Archive for the ‘terrorism’ Category

The ‘forgetfulness’ that safety brings

May 31, 2008

‘All this time Americans have been safe from suicide bombers, biological warfare and collapsing skyscrapers, while the rest of the world has been on red alert. And yet President Bush is regarded as the worst president in American history? Sorry, I must be missing something here…

Terrorism is now largely off the table in the minds of most Americans. But in gearing up to elect a new president, we are left to wonder how, in spite of numerous failed policies and poor judgement, President Bush’s greatest achievement was denied to him by people who ungratefully availed themselves of the protection that his administration provided.’

– Thane Rosenbaum; ‘The President Has Kept Us Safe’.


Bush’s Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part III, In Fascist Dictatorships Telling the truth becomes a crime

April 15, 2008

CIA Holocaust Claims Twenty Million Victims

March 8, 2008

US Cops Go Out of Control; US Citizens No Longer Safe

February 19, 2008

Official Conspiracy Theorists Suckered a Gullible Michael Shermer

February 2, 2008

Skeptic Michael Shermer has fallen for the most outlandish conspiracy theory of them all: the official conspiracy theory for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Shermer has bought into an official lie. Fallaciously, Shermer simply discounts as untrue anything that contradicts his pre-conceived notion, an elementary breach of logic. Shermer should know better. If he knows better and persists in spite of it, he is dishonest.

Jean-Paul Sartre termed this behavior — “bad faith”. Bertolt Brecht was more blunt: “A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!” Shermer, which one are you?

Shermer’s recent attempt to “debunk the 911” truth movement is flawed at the outset. His very headline on the Huffington Post is an ad hominem —the 911 movement, he says, are “liars”. The bulk of his article is a strawman. Shermer chooses to zero in on Alex Jones, hardly the founder and most certainly not the “leader” of what is, in fact, a world-wide grassroots movement, a fact that must be terribly inconvenient for top-down, authoritarians who insist upon attacking a symbol or a figure-head. The pursuit of pure truth has no need of either. Shermer, I suspect, wanted an easy target, a fuhrer and finding none settled for a strawman.

Why Jones? Many folk dislike Jones and/or his style. Would Shermer have chosen Jones in order to inject personality and emotion into an issue that is difficult enough to discuss rationally? Certainly –Shermer’s tactic does not illuminate but obscures with personality and emotion. Until the events of 911 are discussed critically and dispassionately, there is little hope that the truth about this crime against the American people will ever be attained. If I wished to demagogue an issue, I might be tempted to choose the most visible, the easiest target. I had hoped Shermer would not have taken this low road.

If I wished to advance a fallacious argument, I might wish to choose someone upon which I might pin a strawman. Is this what Shermer has done? I leave that to you. If I were going to “debunk” a bogus campaign of pure propaganda, I would certainly not choose an easy target, as Shermer has done.

The official theory is a fire theory. If the “fires” did not bring about the collapse, then the official theory is bunkum! I challenge Michael Shermer to cite a single case in which fire has been determined decisively, authoritatively to have been the cause of the collapse of a large steel-frame building. Cite it! There are no such cases –until 911 that is. Cite it, Michael, or shut up!

As David Ray Griffin accurately pointed out: Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800� Fahrenheit. Nor did the towers collapse because the fire had weakened the steel because the fires could not have burned long enough or hot enough for even that to have happened.

I have covered many fires in my day. A fire is considered spent when the smoke turns black. On 911 –the jet fuel, as to be expected, burned up quickly in enormous fireballs, coughing up black smoke almost immediately. They most certainly did not and could not have burned hot enough or long enough to have melted or weakened the steel! It is highly doubtful that even aluminum ( melting point 1220.666 �F)) would have utterly melted under 911 conditions and even if it had, it would not have affected the core known to have been made of steel –not aluminum. The very existence of the core was omitted from officialdom’s earliest versions, namely, the idiotic ‘pancaking’ theory.

Shermer thinks melted (molten) alumininum had been mistaken for molten steel. So what? Even if melted aluminum had been found, it does not explain the utter collapse of a steel core. It does not explain why steel –in fact –melted!

Additionally –if the steel core did not melt the towers would not have collapsed? Kerosene fires are about a thousand degrees too cool to melt steel. How, then, does Shermer account for the fact that a dense, steel core melted and collapse on 911!

Shermer needs to get a clue: kerosene will not melt steel and did not melt steel on 911! Neither Muslims nor the NIST have changed the laws of physics. Shermer’s reference to aluminum is utterly irrelevant!

The implication that molten aluminum had been mistaken for aluminum is baseless and begs the question. It’s a cover story proposed ex post facto as a result of 911 movement criticism, an attempt to paper over the glaring inadequacies of the official conspiracy theory. Additionally, it is put forward disingenuously by those who understand that the mere presence of molten steel, by itself, utterly discredits Bush’s official conspiracy theory of 911.

In a nutshell: the towers collapsed because both core and frame-work melted. Secondly, both core and frame were made of steel. Third, a kerosene fires caused by the airliner crash was about a thousand degrees too cool to have melted steel. Fourth: both kerosene fires began to cool almost immediately as evidence by the fact that the smoke turned black within minutes if not seconds of impact.

Conclusion: the airliners DID NOT cause the collapses of the towers. If the airliners were not the cause, what was?

I submit that the falls looked like ‘controlled demolitions’ because they were controlled demolitions.

Lesser known “debunkers” than Shermer have claimed that emergency responders mistook molten aluminum for steel. There is simply no compelling reason, and certainly no evidence to suspect that that is the case. See the papers by Professor Steven Jones that I have cited in this post. The truth of all this might have been known if only there had been an investigation. Only a tiny portion of the steel columns were available for scrutiny; government officials –most certainly under orders from the Bush administration –ordered the steel sold and shipped off to China, as I recall. The willful concealment or destruction of evidence from a crime scene is a felony!

“We start with the fact that large quantities of molten steel were observed in basement areas under rubble piles in all three building: the Twin Towers and WTC7. …The photographs …by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hotel metal being removed from the North Tower on September 27, 2001 (according to the photographer’s aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal –this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.” …”On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and analyses, I have provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Tower and WTC7, in favor of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. The goal of this paper is to promote further scrutiny of the official government-sponsored reports as well as serious investigation of the controlled-demotion hypothesis. (No rebuttal of my arguments for an in-depth investigation can be complete, of course, unless it addresses all of these points.)”

–Dr, Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archeometrist. [Prof. Jones’ peer-reviewed paper is available as a PDF file here.]

Shermer’s “rebuttal” of Jones consists of quoting Jones and contradicting him. But Shermer never touches the science. Shermer’s practiced fallacies are not confined to Jones. For those who believe that Building 7 fell due to controlled demolition, some of the most powerful �evidence� seemingly comes from WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein�s alleged �confession� that he authorized the tower�s destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein says:

    I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, �We�ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.� And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

    –Larry Silverstein, 911 Quotes [my link, LH]

To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones at, this quote seems to be a �smoking gun� because they interpret the phrase �pull it� tobe �industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.�15 Silverstein seems to be saying that he and the firefighters decided to pull (destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall after authorizing the demolition. No building could be controllably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy theorists go onto argue, so WTC 7 must have been prepared for demolition long in advance.

On closer inspection, this supposedly devastating evidence does not seem to mean what the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There is far from unanimous industry agreement that the phrase �pull it� always signifies a controlled demolition with explosives � more specific phrases such as �pull away� would be used to designate the specific operation to be performed.16 And of course, �pull� has many common language uses quite separate from demolition lingo. But if Silverstein wasn�t describing a decision to destroy WTC 7, what could the words �pull it� mean?

–Michael Shermer

If I may address this reply to Shermer: well, Michael, apply Occam’s Razor. Did it ever occur to you that that is, in fact, precisely what Silverstein meant? The term ‘pull’ is, indeed, industry jargon for”controlled demolition”.

I submit that the word “pull” means precisely what it means to those who “pull” buildings for a living and I would suggest that Shermer conduct some field research to include interviews of people who make a living doing this kind of thing. Shermer posits that the word “pull” was used to mean “pull out” as in “pulling out the firefighters” still at work on Building 7. That is an illogical and unnecessary complication of a simple, straight forward explanation to be found in the very meaning of the word “pull” as it is, in fact, used by experts. Besides –why would firefighters have pulled out? What was the sudden urgency? The ‘Twin Towers’ had already collapsed and the fires in Building 7 were certainly insignificant by comparison if not already under control. There was simply no compelling reason to conclude anything other than Silverstein authorized the “controlled demolition” of the building, ordering it pulled just as he had said he did.

“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

–Larry Silverstein, 911 Quotes

If Silverstein had been referring to the “firefighters” themselves, he might have said “pull them” or “pull them out! But he didn’t! He said “pull it” and, in the jargon of the trade “it” was Building 7. Since when do even callous people begin referring to other people (plural) as “it”? Not even Silverstein would have done that! People are a “them”. A building is an “it”!

According to Debunking911, Silverstein’s spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

“In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.”

Compare the “clarification” with Silverstin’s actual words! The “clarification” hardly supports either the Debunking site or Shermer. It is the work of a PR flack. In other respects, Shermer’s argument in this respect is not really Shermer’s. It belongs to 911, what Shermer would fallaciously “label” a conspiracy site, who plays a better “devil’s advocate” than Shermer plays the devil himself. In other words, Michael, we’ve heard all your stuff before and are even less than impressed with it now.

However, there are several problems with this explanation.

  • According to Chapter 5 of FEMA’s Building Performance Study , firefighters were never in the building: “Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.”
  • Silverstein’s statement implies a close temporal proximity between “that decision to pull” and “watch[ing] the building collapse,” giving no time for the fires to become more severe and do what fires have never before done: cause the total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.

Of course there are even greater problems with the implication that Silverstein
and the FDNY decided to demolish the building only after the attack on the Twin

  • Rigging a building for controlled demolition normally takes weeks of preparation — far longer than the at most a few hours between the determination that “they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire,” and the 5:20 PM collapse of the building.
  • The building had several areas of fire — hardly conditions under which a demolitions team could be expected to lay high explosives.

However, if we imagine that the “decision to pull” had been made before 9/11/01, Silverstein’s comment makes more sense as an admission that there had been a deliberate decision to demolish the building.

911 Research

Shermer’s conclusion sounds remarkably similar:

There�s also the problem that, as even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits, prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort. Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3 towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls � that scenario is unlikely in the extreme.

The fact is: someone did do the “wiring” and getting in and out was not a problem. There numerous witnesses to the comings and goings. Had this crime been investigated all that testimony might have made its way into an official record. But –not! Bush has covered this crime up! Unless, of course, you subscribe to the “theory” that concrete-coated steel girders can be melted in minutes with cool burning kerosene fires! Absurd!

If one wishes to be logical, one simply must be prepared to follow facts to logical conclusions –even if you don’t like the consequences, even if the conclusions run counter to your prejudices and pre-conceived notions. No one wanted to believe what the evidence points to. No one wanted to accept the logical consequences of the facts, the multitudinous Bush lies, the laws of physics.

The Twin Towers were largely “un-occupied” at the time of the attacks. Access prior to the attacks was not the problem. Entire floors were unoccupied and were the “site” of extensive and even “mysterious” renovations. A recently published chart proves that the offending airliners seemed to “target” precisely those floors where “renovations” were known to have been going on in the months preceding 911.

NIST report NCSTAR1-6A, page xxxvii (Via 911 Blogger): in WTC 1, floors 92 through 100 and 102 were upgraded; and in WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97 were upgraded. [See: Chart I, Chari II, Chart III, ] a number of the floors affected by the fires on September 11, 2001. Specifically, In the years between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded in These renovations covered the almost exact same floors as where the “planes” hit– particularly they spanned the “plane-hit” floors perfectly for WTC1 (94-98), and covered the lowest floor of the “plane-hit” floors (78-84) for WTC2.

Simply put, this is too much of a coincidence to be mere chance: that the same regions of both towers where the demolition started following the “plane hits” were the same regions that were recently “upgraded”.

Renovations would have been perfect times to plant explosives and other devices that could mimic plane hits and subsequent fires. [See: Chart I, Chart II, Chart III]

At 610 feet, 47 stories, Building 7 would have been the tallest building in 33 states. It was not hit by an airplane and there is absolutely no mention of it in the report of the 911 Commission, lately disowned by the committe co-chairs. Watch the collapse video here. Six years on, our government has not seen fit to publish a complete explanation of its fall.

Conan Doyle’s creation, Sherlock Holmes, said:

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” -Sherlock Holmes.

When the “official conspiracy theory” is, thus, eliminated, that leaves the only logical and scientific explanation that makes sense and explains the observable facts consistent with the laws of science and logic.

It is interesting to note that Bush himself may have given the game away, implying that the airliner fires alone did not bring down the towers.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high — a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

–Bush, Press Conference of the President, The Rose Garden, September 2006

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn’t hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he “pulled” it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn’t hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.


Check the bolded part. The bolded assertion is ludicrous and would be hilarious if the event had not been so tragic. That is not what happened. The towers did not tip over onto Building 7. Worth repeating: the towers did not tip over onto Buliding 7.

Nor did they “peel open”. Who comes up with this stuff? What cold blooded liar is paid to put this utter shit into print?

Any cursory examination of any video of the Twin Towers collapse disproves it; you don’t have to take my word for it. Just open your eyes. Certainly, the damage done by debris from the Twin Towers was relatively minor; it would not have necessitated that the building be pulled, nor would it have caused its collapse. Statements by “Debunking911” are evidence striking writers are moonlighting.

bombing of the Murrah building in OK City. Both buildings were constructed using the same bridge beam system that, in WTC 7’s case, allegedly contributed to its demise. But more importantly WTC 7, like the Murrah building, housed high-level government offices including the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service. WTC 7 was also the storage facility for millions of files pertaining to active cases involving international drug dealing, organized crime, terrorism and money laundering.

There’s also disturbing correlations between the collapse of WTC 7 and the Murrah Bldg

Owner of WTC admits explosives were used!

Method and opportunity can be demonstrated. But what of motive? Why would Silverstein want to blow up his own buildings?

Six months before the attacks on the World Trade Center, the World Trade Center was “privatized” by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion 6 weeks before 911. But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate prize the Silverstein Group might have been led to believe. The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year’s worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.

The attacks on 9/11 changed the picture. Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which ‘fortuitously’ covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein’s view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex. The destruction of the World Trade Towers may make Silverstein one of the wealthiest men alive.

Giuliani Was Warned About The Demolitions

Before either of the Twin Towers had collapsed, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his associates were told to leave the headquarters that they had set up within Building 7.

” We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse,” Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that morning, “and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.”

Mind you, no steel building had ever collapsed because of a fire in the world’s
history. So, how did they know that the Twin Towers were going to collapse if
it was such an unprecedented occurrence?

Portland Indymedia

Much is said about the how the towers collapsed, or more properly, were collapsed. Most violate Occam’s Razor with unnecessary complications, rationalizations after the fact. There is no reason to come up with crazy explanations about how they might look like controlled demolitions but are not really. Simply: the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like controlled demolitions because they were controlled demotions.

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It’s gravity that brings the building down.

–The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall

At last, some straight talk about “controlled demolitions”, the only process which can explain what was witnessed and what happened on 911.

You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it’s fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to “implode” the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.

How Building Implosions Work

My conclusion: if airliners had merely crashed into the Twin Tower of the WTC that day, there would have been fires and loss of life. The fires would have burned out as rapidly as they, in fact, did that very day. In the absence of “help”, that would have been the beginning and the end of it. The towers would not have fallen and there would have been no need to “pull” Building 7.

There would have been no need for the vast propaganda and strong-arm machine that this crooked administration marshaled to cover up its crimes that day and its criminal complicity in a cover up. The destruction of evidence in and of itself should have been sufficient to send this administration up the river on felony charges of obstruction of justice.

Power corrupts and absolute power has corrupted absolutely this most corrupt, the most evil administration that the United States, possibly the world, has ever seen.

Welcome! Most recently seen on the History Channel, the documentary you are about to witness, Loose Change [Final Cut], will prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that what happened on September 11, 2001 was no act carried out by nineteen hijackers affiliated with Al Qaeda, nor a plan implemented by Osama Bin Laden.

Instead, the infamous event was a cold, calculated, and malicious attack on the American people carried out by a group of tyrants ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep their strangled hold on this country; 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound.

All that is asked of you when viewing the documentary produced by Dylan Avery is to watch it with an open mind–set aside your political beliefs indefinitely. Remember, Loose Change is only an eye-opener; new evidence of the inside-job is revealed each and every day. So, what are you waiting for? See the most-watched documentary of all time, click “Watch Loose Change.”

Watch Loose Change

Loose Change Final Cut has a 3 Second Audio Delay to Prevent Unauthorized Distribution

Another Reason Not to Believe Bush’s Official Theory
American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data

Additional resources

Add to Technorati Favorites<!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items


, , , <!—,

Spread the word:

Spread the word:


yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Why the CIA is the World’s Number One Terrorist Organization

January 23, 2008

Bush Think: A Nuclear War Can be Fought and Won!

January 17, 2008

The CIA Created Al Qaeda and there is ‘Probable Cause’ to Charge George W. Bush with High Treason!

January 14, 2008

Bush’s War on Terrorism is a treasonous fraud, a war on US citizens waged by the people’s own government. “Terrorism”, moreover, continues to be fraudulently cited in support of a war of naked aggression in which well over one million civilians have died. It is a clear violation of US Codes which bind the US to international conventions.

Now –high treason is a serious charge, in most societies, a capital offense. On June 19th in 1953, the US executed Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. They had been accused of spying for the Russians. Though there is little doubt that Julius Rosenberg spied for the Russians, the charges against his wife were most certainly specious. In any case, neither Rosenberg had done anything remotely resembling the heinous crimes for which there is probable cause now to try the person of George W. Bush, traitor to the US Constitution and the people of the United States against whom he has waged war with the apparatus of state, specifically the CIA, et al.

Recently, The Guardian’s Jason Burke reported from the Middle East a truth that Bush doesn’t want you to know: al Qaeda is a creation of the US CIA. The Bush administration has said that al Qaeda is responsible for the 911 attacks. Burke’s story is about the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, a group whose training and weaponry are supplied by the CIA. The CIA maintains this fiction so that US government can exploit a perpetual “war on terrorism”, a treasonous war waged upon US citizens in violation of US Constitution, Article III, having to do with the issue of high treason.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

US Constitution: Article III

The Bush administration has found terrorism especially useful. It is necessarily vague and open-ended. It does not require a formal Declaration of War by Congress. Terrorism, moreover, can be anything Bush says it is; there is, therefore, no accountability, no benchmarks by which success is determined or measured. “Terrorism” need never end. New “threats” are easily fabricated and exploited just as Hermann Goring himself recommended following the Reichstag Fire for which he, himself, took credit.

The charges against Bush will not stop there. Bush is commander-in-chief. He cannot claim to have been following orders when, under his orders, the US military embarked upon a program of torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions. There is material evidence (that should be subpoenaed now) that people were murdered at Abu Ghraib. Why have not charges pursuant to the following US Codes been brought against George W. Bush?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > � 2441; � 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.� Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

Bush is, therefore, subject to prosecution for capital crimes, though he has made unconstitutional attempts –-ex post facto –to exempt himself from the provision cited above.

Al Qaeda –literally, “the Base” –is a cruel fiction that keeps not only Bush but the GOP in business. J’accuse! This exploitation of terrorism by this GOP administration is an ongoing treason, responsible for the deaths of more than 3000 people in New York City alone. There is probable cause to bring those charges against Bush now! A Federal Judge may convene a Grand Jury upon his/her own motion. I appeal to a Federal Judge to convene that panel while there is still hope that what remains of American democracy might be saved.

Voltaire said that if God had not existed, it would have been necessary to invent him! If al Qaeda had not existed, the CIA would have found it necessary to create them, arm them and train them. In fact, it did! If al Qaeda does not exist, then 911 said to have been perpetrated by them, must be re-examined.

If “al Qaeda” is simply a creation of the CIA, then the CIA must be investigated for its own treasonous, murderous connections to 911 and the series of Anthrax attacks with US Govt Grade anthrax, attacks targeting media and Democrats. How transparent! One wonders how the word “intelligence” managed to insinuate itself between the words “central” and “agency”.

Briefly: there is enough evidence, enough “probable cause” to begin a federal grand jury investigation of the Bush Administration and the CIA right now! Based upon that investigation, charges of sedition and/or treason should be drafted consistent with several articles under US Codes, Title 18.

It follows that if Bush’s official conspiracy theory of 911 is untrue, then so too every lie told to begin the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because both wars resulted in death, the orders to begin those wars are, likewise, violations of Nuremberg and other treaties to which the US is bound. If death has resulted from those orders, the said orders are capital crimes. The person issuing those orders is George W. Bush. Bush himself is, therefore, in violation of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 which he tried to change ex post facto. It is understandable that he would try to do so. Those US Codes make Bush himself subject to the death penalty.

The myth of “al Qaida” is built on an expansive foundation of many half-truths and hidden facts. It is a CIA creation. It was shaped by the agency to serve as a substitute “enemy” for America, replacing the Soviets whom the Islamist forces had driven from Afghanistan. Unknown American officials, at an indeterminate point in time, made the decision to fabricate the tale of a mythical worldwide network of Islamic terrorists from the exploits of the Afghan Mujahedeen. The CIA already had their own network of Islamic militant “freedom fighters,” all that was needed were a few scattered terrorist attacks against US targets and a credible heroic figurehead, to serve as the “great leader.”

The really tricky part of creating a mythical terrorist monster out of an incomplete truth is laying-out the facts behind your mythical story without revealing the whole truth about your part in its creation. In order to explain away the billions of dollars worth of weapons and training that went into the operation, they chose a rich jihadi, a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden, who had been a faithful recruiter and business agent of the Mujahedeen. He was painted as the sole financier of the entire enormous operation that was centered in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bin Laden may not even have known that he was playing a part in a deceitful CIA global drama until after the fact. It is more likely that his history was chosen many years later to serve as the legacy of “al Qaida,” than it is that he was a brainwashed tool of the spy agency all along.

The story of bin Laden is the story of the secret CIA/ISI insurgent camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Osama was 22 years old in 1979, when he was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp near Peshawar, Pakistan.

“Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities was used to finance the recruitment of Mujahedeen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden.”

Researcher Kurt Nimmo writes:

“The database of Islamic fighters that was collected by the program was labeled n Arabic, ‘Q eidat ilmu’ti’aat’, which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word ‘Al Qaida” which is the Arabic word for ‘base.'”

In 1989, the US, under George Bush Sr. moved to abandon Afghanistan, making preparations to attack Saddam Hussein long before he had ever moved against Kuwait in 1991. As far as Bush knew, the spy agency had obeyed his orders to abandon the Afghan tribal bloodbath and civil war, but the CIA knew better than the Commander-In-Chief. This fit in well with a deceitful Secretary of Defense, who had also believed that he knew better than his boss, (as evidenced by Cheney ordering his underling Paul Wolfowitz to draw-up an alternative foreign policy, known as the “Defense Planning Guidance”). The covert foreign policy of Reagan and Carter had became even more secret, as control of the camp network was submerged even deeper into the bowels of the secret world of the CIA.

Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida, Global Research, January 13, 2008

Bushco Lies About 911.

Bushies said that no one could have envisioned the use of air craft as weapons. In fact, everyone, it seems, but Bush and Rice envisioned precisely that! Certainly, it had been envisioned by the CIA and most certainly it was envisioned by al Qaeda–itself a creation of the CIA. What we have witnessed on the video above is nothing less than officials of the US government committing high treason against the people of the United States. This treason –in fact a war gainst the people themselves –makes the charges against the Rosenbergs pale by comparison.

There is a prescription by which the people may reclaim it’s rogue and treasonous government. The people simply must unite to bring this junta to justice, insisting upon trials for Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet et al. Concurrently, a new administration must renew a promise made by JFK –a promise that most certainly cost him his life: the CIA must be “smashed into a thousand pieces”.

A saying is often attributed to the Chinese: may you live in interesting times! It is not a fond wish; it is a curse!


The Rosenberg case mentioned above says a lot about the US. Societal elements that would later make possible the ascendency of someone like Bush –a would-be dictator who disdains the instrument of our founding, the US Constitution, are present throughout our history. Zinn identified them in the Rosenberg case.

The Rosenbergs were charged with espionage. The major evidence was supplied by a few people who had already confessed to being spies, and were either in prison or under indictment. David Greenglass, the brother of Ethel Rosenberg, was the key witness [in the case against the Rosenbergs]. He had been a machinist at the Manhattan Project laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, in 1944-1945 when the atomic bomb was being made there and testified that Julius Rosenberg had asked him to get information for the Russians. Greenglass said he had made sketches from memory for his brother-in-law of experiments with lenses to be used to detonate atomic bombs. He said Rosenberg had given him half of the cardboard top to a box of Jell-o, and told him a man would show up in New Mexico with the other half, and that, in June 1945, Harry Gold appeared with the other half of the box top, and Greenglass gave him information he had memorized.

Gold, already serving a thirty-year sentence in another espionage case, came out of jail to corroborate Greenglass’s testimony. He had never met the Rosenbergs, but said a Soviet embassy official gave him half of a Jello box top and told him to contact Greenglass, saying, “I come from Julius.” Gold said he took the sketches Greenglass had drawn from memory and gave them to the Russian official.

There were troubling aspects to all this. Did Gold cooperate in return for early release from prison? After serving fifteen years of his thirty-year sentence, he was paroled. Did Greenglass-under indictment at the time he testified-also know that his life depended on his cooperation? He was given fifteen years, served half of it, and was released. How reliable a memorizer of atomic information was David Greenglass, an ordinary-level machinist, not a scientist, who had taken six courses at Brooklyn Polytechnical Institute and flunked five of them? Gold’s and Greenglass’s stories had first not been in accord. But they were both placed on the same floor of the Tombs prison in New York before the trial, giving them a chance to coordinate their testimony.

How reliable was Gold’s testimony? It turned out that he had been prepared for the Rosenberg case by four hundred hours of interviews with the FBI. It also turned out that Gold was a frequent and highly imaginative liar. He was a witness in a later trial where defense counsel asked Gold about his invention of a fictional wife and fictional children. The attorney asked: “. . . you lied for a period of six years?” Gold responded: “I lied for a period of sixteen years, not alone six years.” Gold was the only witness at the trial to connect Julius Rosenberg and David Greenglass to the Russians. The FBI agent who had questioned Gold was interviewed twenty years after the case by a journalist. He was asked about the password Gold was supposed to have used – “Julius sent me.” The FBI man said:

Gold couldn’t remember the name he had given. He thought he had said: I come from – or something like that. I suggested, “Might it have been Julius?” That refreshed his memory.

When the Rosenbergs were found guilty, and Judge Irving Kaufman pronounced sentence, he said:

I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb as already caused the Communist aggression in Korea with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 Americans and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. . . .

He sentenced them both to die in the electric chair.

Morton Sobell was also on trial as a co-conspirator with the Rosenbergs. The chief witness against him was an old friend, the best man at his wedding, a man who was facing possible perjury charges by the federal government for lying about his political past. This was Max Elitcher, who testified that he had once driven Sobell to a Manhattan housing project where the Rosenbergs lived, and that Sobell got out of the car, took from the glove compartment what appeared to be a film can, went off, and then returned without the can. There was no evidence about what was in the film can. The case against Sobell seemed so weak that Sobell’s lawyer decided there was no need to present a defense. But the jury found Sobell guilty, and Kaufman sentenced him to thirty years in prison. He was sent to Alcatraz, parole was repeatedly denied, and he spent nineteen years in various prisons before he was released.

FBI documents subpoenaed in the 1970s showed that Judge Kaufman had conferred with the prosecutors secretly about the sentences he would give in the case. Another document shows that after three years of appeal a meeting took place between Attorney General Herbert Brownell and Chief Justice Fred Vinson of the Supreme Court, and the chief justice assured the Attorney General that if any Supreme Court justice gave a stay of execution, he would immediately call a full court session and override it.

There had been a worldwide campaign of protest. Albert Einstein, whose letter to Roosevelt early in the war had initiated work on the atomic bomb, appealed for the Rosenbergs, as did Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso, and the sister of Bartolomeo Vanzetti. There was an appeal to President Truman, just before he left office in the spring of 1953. It was turned down. Then, another appeal to the new President, Dwight Eisenhower, was also turned down.

At the last moment, Justice William 0. Douglas granted a stay of execution. Chief Justice Vinson sent out special jets to bring the vacationing justices back to Washington from various parts of the country. They canceled Douglas’s stay in time for the Rosenbergs to be executed June 19, 1953. It was a demonstration to the people of the country, though very few could identify with the Rosenbergs, of what lay at the end of the line for those the government decided were traitors.

In that same period of the early fifties, the House Un-American Activities Committee was at its heyday, interrogating Americans about their Communist connections, holding them in contempt if they refused to answer, distributing millions of pamphlets to the American public: “One Hundred Things You Should Know About Communism” (“Where can Communists be found? Everywhere”). Liberals often criticized the Committee, but in Congress, liberals and conservatives alike voted to fund it year after year. By 1958, only one member of the House of Representatives (James Roosevelt) voted against giving it money. Although Truman criticized the Committee, his own Attorney General had expressed, in 1950, the same idea that motivated its investigations: “There are today many Communists in America. They are everywhere–in factories, offices, butcher shops, on street comers, in private business–and each carries in himself the germs of death for society.”

–Chapter Sixteen: “A People’s War?”, A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn

It’s hard to read this without concluding that “justice” in America depends upon your political beliefs. And, if that is, indeed, the case, then there is no justice in America.

Additional resources

Add to Technorati Favorites<!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items


, , , <!—,

Spread the word:

Spread the word:


yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Bhutto Knew Too Much About Bin Laden, 911, the CIA

January 7, 2008

Bhutto’s assassination by gun men was a pre-emptive strike! She might have exposed the CIA as the World’s number one terrorist organization. Pakistan Dictator Pervez Musharraf, Bush’s man in Pakistan, blames the victim. In some perverted sense, he may be right. Bhutto may have signed her own death warrant with the famous statement (censored by the BBC) that Bin Laden was murdered by Saeed Sheikh. [Her remarks found here]

Bhutto pulled the rug from under Bush’s official 911 conspiracy theory. We must chalk up to official fraud and exploitation several “video tapes” that Bushies attributed to the world’s arch fiend, Osama bin Laden, the Lex Luthor of terror. Bush critics are now confirmed; there is no reason to suppose that bin Laden ever stopped being a CIA asset. While alive, that is.

The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of �chatter� among US officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place.

As succinctly summarized in Jeremy Page�s article, “Who Killed Benazir Bhutto? The Main Suspects”, the main suspects are 1) �Pakistani and foreign Islamist militants who saw her as a heretic and an American stooge�, and 2) the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, a virtual branch of the CIA. Bhutto�s husband Asif Ali Zardari directly accused the ISI of being involved in the October attack.

The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on �Al-Qaeda�, without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American military-intelligence operation.

Page�s piece was one of the first to name the man who has now been tagged as the main suspect: Baitullah Mehsud, a purported Taliban militant fighting the Pakistani army out of Waziristan. Conflicting reports link Mehsud to �Al-Qaeda�, the Afghan Taliban, and Mullah Omar (also see here). Other analysis links him to the terrorist A.Q. Khan.

–Larry Chin, Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the Destabilization of Pakistan

A sub plot is equally interesting. A former MI6/SIS agent, Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad, supervised wired transfers of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta shortly before 9/11. Has anyone ever stopped to ask the obvious question: what the hell was a man who was going to die in a suicide Attack do with $100,000?

According to Turkish intelligence, Ahmad is a paid CIA informant who claims to have trained six 9/11 hijackers. Turkish intelligence charges that Al-Qaeda is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to stir up trouble and exploit tensions around the world.

While the pakistani inter services public relations claimed that former ISI Director-General Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on monday, the truth is more shocking. top sources confirmed here on tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the “evidence” india produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre.

The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker mohammed Atta from pakistan by ahmad Umarr Sheikh at the instance of gen mahumd. Senior government sources have confirmed that india contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. while they did not provide details, they said that indian inputs, including sheikh�s mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link. a direct link between the ISI and the WTC Attack could have enormous repercussions. the us cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior pakistani army commanders who were in the know of things.

Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake us confidence in pakistan�s ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition. indian officials say they are vitally interested in the unravelling of the case since it could link the ISI directly to the hijacking of the indian airlines kathmandu-delhi flight to kandahar last december. ahmad umar sayeed sheikh is a british national and a london school of economics graduate who was arrested by the police in delhi following a bungled 1994 kidnapping of four westerners, including an american citizen.

India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links

The London Times reports that from 1999-2000 Louai al-Sakka, incarcerated in a high-security Turkish prison 60 miles east of Istanbul, trained six 9/11 hijackers in a mountain camp near Istanbul. Sakka is said to have been captured by Turkish intelligence and ordered released. After moving to Germany, he assisted alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Shortly before 9/11, Sakka was allegedly hired by Syrian intelligence – to whom he gave a warning that the Attacks were coming on September 10th, 2001.

In the meantime, Wikipedia has this information about the man Bhutto claims murdered bin Laden.

” was arrested and served time in prison for the 1994 abduction of several British nationals in India, an act which he acknowledges, he was released from captivity in 1999 and provided safe passage into Pakistan, apparently with the support of Pakistan and the Taliban (the hijackers were Pakistanis) in an Indian Airlines plane hijacking. He is most well-known for his alleged role in the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Sheikh Omar Saeed was arrested by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002, in Lahore, in conjunction with the Pearl kidnapping,[4] and was sentenced to death on July 15, 2002[5] for killing Pearl. His judicial appeal has not yet been heard. The delay has been alleged to be due to his reported links with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence.[6]

Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, in his book In the Line of Fire stated that Sheikh was originally recruited by British intelligence agency, MI6, while studying at the London School of Economics. He alleges Omar Sheikh was sent to the Balkans by MI6 to engage in jihadi operations. Musharraf later went on to state “At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent”.[7]

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level US government official told CNN that US investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias “Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad” had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. “Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on US soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars — believed to be excess funds from the operation — back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. [1]”

Omar Saeed Sheikh

Much of this was known but little publicized by the MSM. Few journalists dared challenge official conspiracy theories. Among those daring to get at the truth was Gore Vidal.

Vidal argues that the real motive for the Afghanistan war was to control the gateway to Eurasia and Central Asia’s energy riches. He quotes extensively from a 1997 analysis of the region by Zgibniew Brzezinski, formerly national security adviser to President Carter, in support of this theory. But, Vidal argues, US administrations, both Democrat and Republican, were aware that the American public would resist any war in Afghanistan without a truly massive and widely perceived external threat.

Gore Vidal claims ‘Bush junta’ complicit in 9/11

It was not Bhutto who misspoke but Musharraf, whose comments may have already backfired. Indeed, Bhutto was murdered –not by terrorists as Musharraf would have you believe. She was murdered, gunned down, in fact, because she was the woman who knew too much and dared to reveal that Osama bin Laden had been murdered. She did not misspeak! She named names. She exposed the fraudulent nature of the Bush/Blair “war on terrorism”. She stated –flat out –US policies cause world terrorism!

Musharraf just makes himself look worse with worse lies. As Bhutto’s murderers were caught on video tape, the BBC was caught censoring a most important piece of the puzzle. If Osama is dead, Bush’s war on terror is a treasonous fraud, a capital crime.

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.

–Gore Vidal, The Enemy Within

Two questions must be asked about the Bhutto assassination: 1) Who benefits from it? 2) Who is lying about it?

The most prominent liars are Pervez Musharraf who insists upon a ludicrous theory, easily disproven by widely distributed video tapes; and George W. Bush whose lies about “terrorism”, bin Laden specifically, have been challenged as never before. If, as Bhutto charged, bin Laden is dead, the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down.

The beneficiaries are not suprisingly George W. Bush and Musharraf. Musharraf, like Bush, will now crack down on �terrorists� though the policies of both create it! Bhutto dared expose the fraud and paid with her life for having done so. The axis of Bush/CheneyMIC will prop up the dictator Musharraf, manipulating his apparatus of state to meet the demands of personal ambition and corporate greed. And, yes! All are oil and power mad!

Add to Technorati Favorites<!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items


, , , <!—,

Spread the word:

Spread the word:


yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

An Administration of Lies, BS, and Bunkum

January 6, 2008

The Probable Cause to charge George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in connection with 911

Bush expects the American people to believe an assortment of absurdities, official conspiracy theories, and bald-faced lies. Americans are expected to swallow codswallop for which there is not a shred of evidence. Trickle-down or supply side economics is one. Bush’s official conspiracy theory of 911 is another. Bush loves conspiracy theories. He just doesn’t like yours; he doesn’t like facts and he especially doesn’t like dissent or criticism.

The GOP doesn’t really not believe in conspiracy theories. Goppers love those conspiracies they can exploit, like wedge issues used to divide a “conspiratorial” opposition. Like Bush, the GOP loves conspiracy theories and have bought into every absurd theory Bush has managed to excrete and publicize.

What is Al Qaeda if not a “conspiracy”?

What is the “Axis of Evil” if not a conspiracy?

What was Hani Hanjour and Atta doing if not conspiring? Conspire is about all they could do. They most certainly could not have crashed airliners with uncanny precision. They most certainly could not have gotten on board an airliner without showing up on a flight manifest. In fact, they didn’t. The implications are enormous.

They most certainly could not have subdued the crew and passengers with box cutters and/or pen knives. I’ve always found it interesting the conspiracists inside the venerable BBC and the Guardian turned up several “Islamic conspirators” who somehow survived the said crashes to give interviews. It’s amazing what dead conspirators are capable of doing. Did the America media touch this. Not a chance. Fox as well as the so-called “legitimate”, mainstream media simply walked away from what should have been front-page, second coming headlines exposing the biggest government fraud ever perpetrated in the US.

Curious about how our esteemed system of justice feels about “conspiracy theories”, I did a cursory net search. On Findlaw, I found well over 200 SCOTUS decisions having to do with “conspiracies” of one sort or another. Would some bright and informed right-winger, please inform the justices of the Supreme Court that conspiracies don’t exist? It would save the aging justices a lot of work.

Go to Findlaw! You will find thousands of US Codes having to do with conspiracies. I also found hundreds, possibly thousands (I did not count) of articles by legal scholars having to do with conspiracies. I find it appalling that Congress would spend so much time passing laws having to do with things that do not exist!

Right wing idiots spent the better part of the 1950’s warning us of a great world wide communist conspiracy. Now the same ilk, the same mentality is trying to convince us that conspiracies don’t exist. You have a right to be confused. The right wing certainly is. The right wing has surely been drinking lead laced kool-aid, a practice known to kill brain cells. It was the same mentality that in the fifties tried to convince us that there was a nationwide, liberal conspiracy to lace municipal water supplies with flouride. There was –and it was a good thing, too. Otherwise, a lot of young, spiffy, buttoned-down conservatives would be toothless by now.

In the 50’s right wing nuts and other idiots found a commie under every sofa when all the commies really wanted was a sofa under every commie. What was that if not a world-wide communist conspiracy? Today –the right wing is reduced to trying to convince us that there is a conspiracy of conspiracists to spread conspiracies.

But, in the meantime, we are expected to believe every conspiracy about al Qaeda, bin Laden, the mis-named “insurgency”, or Michael Moore.

Asking the question: why did Bush block several investigations of 911 does not posit a theory of any sort. But daring to ask that question will get you labeled: conspiracist !

Asking the question: why were the jets not scrambled until after the events were all over does not posit any theory whatsoever. But daring to ask the question will get you branded. Supporters of GWB get to indulge insane conspiracy and other types of cockamamie claptrap. Those who don’t support Bush are supposed to just shut up, bend over, get screwed, and shut the fnck up! There is a dangerous conspiracy among Americans to speak the truth. In the past, speaking the truth was enough to get you murdered and/or assassinated. It still is!

The truly skeptical position is one of challenging anything put forward not only by the Bush administration but the party with which he has conspired to steal at least two elections, block investigations into 911, and, in other ways, facilitate Bush’s incompetent and dictatorial regime.

If Bush and the GOP have a theory about how the now deceased bin Laden, Atta et all pulled it all off on 911, then let them back it all up with a truly independent investigation empowered to collect and examine all the hard evidence and prosecute the “conspirators”. I would start with those who ordered most of it destroyed within hours of the commission of this crime. Last time I checked, the destruction of evidence of a felony is a felony. But I’m a “conspiracy theorists” for having dared read the law with regard to the obstruction of justice, seditious treason, and perjury. In fact, I would support a “conspiracy” of federal grand jurors issuing subpoenas, giving the real conspirators their chance to lie their assess off about the conspiracy of which they were a part.

Bush asked us to believe that Saddam had WMD, possibly a nuke. Condo raised the specter of a mushroom cloud. Saddam, we were led to believe, was conspiring with Bin Laden to wage war on Americans. It was bullshit! But Bush was not held to critical standards. It was not only because the nation was in a state of shock, Americans, it would seem, are conditioned from birth to give greater weight to right wing theories of all sorts –economic, judicial, and conspiracy. In the GOP bizzarro world, only liberals and Democrats may put forward a “theory”. The GOP takes a crap and it is considered sacred text.

At last, some 184 un-identified remains were buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

A five-sided granite marker bearing the 184 names will be placed over a shared grave at Arlington National Cemetery � the nation’s most prestigious burial ground � holding the unidentified remains.[emphasis mine, LH]

–Arlington National Cemetery

Of the 184, sixty-four were said to have been passengers of Flight 77, the flight which is said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. In my opinion the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons. This is the list provided by American of the 56 passengers. On September 27th, the FBI published photos of the �hijackers� of Flight 77.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), does a miraculous job and identifies nearly all the bodies on November 16th 2001.

The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were �passengers� on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell �victims� bodies from �hijacker� bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.

–Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

The numbers will never add up. Arlington National Cemetary says it interred 184. But AFIP says there were a total of 189 bodies –125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were �passengers� on flight 77. Arlington claims that the unidentified remains of 184 victims share a grave at Arlington National Cemetery.

A five-sided granite marker bearing the 184 names will be placed over a shared grave at Arlington National Cemetery � the nation’s most prestigious burial ground � holding the unidentified remains.

Arlington National Cemetary

I interpret that to mean that this “shared grave” is the final resting place for unidentified victims from both the Pentagon and Flight 77.

Five are unaccounted for –presumably the “terrorist” hijackers. But that does not account for the discrepancy for several reasons. Both Arlington and AFIP claim that there were 64 Pentagon workers. AFIP provided a list of 56 passengers of Flight 77. That”s only 120! If you exclude 5 terrorists from the AFIP’s total of 189, you are still left with 64 “people” completely unaccounted for. Who the hell are they?

No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American [Airlines] the opportunity to �revise� their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only �passenger� body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified.

–Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

These are just a tiny few of the myriad of facts that Bush loyalists cannot explain away or rationalize with the official conspiracy theory. The silver bullet is this: there were no arabs on the flight manifests when “officialdom” maintains that all the said hijackers were Arab.

Johnny Cochran won a famous murder trial with a single phrase which summed up his defense: “If it does not fit, you must acquit!” I rather think that a guilty party might be indicted just as simply: “No arabs on flight! You must indict!”

If there was no hijacking, then Bush and minions are murderous liars! Even if Bush did not order the strikes, his administration is –at the very least –complicit. An accessory to a crime –in this case a capital crime –must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. There is enough verifiable evidence in the public record to establish probable cause that Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and several others in the corrupt Bush administration knew that such a crime had been planned –and did absolutely nothing! Well, almost nothing. Condoleeza Rice most certainly warned the mayor of San Francisco not to fly. It is, likewise, Bush’s own version of his activities that day that should be considered by a jury whose task it will be to decide his fate. At the very least, the case against them will say, they let it happen. They allowed allowed and planned to exploit the deaths of some 3000 American citizens whose only crime was showing up for work that day.

Who, then, is responsible for the events of 911? As I wrote in a previous article: if you want to find a cultprit, look first among those who lie about the crime. Bush!

Add to Technorati Favorites<!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items


, , , ,

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine