posted 09-19-2003 08:35 PM            

September 11th And The Bush Administration

Compelling Evidence for Complicity

Walter E. Davis, PhD

08/31/03: (Information Clearing House)

Introduction

Clearly, one of the most critical questions of the twenty-first century concerns why the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were not prevented. As I outline below, there are numerous aspects regarding the official stories about September 11th which do not fit with known facts, which contradict each other, which defy common sense, and which indicate a pattern of misinformation and coverup. The reports coming out of Washington do very little to alleviate these concerns.

For example, the Congressional report released on July 25, 2003 by a joint panel of House and Senate intelligence committees concluded that 9/11 resulted in C.I.A. and F.B.I. "lapses." While incompetence is frightening enough given a $40 billion budget, it is simply not consistent with known facts. It is consistent with the reports from other government scandals such has the Iran Contra Affair which produced damage control and cover up but not answers to the more probing questions. But perhaps a comparison to Watergate is more apropos since we now have twenty-eight pages of this report, which the Bush Administration refuses to release. The report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is believable unless you are seriously interested in the truth. Under more careful scientific scrutiny, it does not answer some very important questions.

Newspapers across the country call for an investigation into Bush’s lies about the reasons for war on Iraq. Many people may accept the fact of Bush’s false pretext for a war on Arab people in a distant place, especially after the fact. However, few people will be as accepting if it is shown that this Administration was complicit in acts of atrocities against its own people.

The magnitude of the crisis is readily apparent by noting that 9/11 serves as a pretext for a never-ending war against the world, including preemptive strikes against defenseless, but resource rich countries. It also serves as a pretext for draconian measures of repression at home, including the cabinet level Department of Homeland Security and Patriot Act I, and its sequel. September 11th has become the cause for numerous other acts from massive increases in military spending and to a Fast Track Trade Agreement for the President.

To date, investigations stop far too short, the public is left in the dark on too many questions easily answered, and no one in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for any actions surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001. The National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States, which was formed at the insistence of the family of some of the victims, is continuing to hold hearings and a final report is expected by May, 2004. It remains to be seen if, after a two-year lapse, they can come closer to the truth about September 11th. I believe that this would only happen if public pressure were brought to bear and accountability demanded from the Bush Administration. Accountability for any atrocity should attract the attention of serious investigative reporters, media critics and even news commentators. That is their chosen responsibility. Who is to raise the question of why journalists and others in the mass media are failing the people of the U.S. and the world?

In this article, I outline twenty-two items of evidence and questions, each one sufficient reason to demand an investigation into why September 11th was not prevented. Together, these items suggest that the most plausible explanation of events is that the Bush Administration was complicit in the terrorist attacks. This should be a national and international scandal. What is being discovered will shock many people, which is one of the reasons for deliberate corporate media coverup. But a significant number of people within the U.S. see (or will see) the consistencies in the events surrounding 9/11 as described below, and what they know about U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, the degree to which this Administration is pursuing a course of world domination at any cost is unprecedented. One of the best ways of putting a halt to this destructive course is to expose the Bush Administration and insist on their accountability to the American people. Thus, the intent of this article is to help fill the void in the media on the issue of the Bush Administration’s complicity in 9/11.

Here is the official story: On the morning of September 11, 2001 four Boeing passenger jets were hijacked within an hour by nineteen Arab terrorists armed with boxcutters. Pilots among these terrorists took control of the commercial planes and changed course toward targets in New York City and Washington D.C. Two of the planes were deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers, causing fires within the towers, which melted the steel support structures, thereby causing the buildings to collapse completely. A third plane was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. Passengers on the fourth plane overpowered the hijackers and caused the plane to crash in Pennsylvania. This was an attack on America planned and directed by Osama bin Laden as the leader of Al-Qaeda, a previously obscure anti-U.S. international terrorist organization composed mainly of Arabs. This story cries out for further explanations, but nothing official is forthcoming. People are simply expected to believe the official version without question.

Evidence of Complicity by the Bush Administration in 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

The following twenty-two separate and related points, citing evidence requiring further investigation, and include questions that demand answers, were formulated on the basis of the information from the several sources cited at the end, which should be consulted for verification and documentation. These sources contain extensive detailed information and analysis beyond what is provided in this summary. I hope that this information will incite public outrage leading to full accountability.

1) The entire United States intelligence community knew of the 9/11 attacks before hand, including the fact that commercial jets were to be used as bombs; they also knew the approximate dates and possible targets but were called off their investigations. Western intelligence had been aware of plans for such terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as early as 1995. The plan was known as "Project Bojinka." It was known to both the CIA and FBI and was described in court documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for their participation in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC).

Seven to eight weeks prior to September 11th, all internal U.S. security agencies were warned of the impending Al-Qaeda attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the attack but did nothing to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September 11th the FBI agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent. However, the FBI agents were commanded to cut short their investigations into the attacks and those involved. Agents were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized information pertaining to their investigations. Some field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.

As early as 1997, Russia, France, Israel, the Philippines and Egypt all warned the U.S. of the possibility of the attack. Warning also came from came from several others sources as well. Recently (May 25, 2002), CBS revealed that President Bush had been warned in an intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial planes for a domestic attack in the U.S.

2) There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all across the country was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September 11th. Routine security measures, normally in place, which may well have been able to prevent the attacks, or reduce their impact, were suspended for one hour while the attacks were in progress, and re-instated once they were over. Sequence of events:

8:46 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston smashed into the north tower of the WTC. The tower collapses at 10:28 a.m.

9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston smashed into the south tower. It completely collapses at 9:59am.

9:38 a.m.: AA Flight 77 from Dulles hits the Pentagon.

10:10 a.m.: United Flight 93 from Newark crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation about 10 miles from the Pentagon. On September 11th there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. They failed to do their job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. Despite over one hour’s advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures enabling fighter jets to automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. They do not need instructions from the White House to carry out these procedures, yet they were not followed.

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point an emergency was undeniably clear. Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m., a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11.

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular. After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about 45 minutes, fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft were stationed just 10 miles from the eventual target. Unless one is prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any stretch of the imagination.

3) Neither the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense nor the President of the United States acted according to well established emergency protocols. Acting Joint Chief of Staff General Richard B. Myers stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought it was a small plane. So he went ahead with his meeting. By the time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit. Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff?

The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at his desk when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m., did not communicate to the Secretary of Defense, also at the Pentagon, about the other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington? After he was notified, why did he go to the war room?

The actions of the President, while the attacks were occurring, indicate that he deliberately avoided doing anything reasonably expected of a President wanting to protect American citizens and property. Why didn't the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When is a President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies know? Why was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota elementary school? At 9.05, nineteen minutes after the first attack and two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in President Bush’s ear. The president did not react as if he was interested in trying to do something about the situation. He did not leave the school, convene an emergency meeting, consult with anybody, or intervene in any way, to ensure that the Air Force completed it’s job. He did not even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued with the reading class. His own explanations of his actions that day contradict known facts.

In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that the government has a whole network of adjuncts and

advisors to insure that these top officials are among the first to be informed, not the last. Where were these individuals who did not properly inform the top officials?

In short, the CIA, the DCI, the State Department, the President, and key figures around him in the White House, were ultimately responsible for doing nothing in the face of the mounting evidence of an impending threat to U.S. national security. Incompetence is a highly improbable explanation.

4) Prior to 9/11, the US intelligence agencies should have stopped the nineteen terrorists from entering this country for intelligence reasons, alone. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers' visas should have been unquestionably denied because their applications were incomplete and incorrect. Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and un-employed males. They were, in short, the "classic over-stay candidates". A seasoned former Consular officer stated in the National Review magazine, "Single, idle young adults with no specific destination in the United States rarely get visas absent compelling circumstances."

There are several cases damaging to the credibility of the official accounts of 9/11. But the U.S. response to Mohamed Atta, the alleged lead hijacker, is most extraordinary. The FBI had been monitoring Atta’s movements for several months in 2000. According to PBS’ Frontlines, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to stop Atta from entering the U.S. three times on a tourist visa in 2001, even though officials knew the visa had expired in 2000, and that Atta had violated its terms by taking flight lessons. Furthermore, Atta had already been implicated in a terrorist bombing in Israel, with the information passed on to the United States before he was first issued his tourist visa.

5) How did many of the hijackers receive clearance for training at secure U.S. military and intelligence facilities, and for what purposes? Many of the terrorist pilots received their initial training in Venice, Florida at one of two flight schools of highly questionable credibility and with approval of US intelligence. Mohamed Atta had attended International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama; Abdulaziz Alomari had attended Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force base in Texas; Saeed Alghamdi had been to the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. These are all names of identified hijackers, so why has the U.S. government attempted to deny the match? As early as three days after the 9/11 attacks, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III claimed that these findings were new and had not been known by the FBI previously. This claim is a lie.

Zacarias Moussaouri was arrested after his flight trainers at the Minnesota flight school, Pan Am International Flight Academy, reported highly suspicious behavior. He was greatly unqualified; he wanted to learn to fly a 747 but wasn’t interested in takeoffs or landings; he was traveling on a French passport, said he was from France, but could not speak French. When

contacted, the French said he was a suspected terrorist connected to Al-Qaeda. However, a special counter terrorism panel of the FBI and CIA reviewed the case and dismissed it.

There are numerous glaring anomalies, illegalities and scandals connected with Wally Hilliard and Rudi Dekker’s Huffman Aviation School at Venice, Florida where other hijackers trained. Dekkers had no aviation experience and was under indictment in his native country, The Netherlands, on financial charges. He purchased his aviation school at just about the time the terrorist pilots moved into town and began their lessons. He has yet to be investigated even though he initially trained most of the hijackers.

Britannia Aviation was awarded a five-year contract to run a large regional maintenance facility at Lynchburg at a time when the company virtually had no assets, employees, or corporate history and did not posses the necessary FAA license needed to perform the maintenance. Britannia was a company with known CIA connections. It was operating illegally out of Huffman Aviation, the flight school which trained Al-Qaeda hijackers and was given a "green light" from the Justice Department’s Drugs Enforcement Administration, and the local Venice Police Department was warned to "leave them alone." Why?

6) How were the hijackers able to get specifically contraband items such as box-cutters, pepper spray and, according to one FAA executive summary, a gun on those planes? On the morning of September 11th, when the 19 hijackers went to purchase their tickets and to receive their boarding passes, nine were singled out and questioned through a screening process. But they passed the screening process and were allowed to continue on with their mission.

7) At a time when the U.S. intelligence community was on alert for an imminent Al-Qaeda attack, the Bush Administration made it easier for Saudi visitors to come to the U.S. under a program called U.S. Visa Express, introduced four months before September 11th. Michael Springmann, former head of the Visa Bureau at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia said that he was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Departtment officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. His complaints to higher authorities at several agencies went unanswered. In a CBC interview, he indicated that the CIA was indeed complicit in the attacks.

8) Most of the hijackers were Saudis, as is Osama bin Laden, and the Saudi Arabian government is known to give financial support to terrorist organizations. Why is Iraq and not Saudi Arabia a target if the US government is concerned about terrorism? Saudi Arabia’s government cooperates with US oil and arms industries; Iraq did not. Iraq is forced to now, of course. At least fifteen of the far-flung network of terrorist pilots received their money from the same source. There is specific evidence that Osama bin Laden continues to receive extensive support, not only from members of his own family, but also from members of the Saudi establishment. A New Statesman report stated that "Bin Laden and his gang are just the tentacles; the head lies safely in Saudi Arabia, protected by U.S. forces." The hijackers responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

9) Why were the FBI called off its investigation of Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Royal Family prior to 9/11? Moreover, why were the FBI Agents ordered to curtail their investigation of these attacks on October 10, 2001? The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qeada. One law enforcement official was quoted as saying, "The investigative staff has to be made to understand that we’re not trying to solve a crime now." FBI Agents are said to be in the process of filing a law suit agents the Agency for the right to go public.

10) Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that information. How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies’ complicity.

It is not logical that Bin Laden was involved, and actually impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US authorities, or at best, in the context of the US knowing all along what he was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has already been made that if he was involved, then it cannot have been a surprise, which in turn, points to the President and others in his administration.

From day one, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. Up until mid December, there was nothing but the continued repetition of his name. The official documents detailing allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence. Of the 69 points of "evidence" cited, ten relate to background information about the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. Fifteen relate to background information regarding the general philosophies of Al Qeada, and it's relationship to Bin Laden. None give any facts concerning the events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to directly relate anything mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six list allegations related to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convictions of previous terrorist attacks, everybody knows that this isn't worth the paper it's written on, in terms of evidence for involvement of September 11th.

Within less than four hours of the attacks taking place, the media were fed comments, which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made on the basis of events, which could not possibly have occurred. The Pentagon and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to Bin Laden, in an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the dialogue, and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation. Why was it considered necessary to lie, in order to create a case against Bin Laden? The truth could well implicate the Bush administration.

11) Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency (ISI) was indirectly involved in September 11th. The links between Al Qaeda, Pakistan’s ISI and the CIA; and, between the ISI, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban Axis are a matter of public record. Pakistan has also long been a supporter of Al Qeada. The Pakistani ISI (secret service) has been a mechanism by which the CIA indirectly channeled support to Al Qeada and has been used by successive US administrations as a "go-between." Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus constitutes the core institutional support to both Osama's Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Without this institutional support, there would be no Taliban government in Kabul. In turn, without the unbending support of the US government, there would be no powerful military-intelligence apparatus in Pakistan.

It was reported that ISI’s Director-General, General Mahmoud Ahmad, had funneled $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, shortly before September 11th. The U.S. government protected him, and itself, by asking him to resign quietly after the discovery, thus blocking a further inquiry and a potential scandal. In the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration consciously sought the "cooperation" of the ISI, which had been supporting and abetting Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. In other words, the Bush Administration's relations with Pakistan's ISI, including its "consultations" with General Mahmoud Ahmad in the week prior to September 11th, raise the issue of "cover-up" as well as "complicity". While Ahmad was talking to U.S. officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, the ISI allegedly had contacts with the 9/11 terrorists.

12) The USA and Bin Laden are not the enemies they pretend to be. It is established beyond doubt that senior members of the Bush administration have close links to the Bin Laden Family and this relationship is still going on behind the scenes. In fact, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that Bin Laden, may have had something to do with 9/11, but the problem is that it also implicates the Bush Administration, the CIA, George Bush Senior, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates.

It is well known that Bin Laden’s close working relationship with the CIA began in the 1980’s. The claim is that they have since fallen out, but this story is a lie. According to the mainstream media spin, this is OK, because the rest of the family has disowned Osama for his terrorist activities and anti-US views. This spin is also a lie.

The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network". Since the end of the Cold War these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have become increasingly sophisticated.

13) How was it possible for the World Trade Center’s two towers to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The towers in fact stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the crashes. The official story is that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. However, there is simply no credibly scientific evidence to support this story. The WTC towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707. It is highly unlikely that fire from the jet fuel could have melted the steel girders. This is especially true of the South tower since the plane did not hit it directly. Therefore most of the fuel did not fall inside the building. The South Tower was hit second and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly and smoothly in a manner consistent with that caused by a planned demolition. Based upon scientific evidences, photos and videos of the event, and reports of scientists, the WTC architect and engineers, it is highly unlikely that the Towers collapsed because of burning jet fuel rather than demolition. There are also serious questions regarding the collapse of the building known as WTC7. It is also noteworthy that ownership of the WTC changed hands several months earlier because if the towers collapsed because of inside demolition, such accomplishment would require cooperation from the extensive WTC security forces.

14) Why was Bin Laden not captured before 9/11, and why has he not been captured since? There have been several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden, but no effort to do so was made. Two US allies, Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates, have colluded in deliberately allowing Bin Laden to stay free. Bin Laden was meeting with the CIA as late as July 2001. An examination of U.S. attempts to capture Osama bin Laden show they have in fact consistently blocked attempts to investigate and capture him. Eleven bin Laden family members were flown safely out of the same Boston airport where the highjacking took place a few days earlier. Why were they not detained for questioning?

15) The September 11th disaster has resulted in power and profit at home and abroad by both the Bin Laden and the Bush families. There are significant business ties between Bin Laden and senior members of the Bush administration. Reports have emerged that Carlyle Group, the giant U.S. defence contractor that employs former President George W. Bush Sr., has had long-standing financial ties to the bin Laden family. So while there is compelling evidence that Osama bin Laden has not broken away from his family, it is also a matter of record that the Bush administration is in turn very significantly tied to the same family. The Carlyle Group has profited immensely from the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and from the militarization of U.S. foreign policy.

16) Revelations of profits made by insider trading relating to the 9/11 attacks, point to the top levels of US business and the CIA. The intelligence community regularly analyzes financial transactions for any suspicious activity. Only three trading days before September 11th, shares of American and United Airlines -- the companies whose planes were hijacked in the attacks on New York and Washington -- were massively "sold short" by investors. Executive CIA Director AB "Buzzy" Krongard was one of those who profited from the deal. The names of the other investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million in profit taking remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account. No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the day immediately preceding Black Tuesday. There were also unusual trades on several companies occupying the World Trade Center, including Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Merrill Lynch & Co. These multiple, massive and unprecedented financial transactions point unequivocally to the fact that the investors behind these trades were speculating in anticipation of a mid-September 2001 catastrophe that would involve both United and American Airlines and offices in the Twin Towers. To date, both the Securities & Exchange Commission and the FBI have been tight-lipped about their investigations of trades. A probe could isolate the investors. Why has nothing been made public?

17) Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek reported that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." Why was that same information not made available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft? A significant number of selected people were warned about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th address. John Ashcroft stopped flying on public airplanes in July of 2001.

Other evidence exists indicating that government officials knew of the attacks beforehand. For example, Tom Kenny who was with a rescue squad from FEMA told Dan Rather of CBS News that, "We arrived on Monday night (September 10th) and went into action of Tuesday." How is it possible for high government officials to have been caught by surprise as some claimed?

18) There are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the U.S. attack on Afghanistan was already planned before September 11th. A pretext for war is always needed. From investigative journalist Patrick Martin, "[t]his examination has found that a specific war on Afghanistan . . . launched in October 2001 had been planned for at least a year, and in general terms related to regional strategic and economic interests, had actually been rooted in at least four years of strategic planning. This planning, in turn, is the culmination of a decade of regional strategizing. All that was required was a trigger for these war plans, which was amply provided by the tragic events of 11th September."

It is public knowledge that Unocal and others in the oil industry were negotiating with Afghan officials for a pipeline across their country as part of the "Silk Road" strategy. It was also reported that the talks had broken down. A specific threat made at a meeting: the Taliban can choose between a "carpets of bombs" - an invasion - or a "carpets of gold" – the oil and gas pipelines. Experts agree that Central Asia and the Caspian Basin are central to energy in the 21st century and that energy is central to political, economic and military power. James Dorian noted in the Oil & Gas Journal: "Those who control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production" (cited in Ahmed, 2002, p. 69).

The plans for global domination developed by those of Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank formed in the Spring of 1997, are also a matter of public record. These plans included specifics for taking military control of Central Asia, including regime change in Iraq. The primary architects of these plans include Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, all part of the first Bush Administration ousted by Bill Clinton and now back in power with George W. Bush.

19) The 9/11 attacks came at an extremely fortuitous time for the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the weapons industry, and the oil industry, all of which have benefited immensely from this tragedy. It is worth noting the acute observations of Canadian social philosopher John McMurtry: "To begin with, the forensic principle of ‘who most benefits from the crime?’ clearly points in the direction of the Bush administration. . . . The more you review the connections and the sweeping lapse of security across so many coordinates, the more the lines point backwards [to the White House]."

20) Both the U.S. and the USSR are responsible for the rise of religious extremism, terrorism and civil war within Afghanistan since the 1980s. The U.S., however, is directly responsible for the cultivation of a distorted ‘jihadi’ ideology that fueled, along with U.S. arms and training, the ongoing war and acts of terrorism within the country after the withdrawal of Soviet forces.

21) The Bush Administration is clearly capable of creating or allowing such atrocities to occur. Hitler was able to play the anti-communist card to win over skeptical German industrialists. Certainly the Bush family are not newcomers to melding political and business interests, they got their start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Sr., was Hitler’s banker and propaganda manager in New York, until FDR confiscated his holdings. George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega as a scapegoat, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process of re-establishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also widely believed that the current Bush Administration knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq.

22) There are precedents for these kinds of acts of complicity and fabrications. Rejecting claim that the evidence for collusion is over-ruled by a belief that no country would do this to its own citizens, simply requires pointing out that the contemplation of terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The previously classified "Operation Northwoods" document reveals that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but were given approval signatures by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan included several options, including killing Cuban defectors or U.S. soldiers, sinking ships, and staging simulations of planes being shot down. All this was done to blame on Castro as a pretext for launching a war against Cuba.

Far from being an unprecedented shocker, suspected government complicity in 9/11 builds on an august and cynical tradition. "It’s the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times." Examples of democracy being hoaxed include the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor bombardment, which President Roosevelt is believed to have known about beforehand, and the hoax of the Gulf of Tonkin provocation.

Conclusions

The evidence seems clear that if the many agencies of the U.S. government had done their jobs, the September 11th attack would likely have been prevented. If there had been an immediate investigation into the September 11th attacks, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq could not have been justified simply on the basis of terrorism. Surely questions must be asked about why there is yet no accountability of the Bush administration and why the journalists and others in mass media are not held responsible for the coverup, deception and lack of investigative reporting. From the evidence presented it would seem that much public whistle-blowing ought to be taking place. Why is it not yet evident?

I believe that it is important not to approach 9/11 as the possibility of some grand conspiracy, but a possible conspiracy of some sort nevertheless. One important insight is how hierarchical authoritarian social systems function. Top down directives and commands, especially if they carry the weight of threats of censorship and punishment serve to keep any dissent in check. There is a great deal of self-censorship operating in all institutions in the United States. It is also important to recognize the role of a shared ideology among the decision makers, or perhaps more specifically the role of what social psychologists, in studies of organizational behavior, call "groupthink." Groupthink is decision making characterized by uncritical acceptance of and conformity with the prevailing view. Thus, the will of a few key persons can be spread within and across government agencies.

Thus the possibility of complicity on the part of the Bush Administration is very real. At the very least, further and more honest investigations must take place and some accountability exacted from those responsible.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, Brighton, England, suggests,

The executive branch of the federal government has apparently enabled a lethal surprise attack with mass murder against two of the founding thirteen colonies, New York and Virginia. By such an act, the federal government would grossly violate and void its contract with the states, and abrogate its own constitutional rights and privileges. Even if you do not accept the complicity argument, it has failed to protect its largest city from the consequences of its overweening foreign policies.

Like a loose handgun, our Federal government has backfired on its owners, the States. The executive has gone to war in defiance of the Constitution, and Congress has abdicated its war-making authority on at least 200 occasions since 1945, according to the Federation of American Scientists. The federal government has proven utterly incapable and unwilling to remedy its chronic and world-threatening sickness (p. 376-377).

It seems apropos to conclude: "if you are part of the problem, then you are not part of the solution." The solution then lies with the people themselves and not with any US government agency, least of all the Executive Branch.

Sources

Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq (2002). The war on freedom: How and why America was attacked September 11, 2001. Joshua Tree, CA: Tree of Life Publications. AThe War on Freedom rips apart the veil of silence surrounding 9/11, and lets readers look at the facts for themselves. This riveting and thoroughly documented study [718 citations] is a "must" resource for everyone seeking to understand the attack on the World Trade Center of New York on September 11, 2001 and "America’s New War."

Bamford, James (2001). Body of secrets : anatomy of the ultra-secret National Security Agency : from the Cold War through the dawn of a new century. New York: Doubleday, 2001. See for detailed information on Operation Northwood and other "secrets."

Burbach, Roger, & Clarke, Ben (Eds.) (2002). September 11 and the U.S. war: Beyond the curtain of smoke. San Francisco: City Light Books. This is an anthology of 41 short pieces by more than 30 authors who dissent from the bellicose actions of the U.S. government since 9-11-01. These essays provide the essential background and analysis needed to understand the origins and consequences of the attack of September 11th and the U.S. government’s response.

Chossudovsky, Michel (2002). War and globalisation: The truth behind September 11. London: Zed Books. "In this timely study, Michel Chossudovsky blows away the smokescreen, put up by the mainstream media, that 9-11 was an ‘intelligence failure’. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the coverup and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration."

Grey, Steve (2002). September 11 Attacks: Evidence of U.S. collusion. stevegreyau@yahoo.co.uk.

Hopsicker, Daniel: http://www.madcowprod.com/archive.htm.

Jones, Alex: http://.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/. See especially the testimony of Mindy Kleinberg, Stephen Push and others on the First Public Hearings Archives, p. 163.

Thompson, Paul: http://cooperativeresearch.org. See "US preparing for a war with Afghanistan before 9/11, increasing control of Asia before & since" and several other articles.
http://emperors-clothes.com. See several short articles by Jared Israel, John Flaherty, Illarion Bykov, Francisco Gil-White and George Szamuely.
http://globaloutlook.ca. This site has numerous links to documented articles and other valuable resources.

. This web site has extensive information and detailed analysis. It raises many serious questions about the official stories and reports. It has undergone recent revisions based upon new evidence.
http://www.UnansweredQuestions.org.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com.

Address correspondence to: Walter E. Davis. 263 MACC Annex, Kent State University Kent, OH 44242 wdavis@kent.edu

posted 09-20-2003 08:52 PM            

anyone who argues otherwise argues against overwhelming evidence.

Bush stooges will of course continue to insist that already posted facts be repeated ad nauseum.
Nothing will ever convince a cultist that their cult is capable of wrongdoing.

Facts support LIHOOP?MIHOP or a combination thereof.

simple synopsis.
Bush failed to protect america on 9/11.

Whether willfully or stupidly is umimportant.

Clinton and Gore allowed and enabled the US Military to protect America.
Witness Payne Stewart's last flight as proof beyond any doubt.
Five National Guard jets checking out one private jet in 1999, vs/ not one jet scrambled with four jumbo jets hijacked on 9/11.

No more proof is needed for rational people.

posted 09-20-2003 10:16 PM            

Lets make that perfectly clear.

NAFTA/GATT

More gun control

More military merging with police

you name it.

Right Bill?

posted 09-21-2003 12:24 AM            

We met Meacher in Boston: "Both Wars were planned in advance before 9/11"

In an exclusive cooperation, GlobalFreePress arranged an Interview with former British Minister Michael Meacher, which will be broadcasted by INN News Report on Friday, 6PM EST on U.S. Television.

Meacher explained, that both Wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were planned in Advance before 9/11; he spoke about the role of PNAC, Oil and Cheney's controversial Energy Task Force in 2001.

AND ANOTHER ARTICLE OF INTEREST:
http://www.rense.com/general41/role.htm

Cheney's Role In 911 Put On
Center Stage By British MP
By Mark Burdman
Executive Intelligence Review.
9-19-3

For the first time, a prominent British political figure has aired his suspicions, that the group around U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney may have intentionally caused, or allowed to happen, the mega-terrorism in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, to set into motion an era of neo-imperial wars. Labour Party Member of Parliament Michael Meacher wrote a major feature focussing on Cheney's Project for a New American Century grouping, in the London Guardian on Sept. 6. Meacher had resigned in June as Environment Minister, a post he held in Tony Blair's government for six years. This Summer's political wars in Britain, as EIR forecast they would, are drawing ever closer to Cheney. This is the context in which Meacher took Blair to task for subordinating Britain's interests to Cheney and his neo-conservative gang in Washington.

Ever since Lyndon LaRouche first affirmed, early in the morning of 9/11, that the attacks were an "inside job," it has been taboo in Britain to publicly discuss this possibility, especially as Blair's Britain joined in the neo-conservatives' wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, becoming the Cheney-acs' main prop overseas. And although Meacher's polemic narrows the motive of Cheney et al. to an oil grab, his intervention is timely.

On Sept. 7, just ahead of the second anniversary of 9/11, London was the scene of huge "anti-terror exercises," including contingency plans for the mass evacuation of the city. During that week, there was heavy police presence and Londoners were very nervous. One European strategist warned EIR Sept. 9, that London is the most likely target for a new act of mega-terrorism. But a London insider cautioned EIR, on the same day, that Blair and his minions are determined to stoke alarm, to "justify" his war policies and to divert attention from his political woes.

Those woes are bound to get worse. The Lord Hutton inquiry into the July 17 death of weapons expert Dr. David Kelly had produced startling revelations by Sept. 8, blowing apart the case Blair made last year for war against Iraq. One informed source affirmed Sept. 8: "This is only the beginning, and when the inquiry resumes next Monday [Sept. 15], things are going to get a lot tougher, when the process of cross-examining leading officials begins."

Other Labourites are joining the attack on Blair, including former International Development Secretary Clare Short, and former Leader of the House of Commons and former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. On Sept. 8, Cook drew gasps from MPs, when he blasted Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon for having ignored the reservations of his own Defense Intelligence Staff (DIS), about the fraudulent September 2002 dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issued by Blair's 10 Downing Street. Hoon was then jeered, when he tried to pass off responsibility for the dossier to Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The next day, it was revealed that Hoon had given misleading evidence to the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee investigating the dossier in July, flatly denying that DIS experts had expressed such concerns. It is widely assumed that Hoon will soon bite the dust, closely following the Aug. 29 resignation of Downing Street chief spin doctor Alastair Campbell.

On Sept. 8, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw came into the Hutton inquiry fire, as documents were released, showing his role in bringing Kelly's name into the public light, as the source for a BBC report that intelligence experts had regarded the September 2002 dossier as "sexed up." Kelly's death followed shortly after his name was made public. It also came out that Hoon had played a role in "sexing up" that dossier, urging that references to Iraqi WMDs be strengthened and demanding a "killer paragraph" to make the case against Iraq stronger.

A U.K. intelligence expert told EIR Sept. 8, that these eruptions are creating a fertile environment, in which the issues Meacher has raised can now be "openly debated and considered.... The Hutton inquiry, and other factors, have raised enormous questions about why Tony Blair, in reality, wanted this Iraqi weapons dossier, and that, in turn, is focussing attention on the motives of the administration in Washington, in starting the war in Iraq."

This bad news for Blair in Britain bodes ill for Cheney and Co., and all sorts of surprises may emerge. How nervous certain people are, is becoming clear from the wild attacks on Meacher's article: by the American Embassy in London; by Lord Conrad Black's Sunday Telegraph; and by Rupert Murdoch's Times.

'The Truth May Be a Great Deal Murkier'

Meacher's Guardian article was entitled, "This War on Terrorism Is Bogus," with the sub-title, "The 9/11 attacks gave the U.S. an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination."

He began, that whereas "massive attention" has been paid to Britain's excuse for going to war, "far too little attention has focused on why the U.S. went to war; and that throws light on British motives too.

"The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the U.S. and U.K. governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier."

He went on: "We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now Vice President), Donald Rumsfeld (Defense Secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

"The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says 'while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' "

Meacher noted that the PNAC blueprint supported an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the United States must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." This early-1990s "Pentagon Guidance Document," a.k.a. "the Wolfowitz doctrine," prescribes pre-emptive military action, and implicitly, pre-emptive nuclear strikes, against potential challenges to an American or Anglo-American empire.

Cheney, then Defense Secretary in President H.W. Bush's Administration, supported this outrage, which was nixed then by senior Administration figures, including the President. With Bush Jr., the policy has been implemented.

In detailing the September 2000 PNAC blueprint, Meacher noted that it refers to allies such as the U.K., as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership." Further, the blueprint also calls for "regime change" in China, and advocates imperial control of space and cyberspace, and development of new biological weapons. "FinallyÑwritten a year before 9/11Ñit pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'worldwide command and control system.' This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways."

Why Did U.S. Air Security Stand Down?

Meacher next presented his views, of what happened two years ago; EIR finds them worth reporting, including his attributed sources:

"First, it is clear the U.S. authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the U.S. of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, Sept. 16, 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

"It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a U.S. national intelligence council report noted that 'al-Qaeda suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House.'

"Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the U.S. for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with bin Laden (BBC, Nov. 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, Sept. 15, 2001).

"Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When U.S. agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the Sept. 11 mission (Times, Nov. 3, 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20, 2002).

"All of this makes it all the more astonishingÑon the war on terrorism perspectiveÑthat there was such slow reaction on Sept. 11 itself.

"The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8:20 a.m., and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06 a.m. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the U.S. Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles from Washington, D.C., until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. Why not? ... Between September 2000 and June 2001 the U.S. military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, Aug. 13, 2002). It is a U.S. legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

"Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could U.S. air security operations have been deliberately stood down on Sept. 11? If so, why, and on whose authority?"

Meacher affirmed that "the catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called 'war on terrorism' is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider U.S. strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: 'To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on Sept. 11" (Times, July 17, 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time magazine, May 13, 2002).

"In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the U.S. government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that 'the U.S. remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.' Submitted to Vice President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the U.S., 'military intervention' was necessary (Sunday Herald, Oct. 6, 2002)."

Errors of Judgment

Meacher reported that "the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the U.S. into 'tomorrow's dominant force' is likely to be a long one in the absence of 'some catastrophic and catalyzing eventÑlike a new Pearl Harbor.' " He concluded with the charge that "the 'global war on terrorism' has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agendaÑthe U.S. goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force, command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project."

Important as is the publication of this charge, from Tony Blair's own party in Parliament, to narrow the "Cheney project" to a physiocratic grab for scarce energy supplies fails to grasp the "nature of the beast."

Cheney's neo-conservative faction is the modern-day embodiment of the fascist-synarchist forces, that threatened both the Britain and the United States in the 1940s. Pulling his strings are powerful financier forcesÑdescendants of those private banking families and financial interests who brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, and supported Mussolini's dictatorship in Italy. Their aim now, as then, is to establish a world empire that would salvage a crisis-ridden financial system, and eliminate the American humanist-republican tradition associated with Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.

LaRouche has demonstrated that 9/11 was a "Reichstag Fire," allowing for dictatorial measures at home, and for Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations pitting Western nations against Islam, and potentially China.

The game is much more dangerous than Meacher has described it. But with publication of his article, the "Reichstag Fire" issueÑand crucially, that of the relation between the Cheney's gang's desires and Tony Blair's actions as British Prime MinisterÑis out in the open.

posted 09-21-2003 01:35 AM            

From: http://www.davidicke.com

September 06, 2003

Former UK Minister Michael Meacher Charges Bush Administration with Collusion in 9/11 In a startling article in today's Guardian, Michael Meacher, member of British Parliament and for the last six years, until his resignation three months ago, the British Environment Minister in Tony Blair's government, has written a scathing condemnation of the Bush Administration, charging it with collusion in the September 11th tragedy.

Until today, September 11th conspiracy theories, besides the main theory advocated by the US government that a band of cave dwellers in Afghanistan conspired to carry out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, had been the domain of strange Internet websites, French authors, and the whisperings on the streets of many world capitals.

But no longer.

Now, an experienced politician who was at the highest levels of power in the UK, the staunchest ally of the United States in its war on terrorism, has--in no uncertain terms--accused elements within the US government of foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks and a determination not to stop them in order to implement a pre-planned agenda of domination in the world political stage, the invasion and occupation of Iraq being the most recent element on that agenda.

In response, a US embassy spokesperson in London said Meacher's allegations "would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible."

Not only was Meacher serious and credible enough to have been picked by Tony Blair to serve in his government, and to have been elected by his West Oldham contituency since 1970, but the BBC called him earlier this year the Labor Party's "most experienced minister."

Here is a summary of Meacher's charges in the article:

The blueprint for America's military adventures around the world was contained in documents prepared in September 2000 by the neconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century, which included Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other Bush luminaries as members. US authorities ignored advance warnings by at least 11 countries. The warnings included a list provided by senior Israeli intelligence that named four of the 9/11 hijackers, but none were arrested.

Plans to crashland airliners into Washington buildings had been known since 1996. In 1999, one such intelligence report warned that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

The CIA had a long record, acknowledged by the former head of the US visa bureau in Jeddah, of issuing US visas to unqualified Saudi applicants for terrorism training in the US for the Afghan war. Fifteen of the hijackers had obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.

When Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested in August 2001, one FBI agent wrote that he may have been planning to crash into the Twin Towers. But the FBI turned down warrant requests to search his computer for information which may have led to other potential hijackers.

Although the first hijacking was reported as early as 8:20 am on September 11th, no fighter planes were scrambled to intercept from Andrews Air Force Base until after the third plane hit the Pentagon at 9:38 am. This violated standard FAA procedures--Meacher quotes an AP report that between September 2000 and June 2001, US fighter aircraft were launched on 67 occasions to chase suspicious planes.

Between September and November 2001, the US actually avoided capturing or killing Usama Bin Laden and senior Al Qaida leaders, despite having had many opportunities.

"The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies," Meacher writes. "By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity."

Meacher concludes that "the 'global war on terrorism' has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.

posted 09-21-2003 05:26 AM            

****************************************************************

"Now, an experienced politician who was at the highest levels of power in the UK, the staunchest ally of the United States in its war on terrorism, has--in no uncertain terms--accused elements within the US government of foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks and a determination not to stop them in order to implement a pre-planned agenda of domination in the world political stage, the invasion and occupation of Iraq being the most recent element on that agenda.

***********************************************************************

posted 09-21-2003 06:49 AM            

FIRE THE LIARS

-------

posted 09-22-2003 10:43 PM            

(paragraph#1)
>Editor's note: Some people have said that this account of the events of September 11th 2001 (a detailed extension of the Valentine-Plissken Hypothesis) is "too convoluted to understand". Actually it's quite simple. Here's a synopsis for those who have a slight comprehension problem or don't have time to read it all:<

(paragraph#2)
>1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and are shortly after diverted to a military airport.
2. Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control toward Manhattan.
3. The first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.
4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.
5. The people on three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (United Airlines Flight 93).
6. This plane takes off and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.
7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.<

READ MORE HERE.........
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm

Over two hundred repies and a major firestorm/flamewar at Du
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125 &topic_id=2443

would that they had such freedom of speech as exists here

posted 09-26-2003 09:15 PM            

Just my well informed opinion.

I prefer CC for honest debate and discussion.
who cares about partisan websites?

posted 09-27-2003 10:25 AM            

Arrest The President Now!

Enough 9/11 evidence exists to hang Bush, imprison thousands

(Will the U.S.A. survive this crisis?)

By John Kaminski

skylax@comcast.net

9-19-03

On September 11, 2001, the most infamous day in American history, the tallest buildings in New York were not knocked down by airplanes hijacked by Arabs - they were destroyed by demolition charges.

This is no longer wild conspiracy theory - it is a series of provable facts, deftly presented on a website that every American should not only read but possibly memorize, so they can repeat it verbatim to every law enforcement officer in the country. The web site is located here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/

Briefly synopsized, the site outlines a terrifying proposition: if the collapse of the Twin Towers were caused by demolition, the entire official story about that sad day collapses like the house of evil cards so many Americans and people around the world already suspect it is.

The site, WTC7.net, backs up its conclusions with a devastating play-by-play of what actually happened on 9/11, and what could not possibly have happened according to universally accepted engineering principles.

The official story collapses under scrutiny, the site insists. It lists five stunning assertions:

1. Fires have never destroyed steel buildings. 2. The collapses were not investigated. 3. The physical evidence was destroyed. 4. The official explanations are ludicrous. 5. The evidence indicates demolition. 6. Demolition is provable.

No steel high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, the site insists. And on 9/11, three of them collapsed in a matter of hours at the World Trade Center complex.

The total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were (based on the official story) the three largest engineering failures in the history of the world, yet no federal investigation was ever funded.

The evidence of the collapses was quickly destroyed. A series of explanations was promoted to explain the collapses, but each is ridiculed and debunked on the site, including killer fires, column failure, and truss failure. The site's conclusion: official explanations cannot explain any kind of total collapse.

Other curious phenomena examined were the fires that burned for 100 days, that concrete was curiously pulverized in mid-air, and that the buildings fell so quickly despite following the path of most resistance, among other suspicious aspects.

After presenting its evidence, the site concludes the towers were deliberately demolished. Which means the disaster could not possibly have been the work of Osama bin Laden.

The implications of the story on this site are enormous. They mean that the official story told by George W. Bush's American government is a total fabrication. There is no evidence against Osama bin Laden if the buildings were demolished. It has all been a lie.

What this means is that George W. Bush is guilty of complicity to the most heinous crime in American history, the willful murder of more than 3,000 people and the destruction of a significant part of America's biggest city. And of course treason. There is no space to delineate here all the other charges of mass murder and obstruction of justice against this vain little demagogue who stole the U.S. presidency and now is raping the world.

Also guilty are Vice President Cheney and the entire Cabinet, the chiefs of staff of the armed forces, and many other members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government, plus many other federal and military employees, plus many state and federal regulatory officials and private citizens who were either friends of the Bush conspiracy or conspired in its coverup.

And perhaps the biggest problem is that also guilty of complicity in this tangled mess is the federal Justice Department, whose leader John Ashcroft was appointed by the principal defendant in this case.

America and the world have never faced such a colossal crisis, and that is no overstatement.

The entire American government is now a criminal defendant in the mass murder of its own citizens at the very moment the entire world is cringing in fear at America's new policy of preemptive war that threatens every sovereign nation on the planet.

It's true, my friends, although it's something you already knew -outlaws rule the world, and they own the cops, the army and the courts, not to mention all the legislatures.

How can America and the world possibly deal with this?

Well, for starters, the state of New York must assume the lead role, because all federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA and FEMA, are now all possible defendants in what will be the most amazing trial in history. Of course, state officials are as likely to be corrupted as federal officials, but this still seems to be the logical solution, at least to begin with.

What is at stake here, among so many other items, is the relationship of the states to the federal government. To say this is a profound Constitutional crisis is a severe understatement.

And the larger question becomes, can the people ever trust its government again. The quick answer, at least, is ... not this government - ever again.

But first, everyone must get the word out. Every American, or as many possible who aren't immediately felled by terminal apoplexy as they confront this material, should read the sequence of events as presented on this site.

Then, responsible people in many professions should confer as to the best way to deal with prosecutions on these charges, including how to suspend the functional legal legitimacy of the Bush adminstration, especially since this group seems intent on blowing up the world. Then it will have to be one step at a time with some sort of calmly constructed provisional government, with the current Congress most likely having absolutely no role in its creation.

This is a great and necessary opportunity for the individual states to regain some of the power that has been usurped by Washington when they create a new federal government without any help from the old one.

OK. I know this is all mind-boggling. Unfortunately for all of us, it happens to be reality. Shake off your stunned silence and incredulity. We have to deal with it, and we have to deal with it now.

Proper articulation of the offenses, machinery to effect remedies and prosecutions - and doing both of things in the proper venues - are of critical importance at this moment. Not being a lawyer, I don't know what they are. Somebody knows. That person or persons needs to speak, and soon.

Because if Bush knows his crimes are exposed and he is allowed to remain in power, God knows what will happen.

I know you've taken in a crushing amount of information just now, but I would beg you to try and digest a little bit more, this time from the mind of Kent State professor Walter Davis, who has articulated in a very coherent way the argument against George W. Bush continuing as the commander of the most deadly arsenal ever seen on this planet.

Read the whole piece at some point at
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

It's titled "Compelling Evidence for Complicity." Davis points out the government has tried to cop a plea of ineptitude in failing to prevent the 9/11 disaster, but the professor concludes this excuse is "not consistent with the known facts."

With flawless logic and perfect professorial prose, Davis outlines and elaborates 22 reasons why he thinks Bush not only knew but helped plan and execute the tragic 9/11 deception. Davis's items range from the fact that the entire U.S. intelligence community knew the attack was going to happen and the American air defenses were "stood down" ... to historical precedents of leaders who lied about attacks in history. In between is the definitive version of the charges that should be laid upon Bush and all the criminal functionaries who participated in this profound crime against the American people.

I seldom say things are a "must read," but this is one of them, simply for its articulation of the basic crimes of 9/11 and the completeness of the magnitude of the atrocity and its implications. Read the damn thing. Try not to cry.

OK, OK, enough data. It's almost 4 a.m. and I've been up since 7 a.m. after being up til 3 a.m. the night before dealing with my e-mail, from all of you, my lovelies, who are getting this one.

I'm running out of time, as some of you know, and may not be able to do too many more of these missives. But this one is important, so I'm going to stay up til dawn punching in the addresses. Because you're running out of time, too. We're all running out of time, and we better do something fast.

The information contained in here is a critical step in the right direction. Take it and run with it.

posted 09-29-2003 12:11 AM            

From Ken Adachi
Educate-Yourself.org
9-29-3
http://www.rense.com/general42/re.htm

posted 09-30-2003 11:10 PM            

Regards evidence of prior knowledge and complicity in 9/11 by Bush

If Starr had had even one percent of that much evidence against Clinton...
He would be rotting in jail right now.

Where is the media outrage?
9/11 wasn't Bush getting a BJ.
It was Bush doing to all of the US what Clinton did to Monica.

Thousands of innocent people died.
Not because of a few itenerant Arabs...
but because the Bush Administration allowed it to happen.
(or orchestrated it themselves)

thousands dying for partisan political media diversions.

I'm disgusted- you should be too!

Unlawful invasions of soveriegn nations without one shred of honest proof.

We should all be calling for immediate impeachment and imprisonment of the amerikan Hitler.

posted 10-01-2003 09:40 AM            

You know as well as I know that these closet KKK members, such as Bush, Cheney, Asscrack, KArl Rove, et al, could give a rat's ass about people who are not pasty white, or are not Uncle Tom's like Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice.

My ancestry amongst others is Mongolian (we may be related), Turkish, Greek, French, Ukrainian, Polish, German, English, and Irish. My grandma used to tell me stories on how the Polish and Irish were treated by the elite when they came here. and I don't need to tell you what the ruling elite did to Afro-Americans, Chinese, Japanese, and NAtive Americans.

Why don't the people go after Bush the same as they went after Clinton? Simple.....Sex is more of a problem with Fundamentalists than violence is. Put a naked ass on TV, and all the tight-ass-blue-noses-on-the-culture-board are up in arms. Put up pictures of Iraqis getting blown up, or for that matter the WTC getting blown up, no problemo.

posted 10-01-2003 10:20 AM            

Kaminski's article is so powerful, so well written! I only wish William Rivers Pitt was "up" on this knowledge and could write about it, too! Maybe I'll send the article to him and see what happens. Couldn't hurt!

And I turn on CSpan and see everyone dealing with Senate and House business, call in shows dealing with the Bush-Wilson affair and all pales in comparison.

Why hasn't International ANSWER gone into the realm of 9/11? They protest the war, the troops in Iraq, and all that is well and good, but because they are also against racism and unfairness, they have failed to recognize the racism and genocide on our own soil!

Thanks for sharing your heritage, Shatoga, nice combo! Let's see, I'm a mix, too. I'm French 1/8, Italian 1/4, Scottish 1/4 and the rest the British Isles and Dutch with a tiny spot of German way back into the early 1800s. I hated reading about the German (no offense-- I'm married to one who is 1/2) in my ancestry. But as we all know, the true self is the spiritual self and the body with it's genetics is only a vehicle!

What do we do with this information? How do we proceed to get the information into the hands of the powerful? Any suggestions?

posted 10-01-2003 10:28 AM            

That was swamp gas, me, that is the mix.

Suggestions for waking people up:

posted 10-01-2003 11:32 AM            

Well, I'll have you know, I sent the Kaminsky article with a plea for William Rivers Pitt of http:www.truthout.com to take a look at the evidence on 9/11. I offered to give him links with all the supporting data, so if one of you could just post the links in a row on a post, that would be great! I really related to him warmly, personally, and with great respect and told him I was worthy of credibility myself (blah blah) and hopefully he'll start reading and make a decision in time. If he's never looked at the subject with an investigative eye, he may not "take" to it, and then again, he might talk to someone and hear the right things and you never know what angels can do to promote a great cause! He may secretly read the sites, and think to himself, weigh the information and then suddenly break out with a piece! Most likely he'll have to consider his reputation and his own credibility in all of this before he takes a chance. But at least the seed has been planted, whether it will grow is up to him and the power of the message itself. Could some of you write him a letter also? More than one letter on a particular topic would surely influence him more than just one!
william.pitt@mail.truthout.org

Now, who else should I write to? Senators? Congress people? Other writers like Huffington and Ivins? Moore?

Isn't it time to disseminate this knowledge? Get it out? Should I write an article about it? Oh God, somehow I feel I am important to this information flow!

OK, I'll report my progress to you! Will you report to the board, too? SG? Mech? All?

This feels like we're moving forward beyond the debate phase into true and mind-changing action! YES! YES! Oh BAY BEE!

Peace!

posted 10-02-2003 09:13 AM            

CIA Conducted Air Crash Simulation on 9/11/01 (What are the chances?!?)
Posted by: electrostatic on Oct 01, 2003 - 08:22 PM


This on the same date as the NRO (having launched a new top-secret payload into space three days earlier) conducted its own simulation!!! Remember the movie Wargames? Well, I guess it WASN'T just a game this time. I wonder who was at the joystick that day. Warren Buffet was the billionaire that helped pioneer remotely controlled piloting (financially) and he just happened to be at USSTRATCOM (US Strategic Command) that day with an unknown number of CEO's from the WTC who, magically, had the day off.

On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building

Associated Press picks up story first reported by The Memory Hole

>>> Here's another admission which destroys the government's lie that it couldn't possibly have foreseen the use of planes to ram buildings.

They will be holding a conference called "Homeland Security: America's Leadership Challenge" in Chicago on 6 Sept 2002. The star speaker is Rudolph Giuliani. One of the other speakers is CIA man John Fulton. Here is the crucial sentence from the promotional literature for the conference:

On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building.

~

Fulton's entire passage from the promotional literature:

John Fulton - Intelligence Networking & Analysis

On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day. Information is the most powerful tool available in the homeland security effort. At the core of every initiative currently underway to protect our country and its citizens is the challenge of getting the right information to the right people at the right time. How can so much information from around the world be captured and processed in meaningful and timely ways? Mr. Fulton shares his insights into the intelligence community, and shares a vision of how today's information systems will be developed into even better counter-terrorism tools of tomorrow.

About John Fulton

John Fulton’s 25 years in the intelligence community has contributed to his recognition as an expert in risk & threat response analysis, scenario gaming, and strategic planning. He is on staff for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), currently serving as Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance Office, and as a member of U.S. Joint Forces Command's Project Alpha - a prestigious "think tank" for advanced concepts related to such issues as homeland security. He formerly served as the mission director for our nation's satellite imagery program as well as replacing Army Astronaut Same Gemar as the Director of the National Security Space Master Plan for the U.S. Department of Defense and Intelligence Space Communities un