Buildings do not perfectly fall into their own footprint,,,without help from cutting charges,,,placed in just the right places,, if any are misplaced at all it will change the direction the building falls,, these are simple facts,,of engineering people..
Why don't Americans care about what actually took place,, what has been placed in the make up of a population that seems so oblivious to what actually took place that very memorable day?
Are we a stupid people?
Do we not have minds to think with? eyes to see with?
How long is America going to let these Corporations dominate our every thought?
I love this country,, my children deserve to live free,, my grandchildren!
I think we can do better!
The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
13. Questions About the Events of September 11th
There are some who wish to dismiss this webpage as 'conspiracy stuff', and pour scorn upon its author. Such people never offer answers to the following questions. As Gore Vidal has recently stated (The Enemy Within), "Apparently 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth."
In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware (or so they say) of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN? And why has this (apparent) incompetence been rewarded with yet more billions?
The four AA and UA jets took off with an average occupancy rate of 27%. That four airliners from major airlines leaving from the East Coast around 9 a.m. on a weekday for the West Coast would all have such low occupancy rates is highly unlikely. Was the booking system tampered with in order to ensure such low occupancy rates (so that the passengers from all four planes could eventually be loaded onto UA Flight 93 for elimination)?
Why would hijackers intending to crash planes into the WTC hijack jets taking off from Boston rather than from someplace closer such as JFK Airport in New York?
Why would hijackers intending to crash a plane into the Pentagon hijack a jet from Dulles Airport near Washington DC (and thus close to the Pentagon) and allow it to fly for 40 minutes away from its target before turning around and flying another 40 minutes back to it (knowing that interception by military jets during this time would in normal circumstances have been very likely)?
AA Flight 77 (the jet which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon) was allegedly hijacked at about 9 a.m., at about the same time as the Twin Tower impacts, and its change of course back toward Washington, or its transponder having been turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why, then, were U.S. Air Force jets not scrambled to intercept AA Flight 77 forty minutes before it (allegedly) hit the Pentagon, when there were U.S. Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice?
Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?
Where are the black boxes (the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders) from all four jets? These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency which normally investigates airplane crashes? If not, why not?
In particular, what is on the FDR and the CVR from UA Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania? Why, exactly, did this jet crash? Was it shot down?
Were the conversations between the pilots of the other three hijacked planes and air traffic controllers recorded? If so, what did those pilots say? Were those recordings siezed by the FBI? Were (alleged) transcripts given by the FBI to the mainstream media? Were those transcripts fabricated to provide false evidence in support of the "Arab hijackers" story?
Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?
Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack?
Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights?
Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?
If the outer perimeter walls of the Twin Towers were connected to the central cores only by lightweight trusses, how was wind load on the towers transmitted to the central core (as it must have been because the floors did not buckle in a strong wind)?
What exactly was the nature of the structural connections between the outer perimeter wall and the central core of the two towers? Is it not false that this consisted only of lightweight flimsy trusses? Is it not the case that the connection was actually made with 32,000 tons of steel beams?
Why are the architect's plans of the Twin Towers not publicly available?
Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition?
Were the Twin Towers re-engineered in the mid-1990s to make possible a collapse-on-demand if that were judged necessary? Was FEMA aware of this? Do blueprints of the Twin Towers in the possession of the past owners reveal any evidence of this?
Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced?
Were any tests done on the debris for the presence of radioactivity?
Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of airliner impacts and fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know exactly how this was accomplished)?
Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?
What was the actual size of the entrance hole made by the object which hit the Pentagon? Is it not the case that photographic evidence reveals that it was in fact at most just a few meters in diameter, much too small to have been made by a Boeing 757 jet, but just the right size for a missile?
Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site?
Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives for burial?
Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?
In September 2001 the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an inquiry to establish who benefited from the unusually high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options. Why has this inquiry stalled? Why have those who benefited from the purchases of these put options not been identified (or at least, not publicly)?
Is it not the case that this atrocity was planned and carried out by elements at high levels of command in the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, the Justice Department and FEMA (possibly with the involvement of well-placed civilians outside the government), acting under orders from, or with the approval of, high officials within the U.S. Administration, and that those same elements are now directing a propaganda campaign against the American people to justify a war of aggression in Asia and the Middle East aimed at controlling the oil and mineral wealth of those regions?
Why has the U.S. mainstream media ignored questions like these for over three years? Why are they complicit in the cover-up?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of (almost) the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM. Details here.
Previous section Contents Next section
The CIA Serendipity home page
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Read this and get a glimpse of yesterday,,today,,and sadly tomorrow!
The Devil will tell you a thousand truths to convince you of one lie!
The Enemy Within
by Gore Vidal
On 24 August, 1814, things looked very dark for freedom's land. That was the day the British captured Washington DC and set fire to the Capitol and the White House. President Madison took refuge in the nearby Virginia woods where he waited patiently for the notoriously short attention span of the Brits to kick in, which it did. They moved on and what might have been a Day of Utter Darkness turned out to be something of a bonanza for the DC building trades and up-market realtors.
One year after 9/11, we still don't know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to many civil-libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected president with the oil and gas Cheney/Bush junta.
Meanwhile, our more and more unaccountable government is pursuing all sorts of games around the world that we the spear carriers (formerly the people) will never learn of. Even so, we have been getting some answers to the question: why weren't we warned in advance of 9/11? Apparently, we were, repeatedly; for the better part of a year, we were told there would be unfriendly visitors to our skies some time in September 2001, but the government neither informed nor protected us despite Mayday warnings from Presidents Putin and Mubarak, from Mossad and even from elements of our own FBI. A joint panel of congressional intelligence committees reported (19 September 2002, New York Times) that as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was 'learning to fly in order to crash a plane into CIA HQ'.
Only CIA director George Tenet seemed to take the various threats seriously. In December 1998, he wrote to his deputies that 'we are at war' with Osama bin Laden. So impressed was the FBI by his warnings that by 20 September 2001, 'the FBI still had only one analyst assigned full time to al-Qaeda'.
From a briefing prepared for Bush at the beginning of July 2001: 'We believe that OBL [Osama bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.' And so it came to pass; yet Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, says she never suspected that this meant anything more than the kidnapping of planes.
Happily, somewhere over the Beltway, there is Europe — recently declared anti-Semitic by the US media because most of Europe wants no war with Iraq and the junta does, for reasons we may now begin to understand thanks to European and Asian investigators with their relatively free media.
On the subject 'How and Why America was Attacked on 11 September, 2001', the best, most balanced report, thus far, is by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed ... Yes, yes, I know he is one of Them. But they often know things that we don't — particularly about what we are up to. A political scientist, Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development 'a think-tank dedicated to the promotion of human rights, justice and peace' in Brighton. His book, 'The War on Freedom', has just been published in the US by a small but reputable publisher.
Ashmed provides a background for our ongoing war against Afghanistan, a view that in no way coincides with what the administration has told us. He has drawn on many sources, most tellingly on American whistleblowers who are beginning to come forth and hear witness — like those FBI agents who warned their supervisors that al-Qaeda was planning a kamikaze strike against New York and Washington only to be told that if they went public with these warnings they would suffer under the National Security Act. Several of these agents have engaged David P. Schippers, chief investigative counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee, to represent them in court. The majestic Schippers managed the successful impeachment of President Clinton in the House of Representatives. He may, if the Iraqi war should go wrong, be obliged to perform the same high service for Bush, who allowed the American people to go unwarned about an imminent attack upon two of our cities as pre-emption of a planned military strike by the US against the Taliban.
The Guardian (26 September 2001) reported that in July 2001, a group of interested parties met in a Berlin hotel to listen to a former State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on a message from the Bush administration that 'the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action ... the chilling quality of this private warning was that it came — according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik — accompanied by specific details of how Bush would succeed ...' Four days earlier, the Guardian had reported that 'Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military action against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington ... [which] raises the possibility that bin Laden was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.' A replay of the 'day of infamy' in the Pacific 62 years earlier?
Why the US needed a Eurasian adventure
On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national security presidential directive outlining a global campaign of military, diplomatic and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda, buttressed by the threat of war. According to NBC News: 'President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaeda ... but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks ... The directive, as described to NBC News, was essentially the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly ... because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf".'
Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: 'Niak Naik, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik's view that Washington would not drop its war for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.'
Was Afghanistan then turned to rubble in order to avenge the 3,000 Americans slaughtered by Osama? Hardly. The administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us, 'cause we're rich 'n free 'n he's not. Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the most frightening logo for our long contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, planning for which had been 'contingency' some years before 9/11 and, again, from 20 December, 2000, when Clinton's out-going team devised a plan to strike at al-Qaeda in retaliation for the assault on the warship Cole. Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, personally briefed his successor on the plan but Rice, still very much in her role as director of Chevron-Texaco, with special duties regarding Pakistan and Uzbekistan, now denies any such briefing. A year and a half later (12 August, 2002), fearless Time magazine reported this odd memory lapse.
Osama, if it was he and not a nation, simply provided the necessary shock to put in train a war of conquest. But conquest of what? What is there in dismal dry sandy Afghanistan worth conquering? Zbigniew Brzezinski tells us exactly what in a 1997 Council on Foreign Relations study called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives'.
The Polish-born Brzezinski was the hawkish National Security Advisor to President Carter. In 'The Grand Chessboard', Brzezinski gives a little history lesson. 'Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the centre of world power.' Eurasia is all the territory east of Germany. This means Russia, the Middle East, China and parts of India. Brzezinski acknowledges that Russia and China, bordering oil-rich central Asia, are the two main powers threatening US hegemony in that area.
He takes it for granted that the US must exert control over the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, known to those who love them as 'the Stans': Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Kyrgyzstan all 'of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and most powerful neighbours — Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China signaling'. Brzezinski notes how the world's energy consumption keeps increasing; hence, who controls Caspian oil/gas will control the world economy. Brzezinski then, reflexively, goes into the standard American rationalization for empire;. We want nothing, ever, for ourselves, only to keep bad people from getting good things with which to hurt good people. 'It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control the geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.'
Brzezinski is quite aware that American leaders are wonderfully ignorant of history and geography so he really lays it on, stopping just short of invoking politically incorrect 'manifest destiny'. He reminds the Council just how big Eurasia is. Seventy-five percent of the world's population is Eurasian. If I have done the sums right, that means that we've only got control, to date, of a mere 25 percent of the world's folks. More! 'Eurasia accounts for 60-per cent of the world's GNP and three-fourths of the world's known energy resources.'
Brzezinski's master plan for 'our' globe has obviously been accepted by the Cheney-Bush junta. Corporate America, long over-excited by Eurasian mineral wealth, has been aboard from the beginning.
Ahmed sums up: 'Brzezinski clearly envisaged that the establishment, consolidation and expansion of US military hegemony over Eurasia through Central Asia would require the unprecedented, open-ended militarisation of foreign policy, coupled with an unprecedented manufacture of domestic support and consensus on this militarisation campaign.'
Afghanistan is the gateway to all these riches. Will we fight to seize them? It should never be forgotten that the American people did not want to fight in either of the twentieth century's world wars, but President Wilson maneuvered us into the First while President Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into striking the first blow at Pearl Harbor, causing us to enter the Second as the result of a massive external attack. Brzezinski understands all this and, in 1997, he is thinking ahead — as well as backward. 'Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.' Thus was the symbolic gun produced that belched black smoke over Manhattan and the Pentagon.
Since the Iran-Iraq wars, Islam has been demonized as a Satanic terrorist cult that encourages suicide attacks — contrary, it should be noted, to the Islamic religion. Osama has been portrayed, accurately, it would seem, as an Islamic zealot. In order to bring this evil-doer to justice ('dead or alive'), Afghanistan, the object of the exercise was made safe not only for democracy but for Union Oil of California whose proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean port of Karachi, had been abandoned under the Taliban's chaotic regime. Currently, the pipeline is a go-project thanks to the junta's installation of a Unocal employee (John J Maresca) as US envoy to the newly born democracy whose president, Hamid Karzai, is also, according to Le Monde, a former employee of a Unocal subsidiary. Conspiracy? Coincidence!
Once Afghanistan looked to be within the fold, the junta, which had managed to pull off a complex diplomatic-military caper, abruptly replaced Osama, the personification of evil, with Saddam. This has been hard to explain since there is nothing to connect Iraq with 9/11. Happily, 'evidence' is now being invented. But it is uphill work, not helped by stories in the press about the vast oil wealth of Iraq which must — for the sake of the free world — be reassigned to US and European consortiums.
As Brzezinski foretold, 'a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat' made it possible for the President to dance a war dance before Congress. 'A long war!' he shouted with glee. Then he named an incoherent Axis of Evil to be fought. Although Congress did not give him the FDR Special — a declaration of war — he did get permission to go after Osama who may now be skulking in Iraq.
Bush and the dog that did not bark
Post-9/11, the American media were filled with pre-emptory denunciations of unpatriotic 'conspiracy theorists', who not only are always with us but are usually easy for the media to discredit since it is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life. Yet, a year or so ago, who would have thought that most of corporate America had been conspiring with accountants to cook their books since — well, at least the bright days of Reagan and deregulation. Ironically, less than a year after the massive danger from without, we were confronted with an even greater enemy from within: Golden Calf capitalism. Transparency? One fears that greater transparency will only reveal armies of maggots at work beneath the skin of a culture that needs a bit of a lie-down in order to collect itself before taking its next giant step which is to conquer Eurasia, a potentially fatal adventure not only for our frazzled institutions but for us the presently living.
Complicity. The behavior of President George W. Bush on 11 September certainly gives rise to all sorts of not unnatural suspicions. I can think of no other modern chief of state who would continue to pose for 'warm' pictures of himself listening to a young girl telling stories about her pet goat while hijacked planes were into three buildings.
Constitutionally, Bush is not only chief of state, he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Normally, a commander in such a crisis would go straight to headquarters and direct operations while receiving the latest intelligence.
This is what Bush actually did — or did not do — according to Stan Goff, a retired US Army veteran who has taught military science and doctrine at West Point. Goff writes, in 'The So-called Evidence is a Farce': 'I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plan, all the while on FAA radar.'
Goff, incidentally, like the other astonished military experts, cannot fathom why the government's automatic 'standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking' was not followed. Once a plane has deviated from its flight-plan, fighter planes are sent up to find out why. That is law and does not require presidential approval, which only needs to be given if there is a decision to shoot down a plane. Goff spells it out: 'The planes were hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10am. Who is notified? This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read.
'By around 8:15am it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handling teachers. By 8:45am, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower, Bush is settling in with children for his photo op. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously and one has just dived into the twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander-in-Chief.
'No one has apparently scrambled [sent aloft] Air Force interceptors either. At 9:03, Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower. At 9:05 Andrew Card, the Chief of Staff whispers to Bush [who] "briefly turns somber" according to reporters. Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No. He resumes listening to second-graders ... and continues the banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington DC.
'Has he instructed Card to scramble the Air Force? No. An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they have already figured out — that there's been an attack on the World Trade Centre. There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No.
'At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 [degrees] over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC. Now the real kicker: a pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of the building at 460 knots.
'When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator. This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on the freeway at rush hour by buying her a video driving game ... There is a story being constructed about these events.'
There is indeed, and the more it is added to the darker it becomes. The nonchalance of General Richard B. Myers, acting Joint Chief of Staff, is as puzzling as the President's campaigning-as-usual act. Myers was at the Capitol chatting with Senator Max Cleland. A sergeant, writing later in the AFPS (American Forces Press Service) describes Myers at the Capitol. 'While in an outer office, he said, he saw a television report that a plane had hit the World Trade Centre. "They thought it was a small plane or something like that," Myers said. So the two men went ahead with the office call.'
Whatever Myers and Cleland had to say to each other (more funds for the military?) must have been riveting because, during their chat, the AFPS reports, 'the second tower was hit by another jet. "Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was obvious. Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit."' Finally, somebody 'thrust a cellphone in Myers' hand' and, as if by magic, the commanding general of Norad — our Airspace Command — was on the line just as the hijackers mission had been successfully completed except for the failed one in Pennsylvania. In later testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Myers said he thinks that, as of his cellphone talk with Norad, 'the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft'. It was 9:40am. One hour and 20 minutes after air controllers knew that Flight 11 had been hijacked; 50 minutes after the North Tower was struck.
This statement would have been quite enough in our old serious army/air force to launch a number of courts martial with an impeachment or two thrown in. First, Myers claims to be uninformed until the third strike. But the Pentagon had been overseeing the hijacked planes from at least the moment of the strike at the first tower: yet not until the third strike, at the Pentagon, was the decision made to get the fighter planes up. Finally, this one is the dog that did not bark. By law, the fighters should have been up at around 8:15. If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been diverted or shot down. I don't think that Goff is being unduly picky when he wonders who and what kept the Air Force from following its normal procedure instead of waiting an hour and 20 minutes until the damage was done and only then launching the fighters. Obviously, somebody had ordered the Air Force to make no move to intercept those hijackings until ... what?
On 21 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed up on CBC-TV: 'That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which ... are 12 miles from the White House ... Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence Theory". Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask whether there were "stand down" orders.'?? On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were 'only four fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US'. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error?
It is interesting how often in our history, when disaster strikes, incompetence is considered a better alibi than ... well, yes, there are worse things. After Pearl Harbor, Congress moved to find out why Hawaii's two military commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, had not anticipated the Japanese attack. But President Roosevelt pre-empted that investigation with one of his own. Short and Kimmel were broken for incompetence. The 'truth' is still obscure to this day.
The media's weapons of mass distraction
But Pearl Harbor has been much studied. 11 September, it is plain, is never going to be investigated if Bush has anything to say about it. In January 2002, CNN reported that 'Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the Congressional investigation into the events of 11 September ... The request was made at a private meeting with Congressional leaders ... Sources said Bush initiated the conversation ... He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry .. Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request ...'
The excuse given, according to Daschle, was that 'resources and personnel would be taken' away from the war on terrorism in the event of a wider inquiry. So for reasons that we must never know, those 'breakdowns' are to be the goat. That they were more likely to be not break — but 'stand-downs' is not for us to pry. Certainly the one-hour 20 minute failure to put fighter planes in the air could not have been due to a breakdown throughout the entire Air Force along the East Coast. Mandatory standard operational procedure had been told to cease and desist.
Meanwhile, the media were assigned their familiar task of inciting public opinion against bin Laden, still not the proven mastermind. These media blitzes often resemble the magicians classic gesture of distraction: as you watch the rippling bright colours of his silk handkerchief in one hand, he is planting the rabbit in your pocket with the other. We were quickly assured that Osama's enormous family with its enormous wealth had broken with him, as had the royal family of his native Saudi Arabia. The CIA swore, hand on heart, that Osama had not worked for them in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Finally, the rumour that Bush family had in any way profited by its long involvement with the bin Laden family was — what else? — simply partisan bad taste.
But Bush Jr's involvement goes back at least to 1979 when his first failed attempt to become a player in the big Texas oil league brought him together with one James Bath of Houston, a family friend, who gave Bush Jr. $50,000 for a 5 per cent stake in Bush's firm Arbusto Energy. At this time, according to Wayne Madsen ('In These Times', Institute for Public Affairs No. 25), Bath was 'the sole US business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden... In a statement issued shortly after the 11 September attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden's, in Arbusto. In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests ... after several reincarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation.'
Behind the Junior Bush is the senior Bush, gainfully employed by the Carlyle Group which has ownership in at least 164 companies worldwide, inspiring admiration in that staunch friend to the wealthy, the Wall Street Journal, which noted, as early as 27 September 2001, 'If the US boosts defence spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: bin Laden's family ... is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specialising in buyouts of defence and aerospace companies ... Osama is one of more than 50 children of Mohammed bin Laden, who built the family's $5 billion business.'
But Bush pere et fils, in pursuit of wealth and office, are beyond shame or, one cannot help but think, good sense. There is a suggestion that they are blocking investigation of the bin Laden connection with terrorism. Agent France Press reported on 4 November 2001: 'FBI agents probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect Osama ... were told to back off soon after George W. Bush became president ...' According to BBC TV's Newsnight (6 Nov 2001), '... just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White House, whose official line is that the bin Ladens are above suspicion.' 'Above the Law' (Green Press, 14 February 2002) sums up: 'We had what looked like the biggest failure of the intelligence community since Pearl Harbor but what we are learning now is it wasn't a failure, it was a directive.' True? False? Bush Jr will be under oath during the impeachment interrogation. Will we hear 'What is a directive? What is is?'
Although the US had, for some years, fingered Osama as a mastermind terrorist, no serious attempt had been made pre-9/11 to 'bring him to justice dead or alive, innocent or guilty', as Texan law of the jungle requires. Clinton's plan to act was given to Condeleezza Rice by Sandy Berger, you will recall, but she says she does not.
As far back as March 1996 when Osama was in Sudan, Major General Elfatih Erwa, Sudanese Minister for Defence, offered to extradite him. According to the Washington Post (3 October 2001), 'Erwa said he would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over ... [US officials] said, "just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia", where he had once been given credit for the successful al-Qaeda attack on American forces that in '93 that killed 18 Rangers.' Erwa said in an interview, 'We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials] said, "Let him."'
In 1996 Sudan expelled Osama and 3,000 of his associates. Two years later the Clinton administration, in the great American tradition of never having to say thank you for Sudan's offer to hand over Osama, proceeded to missile-attack Sudan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory on the grounds that Sudan was harboring bin Laden terrorists who were making chemical and biological weapons when the factory was simply making vaccines for the UN.
Four years later, John O'Neill, a much admired FBI agent, complained in the Irish Times a month before the attacks, 'The US State Department — and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage — blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt. The US ambassador to Yemen forbade O'Neill (and his FBI team) ... from entering Yemen in August 2001. O'Neill resigned in frustration and took on a new job as head of security at the World Trade Centre. He died in the 11 September attack.' Obviously, Osama has enjoyed bipartisan American support since his enlistment in the CIA's war to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But by 9/11 there was no Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, indeed there was no Soviet Union.
A world made safe for peace and pipelines
I watched Bush and Cheney on CNN when the Axis of Evil speech was given and the 'long war' proclaimed. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were fingered as enemies to be clobbered because they might or might not be harbouring terrorists who might or might not destroy us in the night. So we must strike first whenever it pleases us. Thus, we declared 'war on terrorism' — an abstract noun which cannot be a war at all as you need a country for that. Of course, there was innocent Afghanistan, which was levelled from a great height, but then what's collateral damage — like an entire country — when you're targeting the personification of all evil according to Time and the NY Times and the networks?
As it proved, the conquest of Afghanistan had nothing to do with Osama. He was simply a pretext for replacing the Taliban with a relatively stable government that would allow Union Oil of California to lay its pipeline for the profit of, among others, the Cheney-Bush junta.
Background? All right. The headquarters of Unocal are, as might be expected, in Texas. In December 1997, Taliban representatives were invited to Sugarland, Texas. At that time, Unocal had already begun training Afghan men in pipeline construction, with US government approval. BBC News, (4 December 1997): 'A spokesman for the company Unocal said the Taliban were expected to spend several days at the company's [Texas] headquarters ... a BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.' The Inter Press Service (IPS) reported: 'some Western businesses are warming up to the Taliban despite the movement's institutionalisation of terror, massacres, abductions and impoverishment.' CNN (6 October 1996): 'The United States wants good ties [with the Taliban] but can't openly seek them while women are being oppressed.'
The Taliban, rather better organised than rumoured, hired for PR one Leila Helms, a niece of Richard Helms, former director of the CIA. In October 1996, the Frankfurter Rundschau reported that Unocal 'has been given the go-ahead from the new holders of power in Kabul to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan ..' This was a real coup for Unocal as well as other candidates for pipelines, including Condoleezza's old employer Chevron. Although the Taliban was already notorious for its imaginative crimes against the human race, the Wall Street Journal, scenting big bucks, fearlessly announced: 'Like them or not, the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history.' The NY Times (26 May 1997) leapt aboard the pipeline juggernaut. 'The Clinton administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory would act as counterweight to Iran ... and would offer the possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region.'
But by 1999, it was clear that the Taliban could not provide the security we would need to protect our fragile pipelines. The arrival of Osama as warrior for Allah on the scene refocused, as it were, the bidding. New alliances were now being made. The Bush administration soon buys the idea of an invasion of Afghanistan, Frederick Starr, head of the Central Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in the Washington Post (19 December 2000): 'The US has quietly begun to align itself with those in the Russian government calling for military action against Afghanistan and has toyed with the idea of a new raid to wipe out bin Laden.'
Although with much fanfare we went forth to wreak our vengeance on the crazed sadistic religious zealot who slaughtered 3,000 American citizens, once that 'war' was under way, Osama was dropped as irrelevant and so we are back to the Unocal pipeline, now a go-project. In the light of what we know today, it is unlikely that the junta was ever going to capture Osama alive: he has tales to tell. One of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's best numbers now is: 'Where is he? Somewhere? Here? There? Somewhere? Who knows?' And we get his best twinkle. He must also be delighted — and amazed — that the media have bought the absurd story that Osama, if alive, would still be in Afghanistan, underground, waiting to be flushed out instead of in a comfortable mansion in Osama-loving Jakarta, 2,000 miles to the East and easily accessible by Flying Carpet One.
Many commentators of a certain age have noted how Hitlerian our junta sounds as it threatens first one country for harbouring terrorists and then another. It is true that Hitler liked to pretend to be the injured — or threatened — party before he struck. But he had many great predecessors not least Imperial Rome. Stephen Gowan's War in Afghanistan: A $28 Billion Racket quotes Joseph Schumpeter who, 'in 1919, described ancient Rome in a way that sounds eerily like the United States in 2001: "There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented ... The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbours."' We have only outdone the Romans in turning metaphors such as the war on terrorism, or poverty, or Aids into actual wars on targets we appear, often, to pick at random in order to maintain turbulence in foreign lands.
As of 1 August 2002, trial balloons were going up all over Washington DC to get world opinion used to the idea that 'Bush of Afghanistan' had gained a title as mighty as his father's 'Bush of the Persian Gulf' and Junior was now eager to add Iraq-Babylon to his diadem. These various balloons fell upon Europe and the Arab world like so many lead weights. But something new has been added since the classic Roman Hitlerian mantra, 'they are threatening us, we must attack first'. Now everything is more of less out in the open. The International Herald Tribune wrote in August 2002: 'The leaks began in earnest on 5 July, when the New York Times described a tentative Pentagon plan that it said called for an invasion by a US force of up to 250,000 that would attack Iraq from the north, south and west. On 10 July, the Times said that Jordan might be used as a base for the invasion. The Washington Post reported, 28 July, that "many senior US military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat ..."' And the status quo should be maintained. Incidentally, this is the sort of debate that the founding fathers intended the Congress, not military bureaucrats, to conduct in the name of we the people. But that sort of debate has, for a long time, been denied us.
One refreshing note is now being struck in a fashion unthinkable in imperial Rome: the cheerful admission that we habitually resort to provocation. The Tribune continues: 'Donald Rumsfeld has threatened to jail anyone found to have been behind the leaks. But a retired army general, Fred Woerner, tends to see a method behind the leaks. "We may already be executing a plan," he said recently. "Are we involved in a preliminary psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do something to justify a US attack or make concessions?" Somebody knows.' That is plain.
Elsewhere in this interesting edition of the Herald Tribune wise William Pfaff writes: 'A second Washington debate is whether to make an unprovoked attack on Iran to destroy a nuclear power reactor being built with Russian assistance, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, within the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory ... No other government would support such an action, other than Israel's (which) would do so not because it expected to be attacked by Iran but because it, not unjustifiably, opposes any nuclear capacity in the hands of any Islamic government.'
Suspect states and the tom-toms of revenge
'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended ... and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people ...' Thus, James Madison warned us at the dawn of our republic.
Post 9/11, thanks to the 'domination of the few', Congress and the media are silent while the executive, through propaganda and skewed polls, seduces the public mind as hitherto unthinkable centers of power like Homeland Defence (a new Cabinet post to be placed on top of the Defence Department) are being constructed and 4 per cent of the country has recently been invited to join Tips, a civilian spy system to report on anyone who looks suspicious or ... who objects to what the executive is doing at home or abroad?
Although every nation knows how — if it has the means and the will — to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11, war is not an option. Wars are for nations not root-less gangs. You put a price on their heads and hunt them down. In recent years, Italy has been doing that with the Sicilian Mafia; and no one has yet suggested bombing Palermo.
But the Cheney-Bush junta wants a war in order to dominate Afghanistan, build a pipeline, gain control of the oil of Eurasia's Stans for their business associates as well as to do as much damage to Iraq and Iran on the grounds that one day those evil countries may carpet our fields of amber grain with anthrax or something.
The media, never much good at analysis, are more and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN, even the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once our ally and 'friend' in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. 'None of that conspiracy stuff,' snuffed Clancy. Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.
As of August, at least among economists, a consensus was growing that, considering our vast national debt (we borrow $2 billion a day to keep the government going) and a tax base seriously reduced by the junta in order to benefit the 1 per cent who own most of the national wealth, there is no way that we could ever find the billions needed to destroy Iraq in 'a long war' or even a short one, with most of Europe lined up against us. Germany and Japan paid for the Gulf War, reluctantly — with Japan, at the last moment, irritably quarrelling over the exchange rate at the time of the contract. Now Germany's Schroder has said no. Japan is mute.
But the tom-toms keep beating revenge; and the fact that most of the world is opposed to our war seems only to bring hectic roses to the cheeks of the Bush administration (Bush Snr of the Carlyle Group, Bush Jnr formerly of Harken, Cheney, formerly of Halliburton, Rice, formerly of Chevron, Rumsfeld, formerly of Occidental). If ever an administration should recuse itself in matters dealing with energy, it is the current junta. But this is unlike any administration in our history. Their hearts are plainly elsewhere, making money, far from our mock Roman temples, while we, alas, are left only with their heads, dreaming of war, preferably against weak peripheral states.
Mohammed Heikal is a brilliant Egyptian journalist-observer, and sometime Foreign Minister. On 10 October 2001, he said to the Guardian: 'Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as if it were Nazi Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has been penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication.
The former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Eckhardt Werthebach (American Free Press, 4 December 2001) spells it out. The 9/11 attacks required 'years of planning' while their scale indicates that they were a product of 'state-organised actions'. There it is. Perhaps, after all, Bush Jnr was right to call it a war. But which state attacked us?
Will the suspects please line up. Saudi Arabia? 'No, no. Why we are paying you $50 million a year for training the royal bodyguard on our own holy if arid soil. True the kingdom contains many wealthy well-educated enemies but ...' Bush Snr and Jnr exchange a knowing look. Egypt? No way. Dead broke despite US baksheesh. Syria? No funds. Iran? Too proud to bother with a parvenu state like the US. Israel? Sharon is capable of anything. But he lacks the guts and the grace of the true Kamikaze. Anyway, Sharon was not in charge when this operation began with the planting of 'sleepers' around the US flight schools 5 or 6 years ago. The United States? Elements of corporate America would undeniably prosper from a 'massive external attack' that would make it possible for us to go to war whenever the President sees fit while suspending civil liberties. (The 342 pages of the USA Patriot Act were plainly prepared before 9/11.) Bush Snr and Jnr are giggling now. Why? Because Clinton was president back then. As the former president leaves the line of suspects, he says, more in anger than in sorrow: 'When we left the White House we had a plan for an all-out war on al-Qaeda. We turned it over to this administration and they did nothing. Why?' Biting his lip, he goes. The Bushes no longer giggle. Pakistan breaks down: 'I did it! I confess! I couldn't help myself. Save me. I am an evil-doer!'
Apparently, Pakistan did do it — or some of it. We must now go back to 1997 when 'the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA' was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote (Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999): 'With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and '92 ... more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghanistan jihad.' The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these warriors.
In March 1985, President Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166, increasing military aid while CIA specialists met with the ISI counterparts near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Jane's Defence Weekly (14 September 2001) gives the best overview: 'The trainers were mainly from Pakistan's ISI agency who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy Seals in various US training establishments.' This explains the reluctance of the administration to explain why so many unqualified persons, over so long a time, got visas to visit our hospitable shores. While in Pakistan, 'mass training of Afghan [zealots] was subsequently conducted by the Pakistan army under the supervision of the elite Special Services ... In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to al-Qaeda.'
When Mohamed Atta's plane struck the World Trade Centre's North Tower, George W. Bush and the child at the Florida elementary school were discussing her goat. By coincidence, our word 'tragedy' comes from the Greek: for 'goat' tragos plus oide for 'song'. 'Goat-song'. It is highly suitable that this lament, sung in ancient satyr plays, should have been heard again at the exact moment when we were struck by fire from heaven, and a tragedy whose end is nowhere in sight began for us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO REASON TO GET EXCITED,,THE THIEF,, HE KINDLY SPOKE
The Devil will tell you a thousand truths to convince you of one lie!
The Enemy Within
by Gore Vidal
On 24 August, 1814, things looked very dark for freedom's land. That was the day the British captured Washington DC and set fire to the Capitol and the White House. President Madison took refuge in the nearby Virginia woods where he waited patiently for the notoriously short attention span of the Brits to kick in, which it did. They moved on and what might have been a Day of Utter Darkness turned out to be something of a bonanza for the DC building trades and up-market realtors.
One year after 9/11, we still don't know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to many civil-libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected president with the oil and gas Cheney/Bush junta.
Meanwhile, our more and more unaccountable government is pursuing all sorts of games around the world that we the spear carriers (formerly the people) will never learn of. Even so, we have been getting some answers to the question: why weren't we warned in advance of 9/11? Apparently, we were, repeatedly; for the better part of a year, we were told there would be unfriendly visitors to our skies some time in September 2001, but the government neither informed nor protected us despite Mayday warnings from Presidents Putin and Mubarak, from Mossad and even from elements of our own FBI. A joint panel of congressional intelligence committees reported (19 September 2002, New York Times) that as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was 'learning to fly in order to crash a plane into CIA HQ'.
Only CIA director George Tenet seemed to take the various threats seriously. In December 1998, he wrote to his deputies that 'we are at war' with Osama bin Laden. So impressed was the FBI by his warnings that by 20 September 2001, 'the FBI still had only one analyst assigned full time to al-Qaeda'.
From a briefing prepared for Bush at the beginning of July 2001: 'We believe that OBL [Osama bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.' And so it came to pass; yet Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, says she never suspected that this meant anything more than the kidnapping of planes.
Happily, somewhere over the Beltway, there is Europe — recently declared anti-Semitic by the US media because most of Europe wants no war with Iraq and the junta does, for reasons we may now begin to understand thanks to European and Asian investigators with their relatively free media.
On the subject 'How and Why America was Attacked on 11 September, 2001', the best, most balanced report, thus far, is by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed ... Yes, yes, I know he is one of Them. But they often know things that we don't — particularly about what we are up to. A political scientist, Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development 'a think-tank dedicated to the promotion of human rights, justice and peace' in Brighton. His book, 'The War on Freedom', has just been published in the US by a small but reputable publisher.
Ashmed provides a background for our ongoing war against Afghanistan, a view that in no way coincides with what the administration has told us. He has drawn on many sources, most tellingly on American whistleblowers who are beginning to come forth and hear witness — like those FBI agents who warned their supervisors that al-Qaeda was planning a kamikaze strike against New York and Washington only to be told that if they went public with these warnings they would suffer under the National Security Act. Several of these agents have engaged David P. Schippers, chief investigative counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee, to represent them in court. The majestic Schippers managed the successful impeachment of President Clinton in the House of Representatives. He may, if the Iraqi war should go wrong, be obliged to perform the same high service for Bush, who allowed the American people to go unwarned about an imminent attack upon two of our cities as pre-emption of a planned military strike by the US against the Taliban.
The Guardian (26 September 2001) reported that in July 2001, a group of interested parties met in a Berlin hotel to listen to a former State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on a message from the Bush administration that 'the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action ... the chilling quality of this private warning was that it came — according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik — accompanied by specific details of how Bush would succeed ...' Four days earlier, the Guardian had reported that 'Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military action against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington ... [which] raises the possibility that bin Laden was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.' A replay of the 'day of infamy' in the Pacific 62 years earlier?
Why the US needed a Eurasian adventure
On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national security presidential directive outlining a global campaign of military, diplomatic and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda, buttressed by the threat of war. According to NBC News: 'President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaeda ... but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks ... The directive, as described to NBC News, was essentially the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly ... because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf".'
Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: 'Niak Naik, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik's view that Washington would not drop its war for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.'
Was Afghanistan then turned to rubble in order to avenge the 3,000 Americans slaughtered by Osama? Hardly. The administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us, 'cause we're rich 'n free 'n he's not. Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the most frightening logo for our long contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, planning for which had been 'contingency' some years before 9/11 and, again, from 20 December, 2000, when Clinton's out-going team devised a plan to strike at al-Qaeda in retaliation for the assault on the warship Cole. Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, personally briefed his successor on the plan but Rice, still very much in her role as director of Chevron-Texaco, with special duties regarding Pakistan and Uzbekistan, now denies any such briefing. A year and a half later (12 August, 2002), fearless Time magazine reported this odd memory lapse.
Osama, if it was he and not a nation, simply provided the necessary shock to put in train a war of conquest. But conquest of what? What is there in dismal dry sandy Afghanistan worth conquering? Zbigniew Brzezinski tells us exactly what in a 1997 Council on Foreign Relations study called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives'.
The Polish-born Brzezinski was the hawkish National Security Advisor to President Carter. In 'The Grand Chessboard', Brzezinski gives a little history lesson. 'Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the centre of world power.' Eurasia is all the territory east of Germany. This means Russia, the Middle East, China and parts of India. Brzezinski acknowledges that Russia and China, bordering oil-rich central Asia, are the two main powers threatening US hegemony in that area.
He takes it for granted that the US must exert control over the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, known to those who love them as 'the Stans': Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Kyrgyzstan all 'of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and most powerful neighbours — Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China signaling'. Brzezinski notes how the world's energy consumption keeps increasing; hence, who controls Caspian oil/gas will control the world economy. Brzezinski then, reflexively, goes into the standard American rationalization for empire;. We want nothing, ever, for ourselves, only to keep bad people from getting good things with which to hurt good people. 'It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control the geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.'
Brzezinski is quite aware that American leaders are wonderfully ignorant of history and geography so he really lays it on, stopping just short of invoking politically incorrect 'manifest destiny'. He reminds the Council just how big Eurasia is. Seventy-five percent of the world's population is Eurasian. If I have done the sums right, that means that we've only got control, to date, of a mere 25 percent of the world's folks. More! 'Eurasia accounts for 60-per cent of the world's GNP and three-fourths of the world's known energy resources.'
Brzezinski's master plan for 'our' globe has obviously been accepted by the Cheney-Bush junta. Corporate America, long over-excited by Eurasian mineral wealth, has been aboard from the beginning.
Ahmed sums up: 'Brzezinski clearly envisaged that the establishment, consolidation and expansion of US military hegemony over Eurasia through Central Asia would require the unprecedented, open-ended militarisation of foreign policy, coupled with an unprecedented manufacture of domestic support and consensus on this militarisation campaign.'
Afghanistan is the gateway to all these riches. Will we fight to seize them? It should never be forgotten that the American people did not want to fight in either of the twentieth century's world wars, but President Wilson maneuvered us into the First while President Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into striking the first blow at Pearl Harbor, causing us to enter the Second as the result of a massive external attack. Brzezinski understands all this and, in 1997, he is thinking ahead — as well as backward. 'Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.' Thus was the symbolic gun produced that belched black smoke over Manhattan and the Pentagon.
Since the Iran-Iraq wars, Islam has been demonized as a Satanic terrorist cult that encourages suicide attacks — contrary, it should be noted, to the Islamic religion. Osama has been portrayed, accurately, it would seem, as an Islamic zealot. In order to bring this evil-doer to justice ('dead or alive'), Afghanistan, the object of the exercise was made safe not only for democracy but for Union Oil of California whose proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean port of Karachi, had been abandoned under the Taliban's chaotic regime. Currently, the pipeline is a go-project thanks to the junta's installation of a Unocal employee (John J Maresca) as US envoy to the newly born democracy whose president, Hamid Karzai, is also, according to Le Monde, a former employee of a Unocal subsidiary. Conspiracy? Coincidence!
Once Afghanistan looked to be within the fold, the junta, which had managed to pull off a complex diplomatic-military caper, abruptly replaced Osama, the personification of evil, with Saddam. This has been hard to explain since there is nothing to connect Iraq with 9/11. Happily, 'evidence' is now being invented. But it is uphill work, not helped by stories in the press about the vast oil wealth of Iraq which must — for the sake of the free world — be reassigned to US and European consortiums.
As Brzezinski foretold, 'a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat' made it possible for the President to dance a war dance before Congress. 'A long war!' he shouted with glee. Then he named an incoherent Axis of Evil to be fought. Although Congress did not give him the FDR Special — a declaration of war — he did get permission to go after Osama who may now be skulking in Iraq.
Bush and the dog that did not bark
Post-9/11, the American media were filled with pre-emptory denunciations of unpatriotic 'conspiracy theorists', who not only are always with us but are usually easy for the media to discredit since it is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life. Yet, a year or so ago, who would have thought that most of corporate America had been conspiring with accountants to cook their books since — well, at least the bright days of Reagan and deregulation. Ironically, less than a year after the massive danger from without, we were confronted with an even greater enemy from within: Golden Calf capitalism. Transparency? One fears that greater transparency will only reveal armies of maggots at work beneath the skin of a culture that needs a bit of a lie-down in order to collect itself before taking its next giant step which is to conquer Eurasia, a potentially fatal adventure not only for our frazzled institutions but for us the presently living.
Complicity. The behavior of President George W. Bush on 11 September certainly gives rise to all sorts of not unnatural suspicions. I can think of no other modern chief of state who would continue to pose for 'warm' pictures of himself listening to a young girl telling stories about her pet goat while hijacked planes were into three buildings.
Constitutionally, Bush is not only chief of state, he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Normally, a commander in such a crisis would go straight to headquarters and direct operations while receiving the latest intelligence.
This is what Bush actually did — or did not do — according to Stan Goff, a retired US Army veteran who has taught military science and doctrine at West Point. Goff writes, in 'The So-called Evidence is a Farce': 'I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plan, all the while on FAA radar.'
Goff, incidentally, like the other astonished military experts, cannot fathom why the government's automatic 'standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking' was not followed. Once a plane has deviated from its flight-plan, fighter planes are sent up to find out why. That is law and does not require presidential approval, which only needs to be given if there is a decision to shoot down a plane. Goff spells it out: 'The planes were hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10am. Who is notified? This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read.
'By around 8:15am it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handling teachers. By 8:45am, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower, Bush is settling in with children for his photo op. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously and one has just dived into the twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander-in-Chief.
'No one has apparently scrambled [sent aloft] Air Force interceptors either. At 9:03, Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower. At 9:05 Andrew Card, the Chief of Staff whispers to Bush [who] "briefly turns somber" according to reporters. Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No. He resumes listening to second-graders ... and continues the banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington DC.
'Has he instructed Card to scramble the Air Force? No. An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they have already figured out — that there's been an attack on the World Trade Centre. There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No.
'At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 [degrees] over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC. Now the real kicker: a pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of the building at 460 knots.
'When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator. This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on the freeway at rush hour by buying her a video driving game ... There is a story being constructed about these events.'
There is indeed, and the more it is added to the darker it becomes. The nonchalance of General Richard B. Myers, acting Joint Chief of Staff, is as puzzling as the President's campaigning-as-usual act. Myers was at the Capitol chatting with Senator Max Cleland. A sergeant, writing later in the AFPS (American Forces Press Service) describes Myers at the Capitol. 'While in an outer office, he said, he saw a television report that a plane had hit the World Trade Centre. "They thought it was a small plane or something like that," Myers said. So the two men went ahead with the office call.'
Whatever Myers and Cleland had to say to each other (more funds for the military?) must have been riveting because, during their chat, the AFPS reports, 'the second tower was hit by another jet. "Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was obvious. Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit."' Finally, somebody 'thrust a cellphone in Myers' hand' and, as if by magic, the commanding general of Norad — our Airspace Command — was on the line just as the hijackers mission had been successfully completed except for the failed one in Pennsylvania. In later testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Myers said he thinks that, as of his cellphone talk with Norad, 'the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft'. It was 9:40am. One hour and 20 minutes after air controllers knew that Flight 11 had been hijacked; 50 minutes after the North Tower was struck.
This statement would have been quite enough in our old serious army/air force to launch a number of courts martial with an impeachment or two thrown in. First, Myers claims to be uninformed until the third strike. But the Pentagon had been overseeing the hijacked planes from at least the moment of the strike at the first tower: yet not until the third strike, at the Pentagon, was the decision made to get the fighter planes up. Finally, this one is the dog that did not bark. By law, the fighters should have been up at around 8:15. If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been diverted or shot down. I don't think that Goff is being unduly picky when he wonders who and what kept the Air Force from following its normal procedure instead of waiting an hour and 20 minutes until the damage was done and only then launching the fighters. Obviously, somebody had ordered the Air Force to make no move to intercept those hijackings until ... what?
On 21 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed up on CBC-TV: 'That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which ... are 12 miles from the White House ... Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence Theory". Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask whether there were "stand down" orders.'?? On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were 'only four fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US'. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error?
It is interesting how often in our history, when disaster strikes, incompetence is considered a better alibi than ... well, yes, there are worse things. After Pearl Harbor, Congress moved to find out why Hawaii's two military commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, had not anticipated the Japanese attack. But President Roosevelt pre-empted that investigation with one of his own. Short and Kimmel were broken for incompetence. The 'truth' is still obscure to this day.
The media's weapons of mass distraction
But Pearl Harbor has been much studied. 11 September, it is plain, is never going to be investigated if Bush has anything to say about it. In January 2002, CNN reported that 'Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the Congressional investigation into the events of 11 September ... The request was made at a private meeting with Congressional leaders ... Sources said Bush initiated the conversation ... He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry .. Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request ...'
The excuse given, according to Daschle, was that 'resources and personnel would be taken' away from the war on terrorism in the event of a wider inquiry. So for reasons that we must never know, those 'breakdowns' are to be the goat. That they were more likely to be not break — but 'stand-downs' is not for us to pry. Certainly the one-hour 20 minute failure to put fighter planes in the air could not have been due to a breakdown throughout the entire Air Force along the East Coast. Mandatory standard operational procedure had been told to cease and desist.
Meanwhile, the media were assigned their familiar task of inciting public opinion against bin Laden, still not the proven mastermind. These media blitzes often resemble the magicians classic gesture of distraction: as you watch the rippling bright colours of his silk handkerchief in one hand, he is planting the rabbit in your pocket with the other. We were quickly assured that Osama's enormous family with its enormous wealth had broken with him, as had the royal family of his native Saudi Arabia. The CIA swore, hand on heart, that Osama had not worked for them in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Finally, the rumour that Bush family had in any way profited by its long involvement with the bin Laden family was — what else? — simply partisan bad taste.
But Bush Jr's involvement goes back at least to 1979 when his first failed attempt to become a player in the big Texas oil league brought him together with one James Bath of Houston, a family friend, who gave Bush Jr. $50,000 for a 5 per cent stake in Bush's firm Arbusto Energy. At this time, according to Wayne Madsen ('In These Times', Institute for Public Affairs No. 25), Bath was 'the sole US business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden... In a statement issued shortly after the 11 September attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden's, in Arbusto. In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests ... after several reincarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation.'
Behind the Junior Bush is the senior Bush, gainfully employed by the Carlyle Group which has ownership in at least 164 companies worldwide, inspiring admiration in that staunch friend to the wealthy, the Wall Street Journal, which noted, as early as 27 September 2001, 'If the US boosts defence spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: bin Laden's family ... is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specialising in buyouts of defence and aerospace companies ... Osama is one of more than 50 children of Mohammed bin Laden, who built the family's $5 billion business.'
But Bush pere et fils, in pursuit of wealth and office, are beyond shame or, one cannot help but think, good sense. There is a suggestion that they are blocking investigation of the bin Laden connection with terrorism. Agent France Press reported on 4 November 2001: 'FBI agents probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect Osama ... were told to back off soon after George W. Bush became president ...' According to BBC TV's Newsnight (6 Nov 2001), '... just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White House, whose official line is that the bin Ladens are above suspicion.' 'Above the Law' (Green Press, 14 February 2002) sums up: 'We had what looked like the biggest failure of the intelligence community since Pearl Harbor but what we are learning now is it wasn't a failure, it was a directive.' True? False? Bush Jr will be under oath during the impeachment interrogation. Will we hear 'What is a directive? What is is?'
Although the US had, for some years, fingered Osama as a mastermind terrorist, no serious attempt had been made pre-9/11 to 'bring him to justice dead or alive, innocent or guilty', as Texan law of the jungle requires. Clinton's plan to act was given to Condeleezza Rice by Sandy Berger, you will recall, but she says she does not.
As far back as March 1996 when Osama was in Sudan, Major General Elfatih Erwa, Sudanese Minister for Defence, offered to extradite him. According to the Washington Post (3 October 2001), 'Erwa said he would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over ... [US officials] said, "just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia", where he had once been given credit for the successful al-Qaeda attack on American forces that in '93 that killed 18 Rangers.' Erwa said in an interview, 'We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials] said, "Let him."'
In 1996 Sudan expelled Osama and 3,000 of his associates. Two years later the Clinton administration, in the great American tradition of never having to say thank you for Sudan's offer to hand over Osama, proceeded to missile-attack Sudan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory on the grounds that Sudan was harboring bin Laden terrorists who were making chemical and biological weapons when the factory was simply making vaccines for the UN.
Four years later, John O'Neill, a much admired FBI agent, complained in the Irish Times a month before the attacks, 'The US State Department — and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage — blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt. The US ambassador to Yemen forbade O'Neill (and his FBI team) ... from entering Yemen in August 2001. O'Neill resigned in frustration and took on a new job as head of security at the World Trade Centre. He died in the 11 September attack.' Obviously, Osama has enjoyed bipartisan American support since his enlistment in the CIA's war to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But by 9/11 there was no Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, indeed there was no Soviet Union.
A world made safe for peace and pipelines
I watched Bush and Cheney on CNN when the Axis of Evil speech was given and the 'long war' proclaimed. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were fingered as enemies to be clobbered because they might or might not be harbouring terrorists who might or might not destroy us in the night. So we must strike first whenever it pleases us. Thus, we declared 'war on terrorism' — an abstract noun which cannot be a war at all as you need a country for that. Of course, there was innocent Afghanistan, which was levelled from a great height, but then what's collateral damage — like an entire country — when you're targeting the personification of all evil according to Time and the NY Times and the networks?
As it proved, the conquest of Afghanistan had nothing to do with Osama. He was simply a pretext for replacing the Taliban with a relatively stable government that would allow Union Oil of California to lay its pipeline for the profit of, among others, the Cheney-Bush junta.
Background? All right. The headquarters of Unocal are, as might be expected, in Texas. In December 1997, Taliban representatives were invited to Sugarland, Texas. At that time, Unocal had already begun training Afghan men in pipeline construction, with US government approval. BBC News, (4 December 1997): 'A spokesman for the company Unocal said the Taliban were expected to spend several days at the company's [Texas] headquarters ... a BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.' The Inter Press Service (IPS) reported: 'some Western businesses are warming up to the Taliban despite the movement's institutionalisation of terror, massacres, abductions and impoverishment.' CNN (6 October 1996): 'The United States wants good ties [with the Taliban] but can't openly seek them while women are being oppressed.'
The Taliban, rather better organised than rumoured, hired for PR one Leila Helms, a niece of Richard Helms, former director of the CIA. In October 1996, the Frankfurter Rundschau reported that Unocal 'has been given the go-ahead from the new holders of power in Kabul to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan ..' This was a real coup for Unocal as well as other candidates for pipelines, including Condoleezza's old employer Chevron. Although the Taliban was already notorious for its imaginative crimes against the human race, the Wall Street Journal, scenting big bucks, fearlessly announced: 'Like them or not, the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history.' The NY Times (26 May 1997) leapt aboard the pipeline juggernaut. 'The Clinton administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory would act as counterweight to Iran ... and would offer the possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region.'
But by 1999, it was clear that the Taliban could not provide the security we would need to protect our fragile pipelines. The arrival of Osama as warrior for Allah on the scene refocused, as it were, the bidding. New alliances were now being made. The Bush administration soon buys the idea of an invasion of Afghanistan, Frederick Starr, head of the Central Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in the Washington Post (19 December 2000): 'The US has quietly begun to align itself with those in the Russian government calling for military action against Afghanistan and has toyed with the idea of a new raid to wipe out bin Laden.'
Although with much fanfare we went forth to wreak our vengeance on the crazed sadistic religious zealot who slaughtered 3,000 American citizens, once that 'war' was under way, Osama was dropped as irrelevant and so we are back to the Unocal pipeline, now a go-project. In the light of what we know today, it is unlikely that the junta was ever going to capture Osama alive: he has tales to tell. One of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's best numbers now is: 'Where is he? Somewhere? Here? There? Somewhere? Who knows?' And we get his best twinkle. He must also be delighted — and amazed — that the media have bought the absurd story that Osama, if alive, would still be in Afghanistan, underground, waiting to be flushed out instead of in a comfortable mansion in Osama-loving Jakarta, 2,000 miles to the East and easily accessible by Flying Carpet One.
Many commentators of a certain age have noted how Hitlerian our junta sounds as it threatens first one country for harbouring terrorists and then another. It is true that Hitler liked to pretend to be the injured — or threatened — party before he struck. But he had many great predecessors not least Imperial Rome. Stephen Gowan's War in Afghanistan: A $28 Billion Racket quotes Joseph Schumpeter who, 'in 1919, described ancient Rome in a way that sounds eerily like the United States in 2001: "There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented ... The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbours."' We have only outdone the Romans in turning metaphors such as the war on terrorism, or poverty, or Aids into actual wars on targets we appear, often, to pick at random in order to maintain turbulence in foreign lands.
As of 1 August 2002, trial balloons were going up all over Washington DC to get world opinion used to the idea that 'Bush of Afghanistan' had gained a title as mighty as his father's 'Bush of the Persian Gulf' and Junior was now eager to add Iraq-Babylon to his diadem. These various balloons fell upon Europe and the Arab world like so many lead weights. But something new has been added since the classic Roman Hitlerian mantra, 'they are threatening us, we must attack first'. Now everything is more of less out in the open. The International Herald Tribune wrote in August 2002: 'The leaks began in earnest on 5 July, when the New York Times described a tentative Pentagon plan that it said called for an invasion by a US force of up to 250,000 that would attack Iraq from the north, south and west. On 10 July, the Times said that Jordan might be used as a base for the invasion. The Washington Post reported, 28 July, that "many senior US military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat ..."' And the status quo should be maintained. Incidentally, this is the sort of debate that the founding fathers intended the Congress, not military bureaucrats, to conduct in the name of we the people. But that sort of debate has, for a long time, been denied us.
One refreshing note is now being struck in a fashion unthinkable in imperial Rome: the cheerful admission that we habitually resort to provocation. The Tribune continues: 'Donald Rumsfeld has threatened to jail anyone found to have been behind the leaks. But a retired army general, Fred Woerner, tends to see a method behind the leaks. "We may already be executing a plan," he said recently. "Are we involved in a preliminary psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do something to justify a US attack or make concessions?" Somebody knows.' That is plain.
Elsewhere in this interesting edition of the Herald Tribune wise William Pfaff writes: 'A second Washington debate is whether to make an unprovoked attack on Iran to destroy a nuclear power reactor being built with Russian assistance, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, within the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory ... No other government would support such an action, other than Israel's (which) would do so not because it expected to be attacked by Iran but because it, not unjustifiably, opposes any nuclear capacity in the hands of any Islamic government.'
Suspect states and the tom-toms of revenge
'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended ... and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people ...' Thus, James Madison warned us at the dawn of our republic.
Post 9/11, thanks to the 'domination of the few', Congress and the media are silent while the executive, through propaganda and skewed polls, seduces the public mind as hitherto unthinkable centers of power like Homeland Defence (a new Cabinet post to be placed on top of the Defence Department) are being constructed and 4 per cent of the country has recently been invited to join Tips, a civilian spy system to report on anyone who looks suspicious or ... who objects to what the executive is doing at home or abroad?
Although every nation knows how — if it has the means and the will — to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11, war is not an option. Wars are for nations not root-less gangs. You put a price on their heads and hunt them down. In recent years, Italy has been doing that with the Sicilian Mafia; and no one has yet suggested bombing Palermo.
But the Cheney-Bush junta wants a war in order to dominate Afghanistan, build a pipeline, gain control of the oil of Eurasia's Stans for their business associates as well as to do as much damage to Iraq and Iran on the grounds that one day those evil countries may carpet our fields of amber grain with anthrax or something.
The media, never much good at analysis, are more and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN, even the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once our ally and 'friend' in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. 'None of that conspiracy stuff,' snuffed Clancy. Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.
As of August, at least among economists, a consensus was growing that, considering our vast national debt (we borrow $2 billion a day to keep the government going) and a tax base seriously reduced by the junta in order to benefit the 1 per cent who own most of the national wealth, there is no way that we could ever find the billions needed to destroy Iraq in 'a long war' or even a short one, with most of Europe lined up against us. Germany and Japan paid for the Gulf War, reluctantly — with Japan, at the last moment, irritably quarrelling over the exchange rate at the time of the contract. Now Germany's Schroder has said no. Japan is mute.
But the tom-toms keep beating revenge; and the fact that most of the world is opposed to our war seems only to bring hectic roses to the cheeks of the Bush administration (Bush Snr of the Carlyle Group, Bush Jnr formerly of Harken, Cheney, formerly of Halliburton, Rice, formerly of Chevron, Rumsfeld, formerly of Occidental). If ever an administration should recuse itself in matters dealing with energy, it is the current junta. But this is unlike any administration in our history. Their hearts are plainly elsewhere, making money, far from our mock Roman temples, while we, alas, are left only with their heads, dreaming of war, preferably against weak peripheral states.
Mohammed Heikal is a brilliant Egyptian journalist-observer, and sometime Foreign Minister. On 10 October 2001, he said to the Guardian: 'Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as if it were Nazi Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has been penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication.
The former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Eckhardt Werthebach (American Free Press, 4 December 2001) spells it out. The 9/11 attacks required 'years of planning' while their scale indicates that they were a product of 'state-organised actions'. There it is. Perhaps, after all, Bush Jnr was right to call it a war. But which state attacked us?
Will the suspects please line up. Saudi Arabia? 'No, no. Why we are paying you $50 million a year for training the royal bodyguard on our own holy if arid soil. True the kingdom contains many wealthy well-educated enemies but ...' Bush Snr and Jnr exchange a knowing look. Egypt? No way. Dead broke despite US baksheesh. Syria? No funds. Iran? Too proud to bother with a parvenu state like the US. Israel? Sharon is capable of anything. But he lacks the guts and the grace of the true Kamikaze. Anyway, Sharon was not in charge when this operation began with the planting of 'sleepers' around the US flight schools 5 or 6 years ago. The United States? Elements of corporate America would undeniably prosper from a 'massive external attack' that would make it possible for us to go to war whenever the President sees fit while suspending civil liberties. (The 342 pages of the USA Patriot Act were plainly prepared before 9/11.) Bush Snr and Jnr are giggling now. Why? Because Clinton was president back then. As the former president leaves the line of suspects, he says, more in anger than in sorrow: 'When we left the White House we had a plan for an all-out war on al-Qaeda. We turned it over to this administration and they did nothing. Why?' Biting his lip, he goes. The Bushes no longer giggle. Pakistan breaks down: 'I did it! I confess! I couldn't help myself. Save me. I am an evil-doer!'
Apparently, Pakistan did do it — or some of it. We must now go back to 1997 when 'the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA' was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote (Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999): 'With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and '92 ... more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghanistan jihad.' The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these warriors.
In March 1985, President Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166, increasing military aid while CIA specialists met with the ISI counterparts near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Jane's Defence Weekly (14 September 2001) gives the best overview: 'The trainers were mainly from Pakistan's ISI agency who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy Seals in various US training establishments.' This explains the reluctance of the administration to explain why so many unqualified persons, over so long a time, got visas to visit our hospitable shores. While in Pakistan, 'mass training of Afghan [zealots] was subsequently conducted by the Pakistan army under the supervision of the elite Special Services ... In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to al-Qaeda.'
When Mohamed Atta's plane struck the World Trade Centre's North Tower, George W. Bush and the child at the Florida elementary school were discussing her goat. By coincidence, our word 'tragedy' comes from the Greek: for 'goat' tragos plus oide for 'song'. 'Goat-song'. It is highly suitable that this lament, sung in ancient satyr plays, should have been heard again at the exact moment when we were struck by fire from heaven, and a tragedy whose end is nowhere in sight began for us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO REASON TO GET EXCITED,,THE THIEF,, HE KINDLY SPOKE
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Hey if anything,,, it makes for good reading,,, very interesting to say the least,,
and there's nothing wrong with fact,,or fiction,,,you decide!~
The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
4. What Actually Happened on 9/11?
In October 2001, just one month after 9/11, two articles appeared on the web which provided the first clues to what really happened. One was Carol Valentine's "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS". This article drew attention to the possibility of remote control of a large jet aircraft. That this technology exists is public knowledge. It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet with the wingspan of a Boeing 737. (For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.) Since it is possible to control a Boeing 757 or 767 by means of remote control, might not the jets which hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon have been remotely controlled? In which case there would be no need to maintain the improbable hypothesis that the four jets were simultaneously hijacked by nineteen on-board Arab terrorists.
The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing aircraft was Joe Vialls's "Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft".
In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced [Research] Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. ... allowed specialist ground controllers to ... take absolute control of [a hijacked plane's] computerized flight control system by remote means. From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. ... the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001. — Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
Remote control technology is also used with the Predator system (shown at right).
But there's a problem with this theory: Although the technology for the remote control of a Boeing jetliner certainly exists, and could be installed (if it is not already standard) on four Boeings, their hijacking by remote control could not be rehearsed in advance, and there was always the possibility that the pilots might find some way to regain manual control. Considering the stakes involved in an operation which was intended to kill thousands of U.S. citizens, there could be no room for error. What was needed was a fool-proof plan, and the remote hijacking of four planes is a scenario with too many possibilities for something to go wrong. But this does not mean that remote-controlled planes were not involved, only that the hijacking by remote control of four commercial jetliners is not the most likely explanation of what happened.
As regards the Pentagon, although it has been obvious since the French website appeared in February 2002 that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757, no adequate explanation of that attack was provided until two-and-a-half years after it occurred. The evidence was contradictory. Many witnesses claim to have seen a large plane (which, under the influence of the official story) they later claimed was an American Airlines passenger jet. And lamp poles were knocked over by whatever it was that flew at nearly ground level. But, as the photographic evidence shows, whatever hit the Pentagon was definitely not a Boeing 757.
In March 2004 Leonard Spencer published an article, The Attack on The Pentagon, which finally provided an explanation consistent with witness accounts, air traffic controller reports and photographic evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only those who planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 know for sure what actually happened. But as in any forensic investigation one has to frame theories as to what actually happened and then test those theories against the available evidence (in this case principally the photographic evidence, but also evidence from other sources).
One theory is that given in the official story. In Section 2 and in Section 3 this theory was shown to be completely inconsistent with the available evidence. So we must look for an alternative theory. It should be clearly understood that theorizing about what happened on 9/11 is entirely reasonable, and theories considered cannot be dismissed as "conspiracy theories", since the formulation of theories is what any investigator does when trying to solve a crime. Unfortunately the Bush administration has done everything it can possibly do to prevent any theory from being considered except its own ridiculous story.
A theory consistent with the evidence was revealed in March 2002 to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes). A plot was hatched, not by Arabs, but by so-called Americans (agents of the civilian "state security and intelligence" agencies and bureaus such as the CIA, top-ranking officers within the U.S. Air Force and high-level officials within the U.S. administration), perhaps with Israeli (Mossad) involvement:
to take control of four civilian airliners
to carry out attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon causing huge loss of life
to make it appear that these airliners were used to carry out the attacks
to eliminate the passengers on the airliners who would not be involved in the operation except as reluctant witnesses
to blame these attacks on "Arab terrorists" and to use this as a pretext to launch military campaigns against "enemies of America" in the Middle East and in Asia, the real aim being to get control of their oil and mineral resources.
This plot, of course, was not hatched in a day (it may have been years in preparation). In September 2002 a congressional report
cited no less than 12 examples of intelligence information on the possible use of airliners as weapons. They stretch from 1994 to August 2001, when word came of a plot by Osama bin Laden to fly a plane into the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. — America had 12 warnings of aircraft attack
Sometime during the late 90s the U.S. state security agencies realized that certain foreign terrorists were thinking of hijacking planes and crashing them into significant buildings (naturally the Twin Towers would come first to mind). They might even have recruited these would-be terrorists. In any case, they helped them along (covertly, of course), providing money (transmitted via Pakistani ISI operatives), U.S. visas, introductions to U.S. flying schools and useful tips. The plan was not for these would-be terrorists to do the job (since their predecessors had demonstrated their limitations by botching the 1993 attack on the WTC) but rather to be "useful idiots" who could plausibly be blamed (just as Timothy McVeigh was the "useful idiot" blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing). The actual operation was far more elaborate than the would-be hijackers were capable of carrying out, and required equipment which they did not have and prior access to the Twin Towers which was not possible for them.
The only people who know for sure what actually happened on September 11th are those who planned it and carried it out (though probably the lower-level participants have long ago been terminated to ensure that they would never reveal what they knew). But we can say for sure that what happened was not what the Bush administration said happened. So we need to construct some explanatory hypothesis which takes into account what is known, that is, which explains what happened without being inconsistent with anything we know. What follows is such a hypothesis. It may not be true, but it is a lot more plausible than the official story. If anyone has a better hypothesis (say, simpler, more plausible) which is also consistent with what is known then they are free to present it.
Three planes had been made ready by U.S. military personnel, capable of being controlled remotely, with no-one on board:
A military jet either loaded with high explosives or carrying missiles or both (call this "Pseudo Flight 11").
A Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet (call this "Pseudo Flight 175").
A small plane (or perhaps some kind of missile) around which was constructed a shell so that from a distance it appeared to be a Boeing 757, this being designed so that the shell could be destroyed completely by means of explosives (call this "Pseudo Flight 77").
In addition two or three cruise missiles are needed, such as the AGM-86C cruise missile capable of being fired from a B-52 and of flying to its target under GPS-guidance (and able upon impact to generate heat of over 2,000°C).
Early on the morning of September 11th, according to the official story, four American Airlines and United Airlines jet airliners take off:
UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757, departs from Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco, taking off with between 26 and 38 passengers (about 16% of capacity) and seven crew members on board. (This is the jet which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania at about 10 a.m.)
UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767, departs from Logan Airport, Boston, at 7:58 a.m. for Los Angeles with between 47 and 56 passengers (about 26% of capacity) and nine crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.)
AA Flight 11, a Boeing 767, leaves Logan Airport, Boston at about 7:45 a.m. headed for Los Angeles, with between 76 and 81 passengers (about 39% of capacity) and 11 crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the North Tower at 8:45 a.m.)
AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, leaves Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. at about 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, taking off with between 50 and 58 passengers (about 27% of capacity) and six crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon at about 9:35 a.m.)
Pseudo Flights 11 and 175 take off from some military base, flying under remote control (there is no-one onboard at the controls), and fly so as to intercept the flight paths of AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175.
A half-hour or so after taking off the pilots of the four civilian airliners are informed by some means of a real or potential terrorist attack and that they are to shut down their transponders and land their planes at one military base or another in some north-eastern U.S. state (directions to the base are given). The pilots obey this order and change course accordingly.
Shortly after the real Flights 11 and 175 cease transmitting their transponder signals the pseudo Flights 11 and 175 begin to transmit the same signals. They fly toward New York and, if they are visible on the air traffic controllers' screens, they appear to be AA 11 and UA 175, now flying toward Manhattan.
Pseudo Flight 11, under remote control, approaches the North Tower at 8:45 a.m., fires missiles into it then crashes into it, detonating explosives already planted in the building. (George W. Bush watches the impact on a private transmission to the TV in his limousine while travelling to a school in Florida.)
Pseudo Flight 175 approaches Manhattan, also under remote control, and crashes into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. Its controllers, not used to remotely controlling the 100+ tons of a Boeing 767, almost miss the tower, but manage to hit it toward one corner. Just before the plane hits the building an incendiary missile is fired to create a temperature within the building high enough to ensure ignition of the jet fuel which is about to be released by the impact. Most of the jet fuel passes through the corner of the tower and explodes in a huge fireball outside the building. (The approach of the Boeing 767 and the impact and the awesome fireball are recorded by many cameras for repeated viewing all around the world.)
After being advised of the second impact George W. Bush continues listening to children read a story about a pet goat for another quarter of an hour, then finally announces to the nation that he has made some phone calls but fails to order defensive action by ordering U.S. Air Force jets from bases near Washington to scramble to intercept the other two (allegedly hijacked) planes still in the air. No other Air Force officer orders jets to intercept the planes (despite this being standard practice whenever a commercial airliner strays from its flight path). Interceptors are finally scrambled an hour after the first of the commercial jets has gone off course and 45 minutes after the impact at the North Tower.
By sometime around 9:15 a.m. all four AA and UA jets have landed at the military base to which they were directed. The 199 (later listed) passengers and crew from AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 are herded onto UA Flight 93, where they join the 33 (later listed) passengers and crew, for a total of 232 people. Explosives are loaded on board.
Pseudo Flight 77, under remote control, flies at high speed toward Washington D.C., performs a spiral descent at high speed to near ground level, and (at about 9:30 a.m.) looking to observers like a Boeing 757, makes a horizontal approach to the Pentagon, knocking over several lamp posts on the way. Just before impact it is completely destroyed by onboard explosives, producing the minor amount of debris later observed on the Pentagon lawn.
Timed to coincide with this event, two or three high-speed cruise missiles arrive from slightly different directions (travelling so fast as to be mostly unnoticed by witnesses, whose attention is focused on Pseudo Flight 77) and penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon, producing three exit holes in the 'C' ring of the building. One of the missiles fails to explode, causing less damage than intended. (The unexploded missile will later be carried away covered by a tarpaulin.)
Sometime around 9:45 a.m. UA Flight 93 takes off from the military base (either under remote control or under the control of a military pilot unaware of his fate) and flies toward Washington in a fake "terrorist attack".
The South Tower collapses (at 9:59 a.m.) in a controlled demolition, 56 minutes after impact.
Either explosives on board UA Flight 93 are detonated, or the jet is blown apart by a missile fired by a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet, over Pennsylvania (at 10:06 a.m., almost an hour and a half after it took off from Newark Airport).
Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky. — Reuters, Sept. 13, as quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes, perhaps or perhaps not including those 34 (later unlisted) passengers (including Mohammad Atta) who are part of the operation, are in this way eliminated.
The North Tower collapses (at 10:29 a.m.) also in a controlled demolition, 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.
The outer wall of the impact site at the Pentagon is caused to collapse (so that the small size of the hole in the wall produced by the missiles would no longer be visible).
Around midday the media whores begin to disseminate the story that this "terrorist attack" was masterminded by Usama bin Laden.
Around 5 p.m.the building known as WTC 7 collapses in a controlled demolition.
Misled by the White House and the mainstream media a shocked and outraged American public demands revenge against the perpetrators, whom they assume to be Arab Muslim fundamentalists.
George W. Bush announces his "War on Terrorism" and the Pentagon swings into action to implement its previously-prepared plans to bomb Afghanistan (into submission to U.S. oil interests).
Of course, some of the details of this account may turn out to be incorrect, but it is a plausible explanation of the events of September 11th and (in contrast to the official story) is consistent with all the evidence and is contradicted by none. [Note added 2006-01-24: A more recent hypothesis is given at A Possible 9/11 Scenario.] Only a full and impartial investigation of what happened on September 11th will reveal the truth, but the Bush administration (fearing the consequences when the American people find out what actually happened and who was behind it) has done everything it can to prevent such an inquiry from taking place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2003 Leonard Spencer examined the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis, basically confirming it, but suggesting a significant modification with respect to Flight 93, and tentatively identifying the airport at which the airliners were instructed to land as Yeager Airport near Charleston, W. Virginia.:
What Really Happened? A Critical Analysis of Carol Valentine's "Flight of The Bumble Planes" Hypothesis
In August 2003 the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis was refined further by Prof. A. K. Dewdney in his Operation Pearl, where he provides a more detailed theory as to what happened on September 11th and a timeline of events consistent with the evidence ("X" in flight numbers refers to planes substituted for the original planes):
Time Event
7:59 am UA11 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport
8:14 am UA175 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport
8:16 am First deviation of AA11 north of Albany, NY
8:20 am AA77 takes off from Washington's Dulles Airport
8:20 am AA11 transponder turned off
8:30 am First swap: Flight AA11-X takes over, transponder off
8:35 am Beginning of NY ATC transcript
8:40 am UA175 transponder is turned off
8:42 am UA93 takes off from Newark, NJ
First deviation of UA175 over northern NJ
8:46 am Second swap: Flight AA77X takes over, same t-code
8:46 am AA11-X strikes north tower of WTC
Nationwide alert begins
8:53 am Third swap: Flight UA175X takes over, transponder off
AA11 lands at Harrisburg
8:54 am End of NY ATC transcript
8:55 am AA77X transponder is turned off
9:02 am UA175X strikes south tower of WTC
UA175 lands at Harrisburg
Fourth swap: Flight UA93X replaces UA93
9:07 am UA93 lands at Harrisburg
9:09 am AA77 lands at Harrisburg
9:37 am AA77X overflies the Pentagon, aircraft or explosion at Wedge 1
9:45 am UA93 takes off from Harrisburg
10:06 am UA93 crashes near Shanksville, PA
As in the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis, all innocent passengers on board flights UA 175, AA 11 and AA 77 were placed on board Flight UA 93, which was then shot down by a U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt over Pennsylvania.
It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van ... Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. ... [It] was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down. There's no way I imagined this plane — it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. — Susan Mcelwain, quoted in What did happen to Flight 93?
For a detailed analysis (posted 2005-01-08) of witness reports connected with the crash of UA 93 see:
... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!
The other three Boeing jetliners ended up in pieces at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people have said that this account of the events of September 11th 2001 is "too convoluted to understand". Actually it's quite simple:
Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.
Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.
These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.
A mock 757, destroyed just before impact, and two or three cruise missiles, hit the Pentagon.
The people on three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).
This plane takes off and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.
Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dewdney concludes his Operation Pearl article thus:
Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the most likely perpetrator would be Mossad, Israel's spy agency. An arm's-length relationship with the Bush administration, with neocon elements acting as go-betweens, would enable Rumsfeld, Bush and other members of the US administration to disclaim any "specific" knowledge of a forthcoming attack.
So it appears that the Bush clique (including neocons Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz) collaborated with the Israeli government to stage the September 11th attacks, with Mossad providing the hands-on direction of the operation. But it is unlikely that Operation Pearl could be carried out entirely by Mossad agents — Americans within the U.S. Air Force and the state security and intelligence agencies had to be involved.
The CIA has always maintained as a matter of historical record that it has never murdered an American citizen on American soil. If, as a result of Eric Olson's persistence in trying to uncover what really happened to his father [Dr Frank Olson, a U.S. Army scientist], and the investigating skills of public prosecutor Saracco, this turns out to be a lie, it could well be the beginning of the end of the Agency.
— THE OLSON FILE: A secret that could destroy the CIA
Similarly if the CIA can be shown to have been involved in the murder of the 200 or so passengers (most of them American citizens) on the four Boeing jets, who died when UA Flight 93 exploded in the sky over Pennsylvania, then the Agency will be finished (and none too soon either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those Fabricated Cellphone Calls
As for the tale which appeared in Newsweek, etc., about plucky passengers on UA Flight 93 jumping the hijackers ("OK, let's roll!") — this was entirely fictitious, fabricated by some psy-war operative with training as a two-bit Hollywood scriptwriter and disseminated with the help of some willing media whore.
The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"
Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.
But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess has people, not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air ...
She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."
But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things. — Tall Tales of the Wag Movie
If cellphones work from a plane flying at 30,000 feet and at a speed of hundreds of miles an hour then the Newsweek story about the passengers making calls might contain some truth (they were told to call so as to provide support for the soon-to-be-released official story) — but not that part of the story which has one of the passengers, Mark Bingham, calling his mother, saying "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham."
In fact there is no evidence, except anecdotal, that any of the doomed passengers made any cellphone call. For the view that the alleged call by Barbara Olson (who was on Flight AA 77) to her husband (Ted Olson, the US Solicitor General) was a fabrication, as were the other stories, see Joe Vialls's Mother of All Lies About 9/11.
And in fact research by Prof. A. K. Dewdney and others (try this yourself) has shown that it is practically impossible that multiple calls from a plane flying at the normal cruising height and speed of a commercial airliner could be made.
As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible." — 'Project Achilles' - Final (Third) Report and Summary of Findings
So there were no cellphone calls from UA Flight 93 or any of the other planes. The story was a hoax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 9/11 and CellPhone Calls (continued in Part 2):
Jane Pauley did a televised interview with the Glick family, whom Jeremy Glick phoned from Flight 93. ... Glick's family are the only relatives [who] actually say on national television — repeatedly — that they had spoken directly to a passenger. So we need only one voice mimicry setup. Glick worked for Vividence, which is an internet marketing research firm. ... Vividence tracks web users' individual surfing habits for marketing predictions. ... You can imagine intelligence services being interested in such technology. Maybe Vividence wasn't all a front, but had in place, coincidentally, a person who was connected to the intelligence community. This person would have been Glick's superior in the organization.
I am taking a flying leap here. Glick was a pawn from the git go. 9-11 had been scripted, including hero passengers attacking the hijackers. Flight 93 was never meant to hit anything but the ground. The plot needed a believable attacker. Glick, a collegiate judo champion, a big tough guy, was believable. His pretty wife would be a sympathetic widow. At Vividence his job required him to travel, so when the time came, he could be booked onto a flight, and take it, no questions asked. With months or weeks of lead time, voice mimicry of one person is easy. There would be opportunities to learn biographical details for the fakeout. There would be ample opportunity to test Glick's captured voice on his business contacts to see if it played.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Michel Chossudovsky's More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls:
The 9/11 Commission's Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes.
In the absence of surviving passengers, this "corroborating evidence", was based on passengers' cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. ...
Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission has built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them "into large guided missiles" ...
[But] what this carefully drafted script, fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet ...
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.
In other words, at least part of the Commission's script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Dan Reed, USA Today, 2004-07-19: In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test
The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.
Ted Twietmeyer, 2004-08-23: 911 Cell Phone Calls From Planes? Not Likely
2005-04-05: Inflight Mobile Phone Use — A Step Closer to Reality
OnAir has partnered with the Airbus facility at Buxtehude to develop and seek certification for an airborne system for the commercial use of mobile phones on board aircraft.
"This airborne system is fundamental to OnAir's business objective of making mobile phone use a reality on short and long haul flights for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft," said OnAir CEO, George Cooper, speaking at the opening of Aircraft Interiors Expo 2005 in Hamburg today.
David Ray Griffin, 2008-04-20: Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
The media whores cannot be unaware that several companies (during 2004-2005) have been working on making in-flight cellphone calls possible. And surely at least some of the media whores are sufficiently bright to understand that this implies that inflight cellphone calls were not possible on September 11, 2001. But do we hear a word about this from the media whores?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM. Details here.
Previous section Contents Next section
The CIA Serendipity home page
and there's nothing wrong with fact,,or fiction,,,you decide!~
The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
4. What Actually Happened on 9/11?
In October 2001, just one month after 9/11, two articles appeared on the web which provided the first clues to what really happened. One was Carol Valentine's "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS". This article drew attention to the possibility of remote control of a large jet aircraft. That this technology exists is public knowledge. It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet with the wingspan of a Boeing 737. (For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.) Since it is possible to control a Boeing 757 or 767 by means of remote control, might not the jets which hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon have been remotely controlled? In which case there would be no need to maintain the improbable hypothesis that the four jets were simultaneously hijacked by nineteen on-board Arab terrorists.
The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing aircraft was Joe Vialls's "Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft".
In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced [Research] Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. ... allowed specialist ground controllers to ... take absolute control of [a hijacked plane's] computerized flight control system by remote means. From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. ... the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001. — Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
Remote control technology is also used with the Predator system (shown at right).
But there's a problem with this theory: Although the technology for the remote control of a Boeing jetliner certainly exists, and could be installed (if it is not already standard) on four Boeings, their hijacking by remote control could not be rehearsed in advance, and there was always the possibility that the pilots might find some way to regain manual control. Considering the stakes involved in an operation which was intended to kill thousands of U.S. citizens, there could be no room for error. What was needed was a fool-proof plan, and the remote hijacking of four planes is a scenario with too many possibilities for something to go wrong. But this does not mean that remote-controlled planes were not involved, only that the hijacking by remote control of four commercial jetliners is not the most likely explanation of what happened.
As regards the Pentagon, although it has been obvious since the French website appeared in February 2002 that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757, no adequate explanation of that attack was provided until two-and-a-half years after it occurred. The evidence was contradictory. Many witnesses claim to have seen a large plane (which, under the influence of the official story) they later claimed was an American Airlines passenger jet. And lamp poles were knocked over by whatever it was that flew at nearly ground level. But, as the photographic evidence shows, whatever hit the Pentagon was definitely not a Boeing 757.
In March 2004 Leonard Spencer published an article, The Attack on The Pentagon, which finally provided an explanation consistent with witness accounts, air traffic controller reports and photographic evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only those who planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 know for sure what actually happened. But as in any forensic investigation one has to frame theories as to what actually happened and then test those theories against the available evidence (in this case principally the photographic evidence, but also evidence from other sources).
One theory is that given in the official story. In Section 2 and in Section 3 this theory was shown to be completely inconsistent with the available evidence. So we must look for an alternative theory. It should be clearly understood that theorizing about what happened on 9/11 is entirely reasonable, and theories considered cannot be dismissed as "conspiracy theories", since the formulation of theories is what any investigator does when trying to solve a crime. Unfortunately the Bush administration has done everything it can possibly do to prevent any theory from being considered except its own ridiculous story.
A theory consistent with the evidence was revealed in March 2002 to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes). A plot was hatched, not by Arabs, but by so-called Americans (agents of the civilian "state security and intelligence" agencies and bureaus such as the CIA, top-ranking officers within the U.S. Air Force and high-level officials within the U.S. administration), perhaps with Israeli (Mossad) involvement:
to take control of four civilian airliners
to carry out attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon causing huge loss of life
to make it appear that these airliners were used to carry out the attacks
to eliminate the passengers on the airliners who would not be involved in the operation except as reluctant witnesses
to blame these attacks on "Arab terrorists" and to use this as a pretext to launch military campaigns against "enemies of America" in the Middle East and in Asia, the real aim being to get control of their oil and mineral resources.
This plot, of course, was not hatched in a day (it may have been years in preparation). In September 2002 a congressional report
cited no less than 12 examples of intelligence information on the possible use of airliners as weapons. They stretch from 1994 to August 2001, when word came of a plot by Osama bin Laden to fly a plane into the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. — America had 12 warnings of aircraft attack
Sometime during the late 90s the U.S. state security agencies realized that certain foreign terrorists were thinking of hijacking planes and crashing them into significant buildings (naturally the Twin Towers would come first to mind). They might even have recruited these would-be terrorists. In any case, they helped them along (covertly, of course), providing money (transmitted via Pakistani ISI operatives), U.S. visas, introductions to U.S. flying schools and useful tips. The plan was not for these would-be terrorists to do the job (since their predecessors had demonstrated their limitations by botching the 1993 attack on the WTC) but rather to be "useful idiots" who could plausibly be blamed (just as Timothy McVeigh was the "useful idiot" blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing). The actual operation was far more elaborate than the would-be hijackers were capable of carrying out, and required equipment which they did not have and prior access to the Twin Towers which was not possible for them.
The only people who know for sure what actually happened on September 11th are those who planned it and carried it out (though probably the lower-level participants have long ago been terminated to ensure that they would never reveal what they knew). But we can say for sure that what happened was not what the Bush administration said happened. So we need to construct some explanatory hypothesis which takes into account what is known, that is, which explains what happened without being inconsistent with anything we know. What follows is such a hypothesis. It may not be true, but it is a lot more plausible than the official story. If anyone has a better hypothesis (say, simpler, more plausible) which is also consistent with what is known then they are free to present it.
Three planes had been made ready by U.S. military personnel, capable of being controlled remotely, with no-one on board:
A military jet either loaded with high explosives or carrying missiles or both (call this "Pseudo Flight 11").
A Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet (call this "Pseudo Flight 175").
A small plane (or perhaps some kind of missile) around which was constructed a shell so that from a distance it appeared to be a Boeing 757, this being designed so that the shell could be destroyed completely by means of explosives (call this "Pseudo Flight 77").
In addition two or three cruise missiles are needed, such as the AGM-86C cruise missile capable of being fired from a B-52 and of flying to its target under GPS-guidance (and able upon impact to generate heat of over 2,000°C).
Early on the morning of September 11th, according to the official story, four American Airlines and United Airlines jet airliners take off:
UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757, departs from Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco, taking off with between 26 and 38 passengers (about 16% of capacity) and seven crew members on board. (This is the jet which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania at about 10 a.m.)
UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767, departs from Logan Airport, Boston, at 7:58 a.m. for Los Angeles with between 47 and 56 passengers (about 26% of capacity) and nine crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.)
AA Flight 11, a Boeing 767, leaves Logan Airport, Boston at about 7:45 a.m. headed for Los Angeles, with between 76 and 81 passengers (about 39% of capacity) and 11 crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the North Tower at 8:45 a.m.)
AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, leaves Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. at about 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, taking off with between 50 and 58 passengers (about 27% of capacity) and six crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon at about 9:35 a.m.)
Pseudo Flights 11 and 175 take off from some military base, flying under remote control (there is no-one onboard at the controls), and fly so as to intercept the flight paths of AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175.
A half-hour or so after taking off the pilots of the four civilian airliners are informed by some means of a real or potential terrorist attack and that they are to shut down their transponders and land their planes at one military base or another in some north-eastern U.S. state (directions to the base are given). The pilots obey this order and change course accordingly.
Shortly after the real Flights 11 and 175 cease transmitting their transponder signals the pseudo Flights 11 and 175 begin to transmit the same signals. They fly toward New York and, if they are visible on the air traffic controllers' screens, they appear to be AA 11 and UA 175, now flying toward Manhattan.
Pseudo Flight 11, under remote control, approaches the North Tower at 8:45 a.m., fires missiles into it then crashes into it, detonating explosives already planted in the building. (George W. Bush watches the impact on a private transmission to the TV in his limousine while travelling to a school in Florida.)
Pseudo Flight 175 approaches Manhattan, also under remote control, and crashes into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. Its controllers, not used to remotely controlling the 100+ tons of a Boeing 767, almost miss the tower, but manage to hit it toward one corner. Just before the plane hits the building an incendiary missile is fired to create a temperature within the building high enough to ensure ignition of the jet fuel which is about to be released by the impact. Most of the jet fuel passes through the corner of the tower and explodes in a huge fireball outside the building. (The approach of the Boeing 767 and the impact and the awesome fireball are recorded by many cameras for repeated viewing all around the world.)
After being advised of the second impact George W. Bush continues listening to children read a story about a pet goat for another quarter of an hour, then finally announces to the nation that he has made some phone calls but fails to order defensive action by ordering U.S. Air Force jets from bases near Washington to scramble to intercept the other two (allegedly hijacked) planes still in the air. No other Air Force officer orders jets to intercept the planes (despite this being standard practice whenever a commercial airliner strays from its flight path). Interceptors are finally scrambled an hour after the first of the commercial jets has gone off course and 45 minutes after the impact at the North Tower.
By sometime around 9:15 a.m. all four AA and UA jets have landed at the military base to which they were directed. The 199 (later listed) passengers and crew from AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 are herded onto UA Flight 93, where they join the 33 (later listed) passengers and crew, for a total of 232 people. Explosives are loaded on board.
Pseudo Flight 77, under remote control, flies at high speed toward Washington D.C., performs a spiral descent at high speed to near ground level, and (at about 9:30 a.m.) looking to observers like a Boeing 757, makes a horizontal approach to the Pentagon, knocking over several lamp posts on the way. Just before impact it is completely destroyed by onboard explosives, producing the minor amount of debris later observed on the Pentagon lawn.
Timed to coincide with this event, two or three high-speed cruise missiles arrive from slightly different directions (travelling so fast as to be mostly unnoticed by witnesses, whose attention is focused on Pseudo Flight 77) and penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon, producing three exit holes in the 'C' ring of the building. One of the missiles fails to explode, causing less damage than intended. (The unexploded missile will later be carried away covered by a tarpaulin.)
Sometime around 9:45 a.m. UA Flight 93 takes off from the military base (either under remote control or under the control of a military pilot unaware of his fate) and flies toward Washington in a fake "terrorist attack".
The South Tower collapses (at 9:59 a.m.) in a controlled demolition, 56 minutes after impact.
Either explosives on board UA Flight 93 are detonated, or the jet is blown apart by a missile fired by a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet, over Pennsylvania (at 10:06 a.m., almost an hour and a half after it took off from Newark Airport).
Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky. — Reuters, Sept. 13, as quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes, perhaps or perhaps not including those 34 (later unlisted) passengers (including Mohammad Atta) who are part of the operation, are in this way eliminated.
The North Tower collapses (at 10:29 a.m.) also in a controlled demolition, 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.
The outer wall of the impact site at the Pentagon is caused to collapse (so that the small size of the hole in the wall produced by the missiles would no longer be visible).
Around midday the media whores begin to disseminate the story that this "terrorist attack" was masterminded by Usama bin Laden.
Around 5 p.m.the building known as WTC 7 collapses in a controlled demolition.
Misled by the White House and the mainstream media a shocked and outraged American public demands revenge against the perpetrators, whom they assume to be Arab Muslim fundamentalists.
George W. Bush announces his "War on Terrorism" and the Pentagon swings into action to implement its previously-prepared plans to bomb Afghanistan (into submission to U.S. oil interests).
Of course, some of the details of this account may turn out to be incorrect, but it is a plausible explanation of the events of September 11th and (in contrast to the official story) is consistent with all the evidence and is contradicted by none. [Note added 2006-01-24: A more recent hypothesis is given at A Possible 9/11 Scenario.] Only a full and impartial investigation of what happened on September 11th will reveal the truth, but the Bush administration (fearing the consequences when the American people find out what actually happened and who was behind it) has done everything it can to prevent such an inquiry from taking place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2003 Leonard Spencer examined the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis, basically confirming it, but suggesting a significant modification with respect to Flight 93, and tentatively identifying the airport at which the airliners were instructed to land as Yeager Airport near Charleston, W. Virginia.:
What Really Happened? A Critical Analysis of Carol Valentine's "Flight of The Bumble Planes" Hypothesis
In August 2003 the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis was refined further by Prof. A. K. Dewdney in his Operation Pearl, where he provides a more detailed theory as to what happened on September 11th and a timeline of events consistent with the evidence ("X" in flight numbers refers to planes substituted for the original planes):
Time Event
7:59 am UA11 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport
8:14 am UA175 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport
8:16 am First deviation of AA11 north of Albany, NY
8:20 am AA77 takes off from Washington's Dulles Airport
8:20 am AA11 transponder turned off
8:30 am First swap: Flight AA11-X takes over, transponder off
8:35 am Beginning of NY ATC transcript
8:40 am UA175 transponder is turned off
8:42 am UA93 takes off from Newark, NJ
First deviation of UA175 over northern NJ
8:46 am Second swap: Flight AA77X takes over, same t-code
8:46 am AA11-X strikes north tower of WTC
Nationwide alert begins
8:53 am Third swap: Flight UA175X takes over, transponder off
AA11 lands at Harrisburg
8:54 am End of NY ATC transcript
8:55 am AA77X transponder is turned off
9:02 am UA175X strikes south tower of WTC
UA175 lands at Harrisburg
Fourth swap: Flight UA93X replaces UA93
9:07 am UA93 lands at Harrisburg
9:09 am AA77 lands at Harrisburg
9:37 am AA77X overflies the Pentagon, aircraft or explosion at Wedge 1
9:45 am UA93 takes off from Harrisburg
10:06 am UA93 crashes near Shanksville, PA
As in the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis, all innocent passengers on board flights UA 175, AA 11 and AA 77 were placed on board Flight UA 93, which was then shot down by a U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt over Pennsylvania.
It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van ... Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. ... [It] was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down. There's no way I imagined this plane — it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. — Susan Mcelwain, quoted in What did happen to Flight 93?
For a detailed analysis (posted 2005-01-08) of witness reports connected with the crash of UA 93 see:
... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!
The other three Boeing jetliners ended up in pieces at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people have said that this account of the events of September 11th 2001 is "too convoluted to understand". Actually it's quite simple:
Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.
Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.
These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.
A mock 757, destroyed just before impact, and two or three cruise missiles, hit the Pentagon.
The people on three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).
This plane takes off and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.
Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dewdney concludes his Operation Pearl article thus:
Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the most likely perpetrator would be Mossad, Israel's spy agency. An arm's-length relationship with the Bush administration, with neocon elements acting as go-betweens, would enable Rumsfeld, Bush and other members of the US administration to disclaim any "specific" knowledge of a forthcoming attack.
So it appears that the Bush clique (including neocons Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz) collaborated with the Israeli government to stage the September 11th attacks, with Mossad providing the hands-on direction of the operation. But it is unlikely that Operation Pearl could be carried out entirely by Mossad agents — Americans within the U.S. Air Force and the state security and intelligence agencies had to be involved.
The CIA has always maintained as a matter of historical record that it has never murdered an American citizen on American soil. If, as a result of Eric Olson's persistence in trying to uncover what really happened to his father [Dr Frank Olson, a U.S. Army scientist], and the investigating skills of public prosecutor Saracco, this turns out to be a lie, it could well be the beginning of the end of the Agency.
— THE OLSON FILE: A secret that could destroy the CIA
Similarly if the CIA can be shown to have been involved in the murder of the 200 or so passengers (most of them American citizens) on the four Boeing jets, who died when UA Flight 93 exploded in the sky over Pennsylvania, then the Agency will be finished (and none too soon either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those Fabricated Cellphone Calls
As for the tale which appeared in Newsweek, etc., about plucky passengers on UA Flight 93 jumping the hijackers ("OK, let's roll!") — this was entirely fictitious, fabricated by some psy-war operative with training as a two-bit Hollywood scriptwriter and disseminated with the help of some willing media whore.
The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"
Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.
But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess has people, not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air ...
She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."
But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things. — Tall Tales of the Wag Movie
If cellphones work from a plane flying at 30,000 feet and at a speed of hundreds of miles an hour then the Newsweek story about the passengers making calls might contain some truth (they were told to call so as to provide support for the soon-to-be-released official story) — but not that part of the story which has one of the passengers, Mark Bingham, calling his mother, saying "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham."
In fact there is no evidence, except anecdotal, that any of the doomed passengers made any cellphone call. For the view that the alleged call by Barbara Olson (who was on Flight AA 77) to her husband (Ted Olson, the US Solicitor General) was a fabrication, as were the other stories, see Joe Vialls's Mother of All Lies About 9/11.
And in fact research by Prof. A. K. Dewdney and others (try this yourself) has shown that it is practically impossible that multiple calls from a plane flying at the normal cruising height and speed of a commercial airliner could be made.
As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible." — 'Project Achilles' - Final (Third) Report and Summary of Findings
So there were no cellphone calls from UA Flight 93 or any of the other planes. The story was a hoax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 9/11 and CellPhone Calls (continued in Part 2):
Jane Pauley did a televised interview with the Glick family, whom Jeremy Glick phoned from Flight 93. ... Glick's family are the only relatives [who] actually say on national television — repeatedly — that they had spoken directly to a passenger. So we need only one voice mimicry setup. Glick worked for Vividence, which is an internet marketing research firm. ... Vividence tracks web users' individual surfing habits for marketing predictions. ... You can imagine intelligence services being interested in such technology. Maybe Vividence wasn't all a front, but had in place, coincidentally, a person who was connected to the intelligence community. This person would have been Glick's superior in the organization.
I am taking a flying leap here. Glick was a pawn from the git go. 9-11 had been scripted, including hero passengers attacking the hijackers. Flight 93 was never meant to hit anything but the ground. The plot needed a believable attacker. Glick, a collegiate judo champion, a big tough guy, was believable. His pretty wife would be a sympathetic widow. At Vividence his job required him to travel, so when the time came, he could be booked onto a flight, and take it, no questions asked. With months or weeks of lead time, voice mimicry of one person is easy. There would be opportunities to learn biographical details for the fakeout. There would be ample opportunity to test Glick's captured voice on his business contacts to see if it played.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Michel Chossudovsky's More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls:
The 9/11 Commission's Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes.
In the absence of surviving passengers, this "corroborating evidence", was based on passengers' cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. ...
Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission has built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them "into large guided missiles" ...
[But] what this carefully drafted script, fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet ...
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.
In other words, at least part of the Commission's script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Dan Reed, USA Today, 2004-07-19: In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test
The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.
Ted Twietmeyer, 2004-08-23: 911 Cell Phone Calls From Planes? Not Likely
2005-04-05: Inflight Mobile Phone Use — A Step Closer to Reality
OnAir has partnered with the Airbus facility at Buxtehude to develop and seek certification for an airborne system for the commercial use of mobile phones on board aircraft.
"This airborne system is fundamental to OnAir's business objective of making mobile phone use a reality on short and long haul flights for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft," said OnAir CEO, George Cooper, speaking at the opening of Aircraft Interiors Expo 2005 in Hamburg today.
David Ray Griffin, 2008-04-20: Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
The media whores cannot be unaware that several companies (during 2004-2005) have been working on making in-flight cellphone calls possible. And surely at least some of the media whores are sufficiently bright to understand that this implies that inflight cellphone calls were not possible on September 11, 2001. But do we hear a word about this from the media whores?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM. Details here.
Previous section Contents Next section
The CIA Serendipity home page
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Buildings do not perfectly fall into their own footprint
Yes they do. Its called pancaking.
I AM AWESOME MAN
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Nomad;919996 wrote: Yes they do. Its called pancaking.
Ooooh you chopped his text! "without help from cutting charges placed in just the right places" is what he said. It's the only way steel shell buildings ever pancake unless they come down on 9/11/2001 which is a special date when the laws of physics are deliberately suspended.
Ooooh you chopped his text! "without help from cutting charges placed in just the right places" is what he said. It's the only way steel shell buildings ever pancake unless they come down on 9/11/2001 which is a special date when the laws of physics are deliberately suspended.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;920039 wrote: Wow! Really? Did you use numerology to come to that conclusion? :-3
No, it's just the only date in history on which steel shell buildings perfectly fell into their own footprint without help from cutting charges placed in just the right places.
No, it's just the only date in history on which steel shell buildings perfectly fell into their own footprint without help from cutting charges placed in just the right places.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;920094 wrote: I happen to be very familiar with directional charges...
The placement of that many directional charges would take months of careful placement, cutting into walls, and very visible construction in and around the building. It would then literally take a week of round the clock work and a team of folks to then run the cableing to each of the charges individually placing them and maintianing them undisturbed prior to the detonation. There is just no physical way to do that secretly. Impossible.
Unless, aleins with super secret technolog helped us. :-3
dad burn it Jester............
QUIT putting facts in the way here..............would ya please?
The placement of that many directional charges would take months of careful placement, cutting into walls, and very visible construction in and around the building. It would then literally take a week of round the clock work and a team of folks to then run the cableing to each of the charges individually placing them and maintianing them undisturbed prior to the detonation. There is just no physical way to do that secretly. Impossible.
Unless, aleins with super secret technolog helped us. :-3
dad burn it Jester............
QUIT putting facts in the way here..............would ya please?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;920094 wrote: There is just no physical way to do that secretly. Impossible.That's why it's a special date when the laws of physics are deliberately suspended. You can't deny the buildings pancaked or that pancaking of steel shell buildings without charges ever happened on any other day.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;921208 wrote: Perhaps then it was a miracle of God? (I almost said allah)...
Or perhaps aliens have given the arab fascists a super pancaking machine?
Laser beam?
Or the dreaded UGD! (Ultrasonic Girder Shaker)?
Hold on.... this just in... gangsta rap music responsible for the structural failure of metal in the world trade center main columns... due to ((((((((sonic vibration))))))))
Why not be serious and recognize that something happened on 9/11 in Building 7 which, if it didn't involve demolition, sets the collapse of Building 7 in a class entirely of its own - and that one should scrutinize such unique events more closely than any other sort of event rather than destroy the crime scene with such indecent haste. The lack of forensic analysis is horrifying in its implication of responsibility.
Or perhaps aliens have given the arab fascists a super pancaking machine?
Laser beam?
Or the dreaded UGD! (Ultrasonic Girder Shaker)?
Hold on.... this just in... gangsta rap music responsible for the structural failure of metal in the world trade center main columns... due to ((((((((sonic vibration))))))))
Why not be serious and recognize that something happened on 9/11 in Building 7 which, if it didn't involve demolition, sets the collapse of Building 7 in a class entirely of its own - and that one should scrutinize such unique events more closely than any other sort of event rather than destroy the crime scene with such indecent haste. The lack of forensic analysis is horrifying in its implication of responsibility.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
DrJ;918285 wrote: Buildings do not perfectly fall into their own footprint,,,without help from cutting charges,,,placed in just the right places,, if any are misplaced at all it will change the direction the building falls,, these are simple facts,,of engineering people..
When the cutting charges are set off the building doesn't fall, right? It then requires that last charge, whatever it's called. What's it called? Anyway, that charge is at the bottom of the building, or am I mistaken (because I very easily could be)?
When the cutting charges are set off the building doesn't fall, right? It then requires that last charge, whatever it's called. What's it called? Anyway, that charge is at the bottom of the building, or am I mistaken (because I very easily could be)?
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;921281 wrote: The seventh building... things always happen in seven with god... this must fall under numerology... do you have a non conspiracy site link?:-3
You're pissing on your own country's grave here. It's unseemly.
You're pissing on your own country's grave here. It's unseemly.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Yes, only imported urine will do.
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Accountable;921290 wrote: Yes, only imported urine will do.
Why not be serious and recognize that something happened on 9/11 in Building 7 which, if it didn't involve demolition, sets the collapse of Building 7 in a class entirely of its own - and that one should scrutinize such unique events more closely than any other sort of event rather than destroy the crime scene with such indecent haste. The lack of forensic analysis is horrifying in its implication of responsibility.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm is the international setting into which the National Institute of Standards and Technology final report on Tower 7 will be issued. It's not by any means going to be rubber-stamped, it'll be read word by word.
Why not be serious and recognize that something happened on 9/11 in Building 7 which, if it didn't involve demolition, sets the collapse of Building 7 in a class entirely of its own - and that one should scrutinize such unique events more closely than any other sort of event rather than destroy the crime scene with such indecent haste. The lack of forensic analysis is horrifying in its implication of responsibility.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm is the international setting into which the National Institute of Standards and Technology final report on Tower 7 will be issued. It's not by any means going to be rubber-stamped, it'll be read word by word.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
I really would read all this, if it wasn't for my notoriously short attention span..
My dog's a cross between a Shihtzu and a Bulldog... It's a Bullsh!t..
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Here is the deal.
The September 11th attacks were conducted by Al Queda, the planes' impact and the fires caused both buildings to fail, their collapse precipitated the collapses of the surrounding buildings, thats the reality. Everything about these people has been documented and is fact. We all watched these planes fly into the twin towers live on TV, you cannot fake such an attack, it is impossible. The lies about September 11 started in the Middle East where people didn't want to believe that fellow muslims conducted the attack, and therefore blamed Mosad, and when that was untenable, they blamed the CIA, now of course aided and abetted by Western conspiracy idiots.
In 1969 two men, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon, the stuff they left up there is still there, you can see it with a telescope, it happened, the faked moon landing conspiracy is based on a movie called Capricorn One, it was a movie, the conspiracy is a hoax, not the moon shot. Why is it so hard to believe man went to the moon? No one wonders whether Yuri Gargarin when up in Orbit, or that the USSR's Venera 2 landed on Venus, is this just another example of America-bashing wrapped up as "conspiracy"???
The crop circles that appeared in Southern England from the 1970s onward were created by 2 hoaxers, not by aliens, they have admittted it, and demonstrated how they did it. Conspiracy theorists countered that perhaps these guys were lying and in league with sinister government forces (such as the UK Department of Agriculture) to cover up the "terrible truth" yawn.
Princess Diana's driver was drunk, he was doing 108 MPH, drunk, in a merc in a city tunnel, no one had seat belts in the back of the car, thats why 3 people died, not because MI5 shot a poison dart up his arse or whatever nonsense it is.
Spot I am amazed that a fairly smart fella such as yourself would have any time being seduced by this utter nonsense. Its also highly insulting to blame Americans for September 11th, just as much as it would be to blame Brummies for planting the Birmingham Pub bombs and only making it look like it was the IRA. Shame on ye.
The September 11th attacks were conducted by Al Queda, the planes' impact and the fires caused both buildings to fail, their collapse precipitated the collapses of the surrounding buildings, thats the reality. Everything about these people has been documented and is fact. We all watched these planes fly into the twin towers live on TV, you cannot fake such an attack, it is impossible. The lies about September 11 started in the Middle East where people didn't want to believe that fellow muslims conducted the attack, and therefore blamed Mosad, and when that was untenable, they blamed the CIA, now of course aided and abetted by Western conspiracy idiots.
In 1969 two men, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon, the stuff they left up there is still there, you can see it with a telescope, it happened, the faked moon landing conspiracy is based on a movie called Capricorn One, it was a movie, the conspiracy is a hoax, not the moon shot. Why is it so hard to believe man went to the moon? No one wonders whether Yuri Gargarin when up in Orbit, or that the USSR's Venera 2 landed on Venus, is this just another example of America-bashing wrapped up as "conspiracy"???
The crop circles that appeared in Southern England from the 1970s onward were created by 2 hoaxers, not by aliens, they have admittted it, and demonstrated how they did it. Conspiracy theorists countered that perhaps these guys were lying and in league with sinister government forces (such as the UK Department of Agriculture) to cover up the "terrible truth" yawn.
Princess Diana's driver was drunk, he was doing 108 MPH, drunk, in a merc in a city tunnel, no one had seat belts in the back of the car, thats why 3 people died, not because MI5 shot a poison dart up his arse or whatever nonsense it is.
Spot I am amazed that a fairly smart fella such as yourself would have any time being seduced by this utter nonsense. Its also highly insulting to blame Americans for September 11th, just as much as it would be to blame Brummies for planting the Birmingham Pub bombs and only making it look like it was the IRA. Shame on ye.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Galbally;921395 wrote: Here is the deal.
The September 11th attacks were conducted by Al Queda, the planes' impact and the fires caused both buildings to fail, their collapse precipitated the collapses of the surrounding buildings, thats the reality. Everything about these people has been documented and is fact. We all watched these planes fly into the twin towers live on TV, you cannot fake such an attack, it is impossible. The lies about September 11 started in the Middle East where people didn't want to believe that fellow muslims conducted the attack, and therefore blamed Mosad, and when that was untenable, they blamed the CIA, now of course aided and abetted by Western conspiracy idiots.
In 1969 two men, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon, the stuff they left up there is still there, you can see it with a telescope, it happened, the faked moon landing conspiracy is based on a movie called Capricorn One, it was a movie, the conspiracy is a hoax, not the moon shot. Why is it so hard to believe man went to the moon? No one wonders whether Yuri Gargarin when up in Orbit, or that the USSR's Venera 2 landed on Venus, is this just another example of America-bashing wrapped up as "conspiracy"???
The crop circles that appeared in Southern England from the 1970s onward were created by 2 hoaxers, not by aliens, they have admittted it, and demonstrated how they did it. Conspiracy theorists countered that perhaps these guys were lying and in league with sinister government forces (such as the UK Department of Agriculture) to cover up the "terrible truth" yawn.
Princess Diana's driver was drunk, he was doing 108 MPH, drunk, in a merc in a city tunnel, no one had seat belts in the back of the car, thats why 3 people died, not because MI5 shot a poison dart up his arse or whatever nonsense it is.
Spot I am amazed that a fairly smart fella such as yourself would have any time being seduced by this utter nonsense. Its also highly insulting to blame Americans for September 11th, just as much as it would be to blame Brummies for planting the Birmingham Pub bombs and only making it look like it was the IRA. Shame on ye.
Thank you
The September 11th attacks were conducted by Al Queda, the planes' impact and the fires caused both buildings to fail, their collapse precipitated the collapses of the surrounding buildings, thats the reality. Everything about these people has been documented and is fact. We all watched these planes fly into the twin towers live on TV, you cannot fake such an attack, it is impossible. The lies about September 11 started in the Middle East where people didn't want to believe that fellow muslims conducted the attack, and therefore blamed Mosad, and when that was untenable, they blamed the CIA, now of course aided and abetted by Western conspiracy idiots.
In 1969 two men, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon, the stuff they left up there is still there, you can see it with a telescope, it happened, the faked moon landing conspiracy is based on a movie called Capricorn One, it was a movie, the conspiracy is a hoax, not the moon shot. Why is it so hard to believe man went to the moon? No one wonders whether Yuri Gargarin when up in Orbit, or that the USSR's Venera 2 landed on Venus, is this just another example of America-bashing wrapped up as "conspiracy"???
The crop circles that appeared in Southern England from the 1970s onward were created by 2 hoaxers, not by aliens, they have admittted it, and demonstrated how they did it. Conspiracy theorists countered that perhaps these guys were lying and in league with sinister government forces (such as the UK Department of Agriculture) to cover up the "terrible truth" yawn.
Princess Diana's driver was drunk, he was doing 108 MPH, drunk, in a merc in a city tunnel, no one had seat belts in the back of the car, thats why 3 people died, not because MI5 shot a poison dart up his arse or whatever nonsense it is.
Spot I am amazed that a fairly smart fella such as yourself would have any time being seduced by this utter nonsense. Its also highly insulting to blame Americans for September 11th, just as much as it would be to blame Brummies for planting the Birmingham Pub bombs and only making it look like it was the IRA. Shame on ye.
Thank you
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Congrats,,, people,, I like how all our differences are all the same on every thread!
I understand why the people who have done well since 9/11 would fall right in line with the truth proven up to now,,, you have to admit we all were in shock enough to be fooled..
Jester's right about the fact it would take months to set all the charges that's used to pull buildings down inside their own footprint,, and even all the dumbest people in the building trades of this country have doubts about 9/11,, because of the footprint truth + the explanation given isn't even close...
I have to believe it's the reason Bin Laden is still free...
if he's even still alive...
OJ~~~We seen what a mere millionaire could do to our judicial system,.,, Just think what a Billionare could get away with,,,10 Billionares,,
Is there such a thing as a Trillionare,,,,,,,,,,,,Imagine the Power!
I have to believe some are just willing to go along in order to get along,,
after all,, what's the alternative?
My problem,, is not knowing who the true enemy really is,,
Anyone who claims to know anything about Satan's incapabilities is just fooling themselves,,, my favorite tho is the Mormon connection,,poor Romney!
:yh_alien2,,:yh_alien2,,:yh_alien,,:yh_alien
I understand why the people who have done well since 9/11 would fall right in line with the truth proven up to now,,, you have to admit we all were in shock enough to be fooled..
Jester's right about the fact it would take months to set all the charges that's used to pull buildings down inside their own footprint,, and even all the dumbest people in the building trades of this country have doubts about 9/11,, because of the footprint truth + the explanation given isn't even close...
I have to believe it's the reason Bin Laden is still free...
if he's even still alive...
OJ~~~We seen what a mere millionaire could do to our judicial system,.,, Just think what a Billionare could get away with,,,10 Billionares,,
Is there such a thing as a Trillionare,,,,,,,,,,,,Imagine the Power!
I have to believe some are just willing to go along in order to get along,,
after all,, what's the alternative?
My problem,, is not knowing who the true enemy really is,,
Anyone who claims to know anything about Satan's incapabilities is just fooling themselves,,, my favorite tho is the Mormon connection,,poor Romney!
:yh_alien2,,:yh_alien2,,:yh_alien,,:yh_alien
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
DrJ;922750 wrote: Congrats,,, people,, I like how all our differences are all the same on every thread!
I understand why the people who have done well since 9/11 would fall right in line with the truth proven up to now,,, you have to admit we all were in shock enough to be fooled..
Jester's right about the fact it would take months to set all the charges that's used to pull buildings down inside their own footprint,, and even all the dumbest people in the building trades of this country have doubts about 9/11,, because of the footprint truth + the explanation given isn't even close...
So you're seriously claiming that the charges were set months in advance?? :wah:
ETA: BTW, you still haven't answered this question http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=14
I understand why the people who have done well since 9/11 would fall right in line with the truth proven up to now,,, you have to admit we all were in shock enough to be fooled..
Jester's right about the fact it would take months to set all the charges that's used to pull buildings down inside their own footprint,, and even all the dumbest people in the building trades of this country have doubts about 9/11,, because of the footprint truth + the explanation given isn't even close...
So you're seriously claiming that the charges were set months in advance?? :wah:
ETA: BTW, you still haven't answered this question http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=14
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Accountable;922822 wrote: So you're seriously claiming that the charges were set months in advance?? :wah:
ETA: BTW, you still haven't answered this question http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=14
Lets just say,, either that,, or the aliens done it,, and that would explain why there wern't any dead bodies found at the pentagon,,Spaceships man!:driving:
God Loves ya,, no matter what you believe Blind man!
I'll get back to you on that other thingy!
I don't know what that's called either,, but I am going to find out,,
Look if people want to believe everything is hunky dory about what 'we the people' have been told,,
well that's great,, but what if these same people get angry about something else and it is the Tr/Billionares of the world,, doing it,, their is nothing we can do about it..ANYWAY!!!!
ETA: BTW, you still haven't answered this question http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=14
Lets just say,, either that,, or the aliens done it,, and that would explain why there wern't any dead bodies found at the pentagon,,Spaceships man!:driving:
God Loves ya,, no matter what you believe Blind man!
I'll get back to you on that other thingy!
I don't know what that's called either,, but I am going to find out,,
Look if people want to believe everything is hunky dory about what 'we the people' have been told,,
well that's great,, but what if these same people get angry about something else and it is the Tr/Billionares of the world,, doing it,, their is nothing we can do about it..ANYWAY!!!!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
DrJ;922829 wrote: Lets just say,, either that,, or the aliens done it,,
or it's the way Galbally explained.
or it's the way Galbally explained.
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Accountable;922836 wrote: or it's the way Galbally explained.
Galbally,,,is that arabian for gullible?
Now he/she come out of nowhere,,=NSA mediator?
I know today I was typing in the other thread and as soon as I finished the story about the government losing the 4th amendment to the constitution,, I pressed submit,, and my windows blew up! Has that ever happened to you people,, or am I the only one noticing a lot of funny stuff in our elected officials,,,,??????!!!!!!Only so much revolution talk aloud,,I guesshehehehehehehe
Look,, all I mean to do is to get more people paying attention to what is happening in this country,, and I'm not talking about any wedge issues,, my main focus is on the money,, nothing else,,because I garuntee that all the politicians care about,, and the trickle down has stopped trickling!!
Galbally,,,is that arabian for gullible?
Now he/she come out of nowhere,,=NSA mediator?
I know today I was typing in the other thread and as soon as I finished the story about the government losing the 4th amendment to the constitution,, I pressed submit,, and my windows blew up! Has that ever happened to you people,, or am I the only one noticing a lot of funny stuff in our elected officials,,,,??????!!!!!!Only so much revolution talk aloud,,I guesshehehehehehehe
Look,, all I mean to do is to get more people paying attention to what is happening in this country,, and I'm not talking about any wedge issues,, my main focus is on the money,, nothing else,,because I garuntee that all the politicians care about,, and the trickle down has stopped trickling!!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
DrJ;922841 wrote: Galbally,,,is that arabian for gullible?
Now he/she come out of nowhere,,=NSA mediator?:wah: Gal's a fine Irishman of longstanding trust here in the Garden. You'll not find a more skillful skeptic.
DrJ wrote: I know today I was typing in the other thread and as soon as I finished the story about the government losing the 4th amendment to the constitution,, I pressed submit,, and my windows blew up! Has that ever happened to you people,, or am I the only one noticing a lot of funny stuff in our elected officials,,,,??????!!!!!!Only so much revolution talk aloud,,I guesshehehehehehehe
Look,, all I mean to do is to get more people paying attention to what is happening in this country,, and I'm not talking about any wedge issues,, my main focus is on the money,, nothing else,,because I garuntee that all the politicians care about,, and the trickle down has stopped trickling!!Now there's a discussion we might find ourselves on the same side of the fence about... the Amendment, not the windows explosion.
Now he/she come out of nowhere,,=NSA mediator?:wah: Gal's a fine Irishman of longstanding trust here in the Garden. You'll not find a more skillful skeptic.
DrJ wrote: I know today I was typing in the other thread and as soon as I finished the story about the government losing the 4th amendment to the constitution,, I pressed submit,, and my windows blew up! Has that ever happened to you people,, or am I the only one noticing a lot of funny stuff in our elected officials,,,,??????!!!!!!Only so much revolution talk aloud,,I guesshehehehehehehe
Look,, all I mean to do is to get more people paying attention to what is happening in this country,, and I'm not talking about any wedge issues,, my main focus is on the money,, nothing else,,because I garuntee that all the politicians care about,, and the trickle down has stopped trickling!!Now there's a discussion we might find ourselves on the same side of the fence about... the Amendment, not the windows explosion.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;922959 wrote: *poste twice due to mysterious happenings*:-3
:yh_ooooo
:yh_ooooo
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;922959 wrote: No not at all , its irish I do beilive and it means 'intelligent thought
No again, just form ireland across the net. Hes a mediator of the science trade.
Yes this has happened to me bofore, it times out or I loose my internet connection, I usually blame comcast, not some international conspiracy that needs desaperatly to quiet me down, after all, my posts on anti-abortion are extreme and have great potential to ruin thier plans on world population control...
:yh_rotfl,,,,,,,,.:yh_worshp,,,,,,,,,:yh_clap
This don't mean I'm giving up!!!
Jester wrote:
Then start posting verifiable facts. I can't trust in mere questions of what 'might possibly' be.
*poste twice due to mysterious happenings*
Yea but there's always the "X FILES" :yh_hypno
The truth just might be out there ,,ya know!:yh_nailbi
For the record,, I was once banned from a site for using facts to debunk their comparisons of Bush and the Third Reich!
I'm still shell shocked over that one!!:-2
No again, just form ireland across the net. Hes a mediator of the science trade.
Yes this has happened to me bofore, it times out or I loose my internet connection, I usually blame comcast, not some international conspiracy that needs desaperatly to quiet me down, after all, my posts on anti-abortion are extreme and have great potential to ruin thier plans on world population control...
:yh_rotfl,,,,,,,,.:yh_worshp,,,,,,,,,:yh_clap
This don't mean I'm giving up!!!
Jester wrote:
Then start posting verifiable facts. I can't trust in mere questions of what 'might possibly' be.
*poste twice due to mysterious happenings*
Yea but there's always the "X FILES" :yh_hypno
The truth just might be out there ,,ya know!:yh_nailbi
For the record,, I was once banned from a site for using facts to debunk their comparisons of Bush and the Third Reich!
I'm still shell shocked over that one!!:-2
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Accountable;922995 wrote: :wah: Gal's a fine Irishman of longstanding trust here in the Garden. You'll not find a more skillful skeptic.
Now there's a discussion we might find ourselves on the same side of the fence about... the Amendment, not the windows explosion.
Forgive me Gal,,, but I put buildings together,, I' ll never believe the planes done it,,,have you ever thrown the ball at the stacked bottles at the carnival?
Back to back winners plus,,"building 7" the home of the FBI,,,CIA...C'mon!!
Those were pulled buildings plain and simple,,, it's just to scary for most to even think they may not be able to trust those that may have been involved,,,, I think this is the saddest part of 9/11...
Just my observation,,,
It's not over for the amendment,, it's still got to go back thru the house!
Now there's a discussion we might find ourselves on the same side of the fence about... the Amendment, not the windows explosion.
Forgive me Gal,,, but I put buildings together,, I' ll never believe the planes done it,,,have you ever thrown the ball at the stacked bottles at the carnival?
Back to back winners plus,,"building 7" the home of the FBI,,,CIA...C'mon!!
Those were pulled buildings plain and simple,,, it's just to scary for most to even think they may not be able to trust those that may have been involved,,,, I think this is the saddest part of 9/11...
Just my observation,,,
It's not over for the amendment,, it's still got to go back thru the house!
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Galbally;921395 wrote: Here is the deal.
The September 11th attacks were conducted by Al Queda, the planes' impact and the fires caused both buildings to fail, their collapse precipitated the collapses of the surrounding buildings, thats the reality. Everything about these people has been documented and is fact. We all watched these planes fly into the twin towers live on TV, you cannot fake such an attack, it is impossible. The lies about September 11 started in the Middle East where people didn't want to believe that fellow muslims conducted the attack, and therefore blamed Mosad, and when that was untenable, they blamed the CIA, now of course aided and abetted by Western conspiracy idiots.
In 1969 two men, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon, the stuff they left up there is still there, you can see it with a telescope, it happened, the faked moon landing conspiracy is based on a movie called Capricorn One, it was a movie, the conspiracy is a hoax, not the moon shot. Why is it so hard to believe man went to the moon? No one wonders whether Yuri Gargarin when up in Orbit, or that the USSR's Venera 2 landed on Venus, is this just another example of America-bashing wrapped up as "conspiracy"???
The crop circles that appeared in Southern England from the 1970s onward were created by 2 hoaxers, not by aliens, they have admittted it, and demonstrated how they did it. Conspiracy theorists countered that perhaps these guys were lying and in league with sinister government forces (such as the UK Department of Agriculture) to cover up the "terrible truth" yawn.
Princess Diana's driver was drunk, he was doing 108 MPH, drunk, in a merc in a city tunnel, no one had seat belts in the back of the car, thats why 3 people died, not because MI5 shot a poison dart up his arse or whatever nonsense it is.
Spot I am amazed that a fairly smart fella such as yourself would have any time being seduced by this utter nonsense. Its also highly insulting to blame Americans for September 11th, just as much as it would be to blame Brummies for planting the Birmingham Pub bombs and only making it look like it was the IRA. Shame on ye.
At last, some straight talking, in yer face stuff. All you conspiracy theorists should read this and take it in.
The September 11th attacks were conducted by Al Queda, the planes' impact and the fires caused both buildings to fail, their collapse precipitated the collapses of the surrounding buildings, thats the reality. Everything about these people has been documented and is fact. We all watched these planes fly into the twin towers live on TV, you cannot fake such an attack, it is impossible. The lies about September 11 started in the Middle East where people didn't want to believe that fellow muslims conducted the attack, and therefore blamed Mosad, and when that was untenable, they blamed the CIA, now of course aided and abetted by Western conspiracy idiots.
In 1969 two men, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon, the stuff they left up there is still there, you can see it with a telescope, it happened, the faked moon landing conspiracy is based on a movie called Capricorn One, it was a movie, the conspiracy is a hoax, not the moon shot. Why is it so hard to believe man went to the moon? No one wonders whether Yuri Gargarin when up in Orbit, or that the USSR's Venera 2 landed on Venus, is this just another example of America-bashing wrapped up as "conspiracy"???
The crop circles that appeared in Southern England from the 1970s onward were created by 2 hoaxers, not by aliens, they have admittted it, and demonstrated how they did it. Conspiracy theorists countered that perhaps these guys were lying and in league with sinister government forces (such as the UK Department of Agriculture) to cover up the "terrible truth" yawn.
Princess Diana's driver was drunk, he was doing 108 MPH, drunk, in a merc in a city tunnel, no one had seat belts in the back of the car, thats why 3 people died, not because MI5 shot a poison dart up his arse or whatever nonsense it is.
Spot I am amazed that a fairly smart fella such as yourself would have any time being seduced by this utter nonsense. Its also highly insulting to blame Americans for September 11th, just as much as it would be to blame Brummies for planting the Birmingham Pub bombs and only making it look like it was the IRA. Shame on ye.
At last, some straight talking, in yer face stuff. All you conspiracy theorists should read this and take it in.
Behaviour breeds behaviour - treat people how you would like to be treated yourself
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
woppy71;924807 wrote: At last, some straight talking, in yer face stuff. All you conspiracy theorists should read this and take it in.
Yea,, take it in,,,,take it in,,,
go shopping,,,,,,go shopping,,,,,,,go shopping! ,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,:yh_hypno,,,,:yh_alien2,,,,:yh_hypno
:yh_rotfl,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:yh_rotfl
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:guitarist,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yea,, take it in,,,,take it in,,,
go shopping,,,,,,go shopping,,,,,,,go shopping! ,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,:yh_hypno,,,,:yh_alien2,,,,:yh_hypno
:yh_rotfl,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:yh_rotfl
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:guitarist,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
DrJ;924786 wrote: Forgive me Gal,,, but I put buildings together,, I' ll never believe the planes done it,,,have you ever thrown the ball at the stacked bottles at the carnival?
Wouldn't it be more like throwing a really tiny ball, considering the size difference? I shot a .22 at a stack of cans. Thought I missed three shots in a row because they didn't go flying off with a whiiiiiiiiiing like in the western movies. When I got close I noticed the bullets had shot straight through and the cans didn't move.
So now, about that question http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=14
Wouldn't it be more like throwing a really tiny ball, considering the size difference? I shot a .22 at a stack of cans. Thought I missed three shots in a row because they didn't go flying off with a whiiiiiiiiiing like in the western movies. When I got close I noticed the bullets had shot straight through and the cans didn't move.
So now, about that question http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=14
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
DrJ;924763 wrote: For the record,, I was once banned from a site for using facts to debunk their comparisons of Bush and the Third Reich!
I'm still shell shocked over that one!!:-2
Jester;925273 wrote: Sounds like an interesting thread!
I agree! Do you have a link, Doc?
So now, about that question http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=14
I'm still shell shocked over that one!!:-2
Jester;925273 wrote: Sounds like an interesting thread!
I agree! Do you have a link, Doc?
So now, about that question http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=14
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Sorry, it was an earlier question for Doc.
Accountable;921263 wrote: When the cutting charges are set off the building doesn't fall, right? It then requires that last charge, whatever it's called. What's it called? Anyway, that charge is at the bottom of the building, or am I mistaken (because I very easily could be)?
Accountable;921263 wrote: When the cutting charges are set off the building doesn't fall, right? It then requires that last charge, whatever it's called. What's it called? Anyway, that charge is at the bottom of the building, or am I mistaken (because I very easily could be)?
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;921331 wrote: Chalk it up to the disconnect between our cultures bud.
I was asking for a link to your assessment and keeping in line with the tomfoolery of the conspiricay in general...
You have this assumption that once anything's labelled "conspiracy" it's untrue.
Do you recall the great Rescue Of Jessica Lynch, how it was going to be a movie, how gung-ho heroic it all was? And it all turned out to be a lying conspiracy and now nobody will even mention the poor woman's name? And how livid she is with the people who tried to use her?
Do you recall the inspirational Silver Star for Pat Tillman and that dreadful full-of-deliberate-lies citation that went with it? How it was going to be a movie, how gung-ho heroic it all was? And it all turned out to be a lying conspiracy and now nobody will even mention the poor man's name? And how livid his family is with the people who tried to use him?
Those are conspiracies after the event. 9/11 was a conspiracy before it happened. The Administration needed a new Pearl Harbour and they got it on a plate. A lot of people were ordered to look the other way to allow it to happen, whoever did it. The paper trail's going to emerge eventually, meanwhile there's just the impossibilities out there on public show. Building 7's "collapse" is one of them. A series of terrestrial cellphone calls allegedly from cruising-height aircraft's another. It only takes one impossibility to prove it was faked.
I was asking for a link to your assessment and keeping in line with the tomfoolery of the conspiricay in general...
You have this assumption that once anything's labelled "conspiracy" it's untrue.
Do you recall the great Rescue Of Jessica Lynch, how it was going to be a movie, how gung-ho heroic it all was? And it all turned out to be a lying conspiracy and now nobody will even mention the poor woman's name? And how livid she is with the people who tried to use her?
Do you recall the inspirational Silver Star for Pat Tillman and that dreadful full-of-deliberate-lies citation that went with it? How it was going to be a movie, how gung-ho heroic it all was? And it all turned out to be a lying conspiracy and now nobody will even mention the poor man's name? And how livid his family is with the people who tried to use him?
Those are conspiracies after the event. 9/11 was a conspiracy before it happened. The Administration needed a new Pearl Harbour and they got it on a plate. A lot of people were ordered to look the other way to allow it to happen, whoever did it. The paper trail's going to emerge eventually, meanwhile there's just the impossibilities out there on public show. Building 7's "collapse" is one of them. A series of terrestrial cellphone calls allegedly from cruising-height aircraft's another. It only takes one impossibility to prove it was faked.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
spot;925960 wrote: You have this assumption that once anything's labelled "conspiracy" it's untrue.
Do you recall the great Rescue Of Jessica Lynch, how it was going to be a movie, how gung-ho heroic it all was? And it all turned out to be a lying conspiracy and now nobody will even mention the poor woman's name? And how livid she is with the people who tried to use her?
Do you recall the inspirational Silver Star for Pat Tillman and that dreadful full-of-deliberate-lies citation that went with it? How it was going to be a movie, how gung-ho heroic it all was? And it all turned out to be a lying conspiracy and now nobody will even mention the poor man's name? And how livid his family is with the people who tried to use him?
Those are conspiracies after the event. 9/11 was a conspiracy before it happened. The Administration needed a new Pearl Harbour and they got it on a plate. A lot of people were ordered to look the other way to allow it to happen, whoever did it. The paper trail's going to emerge eventually, meanwhile there's just the impossibilities out there on public show. Building 7's "collapse" is one of them. A series of terrestrial cellphone calls allegedly from cruising-height aircraft's another. It only takes one impossibility to prove it was faked.
So the administration, the Pentagon, and the tens of thousands of corporate employees all agreed to turn a blind eye for months while munitions experts and demolition engineers went about setting charges, synchronizing detonations, etc etc etc.
And this is credible?
Do you recall the great Rescue Of Jessica Lynch, how it was going to be a movie, how gung-ho heroic it all was? And it all turned out to be a lying conspiracy and now nobody will even mention the poor woman's name? And how livid she is with the people who tried to use her?
Do you recall the inspirational Silver Star for Pat Tillman and that dreadful full-of-deliberate-lies citation that went with it? How it was going to be a movie, how gung-ho heroic it all was? And it all turned out to be a lying conspiracy and now nobody will even mention the poor man's name? And how livid his family is with the people who tried to use him?
Those are conspiracies after the event. 9/11 was a conspiracy before it happened. The Administration needed a new Pearl Harbour and they got it on a plate. A lot of people were ordered to look the other way to allow it to happen, whoever did it. The paper trail's going to emerge eventually, meanwhile there's just the impossibilities out there on public show. Building 7's "collapse" is one of them. A series of terrestrial cellphone calls allegedly from cruising-height aircraft's another. It only takes one impossibility to prove it was faked.
So the administration, the Pentagon, and the tens of thousands of corporate employees all agreed to turn a blind eye for months while munitions experts and demolition engineers went about setting charges, synchronizing detonations, etc etc etc.
And this is credible?
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Accountable;925986 wrote: So the administration, the Pentagon, and the tens of thousands of corporate employees all agreed to turn a blind eye for months while munitions experts and demolition engineers went about setting charges, synchronizing detonations, etc etc etc.
And this is credible?
No. It's a puzzle, isn't it.
Your administration got its Pearl Harbour that PNAC had identified as a missing requirement.
FBI officials have screamed in public that they were warned off investigating when they tried warning about the hijackers before 9/11.
No amount of obfuscation blurs the fact that every off-track aircraft for decades had been intercepted in short order up until this fiasco. People were refusing to act on 9/11.
I've no idea how Building 7 was pulled. I'll read the final report in a few weeks. Buildings don't do what that one did.
Your administration was actively involved. 9/11 would have been prevented had nothing been done to allow it to happen. Terrestrial cellphones don't make successful calls from cruising-height aircraft either.
And this is credible?
No. It's a puzzle, isn't it.
Your administration got its Pearl Harbour that PNAC had identified as a missing requirement.
FBI officials have screamed in public that they were warned off investigating when they tried warning about the hijackers before 9/11.
No amount of obfuscation blurs the fact that every off-track aircraft for decades had been intercepted in short order up until this fiasco. People were refusing to act on 9/11.
I've no idea how Building 7 was pulled. I'll read the final report in a few weeks. Buildings don't do what that one did.
Your administration was actively involved. 9/11 would have been prevented had nothing been done to allow it to happen. Terrestrial cellphones don't make successful calls from cruising-height aircraft either.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
America Had Better Wake Up!!!
Jester;926028 wrote: Id ask you if you were kidding but I wont waste my breath... I know yer serious... Spot action after the fact to make something out of nothing is is no where near the caliber discussion we are having and that s all I have time for about your first two examples.
No, that's not good enough. You instantly shut down when the word "conspiracy" is used but those are two absolutely definite undeniable conspiracies. They involve lies, they involve keeping secrets, there are key aspects which the US Military still refuses to acknowledge such as General Abizaid's weasel lying at his press conference the day after visiting the platoon's lieutenant. They're conspiracies which unravelled. You refuse to believe conspiracies exist. These two are your problem in that they can't be denied as such.
No, that's not good enough. You instantly shut down when the word "conspiracy" is used but those are two absolutely definite undeniable conspiracies. They involve lies, they involve keeping secrets, there are key aspects which the US Military still refuses to acknowledge such as General Abizaid's weasel lying at his press conference the day after visiting the platoon's lieutenant. They're conspiracies which unravelled. You refuse to believe conspiracies exist. These two are your problem in that they can't be denied as such.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.