Sunday, August 16, 2009

9/11 - Will We Ever Know What Happened? (Part 1)

9/11 Was An Inside Job, Who Did It and How?
By Alex Thomas
The Intel Hub
September 14, 2010
For the last nine years many theories have been put forward in regards to what actually happened on 9/11. From holographic planes to energy weapons, to a standard controlled demolition, concerned citizens and government operatives have all put forth different theories. One simple fact remains; the official story is scientifically impossible.
The recent release of thousands of hours of video footage and photographic evidence by The National Institute of Standards and Technology has only given us more evidence in the fight to bring the truth forward. The International Center for 9/11 Studies has worked tirelessly to secure evidence through the Freedom of Information Act and this time it has succeeded.
So far over 20 videos have been released that seem to back up the belief that controlled demolitions were used on the World Trader Center buildings, including Building Seven.
I’d like to take a second to review WTC 7 witness Barry Jennings. When Jennings, along with Michael Hess, entered the tower on the morning of 9/11, they encountered some extremely startling circumstances. Unfortunately, Barry Jennings passed away in 2008 under extremely suspicious circumstances.
It was just after the first attack on the North tower, but before the second plane hit the South Tower, when Barry Jennings escorted Michael Hess to the World Trade Center Tower 7. Mr. Jennings recalls a large number of police officers in the lobby of WTC 7 when they arrived. The two men went up to the 23rd floor, but could not get in, so they went back to the lobby and the police took them up in the freight elevator for a second try. When they arrived on level 23, at the Office of Emergency Management (FEMA),) they found it had been recently deserted, “coffee that was on the desk, smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half eaten sandwiches”.
At that point he made some phone calls, and an un-named individual told them to “leave, and leave right away”. Jennings and Hess then proceeded to the stairs, and made it to level 6, when there was an explosion, and the stairwell collapsed from under their feet. “New Information on the Death of 911 Eyewitness Barry Jennings”Jack Blood 2009
Recently, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth released explosive new revelations that clearly show some sort of controlled demolition. In a move that no one saw coming, the mainstream news actually reported on their findings as well as the conference that was held at the National Press Club.
Major questions still remain. Who exactly carried out this terror attack? Was it strictly one group i.e Mossad or CIA or have planted gatekeepers continually blamed one group when in actuality it was a plan that was coordinated by multiple agencies and shadowy organizations. Were conventional explosives used to take down the towers or were micro nukes the culprit in the destruction of our beloved towers? How many people actually died? What is causing the multiple forms of cancer that the first responders currently suffer from? Where their people in the planes or were people like Todd Olson carefully planted in an attempt to prove that people were aboard the hijacked planes? Why have multiple groups gone to great lengths to debunk certain theories while openly admitting that they refuse to even look at the evidence?
We could argue all day about who carried out this attack. Bias against certain groups and individuals has clearly clouded the judgment of normally clear headed individuals. Why have certain people ignored the Mossad agents who were arrested in a van full of explosives? Why have others continually blamed the whole attack on Israel despite the fact that Dick Cheney ordered NORAD to stand down? Justice will never be served without a clear cut culprit to prosecute.
Richard Gage and thousands of other Architects and Engineers believe a conventional controlled demolition took place and have the scientific evidence to back it up. It is simply not possible that two commercial airliners caused the collapse of three buildings. Debunking attempts by people such as Dave Thomas and the editors of Popular Mechanics have only shown how comical these government talking heads actually are.
Others such as Dr. Ed Ward, MD believe that micro nukes were used to take down the World Trade Center Towers. While many have been quick to downplay this possibility, the evidence he has put forward deserves, at the very least, a thorough examination. It is heavily documented that this “Secret Team” is capable of basically anything, what makes the use of micro nukes so unrealistic? The evidence of Tritium at ground zero is certainly worth further examination.
That being said, one thing we do know is that the official story(A conspiracy theory in itself) is a complete lie and a dishonor to all those who died and continue to die due to the events of 9/11. Of the hundreds of news broadcasts that reported the truth in the early hours of the attack, this clip seems to be one of the most clear cut:
As you can see, there are may questions that have remained unanswered. It seems that some are actually afraid to look at all the possible angles of this horrific false flag attack. While I understand the obvious need to ignore such concocted claims as the no planes theory, I don’t see how other claims that don’t fit the standard controlled demolition line should go ignored.
Hopefully in time we will learn what exactly took the towers down, until then we must continue to investigate the multiple theories, theories that all hold weight in their own right.
The Intel Hub will continue to investigate these theories, as the only thing we believe to be conclusive is the fact that the official story is a laughable conspiracy theory.
The 911 Cover-Up: Same Song, Different Verse
Part 1
By Dave Hodges
September 10, 2010
"History does not repeat itself, It rhymes" -Mark Twain
When does a country turn the page on a tragedy for the last time and finally move on?
I watched with great hope and anticipation as two generations of Americans demanded justice for JFK’s murder as most of the country rejected the official governmental explanations with cries to reopen the investigation into his death. Unfortunately, these cries fell upon arrogant, deaf ears. From the late 1960’s through mid 1990’s people such as Jim Marrs, Oliver Stone and Bill Kurtis kept the pressure on the mainstream media which forced them to give some scant attention to the fact that many did not accept Warren Commission Report and The House Select Committee on the JFK Assassination did not dig deep enough. In 2010, I no longer hold out hope that President John F. Kennedy will ever receive the justice that he and his family deserve. Sadly, Americans have finally lost interest in finding out whom and what was behind the conspiracy to murder JFK.
Just how does a country decide when to give up its quest for the truth? Is it as easy as some media type, or shadowy figure behind the scenes, pressing the delete button as we collectively and instantly move on to something new? How long will it be until our collective desires for justice and retribution, for the 911 victims, fade into the distant past in the same manner as has the JFK assassination? Sadly, I am seeing increasing evidence that 911 is a topic that is becoming as tired and as worn out as the conspiracy to murder John Kennedy has become. However, as long as I have a forum of public expression, in each September of every year that I have breath, I will continue to seek redemption and justice for 3000+ murdered Americans who should have returned safely home to their husbands, wives, sons and daughters in the evening hours of 9/11.
Shortly after 911, most politically aware Americans were cognizant of the fact that the events of 911 and the subsequent investigation by the 911 Commission, was this generation’s version of the JFK Assassination. In other words, the government was lying to its citizens and anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew it.
Within a few years, a growing number of Americans understood that the false flag event that we referred to as 911 was being used as the excuse to usher in a modern day Nazi Germany version of a police state and thrust it down the throats of the American people (e.g., The Military Commissions Act, Patriot Acts I & II, etc.). What many people still do not realize is why this police state is being installed with such thoroughness, rapidity and for what ultimate purpose. In other words, what ultimate agenda lies behind the installation of this draconian police state resulting from the events of 911? This question and this question alone provides every American with sufficient reasons to keep pressing for the truth. Because around every corner of every conspiracy lies the true agenda. After John Kennedy died, 56,000 American soldiers also died who didn’t have to in the debacle called Vietnam as a direct result of his death.
These conspiracies have real consequences when they go unchecked and unpunished. If America would simply take the time to lift up the covers and ask why the aftermath of 911 demanded the complete gutting of the Constitution and why must we be subjected incessant and intrusive monitoring by our Federal government, the historical answers rhyme, as Mark Twain would say, with Germany in the decade of the 1930’s. Ultimately, my life and your life may depend on pressing forward and demanding the truth.
Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe that 19 Muslims armed with no more than box cutters could turn every time honored American liberty on its ear. If this is the case, then call all our troops home because we have already lost the war.
A general historical rule of thumb states that one cannot judge the true implications of landmark events for at least 20 years following the event. History has indeed demonstrated that a culture is not a good judge of its own immediate history. With regard to the events of 911, we are now halfway through this historical prohibition related to the judging the significance of a landmark event. However, in just one short decade, a clear and unmistakable pattern has already taken shape. The implications of 911 are undeniably ominous and these implications will be fully felt for decades to come unless the slumbering masses awake from their corporate media induced coma and take matters into their own hands.
Pearl Harbor is often heralded as the most defining event in the 20th Century. The events surrounding that fateful December 7th day have been meticulously investigated (e.g., battle tactics, leadership ineptitudes and conspiracy theories). Don’t the three thousand victims of 911 deserve any less of an analysis? Apparently, the United States Government does not think so. Therefore, in the absence of full disclosure, the American people are left to conduct their own investigations. However, for many who have dared to question the official 911 Commission Report, as was the case with flawed Warren Commission Report, they have been frequently met with unyielding oppression which has often resulted in the researchers and skeptics being fired and publicly humiliated (e.g., Steve Jones, Van Jones).
At my own peril, I freely confess that I, too, have serious doubts about the validity of the findings of the 911 Commission. The findings of the 911 Commission are neither complete nor completely believable in their present form. Here is a brief and partial summary of my unanswered questions related to 911.
Unanswered Questions Regarding 911
1. Why was the video of the Mineta testimony removed from the 9/11 Commission website?
2. Why hasn’t the government addressed the "coincidence" of Able Danger?
3. What explains the failure of the Government to release the many videotapes of the plane, on approach, that struck the Pentagon?
4. Why was there a change in the scramble/intercept procedure three months prior to 911 for jets that are off course accompanied by a change in the shoot down orders?
5. What can explain the failure of the government to scramble jets over a period of an hour and twenty eight minutes between the Twin Towers being struck and the crash in Pennsylvania?
6. How could the unrelated events of 911 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq be successfully linked which culminated in the demise of Saddam Hussein despite strong evidence to the contrary that the reasons for invasion (e.g., weapons of mass destruction) were never found by our occupation forces?
7. What explains the well documented (e.g., Kevin Phillips) Bush/Cheney plans to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq which was set forth within the first 10 days of the Bush Administration? These invasions were planned well in advance of 911. Why wasn’t this contradiction investigated?
8. The well documented engineering and architectural arguments which clearly demonstrates that the fire and heat generated by the planes striking the Twin Towers were insufficient to melt the core of the buildings. Why doesn’t this evidence support the 911 Commission findings?
9. What could explain the almost near free-fall collapse of all three towers which defies the official explanation?
10. Where are the pieces of plane wings that supposedly struck light poles on its approach to the Pentagon?
11. The attack upon the Pentagon appears to any layman who looks at this evidence to look more like a missile strike than an airplane crash. Why does the circumference of the hole in the Pentagon greatly differ from the width of the plane? Why is there an exit hole on the backside of the building since the plane melted upon impact? Where was the debris field that one would expect on the backside of the building?
12. With all the large buildings that have been struck by planes, why are the Twin Towers the only ones to collapse in a pancake fashion in a manner similar to a planned demolition? Also, what about the pop outs that are clearly visible on the video, Loose Change?
13. Where are the skid marks on the lawn prior to impact at the Pentagon?
14. What about the evidence which strongly suggests that 11 nations warned us about the possibility of such an attack down to the day and hour?
15. Maintenance worker, William Rodriguez, was the last man out of the Twin Towers. At 8:46AM, Rodriguez reports that he heard two distinct explosions, seven seconds apart, which emanated from the floors below him. Rodriguez also reports the two explosions occurred before the planes hit the towers. Rodriguez was interviewed by the 911 Commission for 30 minutes, in secret, behind closed doors. His testimony is conspicuously absent from the 911 Report. So why did the last man out of the Towers manage to have his testimony left out of the 911 Commission Report?
16. Brigham Young University professor, Steve Jones, concluded that super thermite was used to bring down the Towers, including Tower 7, through a controlled demolition. Jones contends that he was warned by governmental officials that if he published his results his personal “pain would be great.” And the warning proved prophetic as Jones was fired, …er… forced into retirement, after publishing his results. How does a tenured university professor get fired for publishing legitimate research results when the peer review process could have been utilized to analyze the validity of Jones’ claims?
17. Ground Zero rescue worker, Mike Bellone, claims he was approached by unknown FBI agents a short time after he and his partner, Nicholas DeMasi, a retired New York firefighter, found the “black boxes” among the WTC rubble before January 2002. In the 911 Commission Report, Chapter 1, footnote 76, there is the sole but definitive reference to the airline “black boxes”: “The CVR’s and the FDR’s [voice and flight data recorders] from American 11 and United 175 were not found.” With this obvious contradiction, why weren’t these two rescue workers interviewed by the 911 Commission?
18. How could all four black boxes not be retrieved by the FBI when nearly ALL crashes, through course of modern aviation history, do result in the ultimate retrieval of the black box? This is reminiscent of recent events when it was revealed on The Common Sense Show with Dave Hodges 8-29-2010, by maritime and oil clean up expert, Captain Kelley Sweeney, that the black box from the now infamous Trans Ocean oil rig, in the Gulf, along with the tape recordings, which is a required part of every oil rig, went missing following the explosion which led to the greatest maritime disaster in the history of the planet. Does anyone else feel like connecting these dots?
19. When LBJ ordered JFK’s presidential limousine stripped and cleaned before a criminal investigation could take place, he effectively destroyed the primary crime scene evidence in the murder of JFK and dashed the hopes of America’s genuine search for the truth. In a striking parallel, 41 truckloads of debris were hauled away from Twin Towers within hours of the crime. Both events are felonies as they clearly represent the tampering of evidence connected with a crime scene. Why didn’t the 911 Commission Report address the question as to why normal crime scene investigative techniques were not employed at Ground Zero?
20. Why was LBJ allowed to sequester the JFK assassination evidence in a locked vault beneath the National Archives until the year 2033? Didn’t the American taxpayers foot the bill for this investigation? In the minds of the government, wasn’t the investigation completed? Are American citizens no more than little children who have to be protected from the truth? If not, then why can’t we look at the evidence? In another striking case of history rhyming with an earlier time, much of the remaining 911 crime scene evidence is still being held under lock and key at Hangar 17 at JFK Airport and the government is not letting anyone in to examine the evidence which underlies the 911 Commission findings. A decade later and with the ink dry on the 911 Commission’s findings, why isn’t the evidence being made available to journalists and investigators? What is the government afraid of? Or more accurately, what does the government have to hide? Even Ray Charles could see an unmistakable pattern and deceit and cover-up.
For several decades following the JFK Assassination, the American people engaged in a parlor game of questioning and debating the evidence associated with The Warren Report (e.g., the timing problem, the magic bullet, etc.). However, only a few of these discussions ever reached the level of why JFK had to be eliminated (e.g., for his actions detrimental to the Federal Reserve Board through the printing and distribution of C notes, JFK’s opposition to the military industrial complex’s desire to go to war in Vietnam, JFK’s planned elimination of the oil depletion allowance, JFK’s intent to reduce nuclear arms production and JFK’s announced intention to break the CIA into a 1,000 pieces following the Bay of Pigs fiasco).
The events of 911 have followed an eerily similar pattern when objectively compared to the JFK assassination and the handling of the evidence in both cases. These facts, by themselves, are enough to get one to seriously consider that the same kind of interests, who murdered Jack Kennedy, planned and carried out the events of 911 because the modus operandi is nearly identical in both events. Certainly, the requisite patsies are in place whether they be the inept Marine Corps marksman, Lee Oswald who did an unduplicated world class shooting performance in 1963, or the 19 Muslims armed with only box cutters who managed against all odds to hijack four airliners with three of the four reaching their final destination while under the control of amateur pilots at best.
In both cases, the evidence has been suppressed and withheld, In both cases the American people are being told that you do not have the right to know that the behind-the-scenes-puppet masters know and what truly happened under their watch, whether the event is a coup de tat, or a pretext to invade a series of foreign countries rich in natural resources. In other words, 911 is the same song as the JFK Assassination, only a different verse and far too many Americans just keep humming the melody of this sad song right along with the composers of these events.
Also See:
New Information on the Death of 911 Eyewitness Barry Jennings Seems to Point to Foul Play
By Jack Blood
April 16, 2009
Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, passed away last August 2008 at age 53 from undisclosed circumstances. Mr. Jennings was an eyewitness to the devastation of the World Trade center towers on September 11th 2001.
On the morning of 911 Barry Jennings with Michael Hess, (one of Rudy Giuliani’s highest ranking appointed officials, New York city’s corporation counsel), entered the famed Building 7.
It was just after the first attack on the North tower, but before the second plane hit the South Tower, when Barry Jennings escorted Michael Hess to the World Trade Center Tower 7. Mr. Jennings recalls a large number of police officers in the lobby of WTC 7 when they arrived. The two men went up to the 23rd floor, but could not get in, so they went back to the lobby and the police took them up in the freight elevator for a second try. When they arrived on level 23, at the Office of Emergency Management (FEMA),) they found it had been recently deserted, “coffee that was on the desk, smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half eaten sandwiches”.
At that point he made some phone calls, and an un-named individual told them to “leave, and leave right away”. Jennings and Hess then proceeded to the stairs, and made it to level 6, when there was an explosion, and the stairwell collapsed from under their feet, Mr. Jennings was actually hanging, and had to climb back up. They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing. This is an important detail, as many debunkers have used Mr. Jennings statements out of context to claim the damage came to WTC 7 from the towers collapsing, not the case according, to Mr. Jennings.
When they made it to the lobby, Mr. Jennings found it destroyed and littered with dead bodies. He said it looked like, “King Kong had came through it and stepped on it, (it was) so destroyed, I didn’t know where I was. So destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, that I believe the fire department made to get me out.” Shortly after he made it out, he was seen on several news channels telling his story.
Mr. Jennings was admittedly confused as to why Building 7 had to come down at all, and does not accept the official reason that the noises he heard were from a fuel oil tank, “I know what I heard, I heard explosions”.
Jennings testimony was recorded by Loose Change for the Final Cut version of the extremely popular documentary, but was edited out at the final stage due to Jennings misgivings about losing his job, and endangering his family.
The BBC later interviewed Jennings for a “911 debunking special” and Jennings seemed to retract the testimony given to Loose Change. Subsequently the creators of the film released the original interview to protect their own credibility.
Barry Jennings passed away shortly thereafter and coincidentally just a few days before the long awaited NIST report on Building 7 was released to the public. It is quite possible that Jennings would have exposed the cover story of NIST, and their overall excuse that the 47 story building was the first and only skyscraper felled by fire. He never got that chance.
New Info
Yesterday, April 15th 2009 I was contacted by “Loose Change” director, and narrator Dylan Avery who said that he had recently begun investigating the death of Barry Jennings, and had found some new information relating to his death.
It seems that there is a very good possibility that Jennings’ death could have been due to foul play. Though the investigations are on going, initial findings are somewhat alarming. The conclusion is still forthcoming, but I was shocked by what I heard.
It seems that Dylan had hired a private investigator to look into Jennings death which remains shrouded in mystery. His motive was simply to bring some closure to the life of Barry Jennings, and in doing so to honor the memory of this brave American. The Investigator ended up referring the case to Law enforcement before refunding his pay, and told Dylan never to contact him again. Very unusual to say the least. Dylan also paid a visit to the Jennings home. He found it vacant and for sale.
Personally, something is really beginning to stink here. Why would a highly paid PI refuse to continue his investigation? Why did he refer the matter to police? He is not talking. What is he afraid of. Was he warned to cease and desist? If so by whom?
These are some of the new questions revolving around the Jennings case.
In every major cover up from the JFK assassination to Iran Contra, we can see one common thread. The untimely death of eyewitnesses. Barry Jennings was not only an important and most credible eyewitness, but he openly refuted much of the government, and media version of events. He was a liability.
The 911 Cover-Up: Same Song, Different Verse
Part 2
By Dave Hodges
October 3, 2010
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
The tragedy of 911 is now an historical event. Yet, the implications and ramifications of 911 are very much with us today and are conveniently providing the pretext to both conquer and subjugate the American people through the systematic destruction of their civil liberties.
All totalitarian governments begin their invasion into civil liberties with the promise of safety from the dangers posed by whoever plays the convenient role of the "boogey men" of the day. In Nazi Germany, the original boogey men were the communists who allegedly burnt down the Reichstag and then the scope of who conveniently played the role of boogey men kept expanding until anyone who was considered an enemy of the German State needed to be controlled and eliminated. Today, the totalitarian state promises to "Let us protect you from yourself" and these Trojan Horse promises ring loudly and clearly through the halls of Congress and in the Oval Office. True to the Hegelian Dialectic, America's present day "boogey men" are the terrorists of 911 and anyone who faces east when they pray. In reality your individual chances of being victimized by these so-called boogey men are infinitesimal. However, the dangers posed an ever-increasing totalitarian government are growing exponentially by the day.
Following the events of 911, the country sang the national anthem a little louder at baseball games while the perpetrators of 911 were busy dismantling the country's time honored Constitutional liberties.
The world has been down this slippery slope in the past and the consequences were catastrophic.
Gun Control
There is nothing as dangerous to a totalitarian regime as an educated and well-armed populace.
Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for self-defense against one's own country. Yet, increasingly and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens right to own a gun.
Why? FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register or turn in their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don't have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?
How quickly we forget the lessons of history. Gun control and gun confiscation has preceded every instance of genocide in the 20th century. If we ever allow government to subvert the second amendment, we very well could be witnessing a prelude to an American genocide. Before we strip away our last line of defense from a fully entrenched totalitarian government by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts:
1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.
2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the "more difficult" of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 20 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.
3. After the rise of the Nazi's, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the "Brown shirts," were arrested and exterminated.
4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.
5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the "educated" people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.
The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 60 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 60 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for tighter gun control legislation. Gun control works, just ask Hitler, Stalin or any other despot.
Frighteningly, both Hitler's Third Reich and our present American government enacted and proposed American gun control legislation is imitating Hitler's Nazi Germany gun control legislation. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.
After the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 people, America has been plunged into an ever-increasingly unsafe world, and our citizens are about relearn the lessons of history that they failed to grasp in their United States History classes.
The lesson of the 20th Century genocides can no longer be dismissed as something that could never happen in America. The logic of personal self-defense should be hitting home as our country plunges deeper into the depths of fascist totalitarian control (e.g., Patriot Acts 1&2, Detainee Bill, etc.).
Americans may be on the verge of committing "National Suicide by Gun Control". The gun control advocates are positioning themselves and their gun-grabbing policies to be perfectly timed to influence people during this window of opportunity given the war on terror.
National Identification Cards
In Nazi Germany (July 1938), only a few months before Kristallnacht (i.e., the night of the broken glass) in which Jewish businesses were targeted by the infamous "Brown Shirts" for destruction, the notorious "J-stamp" was introduced on National ID cards and then later on passports.
The use of the "J-stamp" ID cards by Nazi Germany preceded the yellow Star of David badges which led to the subsequent deportation of Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals and political dissidents to the infamous Nazi death camps. In Norway, where yellow cloth badges were not introduced, the J stamped ID card was used in the identification of more than 800 Jews deported to death camps in Eastern Europe.
Identification cards, in Rwanda, were a key factor in shaping, defining and perpetuating ethnic identity. Once the 1994 genocide in Rwanda began, an ID card with the designation "Tutsi" constituted a death sentence at any checkpoint. No other factor was more significant in facilitating the speed and carnage of the 100 days of mass killing in Rwanda.
National ID cards of all kinds are controversial. In recent years in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Australia have developed proposals for introducing national ID cards which have subsequently raised serious questions about governmental control, privacy issues and ultimately citizen safety concerns. Classification of ethnic, racial or religious groups on ID cards, however, is a distinctively different issue because of the past use of ID cars used to perpetrate the targeting of "undesirables" for possible detention or death. Of course, an American national ID card would not categorize any citizen for potential abuse, wouldn't it? Before you answer consider that 1933 Germany was a modern, civilized nation with a constitution.
Although it is true that Americans today do not have a formal National Identification Card. However, a de facto card is thrust upon the United States. New regulations on passports, identification requirements need to access public transportation and, of course, the ubiquitous use of Social Security cards as an ID card has significantly "nudged" us in that direction.
The resulting dangers of any form of a "papers please" National Identification card are self-evident.
The First Patriot Act
Many legal scholars and average American citizens decried the passage of the Patriot Act as an affront to constitutionally protected civil liberties. When the Patriot Act was passed, many compared it to the Nazi policies of 1935. The critics point was well-taken. In defense of the Nazi Enabling Act and the modern day American Patriot Act, consider the following two very similar arguments made in both of their behalves: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." The second statement of justification argues that "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." The first statement is a quote from Hitler's main henchman, Hermann Goering, testifying at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis seized control of Germany's democratic government. The second statement is a quote from President Bush's former henchman, John Ashcroft, who was fervently defending the Patriot Act and explaining that dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism. If that doesn't make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, nothing will.
Section 206 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain roving wiretaps without empowering the court to make sure that the government as certain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation. The Patriot Act's "sneak and peek" provision is about lowering standards for sneak and peek warrant. Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows notice of search warrants to be delayed for an indefinite "reasonable time."
Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches. Post-Patriot Act, third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism. The statute authorizing the use of "national security letters" (NSL's) as amended by the Patriot Act 505(a) contains no judicial oversight. The statute allows the government to compel the production of financial records, credit reports, telephone, Internet, and other communications or transactional records. In a report published by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee an Inspector General Report delivered to Congress found that there were 143,074 NS Letters requested in two years, between 2003 and 2005. Another disturbing fact from the same report states that From the 143,074 NSLs requested, there was only 1 confirmed terrorism-related conviction. So, in actuality, who is the law really designed for?
Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation
The Second Patriot Act
The Second Patriot Act has been called The First Patriot Act on steroids. Through the principle of totalitarian incrementalism, the Second Patriot Act greatly expands the over-reaching powers of the First Patriot Act and annihilates all of the firewalls (e.g., the Bill of Rights) between governmental tyranny and the United States Citizenry.
SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.
SECTION 106 states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
SECTION 109 allows the newly created secret courts to issue contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate self and/or others. This section obliterates the Fifth Amendment.
SECTION 123 restates that the government doesn't required search warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep (e.g.,Total Information Awareness Network). One passage in this section reads, "Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime."
SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners' and medical examiners' investigative operations whenever they choose. This is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's special medical examiner he had in Arkansas who ruled that people had committed suicide when their limbs had been severed.
SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings when things are not going the Feds way.
SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower protection for Federal agents which effectively eliminates any and all oversight from within the government.
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. Therefore, when you are detained for what were formerly legal protest activities, you and your family will be unaware of your whereabouts when you suddenly disappear.
SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. Pelosi and Reid can engage in money laundering, similar to Bush 41 and his endless stream of CIA front companies that he ran prior to his presidential nomination. Timothy Geitner's Turbo tax serial evasion schemes are not subject to legitimate review because he and all federal officials are now above the law.
SECTION 501 expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First Patriot Act now permits a new, unlimited definition of terrorism in order that all dissidents can be imprisoned without due process. Therefore, under Section 501 an American citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a prison never to be seen again.
SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in the area of information sharing. Peacekeepers, like Greg Evensen and Joe Arpaio now stand alone
SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security and the FBI, violating their privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are all preventative measures. Have you ever heard of Infraguard?
SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments. Big Brother is going to creep up on us one peep at a time.
SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish.
SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.
SECTION 402 is titled "Providing Material Support to Terrorism." The section states that there is no requirement to show that the individual even had the intent to aid terrorists.
SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.
SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Reminder: Any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.
SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty. Reminder: Any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.
SECTIONS 427 sets up an asset forfeiture provision for anyone engaged in alleged terrorist activities. In typical Mafia fashion, the Feds must get their cut.
Several times, in each subsection, the Second Patriot Act states that its new Nazi-type powers will be used to fight international and domestic terrorism (e.g., 911) and other types of crimes. Again, the government has already announced in Section 802 of the First Patriot act that any crime is considered domestic terrorism. Political protests, being a Ron Paul supporter, being a veteran, an ardent supporter of the Constitution and many other patriotic behaviors have already been deemed to be the actions of a terrorist. Really, you say? Surely you have heard of the MIAC Report. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008, have written editorials, I have done talk shows espousing the many virtues of the Bill of Rights and I am a registered Libertarian. In the eyes of the Feds, I am unquestionably a terrorist and am subject to any and all of the provisions of the Patriot Acts, One or Two. Where does this place you?
The Military Commissions Act
America is walking down this same slippery slope with the recent passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, also referred to as the "Detainee Bill."
Most Americans may be unaware that Presidents Bush and Obama, like Hitler, came to power legally. Hitler and his Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush/Obama comparisons so compelling.
On its face, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 appears to protect Americans from the dangers associated with terrorists. However, many who have examined the recently passed law have grave concerns over what this law will mean to average American citizens. For example, Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "(this legislation)....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. Once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Along the same lines, legal scholar and professor, Professor Marty Lederman, explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant, using whatever criteria they wish. Then, as far as Congress and U.S. law is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."
Most Americans would not express sympathy for their fellow countrymen who would dare to betray our country and provide aid and comfort to the enemy, nor do I. However the Government is not just talking about enemy collaborators; they are talking about you if you dare to criticize the government, its leaders and its policies. Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v.of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 discusses crimes prosecutable by the various military commissions. This includes the following definition: "Any person subject to this chapter, who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct." Under this law, you have an implied duty to demonstrate allegiance and a sense of the duty to the United States and its government. This offense is punishable by death. If a journalist dares to challenge the official version of 911 are they, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the enemy? When journalists challenged the veracity of the claims for presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as a questionable pretext for war, would these journalists now be considered to be in a material breach of their duty as a United States citizen? The current definition of "enemy combatant," to whom the law would apply, broadens its reach from those who "engaged in hostilities against the United States" to those who "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." Material support is a vague concept that can be, and has been, applied to lawyers and interpreters assisting clients. Should lawyers who are United States citizens, acting within the boundaries of the United States and plainly protected by the Constitution, be subjected to trials before a military tribunal rather than a criminal court? The vagueness of the law seems to say yes. Further, for an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place? Several constitutional scholars concur that this law clearly applies to United States citizens. This is indeed frightening!
Further actions that result in the classification of an individual as a terrorist include the following.
1- Destruction of any property, which is deemed punishable by any means of the military tribunal's choosing.
2- Any violent activity whatsoever if it takes place near a designated protected building, such as a charity building.
3- A change of the definition of "pillaging" which turns all illegal occupation of property and all theft into terrorism. This makes squatters and petty thieves enemy combatants.
The Detainee Act does much more than broaden the definition of an enemy combatant and demand allegiance to the United States government and its officials. For example, Habeas Corpus is gone as the new law declares "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."
With the passing of the German Enabling Act of 1933, Hitler removed the last vestiges of democratic pretense in pre-Nazi Germany. Article two of the Enabling Act stated that "Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag. The rights of the President remain undisturbed." Ultimately, what the Enabling Act meant was that the executive branch of the German government was empowered by the legislature to decide what the law was. Hitler was permitted to ignore the German Constitution and neither the courts nor the legislature would have the means to check his new found executive power. Today, the United States government has the American version of the Enabling Act; Patriot Acts One and Two.
NSPD 51 and HSPD 20
The combined directives of NSPD 51 HSPD 20 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, thus overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. NSPD 51 allows the sitting president to declare a "national emergency" without Congressional approval. The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement:
NSPD 51 grants extraordinary Police State powers to the White House and Homeland Security (DHS), in the event of a "Catastrophic Emergency." The President, alone, decides what constitutes a national emergency which could lead to the implementation of martial law.
John Warner Defense Act of 2007
Public Law 109-364, The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, was signed into law in a private Oval Office ceremony. It allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere within America. No doubt that NORTHCOM was created for the enforcement of this eventuality. This act also permits the President to take control of all state based National Guard units without the consent of the state's governor in order to "suppress public disorder." Further, Section 1076 of this Act, entitled; Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies and Section 333 Major Public Emergencies which could include any interference with State and Federal Law, says that the President may use the forces at his disposal when he alone determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that a State is incapable of maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination thereof or conspiracy to commit these acts against the United States." This quote does not require any elaboration.
Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to sign Article 48, an "emergency" decree authorizing Hitler to suspend all civil rights, arrest and summarily execute any person who was designated as being a person who was deemed "suspicious" by Hitler and his cronies. Subsequently, a reign of terror ensued in which thousands (communists, social-democrats, labor union leaders) were arrested and sent to prison, or worse. To maximize Nazi influence, the non-Nazi press was outlawed. And so began one of the darkest chapters in human history.
In 1999, the Federal government has entered into a no bid contract with KBR to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railroad cars equipped with shackles, purportedly to transport "detainees" (San Francisco Chronicle)
Who will inhabit these secretive prisons? Author Naomi Wolf, contends that the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month. Another relevant clue about who may eventually inhabit the FEMA prisons may lie in the now infamous MIAC report. According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous militia member or terrorist designation: The United Nations, the New World Order, Gun Control, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, The Ammunition and Accountability Act, The North American Union, Universal Service Program, the use of RFID's, anti-abortion and illegal immigration. You may also be considered a terrorist if you are any of the following: A Ron Paul supporter, espouse pro-constitutional beliefs, are a member of any fringe political parties (e.g., Libertarian and Constitution parties), pro Second Amendment and amazingly if you are a veteran. Under the Patriot Acts and all the myriad of police state legislation, following 911, we are all at risk. What's in your wallet?
The government states that they must look at everything to "determine" if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you and I are guilty until proven innocent.
1. Secret CIA prisons is a known fact
2. The use of Gestapo-like torture has been defended by our top governmental officials
3. Spying on all American citizens is legal and has been fully implemented for a long time.
4. Arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial are now a legal reality.
5. The plain site existence of the omnipresent imperialistic militarism and corporate-benefiting wars of conquest are a part of the national fabric and the daily operating philosophy of the government.
6. Secret and unlawful detention has been committed against American citizens.
7. Denial and restriction of habeas corpus. Remember: The Constitution is just a "Goddamn piece of paper."
In a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemller (1892–1984) regarrding apparent inactivity of German citizens following the Nazi rise to power and their subsequent persecution of their chosen target groups.
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out"
As it was with the German people of the 1930's, Americans did not act to prevent the coming holocaust when they possessed the power to do so by peaceful and legal means. Elections are now virtually meaningless thanks to Diebold. In the end, it doesn't matter who is elected and no election result can derail the impending train wreck which will soon confront the American people. The American people can still challenge some minor political and social issues as we continue our slide into revolution and anarchy. However, make no mistake about it, the train we are riding on has an appointment with destiny, and the other train which we will soon meet head on is run by the globalists and they have a definitive genocidal agenda which is largely unknown to the masses. You can embrace for impact, but you will not be able to avoid what is to be, and make no mistake about it, there is absolutely nowhere you and your family can hide.
Americans do not live in an emerging police state; All Americans now live in a fully developed police state. From the false flag event, 911, to the development of the most thorough and technologically equipped police state the world has ever seen, one has to wonder what's the "endgame"?
For those who hate suspense, you will not have long to wait to have the end game question answered because many of the global elite have already told us in their own words what they have planned for us which is the topic of Part 3 of this series.
Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack"
By Sheila Casey / Rock Creek Free Press
15 Dec. 2009
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reported that the data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.
The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight.
Accident investigators monitor the cockpit door with the FDR because it may yield clues to pilot error in a crash. The FDR begins recording once the pilots are in their seats and readying for takeoff, and the plane cannot take off unless the FDR is working.
The official story about flight 77 is that five Muslim terrorists brandishing box cutters forced their way into the cockpit and herded two pilots, four flight attendants and all the passengers to the back of the plane. This story came into being via Ted Olson, US Solicitor General, who told CNN — that he received two phone calls from his wife Barbara Olson, a passenger on the doomed flight. Ted Olson’s story changed several times. Sometimes he claimed that the calls from his wife were made from seat back phones, other times that she used her cell phone.
According to American Airlines customer service, the American Airlines maintenance manual for that aircraft, and American Airlines Captain Ralph Kolstad, seatback phones on 757s had been deactivated prior to 9/11/01. (They were later removed entirely, as they never worked well.)
Barbara Olson couldn’t have used a cell phone either: numerous 9/11 researchers, most notably David Ray Griffin, have pointed out that cell phones did not work on airplanes on 9/11. The speed and altitude of a commercial airliner both present overwhelming obstacles to a cell phone’s need to lock onto a cell tower and then hand off to another tower in a new location.
It was the FBI that revealed the evidence that decisively disproves Ted Olson’s story. In the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI presented a report on the cell phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. Their report on AA77 shows that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, but that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. So Ted Olson either lied about receiving calls from his wife or was deceived into believing he received calls from her.
According to the UK Telegraph, Barbara Olson delayed her flight on 9/11 so that she could have breakfast with her husband on his birthday. That delay put her on the doomed flight. Ted Olson remarried in 2006 to tax attorney Lady Booth, whom he reportedly met the year after Barbara died.
There are numerous oddities and contradictions about AA77’s black boxes.
The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.
While it was widely reported in the media that the FDR for AA77 was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier. In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.
Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB’s own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.
Structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer claimed that he personally found AA77’s black box on 9/11. But in the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Kilsheimer is quoted as saying, “I stood on a pile of debris that we later found contained the black box …”
Kilsheimer’s story changes again in August 2007 in a piece done by the History Channel, “The 9/11 Conspiracies,” where he claims “I tripped over something; it was the black box.”
In earlier work, Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) has determined that the same data set provided by the NTSB shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon, based on an altimeter that uses air pressure to calibrate altitude.
As reported in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press, Citizen Investigation Team, citizen journalists from southern California, has collected evidence from 14 eyewitnesses that shows that the plane seen that morning near the Pentagon did not hit the building, but flew over it at the moment explosives detonated in the Pentagon, leading observers to conclude that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon.
Questions about what happened at the Pentagon have intrigued 9/11 researchers for years, beginning with photos from the alleged crash scene which do not show the wreckage of a plane.
This new evidence, showing that the cockpit door never opened during flight, is another nail in the coffin of the official story about flight 77. Clearly, if the cockpit door never opened, then hijackers did not storm the cockpit and herd the pilots to the back of the plane. The data, which originated from the government, does not support the government’s story.
Why would the government release data which contradicts its own version of events? It is possible they were just sloppy, or that they never anticipated that anyone would parse the data as carefully as Pilots for 9/11 Truth have. They may have also felt secure, that regardless of what damning revelations were contained in the FDR data, no mainstream media outlet would give them ink or air time, keeping the official story intact for the vast majority of Americans who receive their news from mainstream sources.
Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, stated: “We have not located any independently verified data which confirms the government’s story. The FBI and NTSB refuse to comment.” Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe who are investigating the government’s claims about the attacks of 9/11.
9-11 Truth-Deniers are Criminally Responsible
September 7, 2009
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
As you know, a storm, of righteous indignation from America's delusional, traitorous and criminal elite has forced White House Adviser Van Jones to resign.
His crime, signing a petition to investigate government involvement in 9-11. (Otherwise, I am no fan of Jones'.)
The self-righteous elites naturally feel threatened. By now, they are accomplices in the cover-up of the murder of about 3000 people. By blocking investigation of 9-11, they are criminally responsible and should be prosecuted along with the real perpetrators. They are "accessories after the fact": meaning they give shelter, aid and comfort to the perps.
The owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein has admitted he gave the order to "pull" (demolish) the 47-floor WTC-7 building on Sept. 11. It takes weeks to wire a building for demolition.
No one has explained why this building was set for demolition but the twin towers weren't. Especially since there were hundreds of witnesses who heard demolition explosives going off in the WTC. Later, traces of the powerful explosive,super thermite was found in the ruins.
What we are witnessing is mass self-delusion and hallucination, both criminal and treasonous, by the nation's political and chattering classes. The whole world knows 9-11 was an inside job and are laughing at Americans. How do Americans expect to solve their problems when they won't even face the truth? Their political and cultural leaders are liars, traitors and murderers?
Until these gangsters and their minions are brought to justice, Americans will continue to eat dirt. The Illuminati central bankers --Rockefellers, Rothschilds and Goldman Sachs -- were responsible for 9-11. It was designed to advance their police state and justify endless war.
The credit crisis was designed to bankrupt the US and enslave it to the bankers.
In the credit crunch and bailout, bankers like Goldman Sachs robbed Americans twice. The bailout ensured they would make billions on their derivative contracts with AIG. Then the money borrowed (out of thin air from the same central bankers) would have to be repaid to them with interest.
American political and cultural elites are moral cripples and whores. People who smear 9-11 truthers are bought and paid for. They are the "agents" and "leaders" described here in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
The masses "are accustomed to listen to us who pay it for obedience and attention. In this way, we shall create a blind force which shall never be in a position to move in any direction without the guidance of our agents...The people will submit to this regime because it will know that upon these leaders will depend its earnings, gratifications and the receipt of all kinds of benefits." (Protocol 10)
"We have already contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the goy communities...they all come near...looking through the spectacles we set astride their noses." ( Protocol 12.)
How long are Americans going to look through these spectacles, where planes crash without wreckage and buildings collapse into their footprint, without being demolished?
How long are Americans going to evade their moral responsibility to the victims of 9-11 both in the planes, and in the buildings?
Held In A Psychiatric Ward & Called “Delusional” For Saying 9/11 Was An Inside Job
by Clare Swinney
Global Research, August 29, 2009
I was wrongly diagnosed as delusional by the psychiatric staff of Ward 7 at Northland Base Hospital in Whangarei and held against my will for 11 days in mid-2006, because I maintained the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by criminal elements inside the US Administration.
A definition of delusional: relating to, based on, or affected by delusions. A delusion: a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.
In light of the definition, one of the most astounding aspects to the ordeal was that when I met with the chief psychiatrist, Dr Carlos Zubaran for two formal mental health assessments, I held Issue 3 of Uncensored, which is shown in the picture above, and asked him to look at information related to the 9/11 attacks. This magazine contained an article I’d written entitled: Why Does TVNZ Lie To Us About 9/11?, which cited evidence that proved the official fable was a lie – yet reminiscent of the fabled vampires afraid of the light of day, he refused to even cast his eyes over it, during both of the so-called “assessments.”
Another astounding aspect to what occurred was that Section 4 of the New Zealand Mental Health Act makes it clear that no one can be judged to be mentally ill solely on the basis of their political beliefs. The District Inspector for Mental Health – Northland, barrister Julie Young; Bridget Westenra, the lawyer she appointed to assist me and the staff of Ward 7, including the chief psychiatrist, did not appear to know this. As can be seen, it is written in layman’s language on page 33 of Chapter 2 of Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, which is on the Ministry of Health’s own website: ‘You cannot be considered to have a mental disorder just because of your: political, religious or cultural beliefs…’.
As this Judgement shows, because of his reluctance to scrutinize the evidence related to 9/11 and apparent lack of awareness of Section 4 of the Act, nine days into my incarceration, Dr Zubaran still held the belief I suffered from a “delusional disorder” because of my political beliefs.
The evidence that shows the official story of 9/11 was indeed a lie is now overwhelming. We now have what has been referred to as the “loaded gun” – this is the unignited nanothermite, a highly-advanced explosive substance, which was far too sophisticated a composite to have originated from a cave in Afghanistan. Think military. Think US government.
The following article, which relates to what occurred in Ward 7, was published in Issue 8 of Uncensored. Thankfully, since writing about what happened and making numerous phone calls, plus sending many letters, as well as supplying numerous DVDs to the staff of Ward 7 to show them the truth about 9/11 – and then finally threatening to protest outside the hospital, the Clinical Director of Mental Health & Addiction Services in Northland sent an apology in August 2008, which can be viewed here.
Dr Zubaran did not apologise.
Clare Swinney is a Member of Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice.
9/11 Mind Swell
Scientific evidence refutes the official story
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
URL of this article:
Global Research, August 11, 2009
As we approach the eighth anniversary of 9/11 consider this paradox. In the post 9-11 years the scientific evidence for disbelieving the official government story has mounted incredibly. And the number of highly respected and credentialed professionals challenging the official story has similarly expanded. Yet, to the considerable disappointment of the international 9/11 truth movement, the objective fact is that there are no widespread, loud demands for a new government-backed 9/11 investigation. The 9/11 truth movement is the epitome of a marginalized movement, one that never goes away despite not achieving truly meaningful results, which in this case means replacing official lies with official truth. What has gone wrong?
Akin to the definition of insanity, the hallmark of entrenched but marginalized movements is that they continue to pursue exactly the same strategy and tactics that have failed to produce solid results. They indulge themselves with self-delusion, defensive thinking and acting as if the world at large must surely and finally wake up, see the light and embrace the Truth. Years and, potentially, decades go by, but this quixotic status quo remains embedded, as if set in intellectual concrete. There is no brain tumor to blame. Nor any mass hypnosis of true believers to prove. There is just monumental disinterest among the dominant culture, political establishment and the broad public that is far more engaged with other issues, problems and movements.
The 9/11 truth movement, at best, gets meager public attention when it is derided and insulted, used as an example of persistent conspiratorial insanity.
Make no mistake; I concluded a few years back, after using my professional engineering and materials science background to study the evidence, that the official government story is a lie. As a former full professor of engineering, I firmly believe that elements of the US government were involved with contributing to (not just allowing) the 9/11 tragedy, but that does not necessarily eliminate the role of those terrorists publicly blamed for the events. Science, logic, evidence and critical thinking told me this.
Who should we blame for the failure of the 9/11 truth movement to fix the historical record and, better yet, identify those in the government who turned 9/11 into an excuse for going to war, getting them indicted, prosecuted, and punished for their murderous acts?
It is too easy to blame the mainstream media and political establishment for refusing to demand and pursue a truly comprehensive and credible independent scientific and engineering investigation. President Obama with his tenacious belief in looking forward, not backward, exemplifies a national mindset to avoid the painful search for truth and justice that could produce still more public disillusionment with government and feed the belief that American democracy is weak at best, and delusional at worst.
Marginalized movements always face competition for public attention. There are always countless national issues and problems that feed new movements and distract the public. There have been many since 9/11, not the least of which was the last presidential campaign and then the painful economic recession, and now the right wing attacks on health care reform. The 9/11 truth movement illustrates a total failure to compete successfully with other events and movements.
This can be explained in several ways. The 9/11 movement has not been able to articulate enough benefits to the public from disbelieving the official government story and pursuing a new investigation. What might ordinary Americans gain? Would proof-positive of government involvement make them feel better, more secure, and more patriotic? Apparently not. In fact, just the opposite. By its very nature, the 9/11 issue threatens many things by discovering the truth: still less confidence in the US political system, government and public officials. Still more reason to ponder the incredible loss of life and national wealth in pursuing the Iraq war. In other words, revealing 9/11 truth offers the specter of a huge national bummer. Conversely, it would show the world that American democracy has integrity.
The second explanation for failure is that the truth movement itself is greatly to blame. It has been filled with nerdish, ego-centric and self-serving activists (often most interested in pushing their pet theory) unable to pursue strategies designed to face and overcome ugly, challenging realities. The truth movement became a cottage industry providing income and meaning for many individuals and groups feeding the committed with endless websites, public talks, videos, books and paraphernalia. They habitually preach to the choir. Applause substitutes for solid results. In particular, it embraces the simplistic (and obviously ineffective) belief that by revealing technical, scientific and engineering facts and evidence the public and political establishment would be compelled to see the light. Darkness has prevailed.
Proof of this are the views expressed days ago on the truth movement by Ben Cohen on the Huffington Post: “I have done some research on the topic, but stopped fairly quickly into when it dawned on me that: 1. Any alternative to the official account of what happened is so absurd it simply cannot be true. 2. No reputable scientific journal has ever taken any of the 'science' of the conspiracy seriously. 3. The evidence supporting the official story is overwhelming, whereas the 9/11 Truthers have yet to produce a shred of concrete evidence that members of the U.S. government planned the attacks in New York and Washington .” Similarly, in the London Times James Bone recently said a “gruesome assortment of conspiracy theorists insists that the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001 were an inside job. It is easy to mock this deluded gang of ageing hippies, anarchists and anti-Semites.” Truthers continue to face a very steep uphill battle. A common lie about the truth movement is that there have been no credible scientific articles in peer reviewed journals supporting it. But those opposing the truth movement will and do find ways to attack whatever scientific evidence is produced and published. It takes more than good science and facts for the movement to succeed.
Besides the movement having too many genuine crackpots (possibly trying to subvert it), a larger problem is what has been missing from it: effective political strategies. Besides pushing scientific results and more credible supporters, it did nothing successful to make a new 9/11 investigation a visible issue in the last presidential campaign. It did nothing effective to put pressure on a new, Democrat controlled congress to consider legislation providing the authorization and funding for a new, credible investigation. It seems that people who want to blame the government are often unable to also see the political path forward that requires the government to fund a new investigation.
To its credit, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth does have a petition aimed at Congress, demanding a new investigation, but has fewer than 5,000 signers. The petition effort in New York City to get a new investigation is commendable, with just under 75,000 signers, but national action is needed. Pragmatically, both efforts are unimpressive compared to other campaigns seeking political action. To get both media attention and political support the movement needs a hundred times more documented supporters, willing to do a lot more than sign a petition.
The tenth anniversary of 9/11 will come fast. The opportunity is making 9/11 an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign. The least delusional and defensive in the truth movement should think deeply and seriously on what needs to change to accomplish the prime goal: having an official investigation that compels most people and history to accept the truth, no matter how painful it is, including the possibility that it finds no compelling evidence for government involvement.
Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through
BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
By Elaine Jarvik, E-mail:
Deseret News
Published: Thursday, Nov. 10, 2005
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:
• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.
The 9-11 attack: a second Pearl Harbor?
Louis Even
This article was published in the August-September, 2002 issue of “Michael”.
On December 7, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush commemorated the 60th Anniversary of the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor, which killed over 2,400 U.S. Marines, and drew a parallel between this attack in 1941 and the September 11, 2001 attack on New York City, saying that in both cases, the U.S.A. did not ask for war, but was first provoked by a foreign enemy. It could very well be that Bush was right in more than one way to say that the September 11 attack is “a second Pearl Harbor,” for it would seem that both attacks were allowed to happen to infuriate the Americans and to shift the public opinion in favor of an all-out war against the enemy. This is a serious accusation, but as Michael Rivero reports it in his website,, it's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need. And history shows plenty of examples when people used that trick, the most known being the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941.
Pearl Harbor
U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. (As long as Hitler contented himself with controlled Europe, Roosevelt did not bother, but when the Führer decided in June, 1941 to invade Communist Russia, Roosevelt became very upset, for he was very sympathetic to Stalin and the Communist cause, and said that the U.S.A. had to intervene to “save our Russian ally”.)
Roosevelt had ordered the sinking of several German ships in the Atlantic, but Hitler refused to be provoked. Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America.
The way open to war was created when Japan signed the Tripartite Agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were readily at hand.
The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and mineral-rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend its empire into the “southern resource area”. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it, and to do that, they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them.
To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a sneak attack, much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and it's intentions, then later scapegoated for the attack.
But as the Army Board had concluded at the time, and subsequent de-classified documents confirmed, Washington D.C. knew the attack was coming, knew exactly where the Japanese fleet was, and knew where it was headed. On November 29, 1941, Secretary of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the attack, and the New York Times in its special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13, reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance!
The much repeated claim that the Japanese fleet maintained radio silence on it's way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still held in the Archives of the National Security Agency is the uncoded message sent by the Japanese tanker Shirya stating, “proceeding to a position 30.00 N, 154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December.” (near Hawaii.)
Dictators replace democracy in Rome
Rivero reports several other similar examples, which are not theories, but facts. In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licineus Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with the invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.
In 70 BC, Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan.
Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army, and even though Pompeii took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.
With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome. The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.
Hitler is given full powers
Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Hitler's thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers.
Then the Reichstag burned down; a staged terrorist attack. The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the total rule of the Fuhrer.
The American-Spanish War
In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is reported to have replied, “You take the photographs, and I will provide the war.” Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out to be complete fabrications.
On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine, lying in Havana harbor in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full investigation of the cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in the press for "refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared flat out that to suppose the explosion to be anything other than a deliberate act by Spain was “completely at defiance of the laws of probability.”
Under the slogan “Remember the Maine”, Americans went to war with Spain, eventually winning the Phillipines (and annexing Hawaii along the way). In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral Hyman Rickover examined the data recovered from a 1911 examination of the wreck, and concluded that there had been no evidence of an external explosion. The most likely cause of the sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker imprudently located next to the ship's magazines. Captain Sigsbee's caution had been well founded.
The 9-11 attack
So, here we are today, with the bombing of the World Trade Center, and a new enemy, Osama Bin Laden, the new boogie man on whom the Government blames everything. We are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us, implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our Government is hamstrung by that silly old Bill of Rights. In a fight “to protect our freedoms,” our Government actually removes them one after the other, under the pretext that it needs more special powers to “deal with the crisis.”
The idea is to create a permanent state of fear among the population, in order to make them accept the idea that microchips under the skin of every individual would be a good way to fight terrorism.
Don't worry about Bin Laden, for they are not in a hurry to find him: the present crisis has to last as long as possible! In fact, the purpose of this new “war against terrorism” is not getting Bin Laden nor stopping terrorism, but, like in the Gulf War, oil.
The largest untapped oil reserves lie in the Caspian Sea, just north of Afghanistan. A pipeline must be built and go through Afghanistan and Pakistan up to the Indian Ocean to bring this oil to the market. In 1998, U.S. oil companies flatly told the U.S. Congress that this pipeline would not be built until the Taliban was removed as the govern- ment in Afghanistan, even though the U.S. had financed Bin Laden and the Taliban in 1980 to fight the Soviet Union.
Bin Laden was financed by the CIA, and we only have the CIA's word that he isn't still in their employ. However, as other CIA agents noted, you never leave the agency. Once you are in, you are in for life!
At first, the U.S. thought they could come to an agreement with the Taliban for the building of that pipeline. Talks began in February and soured in August, when the Americans told the Taliban to accept their offer of “a carpet of gold, or you will get a carpet of bombs.”
Long before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, the U.S. was already announcing that there would be a war. The BBC of London was recently told by Niaz Naik, a Pakistani Foreign Secretary, that senior American officials were warning them as early as mid-July that the U.S. was planning to invade Afghanistan in October. And here it is! Just like with Roosevelt, a provocation occurred just when the Government of the United States most needed one to anger the people into support of a war for oil.
But the official reason was not to be oil; one had to find an enemy, a scapegoat. No sooner had the planes crashed into the twin towers than the media was reporting official statements of suspicion that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks. The FBI issued names of 19 suspected hijackers with Arab names, none of which appeared on the actual passenegers lists, and all based on what the FBI admits were forged ID, using stolen identities. Because of the phony IDs, we will never know who was on the planes; we only know who they wanted us to blame: the people sitting on that oil pipeline right-of-way!
When one considers the size of the Caspian oil fields, estimated at about 500 years' worth at present rates of consumption, one finds ample motive to start a war of conquest for that wealth. Compared to the trillions of dollars in oil profits which will flow from that pipeline stretching across Afghanistan, the cost of new World Trade Towers and a few thousand lives is a small price to pay for those who lust for wealth beyond dreams of avarice.
It is also quite possible that the United States is being spoofed by a third party to trigger a war that would force the U.S. to intervene in several nations, and weaken its own defense at home. Those who thirst for global domination would like this conflict to turn into World War III, a global war of the West (or so-called Christian nations) against the Arab nations (the Moslems), which would fit right into the plan for a world government, with a world dictator coming out to offer global peace.
No US military planes were sent up to intercept any of the hijacked planes, even though there were at least 30 minutes to one hour from the time it was known that the planes were hijacked. It is standard procedure for military planes to be sent up if a plane is off course and the plane is not or cannot communicate with ground control. Who gave the order to not “scramble” US military jets under these emergency and highly-dangerous conditions?
Why wage a war in Afghanistan as a result of 9-11, costing billions of dollars? Oil might well be the answer. Unocal, a huge American oil con-glomerate, along with other connected individuals, wanted to take control of six trillion dollars of oil (that's trillion, not billion) in the Caspian Sea... right near Afghanistan. Need you be reminded that the Bush's and Vice President Cheney just happen to be wealthy oil men, and Cheney's Haliburton Corporation will probably be building the multi-billion dollar oil pipeline across Afghanistan, which construction has now been given the O.K. by the new Afghani government. It happens that Hamid Karzai, the new leader of Afghanistan, used to work for Unocal. Isn't that convenient?
Was September 11, 2001 another Pearl Harbor that was allowed to happen? Does history repeat itself? You be the judge.
Wars solve nothing! They only serve financial interests! Let us work for peace, by working for social justice!
Also See:
911 Conspiracy Theories
21 February 2007