|
LOOK AT THIS:
-------- THE VIDEO OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING. Okay, here is the deal. Here we have a supposed documentary film maker, just shooting at a fireman poking at a manhole cover in the streets of New York. Exciting stuff. Now watch the camera work carefully when the sound of the jet first becomes obvious. The fireman looks UP. But the cameraman does not tilt up to where the noise is coming from, but pans left, immediately centering not on the jet, but on the World Trade Towers, as if the cameraman knew what was going to happen and was actually there to make sure it was caught on tape in a form the media could later use. Funny, hun???
But....strange !
|
 |
other:
We are Not saying, that was was NO plane, Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. We are saying, Where IS Flight 77, at the CRASH SITE?
PENTAGON & CIA PRACTICED 9-11-2001
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_practiced.htm
THE EVIDENCE:
One hole, 2 ÃÆâ™ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚šÃâšÃâšÃ‚½ yards in diameter
Whatever hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 made a hole several meters wide in the front wall between the first and second floors. It emerged three blocks later, leaving behind a perfectly round hole of about 2 ÃÆâ™ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚šÃâšÃâšÃ‚½ yards in diameter.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/trou_en.htm
Pentagon Attack Plane Was An El Al Lookalike Flights 77 and 1862 both had "vanishing" wings
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/pentagon/pentagon.htm
Radio program about prior knowledge of 911
http://arc2.m2ktalk.com/alexam/101001.ram
3 pt. view of Boeing 757-200
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/unimaginable.html
Here's the video stills, notice the outline of a small plane in the first frame ... mmmmmmmm!!!
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif
Click Picture for Larger Viewing
Click Picture for Larger Viewing
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
++++++++
What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the Killer Jet
by Dick Eastman
Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
BOMBSINSIDEWTC.DK
"Plot of September 11"
The Unmasking of a World Conspiracy
http://www.bombsinsidewtc.dk/wtc-ned.htm
Planes of 911 exceeded their software limits
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48
(Pilot's Views on Flight 77)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pilots_views.htm
I flew the Boeing 747 JUMBO Jet., but not this 757. I retired before this came into service.
But, from what I see( or don't see) looking at these pictures; its hard to pick out aircraft
parts. The wingtips alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street, the engines
(2) would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole. The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mail bags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen. Assuming 8600 gallons of kerosene fuel @ specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere. Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped our of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers? I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, and or buildings. If these pictures were taken within 3 days after 9/11, there would have been definite remains of parts. I don't see any. However, digital computer photos can be doctored up to suit any lawyers cause.
From the photos shown, there ain't no fly in this pudding.
FLIGHT 77-SO WHERE IS THE PLANE?
When you read the eyewitness report of the gas station supervisor, you will
note that the FBI confiscated his security camera tape right after the crash.
(Typical, they also took all the videos around the OKC building.)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_whereis.htm
Does the math and physics add up?
Does the Math & Physics Add Up?
Where did the plane hit the Pentagon?
http://www.geocities.com/erichufschmid/PentagonPlaneCrash.html
HERE'S THE PLANE! FLIGHT 77 ?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_plane.htm
Here are some further photos of the damage to the Pentagon...
Where is the Commercial Jet???
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/commercial_jet.htm
FOX NEWS: Photos Show Plane Hitting Pentagon on Sept. 11
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/photos_77.htm
PENTAGON POLICE GRAB TAPE FROM FOX NEWSMAN
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pp.htm
Flight 77 - Pentagon questions
Nothing on this timeline makes sense
http://professor2222.tripod.com/Flight-93/Fl_77.good.htm
Click below for videotape sequence at the Pentagon on 9-11-01
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp
WASHINGTON, March 7 - Never-before-seen photos
obtained by NBC News show American Airlines
Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11. NBC's
Jim Miklaszewski explains that the sequence of
five photos, taken from a Department of Defense
security camera, shows the Boeing 757 hitting the
ground an instant before it plows into the building
and explodes in a deadly fireball. The crash left
189 people dead, including 59 victims and five
hijackers who were aboard the aircraft.
***********
I saw no plane in the TV film
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/no_plane.htm
APFN apfn@apfn.org
CAN YOU SEE A PLANE IN THIS PHOTO?
Tue Mar 5 21:47:45 2002
68.3.132.0
Photo Gallery - The Tragic Events of September 11, 2001
michael mhandy@rqv.rr.com
THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED "PROOF," AND THIS IS IT!!
Tue Mar 5 00:33:12 2002
68.3.132.0
Flight 77
** ** ** ** ** **
MR. AND MRS. AMERICA -- THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED "PROOF," AND THIS IS IT!!
SO BUY YOURSELVES A CLUE -- THE BUSH-MOB HAS TOTALLY LIED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001!!
THEY THEMSELVES ARE THE PRIMARY MASTERMINDS AND PERPETRATORS OF ALL THE TERRORISM UNLEASHED UPON AMERICA THAT DAY. ALL OF IT!!
BUSH AND HIS ASSOCIATES ARE UTTER TRAITOROUS FILTH WHO MUST BE REMOVED!!
= = = = = = = =
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
*******
It gets stranger folks. If you go to the CNN site below, the flight path
of Flight 77 is the only one they do not have shown.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/map.html
If you begin to question whether a Boeing really did crash on the Pentagon then, no doubt, you'll be wondering what happened to the aircraft that disappeared. You will probably ask yourself why the US government even told
you this story in the first place and you'll start asking yourself lots of other questions besides. Don't worry! This is perfectly normal! Source: www.reseauvoltaire.net - The photographs are official images and available on US army sites. See also the larger collection of photographs in our "PiÃÆâ™Ãƒâ â™ÃâšÃâšÃ‚¨ces ÃÆâ™Ãƒâ â™ÃâšÃâšÃ‚ conviction" gallery - Translation: Mr Sly - NB: Appearing on bookshelves end of March, the investigation by the Chair of the RÃÆâ™Ãƒâ â™ÃâšÃâšÃ‚©seau Voltaire into the September 11 attacks, examining the Bin Laden networks and American secret service involvement.
==========================================================================
ABSOLUTE PROOF That NO PLANE Hit Pentagon, 911!!!!!!!!!
TOP_VIEW - top_viewer@yahoo.com
NOW WHAT?
===================
Ron Harvey tw45ph@softhome.net
More proof
Wed Mar 6 15:43:12 2002
62.30.112.3
There wasn't much left to be seen of the Boeings that hit the World Trade Centre either. UA93 also disintegrated when it hit the ground in Pennsylvania. A greater consternation arises from the little known fact that another plane was in the vicinity when the Pentagon was hit. Please carefully study the following:
http://indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=131871&group=webcast
Show me the plane!-emerging theories
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/showme_plane.htm
Whom ever
Looking closely
Tue Mar 5 22:11:11 2002
63.207.101.71
In the image below, notice the reinforcing of the second floor just to the left of the collapsed area. For a wing to have gone through and undercut this area, the plane would have to have skidded across the ground as it plunged into the first floor. If that is the case, whatever wreckage there were could be under the debris from the upper floors.
KLV
Which proves... it's a lie!
Tue Mar 5 21:29:53 2002
68.3.132.0
Which proves... it's a lie!
Why are we being told all these different stories?
In my younger days... I salvaged over 250 crashed aircraft,
of all types....
NSA ALAMEDA, YSD-46 MARY ANN.... 1956 TO 1960 CRAIN OPERATOR.
You can always find the plane!
Pentagon Attack
There are 42 items in this collection
SHOW ME THE PLANE!
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/images.pl?Lbox=defenselink.Pentagon_Attack
=======================================
APFN apfn@apfn.org
FLIGHT 77: SHOW ME THE PLANE!
Tue Mar 5 20:49:53 2002
68.3.132.0
FLIGHT 77: SHOW ME THE PLANE!
Pentagon Attack There are 42 items in this collection
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/images.pl?Lbox=defenselink.Pentagon_Attack
ALL THESE PHOTO'S AND STILL NO PLANE!
03/04/02 Hunt the Boeing Back by popular demand!
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
I originally took down this link because I have a logic problem with the basic
premise of this page; that the damage to the Pentagon was from a truck bomb
rather than a passenger jet. If the plane did not crash into the Pentagon, where is it? But a lot of people emailed me asking me to put the link back up, so I put the link back in.
A collection of high res photos of the Pentagon Damage.
CNN's maps of the planes' paths
Make up your own mind.
UPDATE: This story appears to be deliberate disinformation planted to embarrass
and discredit critics of the official story of 9-11 and is being promoted by
informants and other government propagandists.
Photo of aircraft debris at the Pentagon impact site.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
Click for realaudio of witnesses who saw the plane
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/091101-9v.rm
Click for statements by more witnesses who saw the plane
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/planewitness.txt
Photo of aircraft debris at the Pentagon impact site
NO PHOTO....
=========================================================
EMAIL: rivero@whatreallyhappened.com
AA Wreckage Photo?
http://www.rense.com/general31/yourcom.htm
PentaLawn 2000!
http://www.rense.com/general29/penta.htm
The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd1101.html
======================================
Whom Ever
Debris photo...
Wed Mar 6 12:48:08 2002
63.202.187.41
APFN wrote:
>Photo of aircraft debris at the Pentagon impact site
>NO PHOTO....
That's it??
Moved??
****
A Pentagon worker holds what is believed to be a piece of the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/planepiece.html
===================================
Fire truck 345 from Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Fire Department throws a stream of water into the collapsed point of impact as smoke billows from the Pentagon shortly after an airplane slammed into the west side of the building.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/firetruck.html
Where is the Plane?
Click Photo to enlarge
More photos, where is the plane?
Click on following pictures for enlargements:
NEW Pentagon Picture Gallery pictures are in no particular order
http://www.thepowerhour.com/pentgallery/FrameSet.htm
WEBSITE WITH PENTAGON PHOTOS KNOCKED OFFLINE!!!
http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/
http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/index.html
( These photos have been MIRRORED at: http://www.thepowerhour.com )
http://www.thepowerhour.com/fitzweb/Pentagon%20Attack.htm
(MANY good photos of Pentagon area here. Click on them for full screen image. There's a LOT of info here and this site takes quite a while to download. I had to hit the 'REFRESH' tab several times to get all photos downloaded. Again, this URL is the best for showing any kind of plane debris: http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/13.jpg IMPORTANT NOTE pointed out by Dave Von Kleist. The top photos show the pentagon on fire BEFORE THE UPPER LEVELS COLLAPSED!! Whatever kind of plane this was, it did NOT make it THROUGH the building!!! Another point Dave has noted is that once collapsed, you can see computer monitors and other items inside that SHOULD have been burned and melted IF a large 757 with fuel had hit it! I have to agree with Dave, it may have been a plane, but it was NOT A 757!!!
****
C130 witnesses
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_witnesses.htm
Fescado news@humanunderground.com
C130 accounted for...
Wed Mar 20 22:46:50 2002
24.234.97.130
This site explores more inconsistencies with Flight 77
9:36 National Airport instructs a military C130 (Golfer06) that had just departed Andrews Air Force base to intercept and identify it. Golfer06 reports it is a B767, moving low and very fast.
We have found a well articulated witness testimony to confirm the other aircraft and the C-130
We constantly scanned skyward with our "eyeball radar," noting the sound of every jet engine seemed to make us jump. Fortunately, the only aircraft noise was the crisp distinctive ripping sound was of Air Force F-16's or the roar and popping of the rotor blades of a Park Police UH-1 helicopter surveying the damage. The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading. (Eye-witness testimony)
Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
ADDED 3/12/02 From Deception to Revelation An Analysis of the Attack of the Pentagon By Dave vonKleist
http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings/report.htm
Re: Photo Debris & Not Convinced...yet
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/debris_not.htm
PENTAGON, SHUTTING DOWN LYING
OFFICE, WILL SHIFT LIE-TELLING
DUTIES TO OTHER GOV AGENCIES
FAA, IRS Expected to Pick Up The Slack In Fib
Production ÃÆâ™ÃƒâšÃ‚¢ÃƒâšÃâšÃ‚ÂâÃâšÃ‚ÂÃâšÃ‚ Andy Borowitz
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
Now, imagine that the lines in this photo have been painted on the ground. Then they would appear in other photos of the scene. In all such photos, the ratio of the sizes of the angles between the lines will remain the same, namely, 6:6:8. Knowing this will allow us to estimate the size/extent of the fireball.
We proceed to mark these lines on the following photo. First, we draw the two lines that bound the heliport control tower. To do this, it is necessary to estimate the position of the base of the heliport control tower. I have marked the base of the tower in magenta. Now we measure the angle between these lines. It is 4.5 degrees. To keep the 6:6:8 ratio, the angles must be 4.5, 4.5 and 6 degrees, respectively. To get the line that bounds the back of the fireball, we measure 6 degrees toward the left side of the photo and draw a line. To get the line that bounds the left (left as in the "impact 2" photo) edge of the part of the fireball that is in front of the Pentagon wall, we measure 4.5 degrees toward the right side of the photo and draw another line. Having done this we obtain the four white lines illustrated. These are the lines we would see if we had painted the lines in the "impact 2" photo, on the ground.
To make sure we all know the positions of the points of interest, note that the white lines emanate from the security guard's booth, where the security camera is housed, the heliport control tower is the building whose base has been marked in magenta and that the point of impact (center of the explosion) has been marked with a small red dot.
We now wish to mark the area covered by the explosion. The center of the explosion will be approximately the point of impact of the nose of the aircraft. At the time that the "impact 2" photo was taken, the maximum distance that the fireball would have extended from the center, will be in the direction directly away from the wall, and will be bounded by the leftmost white line. This allows us to mark out the maximum (physically possible) area covered by the fireball at the time the photo was taken. I have marked this area with a red semicircle. Remember, that this circle represents the maximum area covered by the fireball (at least the part of it that was in front of the Pentagon) at the time that the "impact 2" photo was taken.
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/index.html
The portion of the fireball visible in section B of the "impact 2" photo, must be located within the red semicircle and between the leftmost 2 lines.
The portion of the fireball visible in section A of the "impact 2" photo, must be located within the "slice of pie" shaped area that projects out of the semicircular region.
But how can this be? The "slice of pie" shaped region is a long way outside the maximum physically possible extent of the fireball. Unfortunately for the forger, there is no explosion in this region. He has made the same mistake as he did in the "impact" photo, he has assumed that the heliport control tower is much closer to the point of impact, than it actually is. Although his forgery looks good in 2 dimensions, when considered in 3 dimensions
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/index.html
All that remains to be done is to add in a Boeing 757
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/index.html
Re: Flight 77: based on all the images in the French site
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_french.htm
Ernesto Cienfuegos LaVoz@Aztlan.Net
Flight 77 - 58 passengers?
Tue Mar 5 13:31:31 2002
4.35.217.73
Very intriguing! I have to admit, I could not find a trace of the Boeing 757.
One major question is, if the government's version is not true, than what really happened to the 58 passengers
that were aboard. Their bios are at
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm
Their families believe the government's version.
Ernesto Cienfuegos LaVoz@Aztlan.Net
Flight 77 black boxes?
Tue Mar 5 18:03:26 2002
4.35.217.18
PENTAGON ATTACK:
FBI evidence teams combing the area of impact along the building's perimeter found parts of the fuselage from the Boeing 757, said Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief and search and rescue expert for the Fairfax County, Virginia, Fire Department. No large pieces apparently survived.
Agents also were looking for the plane's black box and flight data recorder.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/pentagon.terrorism/
Where the black boxes ever found?
*******
American Flight 77 victims at a glance
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm
But no plane?
********
Impacto 2000 Impacto@mail.serve.com
58 passengers?
Tue Mar 5 16:57:17 2002
4.35.217.18
There needs to be a good explanation of what happened
to the 58 passengers that supposedly perished during the crash if the theory is to hold. There are 58 persons missing. There are families here in Los Angeles that went through the grieving process. If there was no Boeing 757 crash at the Pentagon then what happened to Flight 77???
***********
The military screw-up nobody talks about.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/911_military.htm
***********
APFN
FLIGHT 77: SHOW ME THE PLANE!
Tue Mar 5 05:10:25 2002
68.3.132.0
FLIGHT 77: SHOW ME THE PLANE!
You can do a complete search of the web and not find a
Photo of any part of Flight 77 plane.
At least I can't!
Attack on the Pentagon
http://www.rememberingseptember11.com/attack.htm
==========================================================================
The only thing this is proof of is: some people don't
have the brains god gave them.
Rich Maritn - richsrants@yahoo.com
--- American Patriot Friends Network
Click on: Flight 77
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/map.html
V i c t i m s Flight 77
American Airlines Flight 77
Tue Mar 5 00:57:49 2002
68.3.132.0
American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into
the Pentagon with 64 people aboard.
Flight 77 - Lie
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/map.html
Flight 77 - Truth, maybe!
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
************
APFN apfn@apfn.org
Look at this video of first plane hitting WTC.
Wed Mar 6 19:43:01 2002
68.3.132.0
Look at this video of first plane hitting WTC.
Is the plane invisible?
http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.gp.med.asf
The plane has a wingspan of 156 feet and the tower is 208 feet on a side.
Size of impact is more like a missile hit.
Or maybe the impact was from another side and this is what came on through?
Pause the playback at impact.
**************
FLIGHT 77: victims index
Tue Mar 5 05:37:38 2002
68.3.132.0
FLIGHT 77:
Guardian Unlimited | Gallery | US terrorism victims index
Wilson 'Buddy' Flagg
Retired US Navy Admiral Wilson 'Buddy'
Flagg, of, Millwood, Virginia, and a
part-time Las Vegas resident, pictured
in this undated file photo was killed
aboard American Airlines Flight 77.
Photo: Las Vegas Review-Journal,
courtesy Shannon Daigle/AP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,551227,00.html
These photo's are published in the Gardian, nothing could
be found in any U.S. web page
http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&lang=any&query=Flight+77+photo&phrase=on
*********
David E. Parsons spikr77@lyonl.com
Moment of impact at the Pentagon on 9-11-01
Thu Mar 7 22:00:01 2002
67.234.180.157
Click HERE for videotape sequence of Flight 77 crash at the Pentagon on 9-11-01
*******
Eric Hufschmid erichuf@aol.com
The color of the flames
Fri Mar 8 03:11:59 2002
172.166.174.96
Perhaps the images you posted come from low quality cameras, but burning jet fuel should be a dark orange and full of soot, just like we saw at the WTC towers.
The flames in these photos seem a bright white, which implies plenty of oxygen, which implies a bomb. The color of the flames and the lack of soot should be investigated.
********
Dr Gonzo c_bake22@yahoo.com
One More Important Thing Forgotton
Fri Mar 8 05:35:49 2002
206.148.224.22
Let us not overlook, the fact that the so-called plane, just so convienently happened to crash into the section of the pentagon that was temporarily closed due to repairs, and no one was really in there.
Also i remember that day better than anyone, because i was glued to my radio, tv, and HAM, from 8am EST untill about 3am that evening. I seem to remember the first news agency's saying a truck exploding outside the pentagon, and also there was a quick story or two about a fire or explosion that happened directly behind the white house, i think they were saying it was in an old office building behind the capitol building.
In addition also, i read a news article from WWW.Rense.com around that time, that stated it was a young man, flying a small single person plane, that landed outside the white house, and blew up on the lawn.
*********
Video of attack
The electronic news media have broadcast repeatedly the attack on the World Trade Center. They are perhaps the most dramatic news images since the explosion of the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. Now word has reached us that federal investigators may have video footage of the deadly terrorist attack on the Pentagon. A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. It may be the only available video of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash. The attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring. Now word has reached us that federal investigators may have video footage of the deadly terrorist attack on the Pentagon. A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. It may be the only available video of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash. The attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring.
http://www.gertzfile.com/ring092101.html
*********
David E. Parsons spiker77@lyonl.com
Flight 77
Mon Mar 11 11:43:55 2002
67.234.227.144
This picture shows two vehicles on Route 27 that were damaged by light pole debris, clipped by the Flight 77 aircraft as it passed overhead and across Route 27, then plowed into the Pentagon. The pole to the left is one of several that were clipped by the aircraft. The pole is also not complete, you can see it was sheered at the top.
****
Mother of All Lies About 9/11
Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77
Excerpt:
Without the ÃÆâ™ÃƒâšÃ‚¢ÃƒâšÃâšÃ‚ÂÃâ¦âÂÂÃ…âœeminentÃÆâ™ÃƒâšÃ‚¢ÃƒâšÃâšÃ‚ÂÃâšÃâšÃ‚ Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial ÃÆâ™ÃƒâšÃ‚¢ÃƒâšÃâšÃ‚ÂÃâ¦âÂÂÃ…âœseedÃÆâ™ÃƒâšÃ‚¢ÃƒâšÃâšÃ‚ÂÃâšÃâšÃ‚ that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.
http://geocities.com/mossadlibrary/olson.html
***
We now know Flight 77 was not crashed into the Pentagon.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/not_crashed.htm
According to the official story, Flight 77 flew from Dulles International
Airport in Washington, D.C. to Ohio, a more than 300-mile flight. In Ohio
it was hijacked, made a full turn and flew more than 300 miles back to
Washington, D.C.
Flightpath of American Airlines Flight 77
http://emperors-clothes.com/images/timemap.gif
Pentagon Eye Witness Flight 77
http://www.ournetfamily.com/WarOnTerror/emails/pentagonwitness.html
PACIFICATION OF PENTAGON
http://www.geocities.com/s911surprise3b/american_airlines_flight_77/
Little Plane on Right Side 9-11
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/little_plane.htm
Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_witness.htm
HERE IS A WITNESS ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPEND.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/091101-9v.rm
The Hunt For Flight 77
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_hunt.htm
Officials: Government failed to react to FAA warning
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/faa_warning.htm
American Airlines flight 77
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551425,00.html
What really happened on Sept. 11th?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/9-11_happened.htm
911 - TERROR IN AMERICA
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm
GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS
http://www.tenc.net/indict/indict-1.htm
Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/unanswered.htm
How Did United Flight 93 Crash?
http://www.flight93crash.com/
Just wondering
What really happened on United Airlines Flight 93?
http://newsandopinion.com/michelle/malkin1.asp
RELATED: NO SIGN OF PLANE IN OFFICIAL GOVT PHOTOS...
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/images.pl?Lbox=defenselink.Pentagon_Attack
FLASHBACK: SEVERAL OF ACCUSED HIJACKERS STILL ALIVE -
|
 |
AND AS THEY SAY: As long as "the matrix" exists, the human race will never be free !
George W. Bush . Who ?
By Tom Wright
More than 1.5 million people, half of them children, have died in Iraq because of the harsh sanctions imposed on that country after the Gulf War. According to UNICEF and many humanitarian groups, 5,000 children a month die there from malnutrition, preventable diseases and lack of hospital care, a direct result of the sanctions demanded by the United States.
Now we are being asked to support a devastating attack that will overthrow the Iraqi government, almost certainly including a massive invasion of Baghdad. That's a city of five million people, where countless innocent lives will be lost. While few on earth would lament the departure of the wretched Saddam Hussein, the reasons on offer for this war demand a much more thorough cross-examination than we've been getting in the press.
Consider some of the principle rationales for war that the Bush administration offers:
"We must attack Iraq in self-defense."
Apart from the near-daily U.S. bombardment of Iraqi targets, and the illegal maintenance of the "no-fly zones", the United States has bombed and destroyed Iraqi water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants and electrical generating stations, and has deliberately destroyed economic targets like oil refineries. Whatever one's view of these things, they are defined as war crimes under international law. The largest number of casualties in Iraq today result from contaminated water systems, which can't be repaired because of the sanctions maintained at our insistence. Electric capacity is at just 35% of its pre-war levels.
Dennis Halliday, former head of the U.N. Humanitarian Mission in Iraq, has said that despite the "Oil for Food" program, which has brought some relief, we have caused "massive malnutrition." The average birth weight is now under five pounds, an indicator of "famine conditions." Hospital care and major infrastructure have collapsed. Halliday calls the sanctions "an intentional programme to destroy a culture, an people, a country"--in his words a policy of "genocide." [Editor's Note: See 1 2 3 4 5 6 7]
Iraq has not attacked the United States.
"But we must attack Iraq because they may attack us in the future."
The UN Charter, to which we are bound by treaty obligation (meaning the "Supreme Law of the Land" under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution), permits "individual or collective self-defense" only against "armed attack," and only until the Security Council can act. Unprovoked attacks are expressly forbidden. Bush (and Congress) have declared an intention to attack with or without Security Council approval, in other words to commit the crime of aggression, a grave violation of the law.
Iraq lacks the ability to attack the U.S. by conventional means, its missile range being only a few hundred miles, and its military is a fraction of its Gulf War strength (and it proved none too effective then). The CIA itself reported in October that it saw no likelihood of an Iraqi attack on the U.S. "in the foreseeable future", because Saddam knows that any such attack would lead to his destruction. [Editor's Note: See 1 2]
By the standard of behavior the U.S. is claiming for itself, any state may invade another on the mere claim that it "feels threatened." One can imagine the sort of world that would result were this doctrine to gain universal acceptance.
"But we must respond to the threats of a new era, in which 'rogue states' are acquiring weapons of mass destruction."
Iraq has indeed acquired chemical and biological weapons in the past, and has used them to carry out horrifying massacres of civilians, for example the killing of 5000 Kurds in Halabja in 1988. Many of these weapons were given to Saddam by the United States, along with crop-dusting helicopters used to disperse them. We gave million to Iraq in 1988, and the next year, following the gassing of Kurds and the destruction of hundreds of villages in northern Iraq, we doubled the aid to $1 billion. Well after these atrocities, the U.S. sold Saddam anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, botulism, and other deadly bacteria, sales which continued until a year after the Gulf War, according to a 1994 Senate committee report. The committee, chaired by Sen. Donald Riegle, reported that the U.S. provided Saddam with "chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment." [Editor's Note: See 1 2 3 4 5]
Furthermore, Washington supported Iraq's 1980 invasion of Iran, and even supplied intelligence in 1984 to help 'calibrate' mustard gas attacks on Iranian soldiers (Washington Post). A million lives were lost on both sides in the 8-year war. As Phyllis Bennis points out in Iraq Under Siege, the U.S. motive at the time was to see both Iran and Iraq weakened by the conflict. These were the only two Middle Eastern states that combined significant land, water, population and oil wealth, prerequisites for independent power in the region. Washington has sought exclusive dominance of the region's vital resources.
So the weapons from which we now must "protect ourselves" were largely supplied by us in the first place, when it was considered instrumental to "U.S. interests" (in other words, when we wanted Saddam to use weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his own people). At any rate, these same weapons were the object of the U.N. inspection teams in Iraq in the 1990s. According to U.S. Marine Major Scott Ritter, the U.N.'s former chief weapons inspector, most or all of these weapons were destroyed by the inspection teams. Ritter, a self-described "card-carrying Republican," has called Bush a "liar" for claiming Saddam is a threat to the U.S. He says Iraq has no banned weapons of any importance. Ritter also rejects claims of a nuclear program, saying that tell-tale gamma ray emissions would have been detected by satellite surveillance. [Editor's Note: See 1 2 3 4 5]
"U.N. inspections can't ensure our security. Saddam has repeatedly obstructed them, and 'regime change' is the only solution."
The inspection teams, by all accounts successful in dismantling Iraq's weapons, were withdrawn in 1999 after Iraq accused the U.S. of using the United Nations teams to spy. The U.S. later admitted that this was true, although this fact has now mostly disappeared from media reports. The U.N. teams were used to plant electronic devices, which were then used to direct U.S. bomb attacks on Iraqi targets (Washington Post). Which of the world's nations would welcome a return of inspections after this history? Does Washington bear any responsibility here?
"We must enforce compliance with Security Council resolutions, or the United Nations will become weak and ineffective."
Here the Administration is being rather selective. As Stephen Zunes has written in The Nation, there are "more than ninety (Security Council) resolutions currently violated by countries other than Iraq. The vast majority of these violations are by governments closely allied to the United States.
Zunes recalls the case of Indonesia's 1975 invasion of East Timor, with the subsequent massacre of 250,000 Timorese. The U.S. responded with massive arms shipments to the invaders, and deliberately obstructed efforts to enforce the Security Council resolutions demanding immediate withdrawal (for more on the U.S. role in this terrible story, read Noam Chomsky's 1981 book Towards A New Cold War).
Turkey is another obvious case. Not only does it remain in violation of Security Council resolutions for its occupation of Cyprus dating to 1974, but the U.S. has provided it with massive military and financial aid as it has carried out huge massacres of its Kurdish population. In fact, the peak of Turkish attacks on the Kurds in the mid-1990s, as 3500 villages were destroyed, coincided with the peak of American support for Turkey. The U.S. even allowed the Turks to bomb Iraqi Kurds living in the U.S.-imposed 'no-fly zone" (Phyllis Bennis, Iraq Under Siege).
But by far the greatest violator of UNSC resolutions is Israel. Best known are Resolutions 242 and 338, dating as far back as 1967, which call for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. But there are many others, which for some reason never get picked up by the corporate media's search engines. Who besides scholars like Stephen Zunes have ever heard of Security Council Resolutions 267, 271 and 298, which demand a reversal of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem? Or 446, 452 and 465, which demand the evacuation of the illegal Israeli settlements? And what has the U.S. position been when these articles of binding international law were ignored? Did we insist on crippling sanctions that would kill 500,000 Jewish children? Lay waste to the Israeli water and electrical infrastructure? Demand "regime change"? Of course not--that would be an intolerable moral offense, exactly as it is when we do it to Iraq. Rather, the American policy has consistently been to prevent the enforcement of the law, to obstruct the nearly unanimous world opinion on a just resolution of the crisis, and in fact to finance and enable the very violations at the focus of legal intervention.
East Jerusalem is a striking example. This traditionally Arab part of the city was illegally "annexed" to Israel more than 20 years ago, and its juridical boundaries have ever since ballooned out to swallow up some 29 surrounding Arab villages. Subsequently, the area has undergone a systematic and violent process of ethnic cleansing, as massive construction and illegal Jewish settlement have displaced the original inhabitants. The U.S. Congress just voted to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, a step no other country on earth has considered because the city's occupation violates Security Council resolutions.
The construction of the settlements, the movement of Jewish settlers into them, the confiscation of Palestinian land and water, and the systematic abuses of the civilian population, are all themselves "grave breaches" of the Fourth Geneva Convention [Section III, Occupied Territories], another cornerstone of international law that Israel has openly ignored for decades. As a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure respect for its provisions, and indeed to prosecute those who violate them.
But again, we have done the opposite. U.S. taxpayers have given Israel, since 1967, the staggering sum of billion, enough money without question to finance all the illegal settlements that have fueled the crisis, meanwhile demonstrating that international law is obeyed only when it is convenient.
And now we race heedlessly towards war. The ultra-rightist elements now in power, cynically exploiting Americans' feelings after the September 11 catastrophe, hope they can seize the moment and take direct control over the planet's 2nd largest proven reserves of oil-namely Iraq. To do so they will risk the lives of thousands of young men and women in the military, ignore the rest of the world's opinion, and bring massive destruction to the people of Iraq.
This war is wrong and must be stopped. Despite the Congressional votes, opposition is growing quickly across the United States and around the world. Americans across a broad spectrum have come to see this war as unwise, unnecessary and dangerous to ourselves and others. There is a real public space right now for dissent that didn't exist during the Afghanistan war, and concerned activists should not let it pass.
Here in Olympia a large coalition is forming, and is attempting to build the largest possible peace rally we can, with an energetic outreach effort. Please get involved. Time is short. The rally is at noon, Saturday November 9. Please see the full-page advertisement in this issue. Then post it somewhere visible. We need your energy. Can you help holding signs and banners, or making calls, or making contact with your church, social or professional group? Carry literature door-to-door? Build e-mail lists? Hand out leaflets?
IF YOU ARE REALLY U.S. CITIZENS...SHOW THE "EXIT DOOR" TO G.W.B !!! RIGHT NOW !!!!!
|
 |
READ CAREFULLY:
Bush Flubs it Again
Details and Confirmation .
Paul Walker (pjw56108@yahoo.com) wrote in a message of 2002-01-07 to the APFN message board:
If we say the CIA was the terrorist who committed the WTC disaster âÂÂâ very likely âÂÂâ then it is also very likely that the CIA would want Bush to have the 'guilty knowledge' of seeing the first tower hit ... via a private TV link prepared by the CIA ...
Thanks to a watchful friend Terry, here is the confirmation that President George Bush watched the first plane hit the WTC when no televison cameras were trained on the buildings since nothing had happened yet. This is the second time he has stated this clearly and publicly. The only explanation is that he viewed it on closed circuit television from his limo outside the schoolhouse in Florida before going into the class. The conclusion should be obvious to anyone with a clue. We all knew he wasn't too bright, but to slip up twice on this and for the White House to post it again is almost too much. Maybe they want us to figure it out.
Here is the first time on December 4th, 2001
President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html
And, indeed, this is the official White House website. And the transcript of Bush's talk, and of the following question-and-answer session, is the official White House transcript. And it includes the following (emphasis added):
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America. (Applause.)
So Bush admits that he watched on TV the first plane hit the (North) Tower while sitting outside the classroom (in his limousine?) then (some twenty or so minutes later) he is informed that a second plane has hit. But, as Paul Walker pointed out, prior to the first impact there was no network TV channel showing the Twin Towers live, so what was Bush watching? It can only have been a private transmission, arranged for Bush's benefit, by people who knew what was about to happen. Either Bush knew what was coming, or he was told to watch the TV transmission (and not go into the classroom until he'd seen what he was supposed to see). Either the President of the United States, or someone closely connected to him, knew that a disaster was about to strike the Twin Towers.
Now this is the second time on Jan. 5th 2002:
President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html
Again an official White House transcript of a talk, with question-and-answer session, by Bush (who shows clearly âÂÂâ for those who can bear to read this in full âÂÂâ that he is without doubt the dumbest person ever to hold high office in the United States of America, and probably the most incompetent in the performance of his duties). This transcript includes the following (emphasis and photo added):
Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.
Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."
And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought. But I made up my mind that if America was under attack, we'd get them. (Applause.) I wasn't interested in lawyers, I wasn't interested in a bunch of debate. I was interested in finding out who did it and bringing them to justice. I also knew that they would try to hide, and anybody who provided haven, help, food, would be held accountable by the United States of America. (Applause.)
Anyway, it was an interesting day.
Again Bush recollects that just prior to going in to the classroom he had seen the first plane hit the WTC and that a short time thereafter he is informed that the second plane has hit and that "America is under attack". But rather than perform his duties as President and Commander-in-Chief to protect the nation by immediately calling for further information and considering what needed to be done Bush just sat there for another twenty minutes reflecting in amazement on "what it meant to be under attack" âÂÂâ as if the idea of an attack on America had never occurred to him before âÂÂâ and fantasizing about chasing down the bad guys.
It might be objected that some tourist happened to be filming the North Tower just at the time the first plane crashed into it, and that what Bush saw on TV was a replay of this amateur video. Now there may have been such an amateur video (not to be confused with the amateur video of the second plane hitting the South Tower, which was widely shown). But was there sufficient time for this video to be delivered to some network TV station and broadcast for Bush to see it?
Bush does not say exactly how much time elapsed between his seeing the footage (live or replayed) of the first impact and his being informed by Andy Card about the second impact. He does say:
I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower ... But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card ... walked in and said ...
And:
... when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. ... -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said ...
Eighteen minutes elapsed between the two impacts. Assuming that Chief of Staff Andy Card was informed of the second impact (and informed Bush) within seven minutes of its occurrence then 25 minutes elapsed between the first impact and Bush's being informed of the second impact. It is reasonable to assume 10 to 15 minutes between Bush's seeing the first impact on TV and his being informed of the second impact by Card. This means that, if Bush saw a replay of an amateur video, then 10 to 15 minutes elapsed between the first impact and Bush's seeing it on TV. It is doubtful that anyone who had taken such an amateur video could have informed a network TV station that he had the event on tape and that the TV station could then have obtained the video, prepared it for broadcasting, and broadcast it, all within 10 to 15 minutes.
In fact, as we now know, there was no amateur video of the first impact. The only known footage was taken by a French cameraman who was shooting a documentary about a probationary New York fireman. (This is now known as the Fireman's Video and indicates that the plane which hit the North Tower was not AA Flight 11.)
So what Bush saw was not a replay of an amateur video but was a live transmission conveyed to his limousine by government agents involved in the attack on the World Trade Center.
Paul Walker comments:
"Interesting Day" huh? There is really nothing left to say except that Bush confirms that he had prior knowledge. While it is possible for an average person to forget or jumble the events of an average day, I would say it is impossible for a real president on the most important day of his life to simply confuse the events of that day of Sept 11th over and over. This tells me anyway that he is recalling it as he experienced it, in the sequence he gives. The only problem is that he is flubbing his lines, the story he is supposed to be putting over on the American People. Yes Mr Bush, there will be hell to pay for attacking America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also the articles by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White:
The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's Claim that he Saw TV Footage of 1st Plane Hitting WTC
Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies Part 1: A Strange White House Press Conference...
Bush is certainly a liar, but Jared Israel's claim that Bush lied about seeing the first impact on TV is probably mistaken (if it is not an attempt to get Bush off the hook by denying that he in fact saw what he says he saw). It is more likely, as Paul Walker says above, that Bush viewed the impact by satellite transmission to the TV in his limousine just before going into the schoolhouse.
In his public appearance in Florida Bush says "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower ..." He then realizes his mistake (implicitly mentioning the private broadcast to the TV in his limousine) and tries to cover it with a lie, claiming that what he was viewing was a TV in the schoolhouse, saying "the TV was obviously on", not realizing that there was no network TV broadcast of the first impact. Then in California Bush feels he has to stick to his story so he says "I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on." âÂÂâ still so dumb as not to realize that there was never any network broadcast on September 11th of the impact of the first plane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worry!
George W. Bush is a mere puppet, told by his controllers where to go and what to do and say, barely able to read his script, and unable to hold in mind more than one idea at a time (the idea most usually held being, of course, "terrorism", quickly reduced to the simpler and vaguer idea of "terror").
Bush did not attain the office of President of the United States by legitimate means. He is a usurper. He was not elected in accord with a complete count of votes cast, and many who would have voted for his opponent were prevented from voting. He was installed in office by a corrupt majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. In brief, his Presidency has no legitimacy.
Moreover his mental shallowness is breathtaking. His mind is an intellectual vacuum. He insults the American people by pretending that it is enough to be folksy, and to smile a lot except when he is acting the comic book role of the Texas gunslinger determined to track down the bad guys, while behind the façade of folksiness the top officers of his administration ravage the civil rights of the American people and cement the framework for a global police state.
On December 18, 2000, Bush said (apparently jokingly, but you can be sure he meant it): "If this was a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier; just so long as I was the dictator." As a consequence of the events of September 11, 2001, the United States is well on the way toward a military dictatorship (if not quite there yet), but unfortunately for George his handlers won't ever let him be dictator (or even pretend to be), since he flubs his lines far too often and cannot utter a single sentence without making it obvious that he is the dumbest person ever to occupy the Oval Office.
To install a malevolent idiot as the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military force is surely asking for trouble. But when Bush declared at a press conference in early August 2002, speaking of his intention to attack Iraq, "We owe it to the future of civilization ..." it became abundantly obvious that he is not only malevolent and an idiot, he is completely off his rocker. A total fruitcake. America finally has as President a certifiable lunatic.
Listening to Bush speak engenders a feeling of unreality. There is a disconnect between his words and that of which he is supposed to be speaking. While talking of weighty geopolitical issues he strikes postures and glibly utters such comic book phrases as: "Mark my words, we're gonna get 'im, dead or alive!" What he says does not address the issue because he is so out of touch with reality that he cannot understand what he is talking about. Instead he treats the American people as if they were children watching TV cartoons on a Saturday morning, pretending that he is the noble upholder of right valiantly fighting the forces of evil. He adopts an air of serious concern when talking of the corporate executives (known and yet to be discovered) who have swindled Americans out of their savings and pensions, as if a show of sternness would be enough to cause these misbehaving executives to behave properly in future, ignoring the fact that not only has cooking the books been common among America's large corporations for many years but also is standard practice in the accounting systems of the U.S. government itself. In short, he attempts to fool the American people, treating them with contempt, assuming that they are too stupid to see through his attempts to deceive them.
George W. Bush is a cynical, hypocritical bare-faced liar and a disgrace to America, as the rest of the world clearly sees. The accusations that he makes against Saddam Hussein are all true of himself. Bush is a traitor, for not only has he been been party to an "attack upon America" which killed about 3000 Americans but he has conspired to deprive the citizens of the United States of their rights as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution (which he swore to defend on taking the oath of office of the Presidency) and to establish a de facto military dictatorship over the country of his birth. Accordingly he should be impeached as a traitor and removed from office. Following removal he should be tried in a criminal court for treason and after conviction be executed by hanging or firing squad, which is no less than what he deserves for his betrayal of the American people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George W. Bush is a great fan of executions. He presided over 152 of them during his six years as Governor of Texas.
"George W. Bush knew that he was not going to reprieve Karla Faye Tucker. He could have told her that the day before," Mauro explained. "He could have told her a week before. But he waited until the six o'clock prime time news, knowing she was strapped to a gurney still having hope about her life, and he grandstanded on her." Bush went further when he joked about Karla Faye Tucker's desperate plea for life, which had been aired on Larry King Live. During an interview with Talk Magazine, Bush mocked Karla Faye, whimpering "Please, don't kill me" in an imitation of her voice [see "Devil May Care" by Tucker Carlson, Talk Magazine, September 1999, p. 106]. âÂÂâ Who Is George W. Bush?
---------------
|
|
AND WHO RUN "THE MATRIX" ?= the man in the black armchair.
Bush
The Criminal who stole the Presidency
Illegitimate President
George W. Bush is an illegitimate president. He stole the 2000 election using his brother Jeb to fix the Florida election. And then finally getting the Supreme Court to declare him the winner in an act of supreme treason. Bush is not the President of the United States. And since he seized power and took office - he has done everything in his power to undermine America and sell us out to his small circle of contributors. Bush is a criminal and needs to be stopped.
He's not my president!
The Bush Presidency is really corporate presidency. America is not the government of the people. It's the government of Enron. It's the government of the oil, tobacco, the credit card companies, polluters, Christian terrorists, gun lobby, the media, and anyone who has the money to buy favors. These people are thieves and we have become the biggest threat to democracy on the planet. The people of America are now slaves to a government with no soul that is owned my multinational corporations - and they are using us to establish world domination.
Bush was at least complicit in World Trade Center attack
The single thing that sticks out in my mind about the World Trade Center attack is the fact that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept those commercial jets. Those planes were in the air for over an hour after being hijacked - yet no interceptors we scrambled to stop them.
I used to live in Springfield Missouri. And a few years ago a famous golfer named Payne Stewart was killed in a plane crash. He was from Springfield - so this story had a greater local impact. What happened was that his plane - a small private jet with less than 10 people on board took off from Florida. Shortly after takeoff the plane went off course and failed to respond by radio. Within minutes fighter jets were scrambled and intercepted the plane. They observed frost on the inside of the window indicating a loss of cabin pressure - and that everyone was probably dead. The plane was on autopilot and flew for several hours before running out of fuel and crashing in South Dakota. What I clearly remember was being impressed with how fast that plane was intercepted.
On September 11th there were 4 commercial jets hijacked. All went off course - turned off their transponders - and refused to answer the radio. There was no doubt on the ground that 4 commercial jets we hijacked - yet no intercepter were scrambled - even though these planes were in the air for over an hour. It is standard operating procedure to scramble jets to see wqhat is going on. It doesn't take an order from the President to do this. But someone made an order to stand down and stopped the interceptors. Whoever gave that order is part of a government plot to allow the 9-11 tragedy to occur. I'm not prepared to say we were behind it. We are not..because now we now WHO WAS IN THE BIG BLACK ARMCHAIR. But we let it happen. And I have no doubts about that.
|
|
xxxxxxx:
Mr. Rogers Dies At 74
Today's Odds On Bush War: 99%
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS INDICATE BUSH IS LYING ABOUT HIS WAR DECISION. "President Bush has continued to say he has not yet decided whether to go to war. [Today Bush said, "If we go to war..."] But the message being conveyed in high-level contacts with other council governments is that a military attack on Iraq is inevitable, these officials and diplomats said. What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world upheaval....In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said...."You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. 'That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not.'" --WP, 02.25.03
Bush Buys Votes Of Weaker Nations
BUSH WATCH
FEBRUARY 27, 1998-2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO IS GEORGE W. BUSH, PART ONE. Since some are beginning to see Bush's war upon Iraq as being just a matter of time, something both Cheney and Rumsfeld have written they wanted since the Clinton administration, and since members of the Bush administration have indicated that they want the war to be seen as a cautionary warning to the world, and since similar hawks have pointed to other countries as possibly being next on the Bush pre-emptive war list, and since Pentagon officials plan to meet next August to consider the creation of more sophisticated nuclear weapons that could be used in such battles and the breaking of relevant U.S. treaties to do so, observers are growing even more concerned about George W. Bush, the man who would trigger such actions.
Gone are the days in this country when folks could seriously portray Bush as simply an addled preppie whose linguistic pratfalls identify him the way Chevy Chase's Saturday Nite Live pratfalls identified Gerald Ford. Gone are the days in Europe when those folks across the big water simply saw Bush as a screwball John Wayne. While many in Texas identified with Bush's tough rancher persona, a man who believes in an eye for an eye and never apologizes for his actions, and while those same citizens approved of his "just folks" semi-illiteracy, political observers assumed Rove would clean up Bush's act when he hit the big stage. But since those traits are an ingrained part of the Bush character, Rove found it easier to just spin the nation's introduction to those Bush characteristics into something positive with, of course, the help of a cooperative media whose campaign reporters, even in the NYT and the WP, generally enlarged Gore's faults and placed those of Bush below the fold. More important, though, Rove used Bush's charm offense of mumbled machismo to hide the more disturbing aspects of his personality through a kind of political rope-a-dope.
By now, with Bush's own words about himself and his responses to events reported in the media, a more disturbing George W. Bush emerges as we move into a period of major crisis....
.
.
|
|
-----------------------
The must see video on the "terrorist" flight school in Venice, Fla.
War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th 2001
Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth about Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High Finance Fraudsters
Bacardi: The Hidden War
The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder
The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider
Another motive for war: coverup?
By Margie Burns
Online Journal Contributing Writer
February 20, 2003—Another agenda behind the White House's frenzied drive against Iraq, along with control of Iraq's oil reserves, must be to distract attention from 9–11.
The destruction of that day, along with the human cost, included hundreds of companies thrown out of business or damaged. For years, Wall Street had spent billions trying to safeguard the World Trade Center (WTC). The mass crime which succeeded in bypassing all those systems led to billions lost through security firms and insurance companies alone.
The more information comes to light about the fallen WTC, the more some of the behind-the-scenes dealing and connections look odd.
A brother of George W. Bush was connected to at least three companies did business with the WTC, although the White House has not mentioned that fact. HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Company, a multi-billion-dollar insurance holding company, was a World Trade Center insurance carrier for years. Marvin P. Bush, George W.'s youngest brother, joined HCC's Board of Directors in 1999, remaining until November 2002.
A company called Stratesec, formerly named Securacom, was a security contractor with the WTC from 1996 to 2001. Marvin Bush was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to 2000. Stratesec, in turn, was backed by a private Washington, DC, investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), linked to the Bush family since the Gulf War.
White House responses to 9–11 have not mentioned family links to the security business or to the World Trade Center.
This secrecy extends to Marvin Bush's SEC filings. The April 23, 1999, proxy statement for Stratesec does not mention Marvin Bush's connections to HCC. The April 28, 1999, proxy statement for HCC does not mention his directorship at Stratesec. Thus Marvin Bush was elected to two boards on May 20 and May 25, 1999, each with a major interest in the World Trade Center, but neither proxy filing mentions the other.
According to attorney Robert Plesnarski, Special Counsel in the Office of Chief Counsel at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), since both companies were publicly traded, "the information [on other directorships] would have been required." Had the companies been private, "the information would probably not have been included," Plesnarski stated in a phone conversation, but regarding public companies he cites "Item 401 of Regulation SK."
Marvin Bush has not replied to requests for comment.
Regulation 229.401 in SEC law: "Identification of directors," requires filers to "Indicate any other directorships held by each director or person nominated or chosen to become a director," etc. Each director is also required to "Briefly describe [his] business experience during the past five years," with "the name and principal business of any corporation or other organization," etc.
One effect of the nondisclosure was that shareholders at Stratesec were not told of Marvin Bush's connection with HCC, a huge insurance company with easily the leverage to force other companies off the WTC project. Also, HCC shareholders were not told of Marvin Bush's connection to a security company that had a WTC contract. Stratesec was eventually excused from the WTC project, according to a former employee. HCC sustained sizable losses from 9–11, and withdrew from workman's compensation.
Attorney Frank Razzano, formerly at the SEC and now a partner at the Washington, DC, law firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, said, "I think it's pretty clear that you have to disclose your other directorships" in proxy filings. The SEC regulation states clearly, according to Razzano, that "that information has to be disclosed. I don't have any idea why it would have been left out."
Razzano turns out to have a personal perspective on what happened at the World Trade Center: "I was under the buildings when they fell," he said rather matter-of-factly. He was staying in the Marriott Hotel at the time, "between the North Tower and the South Tower," and "was hit on the head," ending up in the hospital with a subdural hematoma. Razzano was among the lucky ones; fortunately, the internal bleeding resolved and dissipated, after a hospital stay of three days.
Troubled companies or not, less than full disclosure impedes access to full information about a public company's directors, clients, subcontractors, litigation, political connections and investors.
Why is the White House preventing a full investigation of security at the WTC and the financial stream behind it? Is the administration pretending that security lapses happen only among baggage screeners?
Margie Burns is a journalist whose articles have been published in Legal Times, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Salon.com, and the Baltimore Sun, among others, and an adjunct professor of English at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Contact her at margie.burns@verizon.net
|
|
|
