Showing posts with label bush crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bush crimes. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

AA Exposes Bush's 'Big Lie': Flight 11 DID NOT FLY on 911!


by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy


American Airlines is the source for information that AA Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not fly on 911. If neither flew on 911, the Bush 'theory' is a lie.

If the Bush 'theory' is a lie, there remains only one explanation: 911 was an inside job given a green-light by Bush himself. Moreover --only Pentagon employees were autopsied as a result of Flight 77 crashing the Pentagon.

There are NO names of passengers on the list, which is, in fact, the only admissible evidence to survive Bush's cover up and his obvious and felonious destruction of evidence (wreckage) at the Pentagon.

These "holes" are fatal to the Bush government's crumbling cover up! Conan Doyle, the brilliant creator of the character Sherlock Holmes, said:
"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!" 
Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911 is not only impossible, it is absurd and insulting to intelligent people!

The Bush Conspiracy Theory is impossible; That's why we know it is a lie!  


There is, then, probable cause to indict Bush and his co-conspirators for the crimes of mass murder and high treason. See: U. S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. That includes every lying statement made by Bush.

WikiScanner discovered that it was American Airlines which changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11. If these flights did not fly or did not exist, then Bush's "official conspiracy theory" must be discarded. It is a lie! The original entry was as follows:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
New entry [as of the date of this article] is as follows and includes the bolded text below:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.
--Wikipedia
To make the point: Wikipedia is NOT the source for these changes. The original source is American Airlines by making changes to Wikipedia. The 'story' is not about Wiki. The story is about a fact that is consistent with the observed facts as follows:
  1. no wreckage traceable to any airliner was ever recovered at the Pentagon
  2. That the flight (77) was not scheduled
  3. no airliner wreckage of any type nor any wreckage traceable to any flight was ever found or revealed by Bushco.
Instead, Bushco ordered the felony destruction of evidence i.e, wreckage that most certainly would have been verified and traced --not to an airliner but to a U.S. Global Hawk!

The ONLY turbo fan that was found and documented is not traceable to any airliner. It is, in fact, about 1/3 the diameter of two much larger turbo-fans that would have been recovered had Flt 77 struckt the Pentagon. It seems to me that Bush's felony destruction of evidence is evidence in itself that it was not an airliner that struck the Pentagon.

What had Bush to fear from airliner wreckage? Surely --the verified presence of debris traceable to an airliner would have supported Bush's version of events. Instead --Bush behaved like the criminal that he is and remains, i.e, he ordered the destruction of the evidence. That's a felony! 

The story is about how corrections to the official story originated with and from inside AA. The story is about the fact that the evidence that Flights 11 and 77 were not flying on 911 comes from American Airlines itself. Clearly --airliner personnel were trying to set the record straight. 
Just as no wreckage traceable to any 757 was ever recovered from the Pentagon, there is, likewise, no indisputable or official record that the flight --mothballed for some six months --was ever put back into service. If it had been, the burden of proof is still on Bushco and his league of liars to prove their story. 

SHOW ME THE WRECKAGE!! 
According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:

AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)

UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)

UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)
--911 Blogger, UPDATE: U.S. BTS FOIA Records For 9/11 Planes Differ From BTS Online Database [The records were obtained by Adrian Monaghan]
The question is raised: how do we know who made the changes to Wiki? Everyone logged on to the internet does so from an IP address. In this case, the IP is that of American Airlines. It's traceable.

My own WHOIS lookup as well as my Google search of the IP address proves conclusively that the change originated from American Airlines itself. That is consistent with the fact that no wreckage traceable to any 757 was ever recovered. If it had been, you can bet that the Bush administration would have put every scrap on parade. They didn't!

Therefore, the Bush theory of 911 is a deliberate lie.

My look up returned the following:

WHOIS - 144.9.8.21


Location: United States [City: Ft. Worth, Texas
OrgName:    American Airlines Incorporated
OrgID:      AMERIC-112
Address:    P.O.Box 619616
Address:    MD 5308
City:       DFW Airport
StateProv:  TX
PostalCode: 75261
Country:    US

NetRange:   144.9.0.0 - 144.9.255.255
CIDR:       144.9.0.0/16
NetName:    AANET
NetHandle:  NET-144-9-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-144-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS-P1.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P2.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P3.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P4.SABRE.COM
Comment:
RegDate:    1990-10-31
Updated:    2002-06-27

RTechHandle: OG60-ARIN
RTechName:   Gelbrich, Orf
RTechPhone:  +1-817-931-3145
RTechEmail:  ************@aa.com

OrgTechHandle: ZW72-ARIN
OrgTechName:   WARIS, ZISHAN
OrgTechPhone:  +1-817-967-1242
OrgTechEmail:  ************@aa.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-06-29 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

In previous articles, I pointed out the fact that mere scraps that were found lying around on the Pentagon lawn were quickly gathered up by white shirted geeks. It was the only wreckage of any kind found on the Pentagon lawn. It included only one engine turbo-fan! But two would have been found had Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fan that was located and photographed on the lawn was one-third the diameter of two much larger compressor rotors that would have been left behind had a 757, indeed, ANY airliner crashed the Pentagon.

Last time I checked, the GOP had not managed to repeal the laws of physics, in this case, the law of the conservation of matter and energy. Simply, the wreckage found at the Pentagon when gathered would have weighed several tons; in other words, it would have weighed as much as a 757 minus passengers and fuel. Instead --the only wreckage gathered was carted off on the shoulders of four or five white-shirted, skinny geeks! Several tons? I don't think so.

Bottom line: NO WRECKAGE TRACEABLE TO A 757 was EVER found at the Pentagon. I do not believe that the laws of the conservation of matter and energy [See: conservation of matter and energy, M.I.T.] were repealed by Bush however much he might have wanted to do so.

SHOW ME THE WRECKAGE and TRACE IT TO A 757!!

We can expect a gang of crooks and liars to cover up their own misdeeds but to cover-up the work of an 'alleged' gang of terrorists only makes them look guilty. It makes them look guilty because the only remaining alternative is that Bushco is motivated to destroy evidence. Only those who are guilty of crimes are thus motivated. In this case, only Bushco is motivated to 1) lie about 911 2) order the destruction of evidence as he, in fact, did with respect to the Pentagon and the towers in New York; 3) try to intimidate those questioning the official lie by branding them traitors and/or subversives.

One of Many Fatal Holes in the Bush Official Conspiracy Theory

The many lies (many referenced in previous EC articles; see links below) are probable cause to begin a Federal Grand Jury investigation of George W. Bush's role in 911. Bush should be compelled by subpoena and Federal Marshals to testify under oath before an independent Federal Grand Jury. The AA revelations demand it!

911 as we have been told did not happen.

Bushco's 'official conspiracies theory' of 911 is full of holes. Flights 11 and 77 are essential ingredients in the "official conspiracy theory" of 911. That AA claims that neither 11 nor 77 were in the air that day sinks Bush's theory. Clearly --the official theory is a lie, an intentional cover-up. Cover-ups imply guilt! Otherwise --what is there to cover up? The official lie goes like this:
At 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its transponder signal, and veered northward and departed dramatically from the westward heading of its planned route. The controllers concluded that the plane had probably been hijacked. 4 5 At 8:24, the following transmission was reportedly received from Flight 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay .. we are returning to the airport
..Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet. Nobody move please we are going back to the airport .. don't try to make any stupid moves. 6
Neither of the pilots pressed the distress call button. At 8:28 controllers reportedly watched the plane make a 100-degree turn toward the south. 7 Presumably, Flight 11 continued south along the Hudson River until it reached the World Trade Center, though documentation of this is sparse given the lack of public information.
According to NORAD's September 18 timeline, the FAA did not notify NORAD of the signs that Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40, 25 minutes after the first signs of trouble. 8 
--Flight 11, The First Jet Commandeered on September 11th, 911 Research
Simply: if AA Flight 11 was not in the air, it could not have struck the towers; ergo: the Bush theory is false!

The house of cards collapses.

Assertions that Flight 11 struck the North Tower that are utterly baseless! If neither Flight 11 mor 77 was in the air that day, the Bush administration's version of events must be utterly discarded.

If flights 11 or 77 did not fly on 911, officialdom must come up with another explanation to explain the the events of 911.

No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever found at the Pentagon.

One would not expect to find wreckage of a flight never flown. What is significant with respect to the changes to Wiki, with respect to BTS/NTSB records is that the burden of proof is now placed upon Bushco to prove its theory. Bush et al should be compelled to prove the official theory --or face charges resulting from the probable cause that Bush himself and high ranking members of his administration participated in the crimes of mass murder and high treason!
Photos of an engine rotor appear to depict an engine used in the Global Hawk, a payload carrying missile that was, according to Britain's International Television News, flown from the US to Australia completely by remote control. "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean." 

Britain's ITN continued:
"The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."
ITN quoted Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: "The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."

"The Missile that Struck this Building" --Don Rumsfeld

The Global Hawk is a much better candidate for what Rumsfeld called '...the missile that struck this building' than a 757. Here's what you need to know about the Pentagon.
  • Only minutes after the strike, [see pic above] there is no sign of an airliner at all!!
  • No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered.
  • Only ONE engine rotor was recovered to be seen in photo! This rotor is about one third the diameter of a 757 rotor, i.e about the size of a U.S. Global Hawk rotor and can be traced to a U.S. Global Hawk.
  • A 757 has two rotors, each of which are nearly three times the size of the SINGLE rotor located at the Pentagon. Again --only one rotor was found in Pentagon debris.
  • Engine rotors are made of a Steel/Titanium alloy to withstand high temps inside jet engines and would have been found had they been there.
  • Flight 77 could not and did not crash into the Pentagon. That may be because Flt 77 did not fly on 911. According to airline records, Flight 77 had been mothballed and had not flown for some 6 months prior to 911.
No Arabs Were on Board 77

There are no Arabs on the only Pentagon 'evidence' that is admissible in court: the 'Official Autopsy Report' of Pentagon victims. If no Arabs were on board Flight 77, Bush's theory must be trashed! There is not only no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that Arab terrorists hijacked 77. There is every reason to believe that none ever got on board.

The autopsy report was released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request. In a 'neat' cover-up, a 911 memorial lists all victims of whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon. At the same time, 77 victims were said to have been buried at Arlington National Cemetery. All are Pentagon employees! Where, then, are the passengers buried? I would be very surprised to learn that there were passengers on a flight that cannot be proven to have existed.

Whatever crashed into the Pentagon was described by a witnesses as looking like a "hump-backed whale". Rumsfeld himself called it a missile: Below: a US Global Hawk painted to look like an AA airliner. It is both a 'missile' and it also has a hump back! It 'fills the bill'.

The photo below does not purport to be the craft that would ultimately crash into the Pentagon. It merely demonstrates how easily such a 'paint job' could dupe those who are 1) not experts on aircraft 2) saw it only for a second or less as it scooted across the Pentagon lawn as NO 757 could possibly have done 3) were, in any case, caught off guard.


Recognizing lies for what they are is a part of the process of growing up! America, it is time to grow up! It is time to confront this heinous pack of lies! It is time to insist that the Obama administration begin a REAL investigation of 911.

It is time to insist that a Federal Grand Jury investigate every count of high treason, mass murder and domestic terrorism that was perpetrated upon the people of the U.S. by the Bush administration, his collaborators in the Pentagon, K-Street, the Congress and the leadership of the Republican party, Marvin Bush's 'Securacom', Larry Silverstein who ordered WTC 7 be 'pulled', General Myers, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and, of course, George W. Bush who was, at the time, the 'Commander-in-Chief' and ultimately responsible for the orders given the US military to 'stand down'.
By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a "A bomb? I had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01).
Well, that's a pretty tall tale by any standard. The New York Times reported that by 8:13am, the FAA was aware of the first hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did not occur until approximately 9:37am, nearly an hour and a half later, this after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York City.
It was widely reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of Defense." Why should the man charged with defending the United States of America concern himself with hijacked aircraft?
There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called: "CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A"
The video asks: "Was 911 a Conspiracy?" That is not the question. Even Bushco claims that it was a conspiracy --a conspiracy of 19 Arab Hijackers who could not possibly have pulled it off. It's a stupid theory; without the shock and awe campaign, no one would have believed it.

The questions, rather, are which conspiracy and who were the conspirators? It was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes who said that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable MUST be the truth!

There has been a spate of fallacious comments of the form: "...uh...what happened to the passengers, dude?". A few points:
  1. the 'question' is, in fact, an implied statement and assumes that there were flights! It assumes there were passengers! If there were --in fact --passengers one would have expected to have found their names on the official autopsy report. One would have expected to find in the public records the time and location of their burials.
  2. But --alas --there are NO Arab names whatsoever on the ONLY official/admissible scrap of evidence to have survived the Bush cover-up of 911! That would be the official autopsy report! There is simply no evidence of any passengers, no evidence that any flight alleged by Bush to have crashed in either NY or the Pentagon flew at all on that fateful day! In a court, it would be said that any statement with respect to 'passengers' that 'it assumes facts NOT in evidence'!
  3. Absence of evidence is not evidence! It is certainly not evidence in support of anything, let alone Bush's idiotic, fallacious and pernicious lie(s)! The 'absence of bodies' is not evidence of a crash of any sort. Only the presence of bodies traceable to the alleged flights would have been evidence in support of Bush. Alas --there were none! Ergo: Bush lied! The Bush 'theory' is bunk and bullshit!
The only available evidence, moreover, disproves the Bushco conspiracy theory of 911. There is no evidence whatsoever that there were --at any time --any Arabs of any sort (terrorist or otherwise) on board Flight 77, a flight for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it was even in the air.

Even the Washington Post is on record reporting that Hani Hanjour could not have been on board; he did NOT have a ticket. Skinny Hanjour is said to have been very slight, perhaps less than a hundred pounds. Are we to believe he over-powered people at the gate? In any case, there is simply no evidence of that, nor was it reported, nor is it credible.

Also --among the flight information released to an professional pilots association NTSB data that proves that the cockpit door was NEVER opened during the flight. Are we to believe that Hanjour managed to walk through a closed door into the cockpit? Was he sooo skinny he was able to slide under a closed cockpit door. Really! The Bush theory is not merely impossible, it's increasingly absurd, stupid and amateurish. Anyone duped by this bullshit should be ashamed of themselves.
The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.
Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of kicking Osama/Sadaam's butt (weren't these originally two different people?). It seemed simple to me. . .produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers. So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Saddam had done the deed. Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me that they weren't a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.
foia-10003.jpg
No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. Indeed, American had the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together.
--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D., Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77 
Worth repeating and in summary:
...the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks.
I don't wish to belabor the point but it must be made clear that unaccounted for passengers is among the biggest holes in Bush's cover story; it is Bush's big, treasonous lie.

If Bush cannot explain the absence of airliner wreckage or the missing passengers, then his official theory must be discounted. It was Conan Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes, who said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth!" But, of course, finding, learning, revealing the truth has never been the Bushco agenda. Seizing unjustifiable war powers was, I am sure, always on his agenda which always included oil!

Those who assert must prove! 

The burden of proof is on anyone believing and/or asserting that the alleged flights existed. A mass movement of Americans to include members of Congress should have insisted insisted that a Federal Prosecutor put Bush on the witness stand in front of a federal grand jury where the following question would be put to him: 'what was the fate of the passengers on flights 77 and 11?'

It would be very interesting to learn how he might escape the experience without being indicted for:
  1. PERJURY
  2. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  3. MASS MURDER
Concerning possible charges of 'high treason' against Bush: was it not Bush who declared that we were at war? Was it not Bush and his shills who insisted that the US attack, invade and occupy Iraq in response to an 'attack' upon the US? Have not Bush partisans insisted, from the 'gitgo' that the U.S. attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq was part and parcel of the US 'war on terrorism'? That being the case, Bush's complicity in the events of 911 are most certainly acts of betrayal against a sovereign in a time of war and, therefore, high treason! 

Among a growing number of links back to this article is this excellent expose of the Flight 77 fraud:
According to the official story, AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. bound for Los Angeles, with between 50 and 58 passengers. It flew west for about 45 minutes, making a curious detour to the north, west and south, before turning around and flying for another 45 minutes back to Washington. Why hijackers would allow a jet which they planned to crash into a target in Washington to fly for 45 minutes away from its target is not explained. Why did they not commandeer the plane ten minutes after takeoff when the plane was only ten minutes flying time from its intended target? The official story ignores this question, as it does all other questions.

As reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), as AA 77 approached the Pentagon it executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory so low that it clipped the power lines across the street then (so the story goes) it smashed into an outer wall of the Pentagon.

We were told (and, of course, expected to believe without question) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)

In contrast to the attention given to the collapse of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon received little attention until in February 2002 a French website (by Thierry Meyssan) appeared which reproduced images obtained from U.S. Army websites: Hunt the Boeing! These images cast doubt upon the official story that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 jetliner. For example, here is a picture of the Pentagon crash site taken about two hours after the impact, with the fire still burning. Can you see any remains of the approximately 100 tons of metal (including engines, wings, and tail section) which makes up a Boeing 757? .....
--Pentagon Official Story Hoax
The FBI doesn't believe the 'official conspiracy theory' of 911. Why should you?

The FBI has admitted, officially, that it cannot find any 'evidence' or documentation to support popular myths that some four airliners were hijacked by terrorists and used as weapons on 911. Moreover, the FBI itself admits that "... no records would have been generated responsive to plaintiffs request for documents."

In other words, even the FBI concedes that there is no admissible, no official evidence to support Bush's lies about 911. Their investigation, says the FBI, was based upon the never questioned assumption that the said flights had been hijacked. The key word in the FBI statement is: ASSUMPTION. The FBI is overly polite. 'Assumption' by Bushco is unacceptable! But a better description of Bush and company is 'bald-faced lie' purpose of which was two-fold: 1) obstruct justice 2) protect the guilty and prevent their prosecution for the crimes of high treason and mass murder!

The Co-chairs of the 911 Commission don't believe the official theory; why should you?



Monday, July 04, 2011

Road Trip to Ground Zero: Get on Board

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, perhaps the most famous fictional detective of all time, himself expert in the science of criminology, wrote:
"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!"
With respect to the crime of 911, it is past time to eliminate the impossible, i.e, the Bush 'theory' of 911, often called the 'official conspiracy theory of 911'.

Following is my short list --not of mere improbabilities --but fatal impossibilities any one of which destroys the Bush 'official conspiracy theory of 911'! All impossibilities listed may be verified against the laws of physics, logic and empirical observation. If the official conspiracy theory of 911 is impossible, then it is a lie and a deliberate one!

Some are obvious but somehow ignored by the media. For example, Hani Hanjour is said to have boarded and then high jacked Flight 77. But the Washington Post reported that Hani Hanjour could not have gotten on board because he did not have a ticket. Nor is his name on the only official, admissible shred of evidence to have survived Bush's orders to destroy evidence and that is the official autopsy report released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request.

More recently, NTSB records revealed that the cockpit door on Flight 77 was never opened during the fight. Ergo: the Bush official conspiracy theory of 911 cannot even explain how it was possible to have hijacked a flight of which there is no record, no evidence, no autopsy report to prove that any alleged hijacker ever got on board to begin with.

Bushco cannot place the 'suspects' at the scene of the crime.

Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911 is utterly impossible; there is not a shred evidence of any sort to support it.
  1. There are no arabs on the only admissible scrap of evidence related to the crash at the Pentagon, that is, the official autopsy report released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request. No arabs. A mere list of passengers which anyone can type up is NOT evidence admissible in court. And there is no evidence that anyone but Pentagon employees are buried at Arlington National Cemetary.
  2. Official NTSB data indicates that on Flight 77, the cockpit door was never opened during the flight! So --not ony is there no evidence that Hani Hanjour was ever on board, he could not have hijacked the airliner had he been on board. Unless --of course --he could walk through a closed door! Perhaps he was inspired by David Copperfield who 'walked' through the Great Wall of China!
  3. 3) No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered from the Pentagon. A single engine rotor that was photographed on the Pentagon lawn is about 1/3 the size of each of two much, much larger rotors (of Titanium/Steel alloy) that would have been found had a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. No --the wreckage did not vaporize. And, unless the laws of physics are repealed, the total weight of wreckage will equal the weight of the un-crashed aircraft.

    There is a photo (and video, as I recall) of some four to six white-shirtered, presumably Pentagon employees, hauling off 'debris' on a cart that they carried on their shoulder. This was NOT 757 debris. Unless The Bush administration repealed the laws of physics, specifcially the laws of the conservation of matter and energy, the total weight of the debris would have been equal to the weight of the uncrashed 757 minus the weight of spent fuel.
  4. None of the crashes in New York were the flights that were alleged to have struck the towers. AA records indicate the the alleged flights had been mothballed for several months. In fact, the 757 has often found itself in service to the U.S. government. The United States Air Force fitted four 757-200s for VIP transport duties (C-32A). The USAF also operates two 757-200 aircraft (C-32B) for use by the U.S. State Department Foreign Emergency Support Team. These aircraft are painted solid white with only a small American flag and the USAF serial number on the fuselage.
  5. 911 is a crime like any other!
Anyone who would solve 911 must place the suspect at the scene of the crime. Candidates not having method, motive, and opportunity must be eliminated. That applies to Bushco's scapegoats --some 14 Arab hijackers who cannot be placed the scene of the crime, specifically NONE of them can be placed on any hijacked flight at any time! Until the BBC tracked down some of the alleged hijackers and interviewed them AFTER they were said to have died on 911, I might have been inclined to believe that they had not even existed. But --in any case --a living hijacker in a post-911 world disproves the Bush theory.

5) 127,520 --that's the weight in pounds of a typically outfitted 757. The wreckage on the Pentagon lawn was carried off atop a crate carried aloft by four or five skinny office dudes in white shirts and ties. There is NO WAY that over 50 TONS of wreckage was carried off on the shoulders of wimps! There is NO WAY that some 50 tons of airliner wreckage was ever recovered at any time at the Pentagon. The laws of the conservation of matter and energy were NOT repealed though Bushco might have wanted to.

Bottom line: the Bush administration --primarily Bush Jr himself, Dick Cheney who supervised, Don Rumsfeld (who almost gave the game away when he referred to the 'MISSILE that struck this building (the Pentagon), Condo Rice et al are the most obvious suspects. They had 1) method 2) motive, and 3) a golden opportunity, much like the opportunity A. Hitler had as a result of the Reichstag Fire. [See: William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich]

Conan Doyle was right. 911 is simple when you eliminate the impossible. Next: eliminate the smokescreen, the irrelevant BS, the flack that was thrown up, the distractions, the rabbit trails, the diversions, the misdirection.

At its heart:
  • the Bush Administration committed acts of mass murder and high treason'
  • the Bush administration lied about it, ordered the destruction of evidence that might have PROVEN them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt'
  • the Bush administration dared to question the patriotism of good and loyal Americans;
  • the Bush administration tried to blackmale and, in other ways, intimidate good, loyal, patriotic Americans who have a DUTY to question elected leaders, public servants and anyone taking an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.
It is significant that Bush lied about 911, in fact, never told anything resembling the truth with respect to 911. All were lies except the fact that 'something' terrible', something everlastingly evil happened that day. I covered numerous high profile murder trials in both Odessa, TX and Houston, TX, trials that featured legendary attorneys like Percy Foreman, Dick DeGuerin and Warren Burnett, whom the media called the 'heir apparent' to Clarence Darrow. As a result of my observations inside high profile murder trials, I concluded that 1) those who are innnocent of a crime DO NOT lie about them and, in fact, it is against their interests, counter-productive to do so; 2) only the GUILTY lie about crimes and only the guilty are motivated to do so!

It is therefore relevant and highly revealing that Bush and Bushco lied consistently and repeatedly about 911! It was an elaborate and well-coordinated 'full-court press' to commit numerous crimes and cover them up! It was --in fact and by law --a conspiracy! As a result, nothing said by Bush or Bushco is verifiable in any way --scientifically, causually, legally! And that is only so because they are guilty! Bush lied, thousands of Americans died! The act of mass murder called 911 was and remains an act of murderous high treason!

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Why the BBC and FOX Can No Longer be Believed

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Like a cornered dog, the BBC has lashed out at a growing movement of organized critics of Bush 'conspiracy theories' of 911. How credible is this offensive? BBC reporting of 911 is at the very least 'questionable', at worst, 'dishonest'. I suggest that the BBC is trying to save face, having blown almost every opportunity to report honestly with regard to the events of 911.

The BBC's coverage of Building 7 is the part that contains the whole! It's a sorry 'incredible' mess! Anyone watching the BBC report of the collapse of WTC Building 7 when the building is seen still standing behind the reporter should question BBC motives, sources, ethics, and operations. Where did the BBC get the information that a standing building had collapsed before it could have or did? Why did the BBC report as fact the collapse of a building that would not collapse for another 23 minutes? How did the BBC know?
Another video of the BBC's Screw Up
The BBC might have known had Larry Silverstein or 'agent' tipped them off! Silverstein, the building owner, is on video tape 'confessing' that the building had been 'pulled'. That being the case, the BBC is open to charges of 'omitting' the fact that Building 7 was 'pulled'. BBC cannot have it both ways!

Perhaps the venerable BBC is perversely comforted by the fact that it was not alone; other media also reported the collapse of Building 7 before it, in fact, collapsed. The swamis at Fox were obviously consulting the same oracle:
The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.
Following the collapse both news anchors state that the building must have come down due to structural failure which has of course been the official cover story for the WTC-7 collapse. Neale appears visibly flustered after she realizes that she reported on a building collapse in advance of the collapse actually happening. After the collapse, Neale’s co-anchor states the following which is incredibly surreal considering all the information that has now come out about the events of 9/11.

--Fox Reports Building 7 Collapse before it happened. (click the link; there is VIDEO of the Fox swamis caught in the act!)
Prior to 9/11, no steel framed building had ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. Building 7 is a threat not only to Bush's absurd cover story which defies the laws of physics, it is a threat to the 'bend over and take it' school of journalism which regurgitates official stories and covers its ass with an attribution. The 'news reader' in the above video states --as if it were fact --that Building 7 collapsed because 'it had been weakened' though it was never struck by aircraft of any sort!  In fact, Building 7 would not have collapsed from the existing fires even if it had not been "intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening" the structural integrity of the building.

It was the venerable New York Times which reported that fact. Their source was Larry Silverstein the man who later admitted --on broadcast TV --that WTC 7 had, in fact, been 'pulled'. "Pulled" is industry jargon for "controlled demolition".
BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project. 
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need... 
MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station. ...
--New York Times, The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
Since that date, the BBC has tried to paper over the incident with many ex post facto versions. Likewise, the BBC has offered up an apologia for having reported a fact: when it was still honest, the BBC had tracked down and interviewed several alleged Arab 911 hijackers after they were said to have died in the 911 attacks.

Now a cornered BBC, it's credibility on the line, blames its critics, just as the U.S. GOP always blames its victims though they are the victims incompetent and often criminal policies. Why is the BBC lashing out? Its very survival as a network was at stake. My theory --for what 'theories' are worth --is that the BBC had a stake in promoting the Bush/Blair orthodoxy.
In a recently broadcast documentary, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower, the BBC presents the second of two programs confronting claims made by a growing activist movement comprised of people who doubt the official story of 9/11. This time the BBC looks into one of the most compelling areas of 9/11 research, the theory that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. [my note: Larry Silverstein is heard on video tape broadcast on TV and cable that WTC 7 was, in fact, 'pulled'! ]
The perfect vertical implosion of this enormous building—the last of seven WTC buildings to be completely destroyed on 9/11—was filmed from several excellent angles and is further supported by aerial photos (fig. 1). Those theorists who claim that the Twin Towers as well were brought down with explosives have enjoyed an exponential boost in credence from strong evidence supporting the intentional demolition of WTC 7.
--911 Blooger.com, The BBC’s Demolition of 9/11 Truth
As building owner Larry Silverstein had said, WTC 7 was 'pulled', raising the question: when was the building prepped for demolition? One does not merely decide to 'pull' and building to watch it happen a few hours or less later. The process of rigging a building of some 47 stories for a perfect and symmetrical, controlled demolition may take weeks. Often, the plans and engineering specifications must be examined. 911 was planned well in advance.

I have a nit to pick with 911 Blogger's title. BBC cannot 'demolish' 911 truth. They can only lie about the events as it tries to rewrite its own history. The BBC has tried to do this with several issues. First --the fact that the BBC interviewed several of the alleged 911 hijackers at a time when the Bush administration and then Prime Minister Tony Blair were telling the world that they had perished in the attacks. So --who's lying? The BBC story is still available with a change that the BBC has tried to gloss over so:
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
--Steve Herrmann, 9/11 conspiracy theory
Here's my note to Steve: first of all, your headline itself pure propaganda, intended to imply that critics of Bush/Blair have posited some kind of 'conspiracy' about 911. Some of the them may have --but criticism of the Bush/Blair theory is not a theory. It was, rather, Bush and Blair who put forward the most asinine, stupid, fallacious, and outlandish 'theory' to have ever come down the pike.

Critiques of the 'official theory' which would have you believe that a team of rag-tag Islamic radicals, who most certainly could not fly Cessnas, managed to co--ordinate an attack that resulted in the complete and utter destruction of two of the world's largest, tallest structures and a third building in New York that was not even struck by ANY aircraft at any time. Sorry, Herrmann, critics of this theory are not 'theorists'; they are realists and true skeptics. The 'official theory' is, however, a theory. It is also pure bunkum which even the co-chairs of the 911 commission now disown! They don't believe it. Why should you?

That brings up the topic of Building 7. Bush/Blair gullibles have always included Building 7 as a part of the terrorist attack. By putting itself in the position of defending the outlandish, official conspiracy theory of them all, the BBC has, perhaps unwittingly, assumed the burden of proof! If the BBC wishes to 'demolish' critics of the 'official conspiracy theory', it must then PROVE the 'official conspiracy'. BBC is sticking its neck out, perhaps pinning it own future on proving an 'official conspiracy theory' for which there is not a shred of evidence. Making minor changes to its story about surviving hijackers is a band-aid. Unless the BBC can rescue Bush/Blair, it may be finished. It is not wise for a news organization to pin its credibility, indeed, its hope for survival upon the word of two known liars: Bush and Blair.

Here's what the BBC must do to prove the Bush/Blair Official Conspiracy Theory of 911:
  • The BBC must explain why steel melted and collapsed in a relatively cool kerosene fire when, in fact, no other building in the world had ever so collapsed! In fact, the fires at WTC --including Building 7 --were NEVER hot enough at any time to have melted steel! Moreover, by the time the Twin Towers collapsed, the billowing smoke was black. Any firefighter, any veteran reporter will tell you that 'black smoke means a cooling fire'. The fires were spent and the steel was never hot enough even for a second to have melted steel! Again --the burden of proof is upon BBC, Bush and Blair to PROVE the most stupid and outlandish conspiracy theory ever perpetrated upon a gullible pubic!
  • The BBC must offer a credible explanation for the precise maneuver that is attributed to Flight 77 said to have hit the Pentagon. Bluntly --Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna. He could not have banked a 757 90 degrees without crashing it, let alone execute a maneuver that many experienced pilots say is absolutely impossible in a 757.
  • The BBC must PROVE, with photographs if it can get them, that it was a 757 that struck the Pentagon. Surely, Bush, eager to assist BBCs efforts on his behalf will will turn over every one of hundreds, possibly thousands of photos that were taken of the Pentagon and whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon that fateful day! Surely, Bush will want to help the BBC out! Won't he?
  • The BBC must PROVE that Flight 77 Flight Data is consistent with its crashing into the Pentagon. I am confident that the Flight Data from Flight 77 will prove conclusively that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon at an altitude of about 200 feet or slightly higher. Let's open up the Black Box and see who is correct! Me? Or the BBC/Bush? I'm not sweatin' it!
Now let's talk about what is perhaps the BBC's biggest gaffe --more egregious even than its various after-the-fact circumlocutions in the wake of its report that Building 7 had collapsed when, in fact, it was still standing. That is: the BBC censored only that portion of David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto in which she stated that Omar Sheikh had murdered Bin Laden years ago. Why did the BBC censor this portion and this portion only? Did the BBC feel obliged to keep alive the myth that Osama Bin Laden --a CIA asset --was still alive? Why?

The Bush administration, it seems, has kept Bin Laden alive for about seven years. Bhutto's remarks confirmed numerous reports including those by Fox and the New York Times that bin Laden had been dead for several years. The BBC was not alone in "censoring" Bhutto's references to the death of bin Laden.
On November 2nd, 2007 two weeks after the first attempt on her life resulted in the deaths of 158 people, former Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto spoke with British interviewer David Frost about her plans for Pakistan, the botched assassination and her feelings about working with current President Pervez Musharraf. (In light of her death, this is a difficult video to watch.) In the course of the past few days, however, FOX News has aired short clips from this interview on Special Report. No one - including Frost - seems to have picked up on an astounding claim made by Mrs. Bhutto, namely, that Osama bin Laden is dead. Mme. Bhutto claimed that a man named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh is "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." With video.
FOX News & Other Media Outlets Ignore Benazir Bhutto's Claim That Osama bin Laden Is Dead
Fox News had a stake in keeping bin Laden alive --but it was trapped. Fox had already reported him dead! Thus Benazir Bhutto was confirmed. It was on December 26, 2001, that the Fox network reported that Osama bin Laden died of "serious lung complications" in mid-December of that year. The original Fox report is as follows:

Fox News: "Bin Laden Already Dead"

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
Bin Laden, therefore, could not have issued a video tape on October 29, 2004 --just two days before the US election. This is the famous tape that many pundits believe "swung" the election from John Kerry to George Bush.
On October 29, 2004, two days before the US elections, the Arab television network al-Jazeera sprung an October Surprise by broadcasting a videotape of a healthy looking bin Laden addressing the people of the United States in which he took responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He also condemned the Bush government's response to the attacks, and presented the attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after personally seeing the destruction of the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video.
President Bush opened up a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast. [21] Walter Cronkite found the video very convenient for the Bush administration, and said of it “I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.” [22]
--Colin Bett, A 'Conspiracy Theory' Too Far?
Not only Fox, but the New York Times also reported the death of Bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication. With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?
--New York Times. July 11, 2002
NYT has apparently re-published the story. The original publication date was: July 11, 2002. Fox, it would appear, scooped the NYT but, apparently forgot what they had reported. Professional journalists?

The issue of bin Laden's pulse surfaced more recently when the venerable BBC clearly censored remarks by Benazir Bhutto to the effect that bin Laden had been murdered. Why would the BBC have deleted only that portion of the interview? Following is the original, unedited version in which Bhutto states that Bin Laden had been murdered.

A fallacious rationalization has surfaced. It is said --as if scripted --that Bhutto misspoke, that she had meant to say "Daniel Perle". There is absolutely no reason to suppose or speculate that Bhutto misspoke. She did not pause. She did not struggle to find a name. Secondly, only an idiot would mistake Bin Laden for Perle. Bhutto was not an idiot.

Even if Bin Laden were alive, it would not prove that Bhutto misspoke, only that she was wrong. Not the same thing. Theories that Bhutto 'misspoke' are baseless, pure supposition for which there is not a shred of evidence in support.

An essential resource: Can someone with no flight training safely land an airliner? Plus: Pilotless planes, overpaid pilots and other aviation myths.

Perhaps the BBC is trying to make amends for having told the truth about 911 and the events leading up to it when it was not yet 'treasonous' to tell the truth. The best BBC reporting was done before 911, before the axis of Bush and Blair would deceive the world and intimidate the media. All would not go smoothly; Pakistan and Ahmed Shah Massoud's government in Afghanistan, meanwhile, had already signed a pipeline deal with an Argentinean company.
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001. 
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
--US 'planned attack on Taleban', BBC
By July, 2001, the US State Department was reported to have been threatening the Taliban with carpet bombs.
U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil
By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service
PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book ''Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. [emphasis mine, EC]

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.
They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.
Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.
But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.
''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.
According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.
To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
--US Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil
The negotiations with the Taliban broke down. In that summer of 2001, the American people were distracted by the American media noise machine. See: All Condit All The Time. The US Government was informing other governments that the US would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October. The US timetable for war was set before 911 would conveniently provide the pretext. Pure luck? I don't think so.

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.

The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. ...

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

'They may take our lives but they will never take our freedom!'

By assuming the power to wage war upon the people of the United States, Bush has made it official: he is a traitor. Under the US Constitution, the people themselves are sovereign and Bush has declared war upon the sovereign. The word for that in law and throughout history is: high treason! [See: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story]

The Constitution of Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United States of Mexico or, if you prefer, United Mexican States) is the product of a revolution that was waged in that country in 1910. Unfortunately, the American United States, (Estados Unidos) could not be expected to have given a revolution in Mexico an adequate treatment, having failed to educate US citizens about its own history. Arguably, George W. Bush could never have gotten away with a complete repudiation of the US Constitution had Americans known as much of their history as do the citizens of Mexico about their country.

Cases in point involve the rights of individuals vs the powers of 'state'. States have no powers but those which derive by the consent of the people. The people, in fact, are sovereign. Any 'leader' who wages war upon them is, by defintion, a traitor! It is on this issue that Bush is either dead wrong or deliberately lying.

It is unfortunate that in the United States, for example, a 'Bill of Rights' was almost an after thought. So confident was James Madison that the Philadelphia Constitution was itself a bulwark against tyranny by virtue of an ingenious 'separation of powers' that he felt a separate 'Bill of Rights' to be unnecessary if not superfluous. At last, when a 'Bill of Rights' was insisted upon, Madison would draft it himself and his work therein is arguably more relevant to the individual than are those powers delegated either the President or Congress in the main body of the Constitution. It is the Bill of Rights which draws the line between state and individual, a line that state dare not trespass. People as 'sovereign' may (to use Thomas Jefferson's word) 'abolish states at their pleasure!

In Mexico (also called Estados Unidos) it is, I think, especially notable that the rights of individuals were not merely after thoughts. The rights of individuals vs those powers of state that might transgress against them are dealt with upfront and in language strong and unambiguous. While the body of the US Constitution is concerned with enumerating the powers and responsibilities of three branches of government, the very first Article in the Mexican Constitution deals with the rights of the people and individuals.
These rights cannot be denied and they cannot be suspended. Slavery is illegal in Mexico; any slaves from abroad who enter national territory will, by this mere act, be freed and given the full protection of the law.
Also covered Article I is the prohibition of all types of discrimination based on ethnic or national origins, sex, age, or social conditions. Everyone is protected by the rule of law regardless of different capacities or talents, social class or conditions, health, opinions, or preferences.

Bush, meanwhile, claims a 'right' to wage war upon the people themselves. This concept is TREASONOUS! Mexican revolutionaries understood what Bush does not: the people are sovereign. This principle was agreed to at Runnymede by King John and it is the very basis for Democracy; it the very foundation upon which any Democracy is based. Any state which presumes to wage 'war' upon its people or to enslave them upon ANY pretext is, by definition, a dictatorship, a tyranny and, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, it must be overthrown, by force if need be!
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Che Guevara said put it this way:
Of these three propositions the first two contradict the defeatist attitude of revolutionaries or pseudo-revolutionaries who remain inactive and take refuge in the pretext that against a professional army nothing can be done, who sit down to wait until in some mechanical way all necessary objective and subjective conditions are given without working to accelerate them.

As these problems were formerly a subject of discussion in Cuba, until facts settled the question, they are probably still much discussed in America. Naturally, it is not to be thought that all conditions for revolution are going to be created through the impulse given to them by guerrilla activity. It must always be kept in mind that there is a necessary minimum without which the establishment and consolidation of the first center is not practicable.

People must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law; peace is considered already broken.

--Guerilla Warfare, Che Guevara

Bush, by contrast, has said that 'The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!" and, in so declaring, he has begun his war upon the people. He is a traitor! He must be charged with high treason and brought to trial. King Charles I of England lost his head for less or similar offenses.

Bush has repeatedly asserted a 'power' to wage war on the American people, claiming and aggressively exercising, the "right to use any and all war powers against American citizens within the United States". Like any other tin-horn dictator he insists that he is above all restraints by Congress and the courts. In any state in which the people are sovereign, anyone waging war upon them is a traitor and is, by law, guilty of high treason! See: Glenn Greenwald: The NSA Fight Begins - Strategies for Moving Forward

Many of these 'wars' are still fought north of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo in Mexico). They are still fought north of the Rio Grande because of one party primarily: the GOP, otherwise called the Republican party, in fact, not a 'Republican' party at all but the party of the self-declared and absolute dictatorship of George W. Bush.

In 1910, the people of Mexico were oppressed by the regime of Porfirio Diaz. Unlike the people of the United States, Diaz was effectively opposed and eventually deposed by a people's revolution which was eventually responsible for elevating the rights of the people as opposed to the assume and arbitrary prerogatives of any government.



Revolution 1910

As he was portrayed by Mel Gibson in 'Braveheart', William Wallace addressed his rag tag band of 'revolutionary' Scots and allied Irish who opposed the oppressive regime of King Edward, called 'Longshanks'. "What will you do without freedom?", Wallace asked!

What will Americans do unless freedom is restored in Bush's wake? Will America simply slide off into oblivion, slavery, bankruptcy and collapse?

Don't dismiss the notion. Financially, the US is already bankrupt, careers lay in ruins, millions have already lost homes and suffered broken families. The worst is yet to come and FEMA has not constructed a gulag of camps for nothing. The Bill of Rights is but a memory and unless Bush is challenged, it will remain so. The next time you feel the impulse to condescend to your neighbor who lives south of the historic Rio Grande, reflect upon the fact that he is still protected by a rule of law which states without exception:
These rights cannot be denied and they cannot be suspended.
Since the ascension of Bush, you have NO SUCH guarantees!

Jesse Ventura lays it all on the line on the Howard Stern show. Jesse correctly and politely states the issues in question regarding the war and the events of 911.

Part 1

Part 2

A Police State Update:
DALLAS (Reuters) - Texas defied the World Court and executed a Mexican national by lethal injection on Tuesday over the objections of the international judicial body and neighboring Mexico.

Jose Medellin, 33, was pronounced dead at 9:57 p.m. CDT in the state's death chamber in Huntsville, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said.

He had been condemned for the 1993 rape and murder of 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena in Houston and lost his bid late Tuesday for a last-minute stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The World Court last month ordered the U.S. government to "take all measures necessary" to halt the upcoming executions of five Mexicans including Medellin's on the grounds that they had been deprived of their right to consular services after their arrests.

Medellin's execution is sure to anger neighboring Mexico and analysts have said it could make life rough for Americans arrested abroad if other countries decide to evoke the U.S. example and deprive them of their right to consular services.

This typically means diplomats will visit and provide legal advice to their nationals being held by authorities.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles had recommended that the state's Republican governor Rick Perry not grant a temporary reprieve, paving the way for Medellin's execution.

Texas, which executes far more convicts than any other U.S. state, had taken the view that the brutal nature of Medellin's crimes rendered him unfit for a reprieve or lesser sentence.

--Ed Stoddard, Texas Defies the World With Execution
Additional resources:

Published Articles

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines


Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine