pressing issue of the peace & justice movement today. Here is why. 9-11 has been used to justify "endless war" and a continual rollback in civil liberties that seems to have no end in sight. Yet, 9-11 remains the least examined tragedy in modern American history.

"Americans would have never agreed to the last two wars and the Patriot Act's disturbing policy . . . had it not been for 9-11.

"There are many disturbing issues around 9-11 that have yet to be examined in any meaningful way by our media, Congress, and even by the 9-11 Commission. These include accountability for the massive breakdown of air defense and plane intercept procedures as described in FAA and DOD regulations, which were violated on 9-11...

"This breakdown and astounding unpreparedness by U.S. domestic defense agencies is puzzling to say the least, given the detailed reports our government had of the coming attacks, that were bizarrely suppressed by key officials.

"For example, FBI Agent Coleen Rowley suggested that her offices' attempts to alert higher ups in the FBI of the pre 9-11 activities of Zacharias Moussaoui "seemed to have been consistently, almost DELIBERATELY thwart[ed] . . ." While George Tenet, Director of the CIA, had received a memo in August of 2001 (one month before the attacks of 9-11) on this report entitled, "Islamic Extremists Learn to Fly." Yet, Tenet took no action on this memo. The FBI agents responsible for the now famous "Phoenix Memo" regarding Osama Bin Laden sending students to the U.S. to attend civil aviation schools, also struggled to get their higher ups to act on this information.

"To date, no one has been held accountable for the massive defense failures on 9-11, nor for the bizarre suppression of critical warnings prior to 9-11. Furthermore, we still have no explanation for why the head of Pakistani intelligence, who was meeting with top Bush Administration officials in Washington on 9-11-2001, had wired lead hijacker Mohammed Atta $100,000.00 weeks before 9-11. We still do not know who made the insider stock trades in weeks and days leading up to 9-11, by betting "against" United and American Airlines stocks (the aircraft used as missiles on 9-11).

"What we DO KNOW is that $5 million of those insider stock trade "winnings" apparently by someone who had foreknowledge of the coming attacks, were made the day before 9-11 at AB Brown Trust. AB Brown Trust was headed until his induction into the CIA by Buzzy Krongard, who is now the Executive Director of the CIA. We also know that the current head of AB Brown Trust quietly resigned his position on 9-11, with no media scrutiny nor apparently government scrutiny. Lastly, and perhaps most bizarre is the fact that $2.5 million of those stock "winnings" against these airlines made at AB Brown Trust . . . remain unclaimed.

"We deserve to know why no one has been held accountable, and who made those insider stock trades. We also deserve to know why the Bush Administration allowed members of the Bin Laden family to quietly leave the U.S. after 9-11, with virtually no questioning by the FBI, and at a time when other Americans were not allowed to fly.

"There are many other profound, and bizarrely "unasked" questions around 9-11. I urge all to read "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin, and endorsed by Howard Zinn, and to view "The Great Deception" documentary by acclaimed Canadian television journalist Barry Zwicker. Peace & justice leaders and activists will find these works a great resource for getting current on the 9-11 truth issue, and can be great organizing tools to educate others.

"I fear that if the underlying issues of 9-11 truth are not demanded, that Iraq may be but a flame on an ocean of gasoline that may be used to ignite war after war after war. We cannot, as a peace & justice movement only address the flames. We must look at the fuel being used to justify the flames of war and repression at home and abroad. We must look deeply at the events leading up to, on and since 9-11. We must demand full 9-11 truth."
_________________
I AM what I AM and that is ALL that I AM " Popye the Sailor Man!
"AAAAAAAUUUUUUUMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!" Mr.Limpet(Don Knotts movie)
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#27
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/morris/morris6.html

Quote:
How Our Shortsighted Media Got Us Into War

by Jonathan David Morris


I like how the cool thing in pro-war circles right now is to say that Iraq is going quite well, but that it’s the media’s fault for focusing on the bad stuff. Maybe if journalists spent more time checking and balancing the government than ducking claims of Red or Blue bias, we wouldn’t’ve gone to war over faulty intelligence, and there wouldn’t be any bad stuff to focus on in the first place.

Three years ago, Americans were led to believe Saddam Hussein’s weapons were a given—that “everyone in the world” believed he had them and planned to use them. Now we know the intelligence was wrong. But our assumptions were dead wrong, too. In fact, there were people who said Saddam didn’t have weapons. And there were people who said he wasn’t a threat. Not all of these people were anti-Bush liberals. Some worked for Bush’s father. But you wouldn’t’ve known that as the great snowball of war gained momentum in the media, because Fox News slapped an American flag behind their logo and turned the debate into a pep rally. Anti-war became anti-pro-war. And anti-pro-war became synonymous with anti-Bush or anti-American.

All forms of dissent were then passed off as crazy talk—like Martin Sheen stumbling down the street with tape on his mouth.

I blame Fox for drowning us in their simpleton politics. But I blame the rest of the media for going along with Fox’s Red/Blue mentality. The war debate should never have been about which party you supported, or about how much you loved or hated the president. But instead of challenging Fox, many news outlets decided to compete with them. And instead of challenging the government, the press decided to help them, by turning the war into a partisan issue—instead of a program that proposed to kill people (which is what war ultimately is).

As far as I’m concerned, the media are to blame for what we’re seeing in Iraq right now. But not for showing us beheadings and bombings. For failing to stop them.

I blame the media for failing to ask any questions. I blame them for failing to let us know whether the war was well researched, so we could make an educated decision whether or not to support it.

I blame the media for putting ratings and commercial success ahead of their role within the country.

I blame them for being shortsighted. And I blame them for being dumb.

If the media were doing their job—if they had any self-respect whatsoever—they would go back and address the WMD issue. They would dissect Colin Powell’s U.N. speech. And they would draw some kind of connection between those post-9/11 anthrax letters and the fact that they landed in the laps of major newsmen who sat back as we marched into a WMD-inspired war.

If the media were doing their job, Washington would never get away with dramatically altering our constitutional republic. If they were doing their job, domestic spying wouldn’t magically become “terrorist surveillance.” The New York Times wouldn’t be cowed into covering up warrantless searches before an election. And war supporters wouldn’t get away with pounding their chests every time they discover new, unitary powers in their literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Over the last few years, Washington has churned out fable after fable about soldiers like Jessica Lynch and NFL superhero Pat Tillman. They’ve passed PR pieces off as legitimate news stories. They’ve paid Op-Ed writers. They’ve slapped “Made in the USA” labels on Chinese boxes at press conferences. And the press hasn’t connected the dots on any of this.

America has introduced itself to something called Free Speech Zones. We’ve seen political speech suppressed in the name of campaign finance reform. And the press hasn’t tied any of that into the big picture, either.

Torture, rendition, and the suspension of due process have all been inserted into public discourse, as if they have any reasonable place being there. A war has been launched against a country that never attacked us, that had no plans to attack us, that didn’t even have the means to attack us, while Usama bin Laden—like OJ’s real killers—got away. And still the media act as if this is perfectly normal. Still they fail to connect the dots, still they fail to question the changing war motives, and still they fail to wonder how this war made us safer when Saddam didn’t even have weapons to hurt us with.

Yeah, I blame the media, all right. I blame the media for being completely and utterly clueless. I blame them for giving Bush a pass on the stuff he’s actually done wrong while harassing him over a hurricane that wouldn’t’ve been so damaging if New Orleans’ idiot mayor had bussed his subjects out of town before the busses were covered in water.

I blame the media for letting Republicans squander our goodwill after 9/11. I blame them for letting Democrats roll over and wait for a belly rub. And I blame them for marginalizing any third party whose candidates aren’t already entrenched in the two-party system.

I blame the media for letting Ann Coulter get away with writing a book called Treason. I blame them for letting Michael Savage call people who disagree with him “enemies.” And I blame them for letting third-rate, me-too pundits like Ben Shapiro say we should try Al Gore for “sedition.”

Twenty-one percent of Americans think the First Amendment guarantees them the right to own pets, and, meanwhile, no one sees anything wrong with bulldozing Dixie Chicks CDs, tape recording teachers, and using stupid, entirely empty phrases like “undermining the president” and “hiding behind free speech.” These things just scream The Greatest Hits of Joseph Goebbels, and if the media hadn’t spent the last 12 years covering white Ford Broncos and mildly attractive missing white females, none of these things would have happened, because none of them would’ve gone unchallenged.

You want to blame this stuff on George Bush? You want to blame it on some left- or right-wing conspiracy? Go ahead. But the media are the enablers here. The media are the ones who waste your time telling you about Red States and Blue States and Ben Affleck’s love life. The media are the ones who glorify political shenanigans with their fair and balanced, good guy/bad guy, world-championship-of-professional-wrestling “news” coverage. And the media are the ones who have thoroughly failed you and consistently let you down.

As long as Americans still believe journalism’s job is to defend their favorite candidates—and make no mistake: liberals and conservatives alike do—the media will continue being good for nothing but Breaking News alerts and poorly constructed, he-said-this, she-said-that political soap operas. This might be interesting if you’ve only got two brain cells. But if you’ve got any interest in stopping the parties from raping our wallets and dismantling our system of government, it’s time to ditch the old media guards, and time for some major change.



March 29, 2006


discuss this column in the forum

Jonathan David Morris writes a weekly column on politics and personal freedoms. His website is http://www.readjdm.com
_________________
I AM what I AM and that is ALL that I AM " Popye the Sailor Man!
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trum ... sFinal.htm

Quote:
THIS PAPER IS NOT COPYRIGHTED

WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS

By Wayne Trumpman
9 September 2005
Version: 0.4



This paper analyzes the first moments of the WTC 1 collapse on 9-11. Phenomena are documented that is impossible to explain by a natural gravity collapse and point to the use of high explosives. Discussion focuses on the top 13 floors, 110-98, and the collapse of floors 97, 96, 95, and 94. Features of the fires, the behavior of collapse, and the produced clouds are looked at in detail. It would be helpful for you to review the NIST final report before continuing since this paper assumes you have some knowledge of the WTC 1 collapse. You can find this on the Internet for free. See the References section at the end of this paper for internet links.



INTRO
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#29
Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 4 2006

The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.

Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.

In an interview with The Alex Jones Show aired nationally on the GCN Radio Network, Bowman (pictured below) stated that at the bare minimum if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11 then the government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. He said it is plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of what was taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the strings behind the attack.



Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11 that simulated planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the attack.

"The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD....that they didn't they didn't know what was real and what was part of the exercise," said Bowman

"I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they're the ones that should be the object of investigation."

Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect behind the attacks, Bowman stated, "If I had to narrow it down to one person....I think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney."

Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11.

Bowman agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship and stated, "I think there's been nothing closer to fascism than what we've seen lately from this government."

Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, "Done more to destroy the rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined."



Bowman trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up with abounding conflicts of interest, charging, "The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash."

"There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk," said Bowman.

Asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 were preparing to stage another false-flag attack to reinvigorate their agenda Bowman agreed that, "I can see that and I hope they can't pull it off, I hope they are prevented from pulling it off but I know darn good and well they'd like to have another one."

A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. These charges are ridiculed by the fact that Sheen is an expert on 9/11 who spends hours a day meticulously researching the topic, something that the attack dogs have failed to do, aiming their comments solely at Sheen's personal life and ignoring his invitation to challenge him on the facts.

In addition, from the very start we have put forth eminently credible individuals only for them to be ignored by the establishment media. Physics Professors, former White House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German Defense Ministers and Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, have all gone public on 9/11 but have been uniformly ignored by the majority of the establishment press.

Will Robert Bowman also be blackballed as the mainstream continue to misrepresent the 9/11 truth movement as an occupation of the fringe minority?

Bowman is currently running for Congress in Florida's 15th District.

---------------------------------
_________________
I AM what I AM and that is ALL that I AM " Popye the Sailor Man!
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#30
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html

snips: Quote:
“There’s reality, and there’s illusion,” says William Rodriguez. “When illusion becomes reality, that’s a problem; 9/11 is a giant illusion.”
Coincidences are rife. What is to be made of reports that prior to September 11, parties unknown purchased the domain names “nycterrorstrike.com,” “horrorinnewyork.com,” and “tradetowerstrike.com.” Was this Mohammad Atta’s idea of a cyberjoke?


http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index3.html


Quote:
Speaking with the widows, or simply walking by a firehouse, was a teleportation back to the raw unspun brutality of the Day. This isn’t as much of a stretch as it sounds, since I was there on September 11.
I’d just walked right into what would come to be called ground zero. No one stopped me. I knew the towers had fallen, seen it on TV. Still, I didn’t expect things that big to totally disappear, as if the ground had swallowed them up.
“Where are the towers?” I asked a fireman. “Under your foot” was the reply.
Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.
“That building is coming down,” he said with a drained casualness.
“Really?” I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. “When?”
“Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning.”
This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.
“Shit!” I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.
Now the 9/11 Truth movement tells me I saw much more.


http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index4.html
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#31
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:51 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From STA >
BUSH MEDIA MANIPULATION...FROM FOX?

Posted By: Argus
Date: Tuesday, 4 April 2006, 7:56 a.m.

I recieved this via e-mail with a link to a Fox News story.

This is obvious to most readers at STA, but I wonder why this still hasn't sunk in with the general public?

Especially Fox News watchers and Bush supporters.

(Note: Further weirdness, the Fox link with the story is dated April 3,2006 but the top stories go back to the Janet Jackson halftime exposure story from over a year ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bush Administration Media Collusion Memos Surface

Monday, April 3, 2006
WASHINGTON — In a disturbing turn of events for an administration already plagued by sagging poll numbers and waning support for the Iraq war, Friday's revelation that the Bush Administration issued direct guidelines for programming to media outlets is troubling even die-hard conservatives.

Late Friday a series of memos between senior Bush Administration officials and management at Viacom, Inc. were leaked calling for the media giant to focus on stories and programming choices that "reinforce the Administration's positions" and to "ignore and/or discredit points of view in opposition to the Bush Administration's foreign policy objectives for the purposes of National Security."

Democrats and key civil rights figures were quick to comment on this latest chapter of alleged government malfeasance. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer issued a statement calling for a congressional inquiry. "This is it. This is a smoking gun. For years we've been saying that liberal and moderate points of view aren't being accurately reflected in the media and this proves our point. The Bush Administration is clearly out of touch with the American people, and Viacom should be ashamed."

Other prominent figures were less forgiving. Rev. Al Sharpton called the memos "treasonous" and "genocidal" and reiterated his desire for impeachment proceedings to commence. "What we have here is a complete disregard for the law, for what is morally correct and for the will of the people. It's been no secret to anyone with a brain that the majority of programming that we are exposed to by certain companies is negative, but now it's out in the open. Look at BET. Look at the exclusion of voices that accurately represent communities of color. It's insidious."


OLD OR NEW STORY??

Password:


Messages In This Thread


NEW: BUSH MEDIA MANIPULATION...FROM FOX? (views: 59)
Argus -- Tuesday, 4 April 2006, 7:56 a.m.
NEW: LINK WEIRDNESS (views: 23)
Argus -- Tuesday, 4 April 2006, 7:59 a.m.
[ View Thread ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]


Quote:
“There’s reality, and there’s illusion,” says William Rodriguez. “When illusion becomes reality, that’s a problem; 9/11 is a giant illusion.”
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#32
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:32 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... ersity.htm

Quote:
Chairman of 9/11 Whitewash Commission sets stage for Al Qaeda Nuke Attack
Four Looks at the Thomas Kean Affair

Infowars | April 4, 2006
By Bob Dacy

Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, gave a lecture at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas last Friday, March 31st. I was there covering the event for my local TV talk show, "The Simple Truth". A synopsis of my observations follows.

The question and answer session after the speech was anything but spontaneous. The students had been pre-selected and were prepped in a conference room before the presentation. I saw them coming out of the room, and asked one of them if they were going to be the students asking the questions. She said "yes". The Q & A was a fake.

The press conference before the speech was turned out to be a great opportunity, because literally half of the questions were hostile, and I was able to ask Mr. Kean a question about why the 9/11 Commission, on page 172 of their report, stated that the question of who bankrolled the September 11th attacks was "of little practical significance." He replied that the job cost so little money and that it was too hard to trace. So I got from Mr. Kean an admission that following the money trail in a crime that took the lives of 3000 people was "of little practical significance" because it only cost about $166 per murder and was too much of a bother to pursue. This was an astonishing red flag screaming "cover-up".

I also asked him why there is not even one word about the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center building 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report. I basically read him the riot act on building 7...no plane it it, perfectly symmetrical collapse, the FEMA report not matching Larry Silverstein's "admission" that he and the New York Fire Department control demolished it on the spur of the moment and forgot to tell anyone about it, the video evidence of explosive charges going off, the molten metal found in the basement...and Mr. Kean blew off the question! He claimed he saw no evidence of what I was saying, and said it was not part of his report. I thought to myself, "for a guy supposed to be in charge of the whole inquiry, he sure seems blissfully ignorant of the facts". A vision of the "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" monkeys popped into my head.

In his speech to the throngs of students, Mr. Kean kept stressing his biggest fear...that the terrorists would smuggle a nuke into this country and set it off. He recommended biometric ID cards for everyone! I thought about the Bush Administration pushing to let the Communist Chinese screen cargo coming through Panama ports, to make sure no nukes get in. The hypocrisy was almost unbearable. It is the same tired old mantra..."give up your freedom or the boogey man will get you". Mr. Kean's admissions that he is not interested in following the money trail, and that the controlled demolition of building 7 is unimportant are ample proof that 9/11 was an inside job, Kean was hired to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheep, and if we give up our liberty to these people, we will never get it back.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#33
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:10 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/20 ... n-job.html

A common objection to the argument that 9/11 was an inside job is that the conspiracy would be too big to keep quiet. In other words, the argument is that it is impossible that so many people could have kept quiet for so long. SOMEONE would have talked or made a mistake, so that the conspiracy would have been discovered.

Is that true? Maybe.

But anyone who's seen a Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum movie, or even watched enough Stargate, Star Trek or Alias, knows that a handful of bad guys can pull off big conspiracies, especially when they've got a high-level military or government person on board.

Moreover, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a "need-to-know basis", along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won't even know the big picture.

I Can't Hear You

It has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. See, for, example this article. Indeed, Iraq was not the first time the U.S. has ignored or faked intelligence in order to justify war.

The facts are also clear that it was also obvious to U.S. intelligence that 9/11 was going to happen on or around the date it happened.

So how many people would it have taken to ignore the intelligence that hijackers were going to attack? How hard would it been for a handful of top-level administration officials to stick their fingers in their ears, say "nah nah nah" (lilke a kid does when they don't want to hear what you're saying), and let it happen?

Its Happened Before

(Go to the link to find out how the US has used terror against innocent civilians, and you won't be too surprised about 9/11!)
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)