Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The Probable Cause to Charge Dick Cheney With Mass Murder, Terrorism, and High Treason

Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

There is probable cause to indict Dick Cheney for the crime of supervising the events of 911, a capital crime consisting of high treason and mass murder. Both Bush and Condoleeza Rice would state that they could not have foreseen the crashing of airliners into buildings. In fact, just such a 'scenario' was the basis for security when Bush attended the G8 Summit in Italy, July 23, 2001 [See: "Italy: Bush Targeted at G8." New York Newsday 19 Sept 2001, unsigned; "Extremists 'Planned Genoa Attack on Bush'", BBC News, 27 Sept 2001]. Secondly, Dick Cheney supervised precisely that scenario on the very day that it happened in fact --a highly improbable coincidence' that would repeat later in Britain on 7/7. Cheney supervised what are called 'exercises' within a bunker --the Presidential Emergency Operations Center --located under the White House. There is damning testimony against Cheney from former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta who contradicts 9/11 Commission Report’s Account of Dick Cheney’s timetable.

That's not all. Cheney had already been put in charge of a 'domestic terrorism study group'[See: 911 Coincidences], a clever cover from which to commit high treason and mass murder.
That morning, three F-16 fighter jets assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, 10 miles from Washington, were involved in another training mission over 200 miles away in North Carolina. They only arrived back at Andrews some time after the Pentagon was hit.32 Furthermore, a drill was planned for 9 a.m. based around a corporate jet plane crashing into a building. The exercise was to be conducted by the National Reconnaissance Office, just outside Washington, which draws its staff from the CIA and military. 33

Pioneering 9/11 researcher and former LAPD narcotics investigator Mike Ruppert has investigated these military exercises for himself. He says they are what caused the failure to intercept the hijacked planes:

The wargames will tie Bush and/or Cheney and Rumsfeld directly into a complete paralysis of fighter response on 9/11. I have gone directly to many NORAD, DoD, NRO, and other sources and questioned them. I have knocked on many doors and I have even obtained some documents. I have obtained an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD, which confirmed that on the day of 9/11 the Joint Chiefs (Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner. That is just the tip of what I have uncovered. 34
Speaking at the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, he elaborated:
In some cases false blips were deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens and they were present during (at least) the first attacks. This effectively paralyzed fighter response because, with only eight fighters available in the region, there were as many as 22 possible hijackings taking place. Other exercises, specifically Northern Vigilance had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast US – just before 9/11 – into northern Canada and Alaska. In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were “live-fly” exercises where actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control – were simulating the behavior of hijacked airliners in real life. All of this as the real attacks began. 35

--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11
Since those events, the Bush administration has worked overtly, assiduously to quash and interfere with every effort to investigate fully the events of 911. Only the guilty try to cover up their crimes.
If the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated or at least deliberately allowed by the Bush- Cheney administration and the Pentagon, then the motivation to cover up this murderous and treasonous act would be unlimited. No expenditure of time and money would be considered too great."

Professor David Ray Griffin [4]

--The True Story of 9/11: Part IV
The Bush administration and accomplices in other government offices would have you believe an absurd coincidence theory that on the very day, the very moment that Dick Cheney was supervising an exercise in which terrorists would attack the Pentagon and WTC, a rag tag gang of 'terrorists' would do precisely that!

Our 'government' thus declared war on the people of the United States and wages it! As Che would have put it: the peace is already considered to be broken. Thomas Jefferson would have already declared 'our' independence of a cabal that has, in effect, already destroyed the 'legitimate' government of the United States.
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.

--Article III, US Constitution
The word treason covers the more egregious acts of betrayal or disloyalty to a sovereign or nation. Under the US Constitution and, in Britain by common law, sovereignty resides with the people themselves. What had been called the "United States" simply does not exist anymore. It was, in fact, overthrown in Bush's coup d'etat, and since that time systematically subverted and dismantled by Bush and his gang of treasonous usurpers. Accomplices who must certainly stand trial with Bush and Cheney will include Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and various Pentagon brass.

The biggest threats to 'our way of life' are the governments presumably elected to preserve them. Bush, primarily, lied while taking the oath of office! He placed his hand on a black book and, with a smirk, he swore to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution. It was all a lie! He never intended to 'preserve' the Constitution; and, rather than protecting it, he has worked to undo it. Bush is the Constitution's worst enemy. Thus, his occupancy of the White House is illegitimate. Eschewing his sworn and sacred oath, he waged war on the US Constitution just as surely as he has waged war upon the sovereign people of the United States!
When a man takes an oath, Meg, he’s holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. (He cups his hands.) And if he opens his fingers then —— he needn't hope to find himself again. Some men are capable of this, but I’d be loath to think your father one of them."

--Sir Thomas More, Portrayed by Paul Scofield, A Man For All Seasons

When the time came for Bush to lie under oath yet a second time, the Constitution had already been gutted, the rule of law scrapped, the very bases of American Democracy trashed! Bush had already cursed the only meaningful restraint on his power grab. “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed in the presence of witnesses to his treason. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Likewise, Great Britain, under Tony Blair, became a police state. Anyone, anywhere at any time can be arrested upon mere 'suspicion', a ludicrous standard without precedent in English common law! The right of privacy in the world's most surveilled state is practically non-existent. This Texan, by birth, has ties to England. I mourn the loss of freedom there as I have deplored the wasteland Bush made of Texas. Under Bush, Texas became a notorious gulag state, a polluted, unhealthy chemical dump, an educational waste land, and, in downtown Houston, a corporate office park of pretense, obscene income disparities, and corporate fraud, rated number one as a place to do business. Few remember the Alamo but everyone must surely remember remember Enron --a symbol of US descent into official fraud and fascism. Thanks to Bush and his protege, Rod Paige, Texas is dead last in education, number one in the number of people executed! Among the 50 U.S. states, Texas ranks, in the nation:

  • 46th in children living in poverty in 2005 (1 in 5 Texas children lives below the poverty line).
  • 47th in per capita spending by the state mental health agency in 2003.
  • 47th in dollars spent per child by the state child abuse and neglect agency in 2004.
  • 48th (in a three-way tie for last place) in teen pregnancy rate in 2003.
  • 49th in percentage of adults with a high school diploma in 2005 (1 in 3 children does not graduate).
  • 49th in percentage of children with health insurance in 2005 (1 in 5 children is uninsured).

    Yet Texas is 27th in per capita income: SHAMEFUL.
  • If you think you have any say about 'government', forget it! Until the governments of the US and Great Britain are returned to their rightful sovereigns --the people --the Orwellian Big Brother that has been created in both countries will only spread like the cancer it is.
    On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.

    The ... all » police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withhold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.

    The mainstream news has willfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.

    The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out?
    If 7/7 happened the way they say it did why would there be any discrepancies? Why would there be any uncertainty about the movements of these men? Why would there be any contradictions, confusions, inconsistencies in the official story? There wouldn't be! On the contrary. There were be copious amounts of information ...[made available to the public] We are being deceived!

    --Ludicrous Diversion - 7/7 London Bombing
    The argument that the British government cannot refute is one that I have applied to Bush's 'official conspiracy theory' of 911. If anything said by Bush at any time about anything is in any way true, then why did Bush oppose the creation of the 911 commission? Why did the Bush administration interfere consistently with the 911 commission? Why was 911 forensic evidence destroyed? Why did Bush lie about his own activities on 911? Why was Dick Cheney supervising a 'scenario' that gamed precisely what, in fact, really happened? What are the odds that this incredible and absolutely amazing event would occur for real? Wasn't Dick Cheney, then, in a perfect position to have supervised the act of high treason and mass murder that we now call --911? How coincidental was it that the British Government was, like Dick Cheney earlier, gaming the subway bombings on the very day that they happened in fact?

    The only logical conclusion is this: there is 'probable cause' that the British Government --like Dick Cheney --conspired to wage war upon its own people and have subsequently done so. The British Government has, therefore, broken the peace! Having broken the peace, the social contract, the government itself, is and continues to be illegitimate! I might remind that when King Charles I presumed to put himself above the parliament, he got his head chopped off for his efforts! What punishment then, by precedent, is due those, not even 'royalty', who have conspired under the cover of 'government' itself to perpetrate the crimes of mass murder upon an innocent and unsuspecting population? One day, there must be justice. As I recall, there is still to be found at the Tower of London a blood-stained wooden block!


    BBC: The Power of Nightmares,
    "Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA!"

    ''In determining what is probable cause . . . [w]e are concerned only with the question whether the affiant had reasonable grounds at the time of his affidavit . . . for the belief that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched; and if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant.'' 95
    Probable cause is to be determined according to ''the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.'' 96
    Warrants are favored in the law and utilization of them will not be thwarted by a hypertechnical reading of the sup porting affidavit and supporting testimony.
    97
    For the same reason, reviewing courts will accept evidence of a less ''judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant.'' 98
    Courts will sustain the determination of probable cause so long as ''there was substantial basis for [the magistrate] to conclude that'' there was probable cause. 99

    --Findlaw, Probable Cause

    NOTICE

    THIS BLOG WILL NO LONGER TOLERATE FLAMES, AD HOMINEMS, LABELING OR AD HOMINEM LABELING!

    Such comments will be deleted! Any questions? If you have a point or a case to make, make it! Otherwise, peddle your GOP and/or right wing 'labels', shill scripts and personal attacks elsewhere!

    They are no longer welcome here!

    Additional resources
    If the CIA/Mossad hired terrorists used an extreme surplus of thermite or thermate for the welding of the steel columns of the building structure, it is well conceivable that this surplus burned for weeks. Is there any other material useful in controlled demolition, other than thermite (or thermate), that would continue burning for weeks despite all trials to extinguish the fire with water????? Thermite is not a simple "fire" depending on exogeneous oxygen. Any combustion would stop within hours, if there was no oxygen available. This is the reason, why a fire can be extinguished with sand. In contrary, if one covered a thermite reaction with tons and tons of sand, the reaction would not stop. And the reaction could not be extinguished by pouring water onto the reaction partners. It is well conceivable that the extra thermite, mixed and polluted with other material, "burned" slowly and more moderately for weeks.

    Thermite or Thermate was suspected due to molten metal seen streaming down the outer walls of WTC before the controlled demolition. Kerosene or JET FUEL only goes to 1759 Degrees F, and only in ideal burn conditions, not underground without oxygen.

    This is why the underground fires in ground zero point to thermite or thermate (which is, may I illuminate you, a variation of thermite). And the results of a chemical analysis proved beyond doubt that thermite (or the variation thermate) was present. It is pure nonsense if you pretend to assume, the results of a professional chemical analysis might mirror some sulphate (!!) from "drywall".

    The underground fires, burning for weeks are a reality. Photos and witnesses (firemen) prove that. So, do you really assume that it was the jet fuel that kept burning for weeks???!! Or a paper basket?? Or some newspapers and wooden desks?? The stubbornness which you "Official Story Theorists" exhibit against learning the facts is indicating that they know very well where the smoking gun is to be found!

    Regards

    Dr. chemist, university lecturer.

    --3-7-8, More Proof Thermite/ThermateUsed To Drop WTC

    56 comments:

    Chris Dashiell said...

    Thanks for taking a stand. Those who express doubt about the official version are often demonized or ridiculed, so it takes courage to speak out.

    Len Hart said...

    Thanks Chris. The assholes who peddle 'official scripts' have taken their best shot which is to say: they have NOTHING whatever to say but ad hominem attacks, stupid slogans, cute labels and other bullshit that they merely stole from some GOP poohbah!

    Let them BUY time for that crap. It will get deleted here.

    Your comments are most welcome. Come back often. You will find lots of courageous stands here, prominently by the the folk who post here.

    David Armstead said...

    Actually, some of the best rebuttals to 9/11 conspiracy theories come from the left, not the GOP, who are generally not smart enough to engage in an argument, much less carry out something as complicated as a 9/11 inside job.

    Len Hart said...

    David Armstead said...

    Actually, some of the best rebuttals to 9/11 conspiracy theories come from the left

    That does not surprise me. Rebuttals are one thing. Labels and scripts are something else. That shit --and I've seen it all --gets deleted. Thanks for your post, David. Browse around; there are some long and well researched responses as well as the articles.

    Most people have not gotten it into their bones yet that the most outrageous 'conspiracy theory' is the official one. There is NOT A SHRED of hard evidence in support of it. At the VERY LEAST Bush, for having ordered the destruction of forensic evidence, should be charged with obstruction of justice. Last time I checked, 911 was a crime. The destruction of evidence related to that crime is a felony whether or not the crime was under investigation at the time of the order!

    thepoetryman said...

    It is amazing to me that the audacity of the theory of 9-11 is swallowed. No. It is cast out as spoiled milk.

    The mere fact that all the metal and fragments of that day were shipped away and melted is reason enough to give one pause, but the distractions combined with the utter disbelief of that day are larger than our rationale or our little pea-brains can compute.

    The rag tag highjackers flew two full sized jets into two tall buildings in NY and one relatively squat sized Pentagon and they were flown with incredible precision, like that of an ace pilot, but the pilots of these planes trained on single engine planes and with the help of Allah were able to do something that even well trained pilots would find rather difficult.

    The crime of the century...or since time began was pulled off with such slick exactness that it boggles the mind that so few question it.

    Fools indeed.

    Len Hart said...

    thepoetryman said...

    The rag tag highjackers flew two full sized jets into two tall buildings in NY and one relatively squat sized Pentagon and they were flown with incredible precision, like that of an ace pilot, but the pilots of these planes trained on single engine planes and with the help of Allah were able to do something that even well trained pilots would find rather difficult.

    Well, of course, it didn't happen that way. And what is REALLY amazing is that they really didn't do a very good job of it. As I have stated, there is NOT A SHRED of evidence in support of anything ever said by Bush and Bushy about 911. The fact that there were ABSOLUTELY NO ARAB bodies were on the flight manifests, the fact that many of the 'hijackers' are still alive and well, the fact that Atta called his father on 9/12 to let him know that he was alive and fine ---all adds up to hoax.

    We were hoaxed!

    It's not a matter of 'proving' an alternative theory. It's a matter of simply understanding THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE ANY PART OF BUSH'S CRAZY ASS THEORY!

    1) Bush has NO credibility; why should he be believed about 911?

    2) There is NO evidence to back him up. NONE!

    The 'official theory' is a form of hypnosis at best, or worse, mass psychosis.

    People will recover from hypnosis in time. Psychosis is another matter. Certainly a lot of folk went nuts from shock on 911. How long these effects last, I doubt even the psychologists know.

    David Armstead said...

    "The fact that there were ABSOLUTELY NO ARAB bodies were on the flight manifests..."

    The hijackers were all listed on the official manifests. Lists put out by the media just didn't usually include them, for whatever reason. It may have had something to do with security, the fact that an investigation was going on, or maybe just to spare relatives the pain of realizing their loved ones were sitting right next to one of them.

    Len Hart said...

    David Armstead said...

    The hijackers were all listed on the official manifests.

    That's not entirely true. I've dealt with that issue AT LENGTH elsewhere. I have likewise read EVERY word of the several versions posted on the Arlington National Cemetary website.
    The 'official version' of who is buried and who is not is shot full of holes, descrepancies, and inaccuries. There is absolutely NO admissible evidence that ANY hijackers got on board to begin with. That is the weakest part of the official conspiracy theory.

    Davol White said...

    The problem is that too many people know a controlled demolition when they see one. Bush and the Dick will no doubt go way, (hopefully to stand trial and then go to prison for the rest of their lives), long before the fact that too many people know a controlled demolition when they see one. The fact that I get to be labelled a "terrorist" by the media for repeating the fact that "too many people know a controlled demolition when they see one" just reflects the despiration of the criminals because the truth about 9/11 is coming to get them.

    Len Hart said...

    Davol White said...

    The fact that I get to be labelled a "terrorist" by the media for repeating the fact that "too many people know a controlled demolition when they see one" just reflects the despiration of the criminals because the truth about 9/11 is coming to get them.

    This kind of 'labeling' is a defining characteristic of fascism or totalitarian states. The US was never as free as one might have believed at one time. But it most certainly was not as overtly totalitarian as now.

    Jung stated that about thirty percent of any population are certifiably 'nuts' (my word) and I think it interesting that the percentage of 'authoritarian' types is about the same. It would take some correlation --but I think Jung's 'certifiable nuts' ARE the GOP, some 30 percent 'authoritarian. There was, after all, nothing in Jung that would have excluded 'authoritarians' from his description.

    More on the "flight manifest". I cannot consider a fancy graphic, obviously made up after the fact to reflect an 'official version' of events, to be a bona fide "flight manifest". Certainly, that is NOT the list, a simple typed document, that was originally posted as the "flight manifest" on the official website of the National Cemetary at Arlington. There were NO arab names on that original list.

    This deserves more scrutiny. I would LOVE To catch the airlines forging --AFTER THE FACT --a flight manifest IN ORDER to shore up Bush's bullshit cover story!

    David Armstead said...

    "....the fact that Atta called his father on 9/12 to let him know that he was alive and fine...."

    This claim lacks credibility, when one looks at all the evidence.

    "There is absolutely NO admissible evidence that ANY hijackers got on board to begin with."

    The manifests were presented at the Moussaoui trial, so yes, there is admissible evidence speaking to the presence of the hijackers. I doubt that anyone at the trial attempted to dispute the manifests, but I'm speculating.

    What's more, I believe that there was DNA matching done between remains at the WTC site, and that gathered from the terrorists car, hairbrush, etc.

    David Armstead said...

    Yes, those manifests were constructed for trial purposes, so yes you would be correct to question them. However, you may have missed the link on that page where you can download the original manifests.

    I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Arlington list, but I don't believe that list would include the terrorists, for obvious reasons. Wouldn't that be just a tad bit disrespectful of the victims and their families? Not an attempt to cover anything up, just simple courtesy.

    Anonymous said...

    NEVER HAPPEN. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT , THE ENTIRE AMERICAN SYSTEM HAS BEEN HI-JACKED BY CHENEY'S. THEY ARE ON A SUICIDE MISSION OF THEY'RE OWN RIGHT NOW. AND NOBODY. NOT ANY COUNTRY , CHRISTIAN/JEW OR MUSLIM OR AMERICAN CITIZEN IS GOING TO STOP THEM. EVEN IF THEY VOICED SOME KIND OF CONCERN, AND SO FAR HAS NOT, AMERICA CAN'T SEE STRAIGHT ENOUGH TO KNOW BAD FROM IT'S OWN FAR AND IN BETWEEN GOOD. IF AMERICA WILL GO SO FAR AS TO QUESTION THE LEGAL QUALITY OF IT'S OWN CURRENT GOVERNMENT, BUT FALL SHORT IN HOLDING IT'S OWN HI-JACKED SYSTEM ACCOUNTABLE, MOSTLY FROM FEAR OF RETALIATION OF THE NEO-CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS. THEN THIS IS ALL THE PROOF THAT IS NEEDED TO SHOW YOU ARE NO LONGER FREE, BUT A UP TO DATE COMMUNIST REGIME.

    Len Hart said...

    David Armstead said...

    I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Arlington list, but I don't believe that list would include the terrorists, for obvious reasons.

    I'm talking about what was represented to the pathologist as a complete and official list of passengers --Flight 77 specifically. A 'flight manifest'. There were NO arab names on it!

    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."

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

    There is reason to believe that NO arabs were 'autopsied'. Now --when I first went to the Arlington National Cemetary Website several years ago, the list of those SAID by Arlington to have been buried did NOT list ANY 'arabs' or 'hijackers' at all. Clearly --a list prepared after the fact to include every name mentioned in the official conspiracy theory does not amount to any evidence whatsoever that the persons listed were, in fact, on the aircraft at any time. I can type up a list at any time. What is missing is pedigree. There is none! There is no verification of these names at any step of the process. If everyone on that list DIED then where are the remains of the said hijackers if there names are not to be found among those buried at Arlington?

    Five, indeed, are unaccounted for --presumably the "terrorist" hijackers. But --that they were unaccounted for in pathology may simply mean that they were NEVER on board to begin with. Certainly --several news organizations, including the BBC, reported that at least TWO of the Flight 77 hijackers were still alive. Sadly, the BBC, reworked the story --after the fact --to conform to the official version. There are other reputable sites, however, that list the 'hijackers' who were said to have died but --like Christ --still live!

    There are other discrepancies. Both Arlington and AFIP claim that there were 64 Pentagon workers buried at Arlington. 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?

    Now--to further complicate the story. Arlington has gone through at least three revisions since then and sadly I didn't save each version.

    At last --the burden of proof is on Bush to prove the version of events that his crooked administration has put forward. It's not my job to track down his phony terrorists.

    Until I see a body and a certified autopsy report, a fancy courtroom greaphic is NOT evidence.

    Len Hart said...

    Another nail in the coffin of Bush's panoply of black hearted lies:

    Osama Bin Laden is dead since December 26, 2001. Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper

    That seems to be consistent with What Benazir Bhutto told David Frost. Bin Laden is dead! BBC, up to its old tricks, edited her comments but NOT BEFORE the unvarnished video was snagged and published. You can hear her original --un-edited version --on this blog.

    BBC Censored Benazir Bhutto's Reports that Bin Laden Had Been Murdered

    damien said...

    What's more, I believe that there was DNA matching done between remains at the WTC site, and that gathered from the terrorists car, hairbrush, etc. -- There's no chain of custody on any of the alleged evidence anywhere.

    The Moussaoui trial was farcical from many viewpoints. The government agreed to stipulate, as part of its evidence, that Ziad Jarrah took two flights from Newark to Florida on 7 Sep when he could not realistically have been on both flights. All of the evidence in the Moussaoiu trial was subject to so much political and intelligence review that there is no way of knowing what was true or false, and you certainly can't cite such evidence -- much of it intelligence hearsay -- as proof of the events of 911.

    Nick Berg's email password finished up on Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop in a manner that defies credibility (also here). There's obviously a lot more in this (author Michael P. Wright believes David Boren, David Edger, and George Tenet were behind 9/11; see also here) Certainly, the amount of murky intelligence issues and unanswered questions associated with Moussaoui is extensive.

    In fact, everything about Moussaoui raises more questions than answers. Bin Laden denied on tape that Moussaoui was involved in 911. If you're going to accept all the other bin Laden tapes (including his 911 "confession") then you have to accept this one also.

    So, what we know is that some evidence from the Moussaoui trial was contradictory, that much evidence was omitted, that bin Laden denied his involvement in 911 (contradicting Moussaoui's own testimony) and that there is a wealth of disturbing unanswered intelligence questions in relation to Moussaoui and the death of Nick Berg. Overall, the Moussaoui trial evidence validates nothing about the events of 911. Any evidence produced there would need to be tested again in an independent 911 inquiry.

    damien said...

    Sorry, typo -- that should read "from Florida to Newark"

    Len Hart said...

    Damien, what can I say?

    As to be expected, you have nailed Bush's sorry ass to the wall!

    What I did not say in the headline is that there is probable cause to charge Bush himself with mass murder and treason for having waged war upon the American people.

    damien said...

    The 9/11 Commission failed to mention in its final report that Al-Ghamdi was booked onto several flights scheduled to take place after 9/11, including another flight on the very day of the attacks.

    That's right, FBI documents sighted by the 911 Commission showed that 911 terrorist Hamza Al-Ghamdi had booked future flights to San Francisco and Riyadh.

    According to researcher Paul Thompson, he believes the Commission cherry-picked the dates of the alleged hijacker's movements in order to shield their ties with high-level Saudi Arabian officials. He points to the redaction of the name of a person who is a known employee of a Saudi defense contractor, Omar al-Bayoumi, who lived at the same location, reports Raw Story.

    “We know it’s Bayoumi,” said Thompson, “because after 9/11, the Finnish Government mistakenly released a classified FBI list of suspects that showed Bayoumi living in apartment #152 of Parkwood Apartments....But also important is that it strongly suggests that the hijackers already had a support network in Southern California before they arrived,” Thompson continued.

    “In the official version of the story now, the hijackers drift around L.A. listlessly for two weeks before chancing to come across Bayoumi in a restaurant [according to Bayoumi’s account],” Thompson added. “Whereupon he's an incredible good Samaritan and takes them down to San Diego, pays their rent, etc.”

    ”But from the FBI's timeline, we now know the hijackers started staying at Bayoumi's place on Jan. 15 – the very same day they arrived,” Thompson says. “So obviously they must have been met at the airport and taken care of from their very first hours in the US. That's huge because the FBI maintains to this day that the hijackers never had any accomplices in the US.”


    It has been well established that the San Diego 911 hijackers were cared for extensively by Saudis connected to the Saudi government. The story of 911 "run by bin Laden out of a cave in Afghanistan" just doesn't wash.

    Senator Bob Graham, Head of the 911 Joint Congressional Inquiry from Feb - Dec 2002, was interviewed on the PBS Lehrer Hour in 2002:

    "I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.... I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." (link) (link)

    So which "sovereign foreign government" is that, David Armstead ?

    Anonymous said...

    If you were to take a look at a gov't publication called the "911 Commission Report," you would see a thick book that has no index in this age of cheap computers. This 'ommission' report doesn't even mention the fact that WTC7 was damaged.

    However, the book is thick and only cost $10, if memory serves. If you decide to use its pages for wiping delicate areas, I recommend crumpling and smoothing out the pages a few times while you are sitting there.

    Big Dan said...

    Excellent, EC!

    David Armstead said...

    Damien said ......

    "Bin Laden denied on tape that Moussaoui was involved in 911."

    It's a little unclear exactly what Bin Laden was trying to say as pertains to the particular status of Moussaoui. He obviously knew him, and he was one of his guys, regardless of his particular assignment at the time:

    "The al-Qaeda chief said the Sept. 11 hijackers were divided into two groups, "pilots and assistants."

    "Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added.

    Bin Laden said Moussaoui was not a security risk for al-Qaeda, because he did not have knowledge of the plot.


    Now it's very possible Bin Laden really wasn't kept completely in the loop on all this stuff. He wasn't necessarily a hands on operational guy, but more the inspirational, "only come to me with the big things" type of director. But even so. He's saying here that those 19 were his guys, that THEY did the deed, and Moussaoui was one of my guys too, but was still a greenie.

    That certainly doesn't gel very well with the notion that there were no Arab hijackers on the planes, or that some of them are still alive.

    And regardless of the accuracy of the government's claims about Moussaoui's state of awareness, my point remains that the manifests were indeed introduced at trial, with the apparent intention of placing the hijackers at the scene of the crime. That the hijackers were not included on other subsequent lists is entirely irrelevant, simply because nobody much wanted them on their lists.

    Vierotchka said...

    david armstead wrote:

    The hijackers were all listed on the official manifests. Lists put out by the media just didn't usually include them, for whatever reason.

    Then how do you account for the fact that at least eight of them are still alive and well? That very fact indicates that the pictures you linked to are frauds.

    Len Hart said...

    David Armstead said...

    That certainly doesn't gel very well with the notion that there were no Arab hijackers on the planes, or that some of them are still alive.

    You've got it backward David and you didn't read nor are you addressing my post. The burden of proof is NOT upon anyone to prove there were NO hijackers. The burden of proof is always upon those who assert i.e, THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE.

    Bush has ASSERTED what is called the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY. I don't have to prove there were NO arab hijackers.

    IT IS BUSH'S JOB TO PROVE THAT THERE WERE.

    The various descrepancies --those pointed out by damien, vierotchka, and myself --simply demonstrate that Bush and his partisans have utterly failed to prove that there were ANY Arab hijackers on Flight 77.

    I repeat: there is not a shred of verifiable evidence in support of Bush's theory.

    David Armstead said...

    I beg to differ. I think it's pretty much the opposite. Assertions such as there being no Arab hijackers, and hijackers accused still being alive are contrary to all conventional wisdom and opinion. There is abundant evidence that there were indeed Arab hijackers as claimed.

    There were communications from air to ground describing middle-eastern men commandeering the planes, with seat numbers matching Arab names on the official original airline manifests.

    There are people who remember checking in Atta.

    There is surveillance video of at least one of them going through security.

    There are DNA matches between remains at the WTC and samples from the hijackers.

    There is abundant admission from al Qaeda, pride in fact, of the mission.

    There are martyrdom videos made by the hijackers saying goodbye to families and hello to Allah.

    There is detailed history of their activities beforehand -- testimony from flight school instructors, apartment managers, etc.

    I'm not seeing any actual, meaningful evidence of no hijackers. And I've seen no evidence of any of them being still alive.

    Vierotchka? Evidence?

    Crazy Liberal said...

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Joseph Goebbels - but it might as well be Karl Rove in the 21st century.


    Did you expect the neocons to tell the truth? Propaganda, lies, misinformation and deception are the only thing that Bushco knows. This worked in Germany during the mid-30's to mid 40's because there wasn't much information about current events except radio and print media but that was controlled by der fuhrer.

    Bushco is trying to do the same thing as the Nazis did except we have the "internets".

    Dissent isn't tolerated here (free speech zones). We read about people being tasered and/or arrested because we still believe in freedom of speech and exercise that right.

    Bush has claimed that dissent is dangerous. The MSM is also complicit is stifling dissent and spewing lies about the official version of 911 (Fox News, Popular Mechanics et al).

    So it's no surprise considering the neocons Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

    What can I say except that with such a brilliant and intellectual mind as yours, I can't add anything very useful.

    Len Hart said...

    David wrote...

    That certainly doesn't gel very well with the notion that there were no Arab hijackers on the planes, or that some of them are still alive.

    Those who assert must prove. Bushco rolled out a list of hijackers. The point is: there is not a shred of proof or evidence in support of the panoply of BASELESS assertions made by Bush.

    Let's talk about that fancy graphical manifest that you posted.

    Hani Hanjour's name is associated with a specific seat on Flight 77. Bush's official conspiracy theory would have you believe that, at some point, during the flight, Hanjour got out of his seat and took over the controls of Flight 77 in order to pilot that airliner right into the Pentagon where the airliner itself vanished without a trace. Hanjour's body, we are expected to believe, is among the charred remains. Unless, he bailed out seconds before impact!!!!!!!

    Here's the rub: 1) Hanjour could not fly an airliner and 2) Hanjour's name was NOT on the flight manifest! "

    This so-called 'flight manifest' is a fraud!

    A few days later [after 911], it was reported that Hanjour's name was not on the passenger manifest of Flight 77 because he may not have had a ticket. [Washington Post, 9/16/01]

    If Hanjour --who is probably still alive --was not on the official flight manifest, then HOW and, more importantly, WHY does his name show up on a fancy graphic that the government has labeled: "OFFICIAL MANIFEST IMAGES"? Who supervised the 'creation' of that graphic? Who ordered that every name --even those who are now known to be alive --be added to that 'official manifest'!!!

    As I have charged, this graphic was prepared by the government --after the fact --in order to shore up a fatal flaw in Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. Secondly, if Hanjour's name was not on the manifest, it is reasonable to conclude that he was not on the flight! If he was NOT on the flight, how did he pilot the craft? Indeed, Hanjour, perhaps no pilot on earth, could have conducted a 757 through the maneuvers upon which Bush's official conspiracy is absolutely dependent!

    BBC: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

    At least 9 of them survived 9/11

    damien said...

    David, the official story of 911 is like a water bed...press back a bulging inconvenient fact in one place and ten others rise up elsewhere. I do not doubt that lists were provided at the Moussaiou trial; these may have even have been flight manifests of people who passed through aircraft terminals. But in a case like this you want every detail examined (especially where there is a prima facie case for evidence planting).

    You say: There are people who remember checking in Atta. There is surveillance video of at least one of them going through security.

    This is taken from your link talking about the flight check-in (also here):

    the surveillance photos don't match...

    Ticket agent says Atta, Alomari were dressed in business suits; surveillance photos don't match. Asked if a surveillance camera was posted by his workstation, he said he was told by the FBI on 9-11 that the video camera had been out of order for several weeks and no other pictures were available.

    (=how convenient).

    And remember, it was the FBI who told Tuohey [one of the ticketing staff] the camera he worked under every day hadn't worked for some time. They knew that, but a guy who worked directly under it every day didn't know?

    by jmmcgowanjm on Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 06:13:07 AM PDT


    That's right, the ticketing agent absolutely remembers them in suits and the surveillance videos shows them in short sleeved shirts.

    You say: There are DNA matches between remains at the WTC and samples from the hijackers....There is no chain of custody evidence, nothing to say where the DNA has been obtained.

    You say: There is abundant admission from al Qaeda, pride in fact, of the mission. ... Bin Laden initially denied any involvement.

    You say: There is detailed history of their activities beforehand -- testimony from flight school instructors, apartment managers, etc. ... yes, and the evidence is that (a) the San Diego hijackers were actively assisted by the Saudi government; (b) Mohammed Atta was visited by a wealthy Saudi while in Florida, actively used drugs and appeared to have some connections to an established US drug trafficking ring; and (c) Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77, could not fly a Cessna.

    You say: I'm not seeing any actual, meaningful evidence of no hijackers.... I'm not seeing any evidence of crashed planes... no luggage, no metal debris and limited human remains. There were 182 passenger seats on Flight 93 -- where the hell are they? There were 44 people on the same flight yet the only human remains were a few slivers of bones and small amounts of tissue. Modern, high temperature crematoria take 2 hours to burn human remains so please tell me what happened to nearly 4 tons of human tissue at Shanksville? There are also a number of autopsy discrepancies.

    I see where you are coming from on this, David Armstead. The government's case, in legal terms, is what's called an "arguable case", put simply a "plausible possibility". Unfortunately, that "arguable case" comes up against repeated, serious evidence discrepancies at every turn. The only solution is a new, fully independent 911 inquiry.

    Oh, btw, which foreign government assisted the 911 terrorists? If Sen. Bob Graham says it is true (and he's seen the evidence) then why are people still fiddling around with the nonsense about 19 sole terrorists? It's over...others were involved. 911 was a complex, multi-layered event that has yet to be explained.

    damien said...

    Vaporising planes...vaporising bodies. It's just a nonsense meme that refuses to die.

    Len Hart said...

    damien sez...

    David, the official story of 911 is like a water bed...press back a bulging inconvenient fact in one place and ten others rise up elsewhere.

    That's the effect of violating Occam's Razor. The 'official conspiracy theory' raises more questions than it explains.

    Indeed, I wonder about the kind of representation Moussaiou could have possibly gotten, given the lynch mob atmosphere that still prevails.

    If those flight manifests were germane to the prosecution, the defense should have challenged them! I would hate to be in a position in which my life depends upon a list of names that anyone at any time could have typed up upon orders from criminals inside the Bush administration.

    The rules of evidence are supposed to make it harder than it is for a prosecutor to fool the court. In a nation in which the Attorney General cannot even tell you the difference between 'probable cause' and 'reasonable suspicion', the cause of justice may be lost forever.

    In fact, everything about Moussaoui raises more questions than answers. Bin Laden denied on tape that Moussaoui was involved in 911. If you're going to accept all the other bin Laden tapes (including his 911 "confession") then you have to accept this one also.

    I would rather the guilty go free than an innocent person be sentenced upon the passions of the moment, bogus evidence, and the assumption of 'facts not in evidence'.

    Not only Hanjour but Atta was most certainly still alive AFTER he was said to have died in 911. The British Guardian ---a MAINSTREAM media outlet in Great Britain --reported Atta STILL ALIVE AFTER 911.

    "Mohamed Atta: Possible Egyptian national. Date of birth; used: Sept. 1, 1968. Possible residences: Hollywood, Fla; Coral Springs,; Fla; Hamburg, Germany. Believed to be a pilot. Aliases: Mehan Atta; Mohammad El Amir; Muhammad Atta; Mohamed El Sayed; Mohamed Elsayed; Muhammad Muhammad Al Amir Awag Al Sayyid Atta; Muhammad Muhammad Al-Amir Awad Al Sayad." ALIVE.

    If either Atta or Hanjour are alive (or both), Bush's theory falls apart.

    If no 'Arabs' were 'autopsied', Bush's theory falls apart.

    Of a total of 184 interred at Arlington, sixty-four were said to have been passengers on board Flight 77. The official conspiracy theory does not explain how every vestige of a 757 vaporized while leaving behind the human remains of some sixty four passengers.

    Bush's official conspiracy theory, in fact, a cover story is bullshit!

    If ANY said 'hijacker' is still alive, it would, at least, cast grave doubt upon the official conspiracy theory. Without them, it is hard to imagine Bush making a convincing case.

    If NO WRECKAGE is ever produced (and it won't be), then the official conspiracy theory falls apart. Airliners DO NOT vaporize.

    If steel does not melt in Kerosene fires, the official conspiracy theory falls apart.

    I could go on and on. The list of holes is endless.

    Len Hart said...

    At last --it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that Bush/Cheney maintain the official 911 myth/lie/conspiracy theory.

    It's all that stands between them and the gallows.

    Think about it --IF the official theory is bunkum (and it is), then it is impossible to escape the conclusion that there is probable cause to bring mass murder charges against those who had:

    1) Method --Dick Cheney was, in fact, supervising the 'exercises' that day.

    2) Motive - Bush and Dick, because of 911 have achieved almost ALL their oil/neocon goals and dreams.

    3) Opportunity - Plenty! From inside the Bunker, Dick Cheney commanded the entire armed forces of the United States. Cheney --far better than an un-coorindated rag tag band of incompetent 'pilots' --was perfectly positioned to commit the crime of several centuries.

    There is probable cause to bring that case against the Dick now!

    David Armstead said...

    Len Hart said.....

    "If Hanjour --who is probably still alive --was not on the official flight manifest, then HOW and, more importantly, WHY does his name show up on a fancy graphic that the government has labeled: "OFFICIAL MANIFEST IMAGES"?

    My apologies. I was under the mistaken impression that the link on the page with the fancy graphic led to the original manifests. That link was merely to another presentation graphic, which was quite large, and sorry if ya'all downloaded that.

    The original manifests have been obtained by several news agencies, even though they may not have always provided access to the them by the public, for whatever reason. However, this page gives details of an author having obtained copies for a book he was writing, and you can, yes this time you really can, see the originals, or at least a version of the documentation generated by the airline. Here we see Hanjour on the manifest, assigned to seat 1B on flight 77. (see link at bottom: 7 JPEGs in a ZIP file, 3.5MB)
    A little hard to read at first glance, but blow them up with your picture viewer and they're pretty clear.

    As far as the Washington Post in an early story saying his name wasn't on the manifest, I would assume that perhaps someone made the same mistake as have you folks, mistaking victim lists for full flight manifests, or relying on a list that simply wasn't complete for whatever reason. In any event, that story was very early on, and there certainly was erroneous information flying about in a very chaotic time for everyone involved.

    Which brings us to the notion that there are hijackers still alive. Yes, there were early claims along these lines, very shortly after the event, but this was fairly quickly realized to be erroneous*, and corrections were made. I would submit to you that reporting mistakes and wrong assumptions were common after 9/11, and in fact are common in all news reporting, and to attempt to make a claim based on a simple mistake that was corrected is not really very good form.

    * Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.

    But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.

    The operator at the call center has the number for the Arab News on speed dial. We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That's ridiculous! People here stopped talking about that a long time ago."

    Len Hart said...

    As far as the Washington Post in an early story saying his name wasn't on the manifest, I would assume that perhaps someone made the same mistake as have you folks, mistaking victim lists for full flight manifests, or relying on a list that simply wasn't complete for whatever reason. In any event, that story was very early on, and there certainly was erroneous information flying about in a very chaotic time for everyone involved.

    That's a neat but fallacious assertion and, as you say, a mere assumption. You have simply worked backward from a conclusion to a premise! The ORIGINAL flight manifests were provided BEFORE something slick could have been prepared for a farcical trial. You simply assume that because they differ from the official conspiracy theory, they must be wrong. There is simply no compelling reason to believe that the Washington Post story and numerous others were, in any way mistaken, when they reported that the manifests did NOT include any passengers with Arab names.

    Even the 'revisions' made by BBC are immaterial and do not make the point that you claim they make; in other words, even the 'revised' BBC does not support the official conspiracy theory in any way.

    Nor is the BBC report, even in revision, at odds with the numerous , credible reports that as many as nine hijackers are still alive and giving interviews.

    Nor does the BBC revision support your contention that the original flight manifests --which DID NOT include Arab Names --were wrong.

    Moreover, there is nothing in the BBC 'revision' that in any way conflicts with the Washington Post account.

    Let me summarize your position: the original flight manifests must have been wrong because the official conspiracy theory 'says' Arabs were on the flights.

    The original flight manifests were correct. It's the THEORY that is wrong.

    You believe them to have been wrong simply because they strike at the very heart of the official conspiracy theory is either fallacious or dishonest or both. Theories and conclusions follow from verifiable facts --NOT the other way 'round. You are simply trying to shoe horn reality into a pre-conceived notion, in this case, a bald faced lie.

    Which brings us to the notion that there are hijackers still alive. Yes, there were early claims along these lines, very shortly after the event, but this was fairly quickly realized to be erroneous*, and corrections were made.

    That's simply not true. I know of only one news organization revising its story and that was the BBC and the revisions were minor. Additionally, I have the links to numerous original 'mainstream', worldwide news organizations. Many of the dead hijackers gave interviews.

    That being the case --the official manifests of which you speak are at best utterly meaningless, at worst, deliberate attempts by the Bush administration to hoax the public. Now --let's talk about credibility! It counts! Bush has none!

    And despite what you may have stated earlier, the burden of proof is NOT on me, nor Damien, nor any critic of Bush. Bush asserted and continues to support an 'official conspiracy theory' about which NONE of his statements are true. Nor can Bush state the conditions under which they might be proven one way or the other due to the fact that Bush committed a felony by ordering forensic evidence destroyed and by planting Zelikow to interfere with the 911 commission. Even the co-chairs of the 911 commission have disowned their work. They don't believe it! Why should you?

    You fallaciously implied that 'we' had asserted that there were "no" hijackers and that, therefore, the burden of proof was on us. That's not how it works! Courts require that the prosecution make a case, presumably with real evidence in support of a case. Johnny Cochran was not required to prove O.J. Simpson innocent; his only task was to convince the jury that the prosecution had FAILED to makes its case. Cochran won his case with a brilliant summation: "If it does not fit, you must acquit". Cochran, thus, summed up in a clever rhyme a philosophy of logical positivism as profound as that of A.J. Ayer or Bertrand Russell and he did it war far fewer words. Simply, if conclusions or theories DO NOT FIT established facts then the 'theory' must be abandoned. The OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY does not fit! It does not explain. It violates Occam's Razor, raising more questions than it answers.

    You are working backward from a theory that you have accepted upon pure faith, rationalizing facts that DO NOT FIT! You have simply embraced upon faith 'flight manifests' that I have demonstrated to have been revised to fit the theory! Facts are facts; theories are changed to accomodate facts. Facts must never be changed to fit the theory. But that's what defenders of the official conspiracy theory do consistently. You're arguments are proof of my statment.

    I would submit to you that reporting mistakes and wrong assumptions were common after 9/11, and in fact are common in all news reporting, and to attempt to make a claim based on a simple mistake that was corrected is not really very good form.

    I have worked in professional broadcasting since I was 16. I have major market and network credentials including some you may have heard of: CBS and ABC. I can assure you, had I caught a 'source' reworking a cover story to fit a bogus theory, I would have blown the whistle on the lying bastard. Had I caught an editor, falsifying documents to fit an 'official theory' or fiddling with 'evidence' in a crime, I would have blown the whistle on him!

    Let me remind: falsifying a coroner's report is a crime! Tampering with evidence is a crime! Suppressing evidence --as Bush has,in fact, done is a crime!

    That 'flight manifest' which you represented to this forum was demonstrably wrong, in fact, a bald faced lie! Other 'revisions' are of a type perpetrated by the BBC with regard to statements by Benazir Bhutto to David Frost. I managed to save the entire UN-EDITED interview in which she clearly stated to David Frost that Bin Laden had been murdered. I also have what you might call a 'revision' in which her statement is 'edited'.

    Bobby Decker said...

    THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WAS LIKE A CRACK WHORE LOOKING FOR HER NEXT FIX WHEN 911 BECAME ITS SUGAR DADDY......COINCIDNCE
    YEA JUST LIKE ITS A COINCIDNCE
    WHEN THE GUYS WHO LOOK LIKE GEORGE COSTANZA AND HAVE WIVES WHO LOOK LIKE HOOTERS GIRLS JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE SIX FIGURE INCOMES....COINCINNCE...YEA THATS IT THATS THE TICKET!!!!

    Anonymous said...

    Hey Len,

    You must have got out your World Almanac. I believe I once commented on Texas wonderful ranking on education and health care. Bush is taking us all there like a comet.

    More great journalism, and I will gladly state: You seem to put it all into words in a way seldom seen since 9/11/01. Thanks.

    David Armstead: Have any specific examples of those "best rebuttals to 9/11 conspiracy theories from the left"?

    I like shooting fish in a barrel, which is what those "rebuttals" remind of, and refuting Bush's Official Conspiracy Theory is even easier.

    farang

    Anonymous said...

    David Armstead:

    You would try to support the Official Conspiracy Theory and it's assertion that kerosene melted/weakened steel in minutes, caused the collapse of three skyscrapers (one not hit and burning/exploding before the other two fell, but reported by BBC and CNN as collapsed 20 minutes before it did so), while also telling me they managed to find the DNA of the hijackers?

    That's very "Odd", because I watched a video of a NYFD fireman that searched the towers for victims stating he "couldn't find ANYTHING, no desks, no file cabinets, no rugs, no BODIES, the largest thing he found was part of the panel on a telephone where the buttons are located (touch pad 2" x 2")." Wonder where the DNA was found, on a stretcher next to a magic bullet in Parkland hospital?

    Meanwhile, identical "war games" were being conducted by an administration chock full of PNACers CALLING IN WRITING for a "New Pearl Harbor"? Please.

    The term Gullible springs to mind, Mr. Armstead. I sure ain't, you?


    farang

    Anonymous said...

    David Armstead: "Now it's very possible Bin Laden really wasn't kept completely in the loop on all this stuff."

    Now THAT I agree with: The CIA couldn't let him know ALL the details before hand, now could they? The LATE Mr. Tim Osman filled their needs quite nicely.

    Think I am making it up? Go read Robert Gates autobiography, where he clearly states Bush instructed him to form an "International Islamic Brigade" while Reagan was dozing in the White House.

    Gates did so. Scapegoats to fill the boogieman void.

    You'll have to do MUCH better to hoodwink farang, Mr. Armstead.

    Mauigirl said...

    Very interesting. The "war games" scenario is fascinating and more than a coincidence. I do remember hearing there were several more planes still in the air that they thought were hijacked after the first two hit. I now wonder if these were these decoys that Cheney was operating.

    Len Hart said...

    farang sez...

    You must have got out your World Almanac.

    I have been collecting info and links with regard to Bush's war on the great state of Texas for some time but --admittedly --have not been as organized about it as I should have been. I recall you posts and regret not having saved them so that I could credit you. I hope people understand that I criticize Texas only because I love it. As a child I explored the mesas of far West Texas as well as the fringes of the Big Thicket in SE Texas, having been born in West Texas and close relatives in Houston and in the surrounding areas. I also have ties to Louisiana --New Orleans, Lake Charles, Monroe and Shreveport. Both states have been raped by politicians. One in particular outdid them all. That would be George W. Bush whose assault on Texas might have gotten him shot in "Pistol Hill".

    Meanwhile, identical "war games" were being conducted by an administration chock full of PNACers CALLING IN WRITING for a "New Pearl Harbor"? Please.

    Statistics do matter! What ARE the odds? You are correct to ask. Numbers never lie and the odds that a real terrorist attack would 'materialize' as that very scenario was 'gamed' must be astronomical. And what are the odds that the same thing would happen later in Britain. The common sense conclusion is simply this: Cheney supervised the attack itself and, later, Tony Blair's gang (inspired by Bush), would do the same thing on 7/7.

    Anonymous said...

    The CIA couldn't let him know ALL the details before hand, now could they? The LATE Mr. Tim Osman filled their needs quite nicely.

    As Newton said: "I make no hypothesis". However, your comment makes sense. The Cheney's 'supervision' of 911 was most certainly assisted by the CIA/Mossad and was, perhaps, a sting from which Cheney and Bush would benefit as they have done, in fact.

    Now --having said that, I must add: it is purely speculative. For the moment, it is enough to shot big gaping holes in officialdom.

    Facts, however, support the hypothesis. 911 gave both men a pretext for war anywhere in the Middle East under the cover of 'fighting terrorism'. The war itself was fought primarily for ONE company though many others benefited as well. That company is Dick Cheney's HALLIBURTON.

    So --who benefits from mass murder?

    Quick response: Dick Cheney!

    So --who had the motive?

    Quick response: Dick Cheney!

    So --who had the opportunity?

    Quick response: Dick Cheney!

    Bush, himself, an idiot, is just along for the ride, the gay boy friends, the ego and other strokes, and, maybe the coke. Bush is one sorry psychopathic, evil waste of human protoplasm about which there is absolutely NO redeeming quality of wit, charm, intellect, talent, achievement or humanity. None!!!!

    Go read Robert Gates autobiography, where he clearly states Bush instructed him to form an "International Islamic Brigade" while Reagan was dozing in the White House.

    Thanks for the tip. Upon your recommendation, I urge everyone to read Gate's book.

    Mauigirl said...

    Very interesting. The "war games" scenario is fascinating and more than a coincidence.

    Indeed! And thanks for posting. Being 'skeptical' of any theory only works when every theory is put to the same test. The self-appointed skeptic Michael Schermer (sp) forgot this, clearly giving greater, unquestioned weight to officialdom in almost every instance. 'Skepticism' which DOES NOT examine EVERY theory according to the same criteria is NOT skepticism. Purely from a mathematical standpoint, I will wager that the mathematics of statistics makes the Bush COINCIDENCE THEORY highly, astronomically unlikely.

    David Armstead said...

    Len Hart said .....

    "The ORIGINAL flight manifests were provided BEFORE something slick could have been prepared for a farcical trial."

    I provided you with a link with which to examine actual passenger manifests from the airlines. I'm not sure if you looked at them. What "original" flight manifests are you referring to, and where can I examine them?

    "There is simply no compelling reason to believe that the Washington Post story and numerous others were, in any way mistaken, when they reported that the manifests did NOT include any passengers with Arab names." (emphasis mine)

    I must ask that you link me to a legitimate news story that states/stated that the airline manifests did not contain ANY Arab names. It looks like there was a discrepancy with Hanjour by the WP, but ALL the Arab names by numerous others?

    No compelling reason to be in ANY WAY mistaken? That would be in effect saying that news reporters and editors never make a mistake. They demonstrate the opposite almost daily.

    "Even the 'revisions' made by BBC are immaterial and do not make the point that you claim they make...."

    Immaterial? The fact that they went from reporting that hijackers were still alive to saying that they weren't is immaterial? How does the fact that no hijackers are alive NOT support the official story, in any way?

    "Nor is the BBC report, even in revision, at odds with the numerous , credible reports that as many as nine hijackers are still alive and giving interviews."

    Please link to these "credible reports". I'm assuming that there is video out there of these surviving hijackers, the same guys in the FBI picture, talking about how they've been framed. I'd certainly be talking, if I was one of the ones in those pictures. In fact, I'd have a lawyer and I'd be on 60 minutes -- embarrassing the U.S., getting a huge settlement, and becoming a hero to moderate Muslims everywhere.

    "Nor does the BBC revision support your contention that the original flight manifests --which DID NOT include Arab Names --were wrong."

    I'm not contending that the original manifests were wrong, I'm contending that they were right. And that they do indeed contain all the Arab names. Again, what manifests are you referring to, and where can I examine them?

    "The original flight manifests were correct."

    Exactly right. The original manifests were correct.

    "Additionally, I have the links to numerous original 'mainstream', worldwide news organizations. Many of the dead hijackers gave interviews."

    I would be interested in examining those links, and confirming whether or not they made subsequent corrections. And apparently you should have a link to a video interview, or at least a print interview with pictures, that would confirm the living nature of one or more of those accused of carrying out 9/11. It just seems to me that this would have been about the hugest news since 9/11, and I'm at a loss as to why I haven't heard anything about it.

    "That being the case -- the official manifests of which you speak are at best utterly meaningless, at worst, deliberate attempts by the Bush administration to hoax the public."

    Now it appears here that you have looked at the manifests I linked to. You're apparently choosing to ignore them. Problem is, other news organizations obtained them also, and have published graphics based on them. Is there also "no compelling reason" to believe that this report could be "in any way mistaken"?

    "You fallaciously implied that 'we' had asserted that there were "no" hijackers and that, therefore, the burden of proof was on us. That's not how it works! Courts require that the prosecution make a case, presumably with real evidence in support of a case."

    I believe the prosecution has made that case, and in fact the guilty have admitted guilt, and don't even seem to be sorry. (I'm assuming you viewed the martyrdom videos by the hijackers toward the end of the "Usual Suspects" video I linked to earlier) So now the ball's in your court. As evidenced by the complete lack of interest in the "hijackers still alive theory" by a news media that would give their collective left arm for this kind of story, that ball hasn't advanced very far as of yet.

    Len Hart said...

    farang said...


    That's very "Odd", because I watched a video of a NYFD fireman that searched the towers for victims stating he "couldn't find ANYTHING, no desks, no file cabinets, no rugs, no BODIES, the largest thing he found was part of the panel on a telephone where the buttons are located (touch pad 2" x 2")." Wonder where the DNA was found, on a stretcher next to a magic bullet in Parkland hospital?


    Excellent point! As important as evidence is the 'trail', the pedigree, the documentation, i.e, the evidence that the evidence IS, indeed, EVIDENCE.

    In this case, there are no trails. The flight manifests are easy to fake and anyone with a PC and photoshop can make graphics to conform to ANY cacamamie theory. Likewise, where WAS that DNA found? Great comment, raising yet another fatal flaw in the OFFICIAL BULLSHIT STORY!

    A final shot, Bush partisans should give it up with regard to the melting of steel.

    Steel either melts at temperatures reached in WTC or it does not! That is subject to test --NOT speculation and there is simply no point in Bush partisans arguing about.

    DO THE FUCKIN' TEST!

    Until steel is melted at kerosene fire temperatures, the ONLY conclusion is simply this: the official theory is bullshit.

    If the official theory is bullshit, then some other method was used to collapse the towers in what is visibly a controlled mannter.

    That Bush 'officialdom' DOES NOT explain what happened is probable cause, in itself, to begin a FEDERAL GRAND jury investigation of Bush, Cheney, Condo, Rumseld, and various other members of the Bush gang of crooks and liars.

    The charges: MASS MURDER AND HIGH TREASON!

    damien said...

    The 9/11 Commission Doesn't Believe It: Why Do You?

    Len Hart said...

    Thanks, damien and my kudos to the George Washington blog. Following the links to the Washington Post:

    "Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said."

    So --instead of following conscience, the Commission struck up a deal and the criminals in our own military get off the hook.

    Elsewhere this quote by David Ray Griffin:

    " ... one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true."

    And the co-chairs know it to be a lie and published the bullshit anyway.

    Griffen goes on to list 114 errors and omissions. That's about as damning an indictment of Bush's OFFICIAL LIE that I have seen, save your own blog. Readers to this blog can check out Griffen's statement here.

    Len Hart said...

    David Armstead said...

    I provided you with a link with which to examine actual passenger manifests from the airlines.

    Are you simply not bothering to read my post? I answered that canard NUMEROUS times. I immediately documented the fact that what was represented to the coroner as the 'official' flight manifest DID NOT contain ANY Arab Names. How many times must I repeat that? Nothing you've said refutes that and nothing you've said indicates that you even bothered to process it.

    Let me REPEAT: I am not interested in what anyone with a word processor could have generated at any time about anything! I repeat: I am not interested in fancy graphics which someone designed BECAUSE it conformed to the official theory. I am not interested in what someone generated full cloth for presentation purposes.

    I am not interested in anything that was produced AFTER THE FACT in order to shore up Bush's bullshit theory. Comprend???

    Rather than a list --which anyone can make at any time and label in any way --you should be posting a pedigree, a paper trail, concepts you have repeatedly failed to grasp! Read up on the rules of evidence. Educate yourself.

    IF the 'official lists' that you mentioned WERE true, then NONE of those hijackers giving interviews could have done so. That bears repeating as you have failed to grasp it:

    IF the 'official lists' that you mentioned WERE true, then NONE of those hijackers giving interviews could have done so. If ANY one said 'dead' on a list --official or no --then the list is BOGUS. Comprend???

    Are you following me? Let me make this simple.

    If Hani Hanjour, for example, is still alive, then the lists you tout are bullshit! That's just an example. If ANY 'hijacker' said 'dead' at any time on ANY list --official or no -- then the list is bullshit!

    As evidenced by the complete lack of interest in the "hijackers still alive theory" by a news media that would give their collective left arm for this kind of story, that ball hasn't advanced very far as of yet.

    Why do you ASSUME that there is no MSM interest? In any case, MSM interest of lack of interest is NOT evidence one way or the other. Peddle that elsewhere. It's another smokescreen.

    Your statement is false. I have lots of information, much of it from what some would call the MSM, that proves that several hijackers 'survived'; it, thus, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your 'official flight manifests' differ from documents so represented to the coroner; and, secondly, that there is 'probable cause' that the crime of 'obstruction of justice' was committed in their very creation. Tampering or falsifying evidence is a crime.

    There is enough probable cause now to justify a Federal Judge convening a Federal Grand jury for the purpose of examining the "creation" of phony evidence right now! Many a felony conviction would follow indictment. I must thank you, David, your absolute failure to grasp these elementary principles of law have had a positive effect. With a bit more research, I think a petition to a Federal Judge might be in order. Secondly, I think another article might deal precisely with every Bush effort to cover up his tracks: 1) His orders to destroy forensic evidence; 2) his failure to cooperate with the 911 commission. See [9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon]

    Indeed, the co-chairs of the 911 Commission now damn their own work:

    "Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission"

    Bush tried to cover up 911. Only guilty folk cover up their crimes. At the very least, Bush is guilty of obstruction of justice! Obstruction of justice, however, always implies guilt of the crime, the investigation of which is obstructed. I suggest you sober up. You're not doing the Bush man any good.

    No compelling reason to be in ANY WAY mistaken? That would be in effect saying that news reporters and editors never make a mistake. They demonstrate the opposite almost daily.

    That MIGHT have true had there been any reason to believe that they made a mistake. Responsible journalists make DOCUMENTED retractions when they make a mistake. The DO NOT rewrite an OLD STORY under cover and try to pass it off as ORIGINAL. Your pure supposition, your speculation is simply uninformed and ignorant! Have you ever been inside a newsroom?

    But that is NOT the case. There is, in fact, no evidence to the contrary. Your rationale for so concluding is, as I have pointed, based NOT on fact or evidence but upon your insistence upon discounting any statement of 'fact' as untrue if it does not conform to the 'official conspiracy theory'. You have it backwards again. And you are getting boring.

    Immaterial? The fact that they went from reporting that hijackers were still alive to saying that they weren't is immaterial? How does the fact that no hijackers are alive NOT support the official story, in any way?

    Who said that and when? Put up!

    I'm not contending that the original manifests were wrong, I'm contending that they were right.

    And I am contending that the original manifest contained NO ARAB NAMES and that there was NO EVIDENCE but Bushco's assertion that there were! The original flight manifest for 77 had been posted on the Arlington site but is now taken down. There were no arab names on it. Secondly, Dr. Olmsted filed an FOIA and got an autopsy list! Guess what: NO ARABS ON THE LIST!

    The burden of proof is upon you! Secondly, why am I supposed to believe that you have any evidence at all, when, in fact, you have failed to impugn a 'single' source: the Washington Post which confirmed not only the coroner's original statement but also the statement of Dr. Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D., who filed a FOIA request.

    "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."

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

    As Dr. Olmsted points out, a list on a piece of paper is NOT evidence. An autopsy by a pathologist is! If you wish to refute this forum, then file your own FOIA request. Show me the results of an autopsy of Hani Hanjour, for example! Show me the autopsy of any hijacker that was said to have died that day. And, if you fail because BUSH DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE, then don't come complaining to me about the actions of arch criminals!

    But stop repeating the same old lie over and over. You have asserted, in effect, that what you choose to call 'official flight manifests' contain the names of all the Arab hijackers. But you have not offered any proof other than lists that can be typed up by anyone at any time for any reason. I have asked and you have ignored: post a pedigree!

    So now the ball's in your court. As evidenced by the complete lack of interest in the "hijackers still alive theory" by a news media that would give their collective left arm for this kind of story, that ball hasn't advanced very far as of yet.

    Nonsense! The ball was always in your court and still is. You've asserted a theory! Prove it! I've even told you how but you've chosen to ignore me. What can I say? You will persist in delusion, a characteristic I associate with crazy folk and republicans.

    Your story differs not a whit from various 'scripts' that are peddled here and there.

    Len Hart said...

    The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

    by Dr. David Ray Griffin
    9/11 Visibility Project
    Sunday, May 22, 2005
    Link to Original

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Crazy Liberal said...

    PBS Frontline had a two part series titled Bush's War?

    http://tinyurl.com/2f9fas

    It is total and utter bullshit! It is unbelievably pro-Bush.

    It concerns 911 and the propaganda that PBS spews regarding the events following the attack on the WTC.

    Watch at your own risk. Bring a barf bag.

    Crazy Liberal said...

    PBS Frontline had a two part series titled Bush's War?

    http://tinyurl.com/2f9fas

    It is total and utter bullshit! It is unbelievably pro-Bush.

    It concerns 911 and the propaganda that PBS spews regarding the events following the attack on the WTC.

    Watch at your own risk. Bring a barf bag.

    Len Hart said...

    Armstead wrote ...

    I'm not seeing any actual, meaningful evidence of no hijackers.


    "not seeing...no..."

    Ummmmmm..that explains it all. Armstead is a Republican. He thinks like one.

    Army, didn't you cover double negatives in grammar school? Or, perhaps I should ask, did you not not?

    That you would construct a sentence of the form "I am not seeing evidence of no hijackers..." explains why you could cannot grasp the concept behind 'burden of proof'.

    Perhaps, I am NOT SEEING NO evidence that you did not go to school.

    We have entered the GOP fairy tale land where 'no evidence' of innocence is evidence of guilt. A reversal of the burden of proof.

    Barbara Olson used the same fallacy to slander Congressman Condit when she told Larry King Live that Congressman Condit was must certainly guilty of murdering Candra Levy because there was NO evidence that he did NOT do it!

    Gee! None of us are safe. There may be NO evidence that Armstead did NOT join the GOP. Therefore, he must have!

    There is NO evidence that GWB DOES NOT have an IQ lower than that of a moron; therefore, he must be a moron.

    There is NO evidence of NO Arab hijackers; therefore there must have been!

    There is nothing one can say about folk who simply will not understand the fallacious nature, indeed, the stupidity of this kind of thinking.

    Someone should do a statistical study. This kind of thinking is endemic throughout the GOP inclined and, given some well designed tests and representative samples of the population, it could be measured and correlated.

    And I've seen no evidence of any of them being still alive.

    Giving an interview to the BBC is pretty good evidence that one is still alive. I don't expect ever to see a dead hijacker speak.

    On a slightly different topic --it is not a matter of 'correcting mistakes'. The apparent rewrite of the official flight manifests is more properly described as an attempt to rewrite history.

    Correcting a mistake is one thing. In this case, the re-writes had the effect, in fact, of COVERING UP A CRIME. COVERING UP A CRIME IS A CRIME!!!

    Re-writing history in order to cover up a crime is not correcting a mistake, it is obstruction of justice.

    Len Hart said...

    Anonymous said...

    You (David Armstead) would try to support the Official Conspiracy Theory and it's assertion that kerosene melted/weakened steel in minutes, caused the collapse of three skyscrapers (one not hit and burning/exploding before the other two fell, but reported by BBC and CNN as collapsed 20 minutes before it did so), while also telling me they managed to find the DNA of the hijackers?

    It's all too much for tiny minds to grasp! Most folk simply will to believe ANY cacamamie theory if it makes them feel good about themselves. That's how Ronald Reagan lasted two terms. He simply made idiots and criminals feel OK with being idiots and criminals!

    The 'official conspiracy theory' seems artfully crafted by experts in human behavior to relieve the self-absorbed of all responsibility for the terrorism exported by the US via the CIA and the Military/Industrial complex and the deprivations caused by ham-fisted, fascist US foreign policy. GOP-types sleep well at night only because they have bought the lie and swallowed a potent soporific --the GOP lies that make them feel better about themselves.

    Len Hart said...

    As Dr. Olmstead pointed out -- A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist is!

    Here is just one more nail in the coffin containing Bush's official 911 lie: an OFFICIAL list of autopsies from Flight 77 made available by Dr. Olmstead, release by virtue of his FOIA request. That makes it an 'official list'. As it comes from the pathologist conducting the autopsy, that makes it evidence admissible with the pathologists warrant in the court that will one day try George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for the crimes of mass murder and high treason.

    THERE ARE NO ARABS ON THE LIST:

    Autopsy List Flight 77 (below)

    ambrose, paul
    betruyen, eneh
    booth, mary jane
    brown, bernard
    burlingame,charles
    calley, suzanne
    caswell, william
    charlebois, david
    clark, sarah
    cotto, masia
    debeuneure, james
    dickens, rodney
    dillar, deddie
    droz, chuck
    edwards, barbara
    falkenberg,charles
    falkenberg, zoe
    ferguson, james
    flagg, darlene
    flagg,wilson
    gabriel, richard
    grayian, hallstanley
    heidenberger, michelle
    jack, bryan
    jacoby, steven
    judge, ann
    keller, chandler
    kennedy, yvonne
    khan, norma
    kincaid, karen
    lee, dong
    lewis, jennifer
    lewis, kenneth
    may, renee
    mencha, cadora
    newton, christopher
    olson, barbara
    ornedo, ruben
    penninger, robert
    ploger, robert
    ploger, zandra
    raines, lisa
    reuben, todd
    sammartino, john
    simmons, diane
    simmons, george
    sopper, mari-rae
    speisman, robert
    steuerle, norma
    taylor, hilda
    taylor, leonard
    teagues, andra
    whittington, leslie
    yamnicky, john
    yancey, vicki
    yangs, huyin
    zheng, yuguag

    If Hani Hanjour is alive, Bush and Cheney are mass murderers.

    If ANY 'said' hijackers is alive what are just recently called 'flight manifests' are frauds put together AFTER THE FACT to shore up the fatal flaws in Bush's defense.

    If there were NO arabs on the pathologists list, then there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that there were arabs on the flight.

    Additionally, there is no evidence to indicate that ANY 'Arab' remains are among those interred anywhere.

    Certainly, we would not expect to see the names of living hijackers --Hani Hanjour, for example --among those autopsied. If, however, Bush's story were true, everyone 'said' to have been on the flight --including Hanjour and the other 'Arabs" --would have died. They most certainly would not have escaped the pathologists list; they most certainly would not be giving interviews.

    This hole in the official theory utterly destroys Bush's narrative with regard to Flight 77.

    The demonstrable lies that have been told by Bush and Cheney subsequent to events aggravate the crime. Indeed, the preparation of new and phony flight manifests in order to COVER UP crimes that would otherwise be charged to both men, is itself a crime --obstruction of justice, possibly accessory to mass murder after the fact.

    The illegitimate Bush regime is utterly without credibility and there is probable cause to bring charges of mass murder and high treason against Bush and Cheney.

    damien said...

    ....during the first eight days of September, Tenet briefed Bush at least six times on al Qaeda.

    THEY KNEW: Tenet's Book Reveals 9-11 Perjury -- by leveymg, Mon May 07, 2007

    George Tenet's new book, At the Center of the Storm, reveals something extremely important about events in the final weeks before 9/11.

    For the first time, the former CIA Director admits he flew to Crawford in late August, just weeks before the attack by al-Qaeda cells known to be in the U.S., and briefed President George W. Bush personally about the threat.

    This briefing followed a CIA PDB read to the President on August 6 in a meeting with Harriet Miers, then the President's lawyer, and an emergency meeting between Tenet and Condi Rice on July 10 on the same subject.

    It also reveals that in order to cover up the last meeting, Tenet committed perjury before the 9/11 Commission when he denied meeting with Bush in the month before the attack.

    According to the White House website, Bush met in Crawford with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condi Rice, and the present and former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals Meyers and Pace, on August 24, 2001.

    Actually, this is not the first time Tenet has referenced that meeting. During April 2003 testimony before the Commission, Tenet "misspoke" and let it slip that he had met with the President in the weeks leading up to 9/11. At the time, three years ago, the corporate media virtually ignored a pair of wire service reports about Tenet's revelation, and practically no one followed-up on it.

    ....during the first eight days of September, Tenet briefed Bush at least six times.


    Best conclusion: George Bush was criminally negligent over 911.
    Worst conclusion: George Bush participated in 911.

    damien said...

    Since David Armstead cited evidence from the Moussaoui trial as "proof" of a passenger manifest for 911 that included the terrorists it's probably worth pointing to this comment from Daniel Hopsicker:

    In a major development in the 9.11 investigation which passed almost-unnoticed, jurors in the death penalty trial of Zacharias Moussaoui heard testimony from aviation officials about a previously-undisclosed incident...

    In February of 2001, almost two months after the FBI says Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi left Huffman Aviation in Venice Florida for the bright lights of Miami, the two men were still flying a single-engine plane registered to Venice Florida flight school Huffman Aviation.

    Surprise surprise.

    The story offers further confirmation of allegations in “Welcome to TERRORLAND" that the FBI systematically covered up evidence showing Atta using Huffman Aviation in Venice as his base of operations for the entire year before the 9.11 attack.

    If the FBI’s chronology of events is a tissue of half-truths, distortions and outright lies, it is a very serious matter...the Bureau’s investigation was exclusively relied on by both the Congressional Intelligence Committee 911 probe and the 911 Commission, neither of which fielded independent investigators.

    Moreover, the incident also contradicts sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by Huffman Aviation’s Rudi Dekkers, who stated emphatically that Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi left Huffman for the last time just after Christmas in 2000.


    The prima facie case is that the FBI manufactured key evidence at the Moussaoui trial and before the 911 Commission.

    Len Hart said...

    damien, it just gets weirder and weirder! It sounds as if Tenet were deliberately kept out of the loop. If 911 were to be pulled off with 'help' from the CIA but without Tenet, it is possible. When Pappa Bush was appointed to the CIA by Nixon, many asked what Bush knew about the CIA. But, by that time, Bush Sr was a veteran. The CIA is a cult.

    David Armstead said...

    "Sounds convincing, but there’s a problem: the list doesn’t mean what Olmsted seems to imply. The title page clearly says it’s “the final list of bodies that were identified by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, at the Pentagon crash site of Flight 77”, and that’s all. So a person not being on the list could mean they weren’t on the plane, but it could also just mean their remains were not recovered, were recovered but not identitied, or they were identified elsewhere: all possibilities that Olmsted ignores.

And that’s quite strange, because Olmsteds own list doesn’t include 2-year-old Dana Falkenberg. Does this “prove” she wasn’t on the plane? No, just that no identifiable remains were recovered. Therefore the list is demonstrably incomplete, even without the hijackers.

What’s more, accounts elsewhere explain that the hijackers bodies were recovered, and provide details on why they weren’t on the list.

    =======

    "Employees at Advance Travel Service in Totowa, N.J., told The Star-Ledger of Newark that Hanjour and Moqed bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 on Aug. 31. Hanjour spoke little English, the employees said, so Moqed did most of talking.

    The two tried to pay with a credit card, but it did not get an authorization. They then tried to pay with a check, but were refused. A short time later, they returned with $1,842.25 in cash.
    At the men's request, Hanjour was given a seat in the front row of first class.


    I'm still waiting for those links to those interviews with the still alive hijackers. Of course, anything without pictures or video that verifies it being post-9/11 would be worthless, for obvious reasons. Because everybody knows that anybody could make up anything with a word processor, and it's surely not unrealistic to suspect that an Arab news agency eager to absolve Muslims of mass-murder might manufacture such an account.

    Len Hart said...

    A few points, David:

    1) The link you represented as 'official manifests" are NOT 'official menifests'. It is a fraud!!! And hereafter, you will be deleted. Anyone could have typed up 'your' list in any way they wanted.

    2) There are NO Arab names, i.e NONE of the 'said' hijackers' names are on the REAL 'official manifests' which were related upon an FOIA request. That makes them official.

    3) A 'flight manifest' ==offficial or no -- is not verifiable and is NOT evidence, despite what might or might not have happened in Moussouis trial.

    4) Even so --the ORIGINAL 'official flight manifests' were released and published. You will find the link the CNN believe.

    4) An official autopsy list, likewise released upon a FOIA request, IS evidence. THERE IS NOT AN ARAB AND --MORE TO THE POINT --THERE IS NOT A SINGLE HIJACKER NAME -- ON THE LIST

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

    The best explanation: Hani Hanjour is still alive.

    If Hanjour is alive, he could not have piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon, unless government theorists would like to posit that he bailed out seconds before 'his' 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

    That's ludicrous, of course, but in every instance the Bush theories are ludicrous, transparent lies.

    It is not only Hanjour who throws a monkey wrench into the government's theory. It is every other 'Arab' who is said to have helped the hijack plot but whose names do not show up on the official list of passengers. [False identities mislead FBI]; CNN: Original Flight Manifest, Flight 77; [BBC: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well] A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist is! It's also a nail in the coffin that contains Bush's official 911 lie. An official Autopsy List of Flight 77, obtained in Dr. Olmsted's FOIA request, is admissible in court. It should come as no surprise that none of names listed by the FBI as hijacking suspects appears on the list.

    Autopsy List Flight 77 (below)

    ambrose, paul
    betruyen, eneh
    booth, mary jane
    brown, bernard
    burlingame,charles
    calley, suzanne
    caswell, william
    charlebois, david
    clark, sarah
    cotto, masia
    debeuneure, james
    dickens, rodney
    dillar, deddie
    droz, chuck
    edwards, barbara

    falkenberg,charles
    falkenberg, zoe
    ferguson, james
    flagg, darlene
    flagg,wilson
    gabriel, richard

    grayian, hallstanley
    heidenberger, michelle
    jack, bryan
    jacoby, steven
    judge, ann
    keller, chandler

    kennedy, yvonne
    khan, norma
    kincaid, karen
    lee, dong
    lewis, jennifer
    lewis, kenneth
    may, renee

    mencha, cadora
    newton, christopher
    olson, barbara
    ornedo, ruben
    penninger, robert
    ploger, robert

    ploger, zandra
    raines, lisa
    reuben, todd
    sammartino, john
    simmons, diane
    simmons, george
    sopper, mari-rae
    speisman, robert
    steuerle, norma
    taylor, hilda
    taylor, leonard
    teagues, andra
    whittington, leslie
    yamnicky, john
    yancey, vicki
    yangs, huyin
    zheng, yuguag

    If there were no Arabs on the pathologists list, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that there were 'Arabs' on the flight. Additionally, there is no evidence to indicate that any 'Arab' remains were among those interred. "If it does not fit, you must acquit!" If there are no Arabs on the flight, it is Bush/Cheney whom you must indict!

    Certainly, we would not expect to see the names of living hijackers --Hani Hanjour, for example --among those autopsied. Hani Hanjour in particular is crucial to Bush's official conspiracy theory. He is said to have piloted Flight 77. He could not have done so without getting on board, without dying, without showing up on an 'official autopsy list', without being interred somewhere. There is no evidence that he did any of those things.

    If, however, Bush's story were true, everyone 'said' to have been on the flight --including Hanjour and the other 'Arabs" --would have died. They most certainly would not have escaped the pathologists list; they most certainly would not be giving interviews, they most certainly would not be 'protesting their innocence'.

    Clearly, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al conspired to pull off what the Project for the New American Century had called 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event'.

    "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51)--Project for the New American Century

    Anonymous said...

    網頁設計

    A片,色情A片,免費A片,成人影片,色情影片,a片免費看,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色小說,色情小說
    AV,AV女優,視訊ukiss