Evidence of Bush-New World Order 9-11 Plot
Critical Digest: Pass to the Mainstream!
"U.S. GOVERNMENT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF EMERGENCY"
by Sherman H. Skolnick
AMERICA'S REICHSTAG FIRE
The most massive so-called "terrorist" attacks on U.S. soil since the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995, were known, a week ahead of time, by the American CIA. Among the foreign intelligence agencies who penetrated the plots were the French CIA and Israel's The Mossad, units of both often working with one another.
Foreign intelligence sources confirm the validity of this story. And they state that they informed the U.S. secret police who absolutely failed, neglected, and outright refused to take action as to known prior specifics of which the top-level of the CIA were informed in advance.
As made known to the CIA, were the following, among other details
 That George Herbert Walker Bush, as President, at the close of the Persian Gulf War, 1991, arranged to bring into the U.S. some four thousand Iraqi military officers, some from intelligence units, and their families.
 Some 550 of these officers became residents in Lincoln, Nebraska, AND TWO THOUSAND OF THEM took up residence in Oklahoma City. In a watered down story, CBS' "60 Minutes" Program did a segment once on this about Lincoln, Nebraska but said NOTHING about the Iraqi military officers in Oklahoma City.
 The financial and other provisions for them and their families were arranged by the Elder Bush, and then quietly continued by Bill Clinton as President, and perpetuated by George W. Bush as White House "resident" and "occupant". The arrangements included financial subsidies, housing, and employment for the Iraqi officers.
[A brave Oklahoma City TV Reporter, Jayna Davis, on their local TV station, put on the air several stories about the Iraqi connection to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, the bombing done with the aid of domestic dissidents as surrogates. A group bought out the TV station and silenced her. Timothy McVeigh's chief defense counsel for the murder trial, Stephen Jones, on behalf of McVeigh, filed an extra-ordinary petition in the next higher court, just prior to the murder trial. To no avail, Jones tried to force Denver U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch to compel the American CIA to disgorge records held by them showing prior U.S. knowledge of the bombing, as confirmed by other known records, some of them also in secret court records. We have a copy of the 185 page U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, petition filed by Jones and almost uniformly ignored by the American monopoly press. The petition raises the Iraqi connection.]
 The foreign intelligence agencies informed the American CIA that guns would be planted on-board as many as ten U.S. commercial airflights. This to be done by airplane clean-up crew members who are generally not subject to airport security provisions. These workers most likely did not know the purpose of the gun-planting.
 The CIA also was informed prior to the "terrorist" attacks scheduled for "911" Emergency Day [September 11], that highly skilled Iraqi pilots, among the four thousand Iraqi officers resident in the U.S., would take over the commercial flights, by retrieving the weapons concealed onboard, and then commandeering the flight deck.
 The Elder Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, all were in a position to know that the Iraqi officers that they provided for included some double-agents. The FBI Counter-Intelligence Division at no time was instructed to do anything about these double-agents in a position to commit mischief, murder, and mayhem, on U.S. soil.
 As I revealed a week prior to the "terrorist" attacks, some foreign television networks were busy preparing lengthy documentaries that would scandalize George W. Bush and other members of the Bush Family, including the Elder Bush and Jeb Bush. The subject matter included how forty million dollars in dope funds were used by the Bush Family to reportedly corrupt South Florida DEMOCRATS to abandon the recount even ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling installing George W. Bush as the "resident" and "occupant" of the White House. The dope funds came reportedly from Bush Family business partner, Carlos Lehder, co-founder of the U.S./Colombia medellin dope cartel. [Visit our website story, "Chandra Levy Affair, Part Two".] I discussed this on radio talk shows.
 As part of the targetting of the World Trade Center buildings, a group of surrogates for the Iraqi military officers, reportedly spent considerable time within one of the buildings, with building security officers somehow oblivious of their presence.
 As the CIA top officials were informed and had prior knowledge, the purpose of the "terrorist" attacks was to effectively paralyze the financial infrastructure of the U.S. Some of the most important stock and bond houses in the world, with their key people having loads of inside knowledge and hard to replace trading tricks and expertise, were located in the known-to-be-targetted twin towers of the World Trade Center, New York City. It was like blowing up the main "financial factory" and destroying their inventory. The so-called "back-up" records kept parked across the river in New Jersey, are not only inadequate but cannot help reconstruct various accounts and transactions in the works.
Financial experts tell us the "back up" records parked in New Jersey, may NOT be sufficient to re-start the American financial apparatus. Some of the experts are loudly grumbling that they should have early on seen Federal Reserve Czar Alan Greenspan on the television explaining about the financial ramifications. Of course, some suppose that Americans would panic and run out of control. So we are dealt with like little children.
 It is a serious mistake, according to savvy American and foreign intelligence sources, to blame the Emergency all on Osama bin Laden. As readers of our website are aware, we have long pointed out that bin Laden is reportedly in the Mid-East Construction business. His reputed partners? The family of Sharon PERCY Rockefeller. She is the wife of John D. Rockefeller 4th (D., W.Va.), great grandson of the founder of the infamous Standard Oil Trust that used to bomb their own obsolete buildings to falsely blame onto their competitors. Bin Laden's so-called "secret" accounts, which the White House has said they would like to freeze, are or have been actually reportedly in the Harris Bank, Chicago, joint accounts with the family of Sharon PERCY Rockefeller.
 The Saudi Royal Family actually consists of some five thousand members, some of whom actually are for the U.S. and some anti-U.S. Some of them have bankrolled Iraq's war against Iran, 1980 to 1988, to destroy some oil facilities and keep the price of oil HIGH. The foreign intelligence agencies, that penetrated the plots to be carried out on U.S. soil, are aware that some of the Saudi royals are actually sympathetic to the Iraqis destroying the World Trade Center Buildings and in part, wrecking the Pentagon. [As if the American CIA did not ALREADY have their own knowledge of this.]
Whenever there is a political assassination or some other unusual violent event, what is the key question the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press ALWAYS fails to ask? WHO BENEFITS. With a scandal about to break against George W. Bush, he and his circle had an interest NOT to stop these things from happening. And to divert attention. The White House has a strong motive to silence critics and urge people TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT. Simple-minded folks, of course, often poorly informed,do not understand how the ruling classes would shed the blood of thousands if not millions of innocent people, in some instigated war, to avoid dealing with the apparent on-coming economic disasters.
In the midst of this prior-knowledge emergency, who dares now to point to the Bush Family as reputed business partners of the major kingpin, Carlos Lehder, of the U.S./Colombia medellin dope cartel? Or how huge dope money bought the Electoral College trick in Florida and corrupted the U.S. Supreme Court's "gang of five".
This is America's REICHSTAG fire. Adolph Hitler burned down the German parliament and falsely blamed his enemies and had them rounded up and put in the concentration camps. Has the U.S. Constitution now been revoked?
House Democratic Leaders Call for White House Probe
Petition to Impeach Bush and Cheney re: September 11
Click on < http://www.petitiononline.com/voter03/petition.html>
to Read and Sign the Petition Demanding Investigation and Impeachment of
the Illegitimately Elected Bush and Cheney for Dereliction of Duties in
Woefully Failing to Protect the American Public from the September 11th
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney | Terrorist Warnings
Children Lament the Dying Age
Like angels their eyes glow in smoke
faces streaked with soot and tears
wrapped in yesterday's ragged cloak
sorrow showing beneath dirt and fears
Children rise like flowers on Earth
singing songs of passion and rage
demand just cause for their birth
a wild rattle of the cultural cage
Glaring out on Her wasted lands
burning eyes on blackened beach
the wounded wild in little hands
survival seems just out of reach
Mockery of war a painful grimace
tearing the heart out of their world
old men plot with poisoned premise
as to Hell's pit their sons are hurled
Now cold stones rise in rows
names carved on their silent faces
somewhere are held the names of foes
millions of dead and their flowered vases
Witness to the weapons and reasons
bearing the standards and scars
holding ashes of hearts and seasons
eyes filled with sad dust of wars
Like angels on the roofs of tombs
children stand in steaming street
and stare haunted into future's fumes
stone faces shimmering in the heat
BZ Botani 2002
Be Afraid: The New World
Order's Fascist Pedigree
By Henry Makow, Ph.D.
The 57-cent stamp shows an eagle, which according to Al Martin < http://www.almartinraw.com/column53.html> is an exact copy of the symbol of the Nazi Waffin-SS. The USPS introduced it in February 2001 as the innocuous sounding "art deco" eagle but in light of Sept. 11, its symbolism is ominous.
Martin says this Nazi design will also be used for the triangular arm badges and hats given to participants in the new Neighborhood Watch program. A commercial with Ed McMahon, the new Department of Justice spokesman, suggests that you cooperate with the Neighborhood Watch Association. You will be told how to spot "suspicious" characters or even people you know well, who are suddenly acting "out of character."
Similarly, John Ashcroft christened another homeland security force the "Freedom Corps", evoking the "Freicorps," the German army's "irregulars" that cleared the way for Hitler by murdering social democrats and communists.
These allusions are sinister because the Third Reich was an early attempt at a "New World Order," and the Anglo American business elite was involved with that up to its ears. Are these fascist allusions coincidental? Or, is the elite coming out of the closet?
Economist Robert Brady defined the Nazi state as "a dictatorship of monopoly capitalism. Its 'fascism' is that of business enterprise organized on a monopoly basis, and in full command of all the military, police, legal and propaganda power of the state." (Richard Sasuly, "I.G. Farben," 1947, p. 128)
Nazi Germany was a capitalist paradise. There was a 60-hour workweek, low wages and no unions. Nazi expansionism represented the global ambitions of German cartels that started preparing for war long before they financed Hitler. As countries fell under the Nazi jackboot, they absorbed former competitors at fire sale prices. "For German big business, World War II was a chance to plunder on a scale without precedent in history," writes Sasuly (p.114).
The key to understanding the elite, and the direction of world events, is to understand the psychology of the cartel. Cartels by definition are a conspiracy. Their purpose is to defraud the public by keeping prices high. They do this by controlling competition, markets, raw materials and new technology. They are by definition meglo maniacal, anti-national, and anti social.
One of the earliest cartels was J. D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which eliminated the competition by secretly fixing transportation costs with the railroads. While he professed Christianity, Rockefeller is famous for saying the only sin is competition.
The largest German cartel was the chemical, film and pharmaceutical giant I.G. Farben. Farben produced 85% of Germany's explosives in World War Two. In 1926, Farben and Standard Oil entered into a cartel agreement in which Farben stayed out of synthetic oil in return for Standard representing Farben in the US. The upshot of this agreement was that Standard Oil supplied the Nazis with petroleum in spite of shortages in the US. It supplied a rare lead additive without which the Luftwaffe could not fly. It suppressed the production of synthetic rubber in the US, which almost cost the Allies the war.
In turn, Rockefeller got a cut of Farben's other business, which included the many factories that employed slave labor from concentration camps like Auschwitz. (Farben-Rockefeller paid the SS for this labor at bargain rates.) Profits also derived from the poison gas that killed the laborers after their usefulness was expended. This is the real reason the rail lines to Auschwitz were not bombed. Allied bombers hit within 14 miles of Auschwitz but the factories and death camp were off limits. In fact, German industry moved there for this reason. After the war, the CIA established its German headquarters in the undamaged Farben skyscraper in Frankfurt.
The holocaust was very good business. Throughout the 1930's Wall Street investment banks participated in "aryanization" which meant getting Jewish owned breweries, banks, factories, department stores etc. for 30% of their true value. The gold from the teeth of holocaust victims ended up in their vaults. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Nazi war effort was financed by the Bank of England (which, for example, transferred the Czech gold reserves to the Nazis), Wall Street (Prescott Bush, W's grandfather was one of the leading Nazi financiers) and Jewish plunder. It was finessed by lawyer John Foster Dulles, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who later became US Secretary of State.
After the war, Dillon Read banker General William Draper was put in charge of dismantling German industry and distributing it among the allies. Needless to say, this did not happen. His Wall Street cohorts owned too much of it. Nazis businessmen remained in positions of power, war criminals were transported to South America, or went to work for the CIA.
In contrast, during the war, the allies deliberately prevented Jews from escaping from Europe. If someone sets a house on fire, and someone else blocks the exits, don't they share equal blame?
On the first day of World War Two, His Majesty's ship "Lorna" fired on the limping overcrowded "Tiger Hill" as she approached Palestine with 1417 Jewish refugees. The first people killed by the British in WWII were not Germans but Jewish escapees from Germany. Other refugee ships (e.g. the "St. Louis") were sent back to Germany by the US or blown up with all souls on board by British MI-6 (the "Struma"). For the whole story, read The Holocaust Conspiracy < http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0944007244/102-0093973-1366511> (1989) by William R. Perl, a Lt. Colonel with the US Army Intelligence Service.
The list of US corporations that had the equivalent of $8 billion invested in Nazi Germany include Standard Oil, General Motors, IBM, Ford, the Chase and National City Banks, ITT and many others. As a result, the men of "We Were Soldiers" didn't know that ITT built the airplanes that dropped bombs on them. They didn't know that Ford and General Motors built the Nazi's trucks and tanks. They didn't know that ball bearings crucial to the Nazi war effort were manufactured in Philadelphia, yet were in short supply in the USA. This was all done with the knowledge and permission of the US government. For details, I recommend Charles Higham's Trading with the Enemy < http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385290802/102-0093973-1366511>(1983).
Christopher Simpson's The Splendid Blond Beast < link to www.amazon.com (1988) are also useful.
This information is shocking if we assume that cartels owe an allegiance to their native country. This is not so. They live in a financial virtual reality, a spiritual limbo divorced from common sympathy with their fellow man. Their native countries are important only insofar as they provide patriots to die for the advancement of their financial interests.
If the elite backed the Nazis, why didn't the Nazis win? The elite also backed the Allies. It doesn't matter which version of NW0 the elite gets. The real money is in war and genocide itself. In addition, war degrades and demoralizes humanity so it will accept serfdom.
In conclusion, the Third Reich was an early attempt at the New World Order. The purpose of this kind of "globalization" is to institutionalize the political power of the cartels. This is the hidden agenda behind the current "war on terror," hence the fascist symbols and measures.
Most of our nation's leaders are hod carriers for the cartels, particularly oil. They are careerists who serve a class of people who have spiritually seceded from the human race. This class holds us in bondage while it amasses wealth that affords it neither peace nor joy.
I leave you with a famous quotation by US President Theodore Roosevelt. Uttered in 1906, it is relevant today because as long as cartels rule, the human race is stalled.
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today."
New World Order Plot to Overthrow the USA
Sept 11- Bush and Cheney were involved !
COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE USA WERE ORGANIZED, AT LEAST IN PART, BY USA AUTHORITIES, AS AN EXCUSE TO START AN ALREADY PLANNED WAR IN SOUTH ASIA, AND AS AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE WEST SINCE THE FACIST ERA.
THIS EVIDENCE COMES IN 4 PARTS. PART 1 DEALS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAN TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN WAS ALREADY IN PLACE WELL BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11.
PART 2 DEALS WITH A DETAILED LOOK AT THE EVENTS OF THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11, DEMONSTRATING THAT USA AUTHORITIES AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL DELIBERATELY ALLOWED THE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE. PART 3 DETAILS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUSH FAMILY, THE BINLADEN FAMILY AND THE CIA. PART 4 DEALS WITH MISCELLANEOUS INCONSTISTANCIES IN THE OFFICIAL STORIES, AND MISCELLANEOUS SUSPICIOUS EVENTS.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat has said that senior US officials told him in mid July, that they planned to attack Afghanistan by mid October, at the latest, before the winter snow set in. ( BBC report by by George Arney Sept 18, 2001). (< http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm> )
People with military experience, and my own research into the timeline of previous, comparable military campaigns suggest that it would simply not be possible to organize a military operation on the scale of that launched by the USA against Afghanistan, in the space of 25 days, which was the time between September 11, and the beginning of the attack on Afghanistan. It doesn't matter how angry the USA might have been, it's just not logistically possible. There are those who have suggested that the USA is always ready to attack anybody at any time. This simply isn't possible, even for a country with the powerful resources of the USA. As a comparison, the time taken for the USA to be ready to attack Iraq in 1991, was 4 1/2 months. The attack was not delayed by attempts to find a negotiated settlement. Negotiations took place during the time that the USA was preparing for its attack. The attack took place as soon as they were militarily capable of doing so.
And if it is to be suggested that the US military really is so astonishingly razor sharp, that it is able to organize an operation like this in 25 days, then this is wildy inconsistent with their unbelievable lack of readiness on the morning of September 11. This will be discussed in part 2, and cross referenced back to the point that I have just been making.
Thirdly, it is preposterous to suggest that the USA can have identified the culprit behind the September 11 attacks within the time, that they claim to have. While it's reasonable that a list of suspects would immediately spring to mind, it is another matter to be so certain of someone's guilt that you are prepared to attack another country on the basis of that suspicion. It is instructive to review the timeline of the "investigation" into September 11. Within a few hours, Bin Laden was already being named as the main suspect. Within 12 hours, it was being claimed that they were "almost certain" of Bin Laden's guilt. Within a few days, they were proclaiming his guilt as 100% certain, using the expression, "his fingerprints everywhere", and were already threatening to attack Afghanistan. This is clearly ridiculous. It's not even enough time to set up a committee to discuss the personnal and logistics of the investigation. This will be discussed in more detail in part 2, and again, cross referenced back to this point. But it is clear already, that at the very least, USA authorities didn't care who did September 11. They were happy to use it as oppotunity to attack anyone at whom it was convenient to point the finger, and we have information which alleges that they were already making plans for Afghanistan.
These 3 points, when taken together, form a compelling scenario that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned prior to September 11. This does not, in itself provide absolute proof that the USA was involved in organising September 11, that will come in part 2, but it does already put it forward as the most plausible explanation. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then, in order to believe that the USA was not involved in organising September 11, we have to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened to occur at a time which could not have been better, from a propaganda point of view, for a war which the USA had already planned. While this is possible, it isn't really probable. It's just too convenient.
It will clarify things, to list the possible scenarios, that arise at this point, assuming that we accept that plans were already in place to attack Afghanistan:
1) The USA had nothing to do with the September 11 attack, and was genuinely suprised by it, but saw the propaganda oppotunities for its forthcoming war, and considered this to be more important than identifying the real culprits.
2) The USA did not have anything to do with organising the attacks, but knew in advance that they were coming, and deliberately allowed them to happen, for propaganda reasons.
3)The USA was actively involved in planning September 11, as part of an integrated plan, which involved the coming war in Afghanistan.
While I have not yet presented specific evidence for any of these scenarios, common sense tells us, if we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was preplanned, then scenario 3 is the only plausible explanation. Scenarios 1 and 2 require us to believe that the convenient timing of the terrorist attacks was just by chance. In respect of scenario 2, it might be suggested that the date of mid October was itself, planned around the terrorist attack which they knew was coming. But this doesn't make a lot of sense either, because the date of mid October is explained in a far more plausible manner, by the allegations of Niaz Naik, and we would have to believe that US intelligence about an attack which they were not involved in was so specific, that by July, two months before Sept 11, they were already planning the date of their attack on Afghanistan around it. This is highly improbable. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then Scenario 3 is the only credible explanation. For us to deny that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, we must believe 1) That Niaz Naik is lying. 2) That the US was able to organise the attack within a time which defies accepeted military logistics, and 3) That since they cannot possibly have known who the real culprit was, within a few hours, they chose Afghanistan simply because they wanted to be seen to be doing something, and Bin Laden was an easy scapegoat.
The evidence which is presented in part 2, will interweave with these scenarios with constant cross referencing, and demonstrates conclusively that active collusion by US authorties in the planning of the attacks is the only possible explanation.
On the morning of September 11, the largest aviation crisis in the history of the world took place. Before continuing, it is relevant to examine the standard proceedures which take place in the event of a hijacking, the approach of an unauthorised or unidentified aircraft, the failure of communications, or any other unscheduled aviation activity, regardless of whether any immediate threat is perceived. The air force is alerted and jet fighters are put into the air immediately. According to a report on a Russian website, the commander in chief of the Russian air force says that such a situation can be responded to in about 1 minute. In fact, he said that the terrorist attack on Sept 11, should have been impossible to carry out, if normal security proceedures were in place, and claimed that Russia itself had easily dealt with a similar situation there, although he declined to give any details.
The purpose of interception is to closely shadow the plane, thus giving exact information about its movements, possibly keeping radio contact, and perhaps learning more of the pilots situation or intentions. It also provides the oppotunity, but not the obligation, to force down or shoot down the plane, if it becomes apparrent that it's intentions are hostile. Interception itself, is not an agressive move. There are standardised signals, which are part of the aviation code, which an airforce pilot will give to a civillian airliner if radio contact is unavailable. When pilots are off course and disorientated, the fighter pilot will guide them back to the correct course. But the airforce also has a record of having previously forced down, or shot down civillian aircraft which were behaving in a manner which was considered to be a deliberate agressive flouting of aviation rules, likely to present a danger. While the end result of September 11, large commercial airliners flying into buildings, is unprecedented, the events leading up to the crashes are routine. Planes off course, transponders not working, reports of hijackings. Such events are handled regularly by the US airforce with expert efficiency. Normally, interception of these planes would have been well and truly in place, before it became apparrent that their intentions were hostile. What is unusual about September 11 , is that these normal airforce proceedures, activated automatically, and without the need for high level authority simply didn't happen. The routine proceedures were waived for every one of the planes involved.
The 4 hijacked planes were all being tracked on Federal Aviation Authority radar, and air traffic controllers across the country were in communication with each other. Since no junoir officer would have the authority to override the interception routines. the failure to activate them, can only have come from orders to that effect, from the very highest levels. In the case of the plane which struck the pentagon, United Airlines flight 77, It should have been intercepted, as it approached Washington, by fighters from Andrews airbase, a mere 10 miles from the pentagon. In fact in should have been intercepted a lot earlier than that. By 9.05 at the very latest, the Pentagon knew that two hijacked planes, had struck the world trade centre, and that at least one more hijacked plane was at large. It may not have been clear by this time, that flight 77 was headed to Washington, but it was clear that a terrorist attack of massive proportions was taking place, and that at least one more plane probably had intentions to strike somewhere. The fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground. By 9.25 at the very latest, it was clear that this plane was headed to Washington. The Andrews airbase fighters stayed on the ground, and whichever squadron was responsible for covering the area where the plane was originally hijacked, had also failed to activate. At 9.41, just 2 minutes before the plane struck the pentagon, two F16 fighters from Langley airbase, were dispatched to intercept it. Langley airbase is 130 miles away!They had no hope whatsoever of intercepting it. Meanwhile the fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground!
The official story is that no fighters were available at Andrews that day. This is clearly a lie. The specific mandate of the fighters at Andrews airbase, is to protect WashingtonDC. And if none were available, how did they miraculously appear in the sky over Washinton DC, a few minutes after the pentagon was hit? And do they seriously expect us to believe that the Pentagon is only defended on a part time basis? Another official story is that, they thought at the time, that the plane was targeting the White House. So what? Isn't that even more reason to have activated the airforce? And if that's what they thought, why was the White House, not evacuated until 2 minutes after the Pentagon crash? As far as I can make out the timetable, that's about 10 minutes after the plane would have flown past the target, which they allegedly thought it was heading to! Overall, 45 minutes passed between the time that Flight 77's transponder was turned off, (which is when automatic interception proceedures should have begun, even on a normal day), and the time that it crashed into the pentagon.
That there was no interception, is all the more incredible, given that at the the time it's transponder was turned off, it was already 10 minutes since one hijacked airliner, United airlines flight 175, had crashed into the world trade centre, and about 5 minutes, since it had become known, that a third plane, American airlines flight 11, had been hijacked. At 9.03, flight 11, also hit the world trade centre, and still no movement at Andrews. By 9.25, there was no doubt that flight 77 was headed to Washington, and still no movement at Andrews, and no evacuation of either the Pentagon or White House. But the Andrews fighters got into the air, and the evacuation of the White House took place, just for show it would seem, immediately after flight 77 had completed it's mission. So this plane, at a time when a security crisis of huge proportions was taking place, was able to turn off its transponder, change course, and fly 300 miles, being tracked by radar the whole way, without being intercepted. And then approach the nations capital, fly past the white house, and crash into the pentagon, without even being challenged. At 10.10, it was known that a fourth plane, United airlines flight 93 had been hijacked. This was also spared the normal practice of interception. It crashed in Pensalvania at 10.37.
It's difficult to say exactly what the official stories are, concerning the failure to intercept the two planes which hit the WTC, because the stories keep changing, but it is has been admitted by Norad that it was alerted to a hijacking as early as 8.35, but didn't activate any airforce action until after the pentagon was hit, while at the same time admitting that interception of civilian aircraft by jet fighters is a routine proceedure. Their story regarding flight 93 is that they could have shot it down if they had wanted to. This is most unconvincing. If they "could have shot it down", then why hadn't they at least gone through the routine proceedure of intercepting it and checking it out? They had 27 minutes to do so, and after all, there had already been 3 suicide crashes that morning. Exactly how were they going to shoot it down? With a plane which wasn't there? With a long range missile, when interception by fighters would have been far more safe, and would have also provided the possibility of forcing it down, and also given the oppotunity to check with greater certainty that that was the only option? And when were they going to shoot it down? How long were they going to wait?
Vice president Cheney, in response to questioning about this bizarre scenario, has deliberately tried to confuse interception with shooting down, trying to create the impression, that the reason nothing was done, was because officials were agonizingly biting their nails, over whether to take the dramatic step of shooting down a plane full of innocent civillians. Cheny knows very well that interception, while giving the oppotunity to shoot down the plane, does not commit one to that action. And also, at the same time that Cheny is spinning this smokescreen, they're telling us that the only reason interception didn't happen in the case of flight 77, is because no fighters were available at Andrews. Make up your minds!And also, that in the case of flight 93, that they "could have shot it down" even though no interception had taken place, which could only be interpreted as meaning that they were prepared to use a missile. If that's the case why such agonising over the process of interception? And how does Cheney's statement reconcile, with Norad's admission that interception is a routine proceedure?
There is no possible explanation for these events, and the extraordinarily garbled confusion of unconvincing cover up stories, except that to say that someone very high up in the Airforce or the Bush Administration was determined to nobble the air force and make sure that the attacks were successful. We will now turn our attention the president, and demonstrate conclusivley that he was involved.
At 8.46, as the first plane hit the world trade centre, the President was at a Florida elementary school, mingling with teachers and children. It is curious to say the least, that 14 minutes later, at 9.00, it seems that no one had informed the president of the emergency which was unfolding across the nation. Not only had the world trade centre been hit, air traffic controllers were aware of at least one more hijacked plane at large, and may have been aware of 2 by this time. It must have also been apparent by this time that the air force was standing idly by, waiving normal proceedures of intervention. At 9.00, the president had settled down with second grade children, and was reading about a litttle girls's pet goat. At 9.05, two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in his ear.
According to reporters at the scene, the president "turned briefly sombre. " Others who claim to have seen footage of this event describe his reaction as more like a nod of confirmation to something which he had been expecting. It becomes even more unbelievable. The president did not react by leaving the school, convening an emergency meeting, and intervening to ensure that the airforce did it's job. He did not even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued with the reading class, at the same time as, at 9.06, the NY police department was broadcasting "This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon" (NY Daily News Sept 12). The situation, then, at 9.05, is that at least 3 planes have been hijacked this morning, and are known to be on terrorist suicide missions, two have already struck their targets, with spectacular effect, at least one is known to be still in the air, the airforce is doing nothing, and the President, who has apparently only just been informed, decides to continue reading to children about a little girl's pet goat!
He continued to read about pet goats for another 24 minutes!
In an interview for newsweek, Bush recalls the moment he was told. "I'm the commander in chief, and the country had just come under attack. " So why did he continue to find pet goats such a fascinating subject for the next 24 minutes? Doesn't this prove that at the very best, he's unfit to be in charge on matters of national security, and at the worst, indictable for treason?
By 9.30 the president had had enough of pet goats and decided that it might be time to say something about the terrorist attacks, but not to do anything about them. Rather than calling an emergency meeting, or taking direct command of the airforce, or at least demanding to know what the hell was going on with the airforce, he decided to stay at the school, and give a television address to the nation, to tell them what everybody already knew, that there had been an "apparrent terrorist attack".
A totally useless response, a blatant evasion of his duty to do everything possible to take command of the situation, even at the same time as flight 77, known, more than half an hour ago to have been hijacked ,had now reached Washington, being tracked by radar, and the Andrews fighters were still on the ground. Bush either didn't know, and didn't want to know, or knew but didn't care. By 9.35, as the president was wasting his time with the pointless address to the nation, the third plane was over Washington, had flown past the white house and, all the time being tracked by radar, done a 360 degree turn over the Pentagon, which is not being evacuated, even though staff there have already heard about the twin attacks on the World trade centre, and were already nervous about also being a target, even before this plane approached Washington.
Forty minutes after the pentagon crash, when it became known that, yet another plane, Flight 93 had been hijacked, this was also not intercepted, and the president again failed to intervene in the treacherous inaction of the airforce. He was clearly involved in active collusion to ensure that the attacks were a success. To suggest that such actions were simply a result of incompetence and confusion is not credible. But for those who wish to cling to this implausible explanation of incompetence, I now cross reference back to part 1, and the point about it not being credible that the USA could organise the attack on Afghanistan in a mere 25 days. If we are asked to believe that the USA military is so razor sharp, that it can execute an operation of this type within a time that defies what is known to be logistically possible, then how can we be simultaneously expected to believe that the same country is capable of such a staggering, inconceivable level of incompetence, in instituting routine domestic security measures? It allowed, without even a challenge, the success of an attack, which the commander in chief of the Russian airforce claims, should have been impossible to carry out. Was this blundering, useless, confused thing, called the US airforce, suddenly, in the space of 25 days, transformed into a lethal, efficient fighting force, that has reduced the Taliban to nothing, in impressively quick time?
The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. To give any credence whatsoever to the posibilty that the highly successful, and well organised attack on Afghanistan was organised in 25 days, as a response to September 11, we must then, on the balance of the evidence, accept the events of September 11 as conclusive proof of collusion, which creates the thorny problem of why there was a retaliatory response to something which USA authorities were themselves involved in. Or alternatively, if we are to give any credence whatsoever to the possibility that the events of September 11 were innocent incompetence on a staggering scale, we must be highly suspicious, to say the least, that the attack on Afghanistan was already into an advanced stage of planning by Sept 11, in which case we are again asking ourselves to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened, by co-incidence, to take place at a time which could not have been more convenient, from a propaganda point of view, for the already planned war. Just the raw facts of what actually happened on the morning of September 11 are by themselves enough to conclusively prove that USA authorities were involved in collusion. But there is a deeper pattern to the evidence which hammers this home even harder.
The pattern that is emerging, so far, is that if we wish to believe that USA authorities are innocent of any involvement in Septemeber 11, and that the attack on Afghanistan is genuinely a response to the events of that day, we find ourselves, in every aspect so far examined, in the awkward position of having to continually choose, one after the other, the scenario which common sense tells us is the least likely, rather than the most, further complicated by a tangle of mutually exclusive scenarios, whereas, when we postulate the opposite theory, everything falls into place, as perfectly obvious events. In the light of this evidence, there appears to be no rational, objective basis why we should not be suggesting with some confidence that USA authorities were involved in September 11, and had pre planned the attack on Afghanistan. The only basis for refusing to do so, seems to be based on preconceived bias, rather than a genuine attempt to examine the evidence objectively. And if it is to be claimed that the evidence for collusion, is over-ruled by a belief that no country would do that to its own citizens, then it must be pointed out that the contemplation of terrorist attacks on US citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The previously classified "Northwoods" document demonstrates that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but the favoured option was the shooting down of a US civilian airliner. (< http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm> )
And there's plenty more: The problem of the mutually exclusive scenarios regarding the competance, or lack of, concerning the US air force, repeats itself in relation to US intelligence services. How is it that they can have had no warning whatsoever of the largest, most difficult and complicated terrorist attack in the history of the world, but then be allegedly able to nail the culprit, almost beyond doubt, in less than a day, and beyond any doubt at all in 2 days? If they genuinely had no warning of the attack, then we can only assume that they are lying, when within 2 days, thay claim to be so confident of Bin Laden's guilt, that they are already threatening to attack Afghanistan, in response. Or if they had some forwarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, if they were allegedly on the alert for "something" from Bin Laden, then the inaction of the president and the airforce on the morning of Semptember 11 is confirmed even more conclusively, if that's possible, as collusion rather than incompetence.
Strong supporting evidence for the allegation of forewarning and collusion, is presented by a curious aside to the Pentagon attack. The plane which flew into the Pentagon, had it done so a week earlier, would have flown into exactly the right spot to cripple the Pentagon's key operations and kill many important senior staff. But, allegedly by fortunate co-incidence, the Pentagon had done a major reshuffle just a week before. (Source, CNN TV report on the morning of Sept 12, Australian time) All the important people and operations had moved to other side, and the unimportant people and operations had moved to the side which was hit. Very little real damage was done to the important operations of the pentagon. They swapped sides a week before the attack! This is powerful evidence that someone very high up in the Pentagon knew that the attack was coming. Once again, to postulate otherwise means choosing the least likely explanation on the basis of a preconceived conclusion. How many times are we prepared to do that?
In fact, there is plenty of evidence to implicate Bin Laden, but the problem is that it also implicates the Bush Adminsitration, the CIA , George Bush senior, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates. The official story about Bin Laden is that of terrorist monster, with a fanatical hatred of the USA and it's allies, and as being estranged from the rest of his wealthy Saudi family, who are friendly to the USA. The terrorist monster part is correct, but the rest of it could not be further from the truth.
Bin Laden is well known as being a CIA operative. He had a close working relationship with the CIA in the 1980's. This isn't denied by anyone. The claim is that they have since fallen out, but this story is a lie.
For a start, many of the US military installations in the Middle east, to which Bin Laden allegedly has a violent objection, were actually built by Bin Laden's construction company. There is a continuous history of close business ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, stretching back more than a decade, and continuing to this day. (Wall Street Journal Sept 27 2001 and www.thedubyareport.com/bushbin.html ) The Bush Administration has attempted to throw a smokescreen over this by claiming that the rest of Bin Laden's family has disowned him, but as we shall see, this isn't true. The Bin Ladens are significant investors in the huge arms dealing firm Carlyle group which, by it's own boast, stands to make a lot of money from the Afghanistan war. George Bush senior is a significant figure in Carlyle group. Other major investors, or senior executives include ex British PM, John Major, James A Baker, who was secretary of defence, under President Bush Sr., Colin Powell, and former secretary of defence and deputy CIA director Frank Carlucci, who is a fomer college classmate of current defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A quote from Carlyle's company profile at hoover's online.
"Carlyle's directorship reads like George W Bush's inaugural ball invite list. " "Can you say military-industrial complex? The Carlyle goup can. "
Neither can it be claimed that Bush senior was unaware of the Bin Laden's shareholding. He has met the Bin Laden family at least twice, in 1998 and in 2000, long after Bin Laden had already been officially declared by the USA as the most wanted man in the world, for alleged terrorist activities. Why was George Bush Sr. meeting with this man's family, when the official story was that the Clinton administration had already declared its determination to eliminate Al Qaida and Bin Laden at any cost and by any means neccesary?
In 1995, US authorities named Bin Laden as a co-conspiritor in the 1993, WTC bombing. But a year after this accusation, when the Sudanese government had Bin Laden in custody and offered to extradite him to the US, the US govenement said it was not interested and told the Sudanese government to let him go to Afghanistan. Since then, the US government has declared Bin Laden as the main suspect in terrorist attacks on two US embassies, and for attacks against a US warship and a US military barracks in the the Middle East (one of those which Bin Laden's construction company helped to build). And yet he was allowed to invest, via his family, in Carlyle group and George Bush senior was meeting with his family as recently as 2000. It is a lie that Bin Laden is estranged from his family. Bin Laden is known to have talked regularly with his mother and with other family members during this time of alleged estragement. In fact when Bin Laden was hospitalised in Dubai, in July 2001, he is known to have been visited by family members. And what was the most wanted terrorist in the world doing in a Dubai hospital anyway? Why wasn't he immediately arrested, instead of being given hospital treatment, and then allowed to go free? During this hospitalisation, he was also allegedly visited by the local CIA agent, and by several prominent Saudis and Emiratis, also US allies.
Furthermore, Bin Laden's Al Qaida network, is known to have fought alongside Nato forces, in the Kosovo liberation army, a terrorist group supported by the CIA. ( www.thedubyareport.com/terrupdt.html and www.emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm )It is no co-incidence that the Australian, David Hicks, who has been arrested for fighting for the Taliban, has fought for Al Qaida in both the Kosovo Liberation army, and the Taliban. So it appears that Bin Laden's Al Qaida is our enemy in Afghanistan, but our ally in Yugoslavia. Apparrently, Al Qaida is a liberation force in Yugoslavia, but a terrorist group everywhere else. Furthermore, Pakistan, another of our allies in the "war against terror" has also long been a supporter of Al Qaida, and it is no coincidence that David Hicks also received training in Pakistan. And we already know that Sept 11 was at least partially funded by a Pakistani sheik, highly placed in the Pakistan secret service. He has not been indicted or even pursued. Given that it was known that Bin Laden's family visited him in hospital in Dubai, it is curious that the Bush admistration and the media continue with the lie that he is estranged from his family. While this may be merely curious, it is scandalous that several members of the Bin Laden family were in the US on September 11, and were allowed to leave a few days later, without any questioning, given that the US had already declared Bin Laden guilty without trial (or even charge).
The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qaida, and has expressed frustration at the apparrent refusal to allow it to fully investigate the events of September 11. (< http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm> ) It will be no surprise if Bin Laden miraculously escapes to another country, giving the US the excuse to attack there. At the time of writing an update to this, (Dec 20 2001), my guess is Iran. Let's see if I'm right.
Some miscellaneous peices of information, and observations, which contribute to the scenario outlined above. Normally, whenever an airplane is hijacked or crashes, there is extensive media coverage given to the recovery and examination of the black box flight recorders. I have followed this issue closely in the media, and do not recall at any stage, hearing even one word spoken about the black box data. This is highly unusual. Is this information being censored? A possible reason for this has already been alluded to.
In the first few hours after the attacks, there were immediately reports on CNN about insider trading on the New York stock exchange. That is, it seems that some very large investors had known in advance of the attacks and sold off before hand. There was media speculation that the terrorists involved, may have profited from their actions. For "terrorists", subsitute, "Bin Laden". Within a few hours, the media was already into an unquestioning hysteria of Bin Laden bashing. Bin Laden must have been insider trading, we were told. A tautological loop had already been established. Whoever had done the terrorist attacks had been insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had done the attacks, then it must have been Bin Laden who was insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had been insider trading, that proved he did the attacks. We were assuured that invstigators were already hot on the trail of this vital question.
The figures on the New York stock exchange do seem to clearly indicate that SOMEONE was insider trading. But who? For authorities with full investigative powers, this should be one of the easier aspects of the investigation. And if it could be found who was insider trading, that gives us a good idea about who knew about the terrorist attacks before hand, which gives us a pretty good idea about who did it. Is is curious then, that this issue dissappeared from the media, almost as soon as it was raised, and was never heard of again, the bold promises that investigators were on to it -- forgotten as soon as they had been made. Surely, this would be the chance to nail Bin Laden's guilt. And it is information which could be released publicly, because it would not have security implications. And yet this aspect of the investigation (if it is still proceeding at all) is being kept very quiet. One can only assume, that it began to turn up answers which US authorities did not want anyone to know. Given what we know about the close business relationship of the Bush and Bin Laden families, this is hardly surprising.
However, one financial fact which is known, is that a convicted Pakistani terrorist, highly placed in the Pakistani secret service (our allies in the "war against terror") wired $100,000 to Mahomed Atta, named as the leader of the Sept 11 group, shortly before September 11. (ABC Newsradio report)Although this fact is known, and publicly available, the USA is quite uninterested in pursuing any action against this person, in spite of President Bush's huffing and puffing that "if you fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist." Not in the case of our allies, it seems. The Sheik was forced to resign his position, once his involvement in September 11 became known. Forced to resign? No retaliatory bombing of Pakistan until they hand him over? No labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist state? On the contrary, the USA is becoming quite cozy with the only country in the world (apart from itself), against whom there is incontravertible evidence of having been involved in September 11. The USA has been prepared to pound Afghanistan into the ground, despite having not a shred of evidence against Bin Laden, while showing a total lack of interest, in pursuing an individual whose complicity in September 11 has become a matter of public record, not denied by anyone. The US is also totally uninterested in pursuing the country which harbours him. In fact it considers that country to be a close ally in the war AGAINST terrorism!
On reflection, it is also curious how little real damage was done to the USA, by the September 11 attacks. It is worth reflecting on what probably could have been achieved by the hijackers, had they really wanted to do the maximum possible damage. It seems to me that a plan to organise the hijacking at such a time that they could have crashed a plane into the senate or congress while it was sitting, thus wiping out a significant part of the USA's government in one hit, could have been just as easily achieved, as what they actually did on Sept 11. Or crashing the planes into a nuclear power plant, causing a catastrophic meltdown and release of radiation, as well as serious disruption to power supplies. It is not credible to suggest that these plans were not carried out, because they thought the security would be too tight, considering that they were confident enough to go for the pentagon.
In the final analysis, in spite of all the shock, horror, and grief caused by September 11, not one member of the US administration was killed, or injured, not even a single senator, congress member, or governor, or any local official. No damage was done to military capability, and no damage to power, trasnsport, communication or water supplies. In fact, the damage was so trivial, that the US was(allegedly) able to organise a war in record time, despite having had a plane crashed into the pentagon. (Funny about how that reshuffle a week before, meant that the Pentagon was able to get on with business, almost unhampered!) While the loss of (civillian) lives, and the symbolic and psychological damage to general public was enormous, in the larger scheme things, the attacks, while giving the US a huge propaganda weapon, made zero impact upon the USA's ability to continue its role as an aggressive world superpower. This would seem to be an extraordinarily poor return, considering the near technical perfection of the operation, when the damage could have been devestating, simply by choosing the targets more sensibly.
It needs to be realised that the war in South Asia is more than just a continuation of US foreign policies which are estimated by disgruntled ex-CIA personal to have murdered (as of 1990 )a minimum of 6 million civillians around the world, in covert CIA operations ,over the previous 30 years, and to have , at any one time, been sponsoring terrorist organisations in around 50 countries. ("The Praetorian Guard" by John Stockwell) Up until now, people in the West have been safe. The game has now changed. Not only have they randomly murdered thousands of their own citizens, for the purpose of unleashing a new intensity in the wave of terrorism against people in South-Asia and the Middle East, but they are using those very same murders as a lever to reduce the rights and freedom of speech in the west, to levels not seen since the fascist era.
Consider the following domestic developments since September 11.
In the USA: Laws for indefinite detention without trial, charge or evidence, laws which any Third World dictator would be proud of. Unlimited power to monitor and freeze finances. Unlimited power to monitor and intercept email and internet traffic. Hugely increased funding for covert law enforcement agencies, as well as sweeping new powers of arrest, surveillance and telephone tapping. "Terrorist" organisations to be defined according to political belief not according to any evidence that they are prepared to use terrorism. My understanding is that anti-globalisation activists, such as Naomi Klein, can now be classified as terrorists under the new laws. I have been told that the president of the American Greens party is now banned from air travel. Foreigners accused of terrorism to be tried in military, rather than civilian courts, with no public scrutiny of the trial, and no right of appeal, and the power to monitor conversations between the accused and their solicitors. (That's if they even get a trial)
In Britain: Tony Blair has attempted to introduce similar laws. The House of Lords has frustrated some of them, but nevertheless sweeping rollbacks of civil liberties have been acheived. A senior member of the British cabinet recently described civil liberties as an "airy fairy thing of the past, in the post-September 11 world. "
In Australia: laws for 48 hours detention of anyone, without legal representation, even if they are not suspected of terrorism, but may have information which might be useful. At the time of writing this, it had been recently announced that the Australian government will shortly freeze the finances of 200 individuals and organizations, decreed by the US PRESIDENT as being supporters of terrorism. My understanding is that there will be no charges, evidence, trial or right of appeal. In the west now, anybody who is accused of terrorism, automatically loses all civil rights, and anybody can be arbitarily accused.
Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin would approve enthusiastically.
All of this would be scary enough, even if it were genuinely an over-reaction to an act of foreign terrorism. When you realise that these laws are being drawn up by the same people who actually organised the act of terrorism which triggered it, the scenario is truly chilling.
And on the subject of the USA president, it should be noted that for the first time ever, the man who won the US election was not appointed president, while the man who LOST it, was. When this is added to the extraordinary resources which were poured into George W Bush's republican nomination push, against other candidates, who were far better qualified to take on Gore, followed by an election which was clearly rigged, it becomes obvious that George W Bush was always going to be president, no matter what. It is therefore clear that this plan goes back well before November 2000. Whether or not the September 11 atrocities had been specifically planned by then, I can't say, but it's clear that the wider agenda had been. Note that the current, unelected president is the son of a man who is a major shareholder in the huge arms corporation Carlyle group, which is set to profit from this war, the same man who is an ex-director of the CIA which helped to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the same man who was meeting with Osama Bin Laden's (not estranged) family, presumably for business purposes, as recently as 2000. The scandalous aspect here, is that the President is the presumed heir to a fortune being amassed on the back of this war, and it would appear that the alleged target of the war is also set to make a tidy profit. Along with the secretary of state. A conflict, scripted by the protaganists, where they are the only people who don't get hurt.
by Carol Brouillet • Thursday May 16, 2002 at 11:16 PM
While the mainstream is finally beginning to ask questions of Bush's foreknowledge of 9-11, it neglects the larger issues and will undoubtedly try to manage or control "the scandal." Here are more questions and information that we need to get out to the public
These are some of the questions that we, the people, demanded to be raised and answered publicly last January when we marched on Senator Feinstein's office-
Who created, trained and funded the Al Qaeda Network?
What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group?
Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11h , in violation of standard procedures?
Who actually was in control of the "hijacked planes"?
What is the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, and especially with its intelligence service, the ISI?
Why did the then director of the ISI have $100,000 transferred to the man whom the FBI now calls the ringleader of the Sept. 11th attacks, and why does the U.S. not pursue this question?
Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack, who tried to profit with put options on American, United, Merrill Lynch... stock just before the attack?
Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the US?
If the CIA met with Bin Laden last July, why didn't they try to arrest him?
If the US is serious about ridding the world of terrorism, why do we continue to fund and train terrorists?
Why are we bombing Afghanistan, when none of the alleged bombers actually came from there, could there be another reason for our presence in that region, like oil?
Is the war against Afghanistan illegal?
What are Bush's, Cheney's and Rice's connections to the oil industry?
What are Bush's and Cheney's connections to the drug industry?
Why is the evidence being destroyed when an investigation of the World Trade Center collapse is needed?
Why seal Presidential records? Why intimidate professors from speaking out against this war?
Why has the U.S. military been establishing working relations with the Uzbek military for several years?
What other military involvement does the U.S. have in the Central Asian Republics?
Why are U.S. military personnel or material assistance going to the Philippines, Indonesia, and Colombia as well?
What relationship did various U.S. agencies and their contractors have with the Taliban, either directly or through Pakistani or Saudi agencies or contractors?
Why does the U.S. overlook Pakistani drug lords who refine and export half to two-thirds of the world's heroin despite its avowed determination to rid the world of drugs?
Why has the Dept. of Justice stopped its investigation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International despite its admitted heavy involvement in laundering drug money?
(Links to some of these questions and answers are posted at-http//www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html)
The online petition demanding a larger inquiry now has over 12,000 signatures. (Add a link to it from your website- let's get millions to get our voices heard loud and clear!!! http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html
If you have trouble communicating this information to others, like Chomsky, Solomon and Parenti, there is an excellent Primer on understanding conspiracies which is useful to read and share with others.
The group who began the Petition to the Senate to Investigate the Oddities Involving 9/11 Terrorist Attacks has two websites http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFalloutShelter and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFalloutShelter and link to forums.delphiforums.com
& Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is the leading Democrat on the joint Senate House Intelligence Committee which is supposed to oversee CIA activities and investigate 9-11. We need to educate her, and her staff.
Mike Ruppert spoke on February 21, 2002 in San Francisco. His presentation powerfully obliterated any shadow of a doubt that I held of the Bush/CIA complicity in 9-11. Mike is Publisher/Editor of From the Wilderness, a newsletter read by more than 2,200 subscribers in 27 countries including 20 members of the US Congress, professors at 12 universities, many authors and journalists. Through the newsletter and his website at http://www.copvcia.com
More Unanswered Questions About 9-11
"Boudewijn Wegerif" Boudewijn@whatmatters.nu
Was it this small cabal of nasties behind the attack on the integrity of
the world on September 11, 2001, one wonders.
I was interested to receive an E-mail from list member Dick Eastman with a
long list of unanswered questions designed to uncover what really happened
on 9.11. The questionnaire is posted at the American Patriot Friends
Network Discussion Board. There is also a list of URL links that will be
useful for those of you who remain determined to keep the questions alive.
Here are a few of the questions, somewhat edited by me:
From: < http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=24767>
Richard Mueller, the FBI, is asked:
- Can you explain why some media reports said that two of the hijackers had
bought tickets for flights scheduled after the Sept. 11 attacks?
- Can you explain why Ahmed Alghamdi, who was on the United Airlines plane
that hit the World Trade Center, had also purchased tickets for a flight
the next day from Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. to Saudi Arabia?
- Can you explain why none of the eight indestructible Black Boxes have
been found at the three crash centers?
- Who was that gentleman on the street on September 11th at about 8:48 a.m.
with a cam-corder in his hands taking the video, which captured and
recorded the incident of the first plane hitting the tower?
- Why did he never appear in the media again?
- Can you explain the odd coincidence that Microsoft got a hoax anthrax
letter from Malaysia on the same day that President Bush said that Malaysia
might be one of the next targets of the United States?
- Why did the FBI never investigate the case of Don C Wiley, a BioScientist
who disappeared on November 13th, 2001? Why did the FBI only start to
investigate after his dead body was found on December 22nd 2001, 300 miles
away? Did the FBI investigate at the military hydro plant next to his body,
after Workers of that plant found him? Can you explain why the media wrote
different versions about how, when and where he was found? Why was the
police report then changed, after 2 months, from suicide to an accident?
Dr. Manfred Schneider of the Bayer pharmaceutical company is asked:
- When exactly did the US Government ask you for help by sending
anti-anthrax vaccines to the United States? When did you start sending the
vaccines? When did you double your production of vaccines?
And here are some of the questions asked of George Tenet, of the CIA:
- Is it correct that some US Airbases were on high alert on September 10th
and for what purpose?
- Where did you get the photos of all 19 hijackers? How did you get all 19
names so fast two days after the attack? Why did all 19 names still not
appear on the passenger list two days after the hijacker list was released?
How did you get the first five names of the hijackers on the same day,
September 11th? Can you explain, why none of the names appeared on the
passenger lists UA and AA gave out to CNN?
- How were the hijackers able to disable the defense systems?
- Have you investigated the death of Vladimir Pasechnik, former director of
the Institute of Ultra Pure Biochemical Preparations, a component of the
Soviet biowarfare establishment, Biopreparat, in November 2001? What about
the other deaths of Scientists Robert M. Schwartz, Dr. Benito Que and Set
Van Nguyen in the same month?
"People who are willing to give up freedom
for the sake of short term security, deserve
neither freedom nor security."
"I have no reason to suppose that he,
who would take away my Liberty, would
not when he had me in his Power,
take away everything else."
"It does not require a majority to prevail,
but rather an irate, tireless minority keen
to set brush fires in people's minds.."
"When the people fear the government you have tyranny...
when the government fears the people you have liberty."
7 Excellent Things You Can Do for the Earth:::
"Human salvation lies in the hands
of the creatively maladjusted"
--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
ride a bike
address: Pele's Cauldron
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion