NEW YORKERS MUST LEARN 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE-JOB FRAMEUP BEFORE THE G.O.P CONVENTION (URL TO PROOF HERE)
Dick Eastman
CULPABLE IN OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE)
======
A Zionist Jew is in overall charge of the 9-11 Commission.
An awful thing to say, right?
But it is also true and it is also essential to exploring and breaking up
an obstruction of justice in the 9-11 high-government-crime mass-murder
case.
Another Zionist Jew, Al Felzenberg, is the Commission's information
gatekeeper whose primary function has been to keep out -- by directing
Pentagon photo-evidence presentations to "black holes" where they never
again emerge to light of day -- everything necessary for a REAL
INVESTIGATION OF WHO ACTUALLY DID 9-11 -- because in particular Zionist
Neo-conservatives running the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger,
Rumsfeld, Gingrich) were the architects of the inside-job false-flag
mass-murder black-up as established by exposure of an operation that had to
have the intimate involvement of top Pentagon power, as, in turn,
established by by multiple photo evdience proving that the Pentagon was
hit by missiles fired by a jet fighter as the Boeing 757, seen by most
witnesses in its approach, actually overflew the Pentagon and, concealed
from the witnesses to the west, by flash and smoke and low morning sun,
was, within 3 seconds, closer to Reagan National Airport, only a mile
beyond, than to the crash.
No one can shake this evidence. The professor who has edited the super-hard
brain twisters for Scientific American, A.K. Dewdney, says that the photo
evidence proves the "small-plane" and "Boeing overfly" thesis, as do other
men of science. Cf.,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
The lines of proof are multiple -- six separate independent proofs that the
Pentagon attack was carefully planned high-tech "smoke and mirrors"
black-op "wet" (people get killed) operation to attain criminal ends.
Only two responses to "TRUTHBAZOOKA 5" conclusive evidence are being
offered:
1) Silence and censorship -- Felzenberg turning TRUTHBAZOOKA 5 away at the
door -- the monopoly media specifically forbidding any mention of the
"small-plane" evidence or the fact that the entire internet has either
accepted or given up trying to discredit the conclusions derived from this
established unimpeachable evidence.
2) Ad Hominem -- Since the perpetrators at the Pentagon and the people
blocking the emergence of the evidence into the light of public-awareness
and official-recognition day are all Jewish, then the people seeking to
present the information and pointing out the ZIonist Jew background of the
evidence-implicated perpetrators and coverup, then anyone holding or
introducing the 'small-plane" findings must be anti-ZIonist and a "hate"
criminal allied with terrorists who are also anti-Zionist hate criminals
etc. -- even though the small-plane findings imply that no terrorists really
existed, apart from the false-flag black ops of the true 9-11 perpetrators.
But this can't last forever -- either the multi-billionaires will be caught
by the people or the people will be crushed entirely by the
multi-billionaires (Zionism being the ideology of the merchant bankers who,
on paper, own the world.)
Meanwhile, you who have not been to bright, STOP GOING ALONG WITH THE
CHARADE -- THE COMMISSION IS WHITEWASH -- THE 9-11 FAMILIES WILL ONLY GET
TOKEN REVELATIONS OF MERELY THE SECONDARY OFFENSES -- THE OLIGARCHY WILL
NOT ALLOW THE BLOOD ON ITS HANDS TO BE KNOWN -- THE OLIGARCHY MUST BE
OVERTHROWN BY THE PEOPLE COMING TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE
EVIDENCE -- WITHOUT ANY WHITEWASH COMMISSION -- AND THEN BY SHEAR WEIGHT OF
PUBLIC AND WORLD OPINION TEARING THESE CRIMINALS FROM POWER (ECONOMIC AND
POLITICAL) ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
Tell a friend.
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington
=======
Hamas has distributed playing cards carrying the names of Israeli officials
that would be targeted, in an apparent move to imitate the American deck of
cards of "wanted" former Iraqi officials of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Khaled Mashaal, Hamas political bureau head, told the movement's website
that Hamas' response to Yassin's assassination would be "of the same size
and impact," meaning it would be targeting high-level Israeli officials and
that Hamas does not intend to carry out attacks against "international"
targets, saying the movement would focus its attacks exclusively against
Israel until the ending of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian
territories. "Sharon has become targeted by Palestinian resistance men and
Al-Qassam Brigades, in retaliation for the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed
Yassin,"
REMEMBER, IT WAS ZIONIST JEWS -- THE SO-CALLED 'NEO-CONS' AT THE PENTAGON
WHO WERE BEHIND THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 MASS-MURDER KILLINGS OF OVER 2000
PEOPLE IN NEW YORK AND ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA. REMEMBER TOO THAT AL QA'EDA IS
A CIA-MOSSAD-MI6 ENTITY INTENDED FOR BLACK-OPS TO UNITED THE WORLD AGAINST
THE (INNOCENT) MOSLEM WORLD AND TO GARNER MORE MILITARY AND ECONOMIC AID FOR
ISRAEL FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN JEWS (MANY OF WHOM ARE AMONG
THE MOST HATEFUL AND PARANOID AND DYSFUNCTIONAL-TRADITION -BRAINWASHED
PEOPLE ON EARTH.) THE MOSLEMS ARE BEING FRAMED BY THE ZIONISTS AND IT TOOK
OVER 2000 AMERICAN LIVES FOR THEM TO DO IT PROPERLY -- OR SO THEY THOUGHT.
Dick Eastman
===============
Liberal Democrat (i.e. British populist) leader in Parliament, Shirely
Williams writes:
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has chosen to escalate still further
the unending conflict with his Palestinian neighbors by assassinating their
revered spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Sharon has always been a
risk-taker. By escalating the conflict he increases the pressure on his
strongest ally, the United States. The next 10 days may determine the fate
of the region - whether that be ever-growing violence or a massive effort to
bring about a negotiated peace.
Sharon has been trying to convince his fragmented and divided coalition
cabinet to back his proposal for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and a few
settlements on the West Bank. In return he seeks to exact a high price from
Washington: endorsement of a major incursion into the West Bank amounting to
the annexation of 8 percent of the territory - a territory already reduced
to 22 percent of what was Palestine in 1948, when the state of Israel was
founded.
Eight percent sounds rather modest. But anyone who has travelled recently in
the West Bank, as I have done for the past week with two parliamentary
colleagues, knows it is not. Much of the West Bank, starved of water, is
arid. It is criss-crossed with handsome modern highways, linking one Israeli
settlement to another. Palestinians are not allowed to use them. Access to
Palestinian villages along the route of the roads is blocked by huge stones
and often by checkpoints manned by Israeli soldiers. Palestinian cars and
trucks cannot get through. Palestinians spend hours trying to cross these
lines to tend their fields or to meet family members.
The West Bank is not poorer than Gaza, a crowded enclave where unemployment
is more than 60 percent, which depends on the United Nations or busy
nongovernment organizations for food. But it is even more wretched. It is
almost impossible for a Palestinian anywhere near Jerusalem or any other
Israeli city get a license to build a house.
Since the second intifada began in September 2000, more than 1,000
Palestinian houses have been destroyed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
for breaching planning laws. These laws appear to have been waived for the
new Israeli settlements on the West Bank, where thousands of white houses
march in regiments over hill after hill, dominating the scattered
Palestinian villages.
Security fences and outposts mark areas for future development, four times
the area of the existing settlements. In between, Palestinian farmers watch
their traditional olive groves and grazing land gradually swallowed up.
Thousands of acres of citrus orchards and olive trees have been uprooted and
destroyed, some by the Israeli military on security grounds. Palestinians
have little left to live on.
What Sharon is seeking from the United States is the legitimization of this
conquest-by-stealth. Sharon's unilateral plan for the West Bank is illegal
in international law and ignores the road map, the peace plan backed by the
international community. If Washington supports Sharon's proposal, the
so-called "two states" solution - a secure and sovereign Israel alongside a
secure and safe Palestine - will be dead in the water.
Israel has the energy, the education and the commitment to be a wonderful
country. It has great achievements to its credit. Sickened by the suicide
bombers that kill innocent Israeli civilians, a majority of the population
longs for a lasting peace.
Israel is also a vibrant democracy. Nongovernment organizations are
flourishing, many of them engaged in helping Palestinians. Physicians for
Human Rights, for example, mobilizes scores of Israeli doctors who give up
their weekends to attend makeshift clinics in Palestinian villages jammed
with desperate parents and sick children. Defiant Israelis rush to defend
Palestinian homes about to be demolished. The newspapers reflect the deeply
divided opinions of Israel's Jewish citizens. But with large areas of the
West Bank off-limits to Israelis, many do not know what is being done in
their name.
Israel's democracy could be the source of a much wider democratic movement
among her neighbors, if only the cycle of revenge and retaliation were
brought to an end. The most promising candidate for democratization is,
paradoxically, Palestine. We parliamentarians, on an all-party visit
sponsored by Christian Aid, encountered a lively civic society in Gaza and
the West Bank, where nonviolent activists run health centers, human rights
groups, and agricultural and environmental projects, each a victory of the
human spirit over despair. These men and women, not the backward-looking and
impotent Palestinian Authority, offer hope for the future, and could become
the partners whom Israel claims to want.
If President George W. Bush blesses Sharon's unilateral plan, and if he
condones a wall that splits farms and families and requisitions large new
areas of Palestinian land, without negotiating a solution acceptable to both
sides, the cancer of this conflict will claim new victims and create an army
of new terrorists.
===========
Dick Eastman recommends:
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
Thomas Jefferson
Bush's most avid supporters are a puritanical bunch. They attend church.
They pray on streetcorners. They bludgeon the unwitting with their
sanctimonious talk of God, Family, and the American Way. So convinced are
they of their moral superiority, they have no qualms about marching toward
even greater material gluttony over a pavement of charred corpses. In fact,
they seem to see this as a divine quest. You don't need a doctorate in
Theology to know that if Hell is real, its inmost pit has got to be reserved
for hypocrites such as these.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ANALYSIS OF 9-11
Hijackers?
What makes you think you actually KNOW what happened on those planes? All
four were obliterated, along with everyone on board, remember? No crime
scene, no direct evidence, no recognizable remains, no witnesses
whatsoever -- it's a blank canvas. How convenient for any party intent on
launching a new era of global imperialism, and willing to spin this tragedy
into a viable excuse. Indeed, all of the attack's consequences are far
better explained by this agenda than by Bin Laden's purported death wish.
Those presuming to examine this matter, i.e. ALL OF US, need to recognize
that such trickery is a timeless specialty of governments.
And yet from that very day we have allowed the government-media complex to
focus all attention on one rather thin explanation: Crazy Arabs did it!
George W. Bush and his cabinet have made it known to us, in the most
arrogant terms, that they will brook no discussion of other possibilities --
an edict most Americans, in their desperation to believe in this man, seem
to have embraced. The Bush Administration even withholds its "proof" of Al
Qa'eda's guilt; clearly, it considers mere citizens too unimportant to
require full explanations, and once again, we're just rolling over and
taking it.
The phrases 'spiritually broken' and 'morally adrift' come to mind...
Until the full case against Al Qa'eda is made available for public review,
we have absolutely no assurance that this "proof" isn't exactly like the
"proof" of Iraq's weapons programs -- i.e., a big fat lie from top to
bottom. On these terms, wholesale acceptance of the hijacker scenario will
continue to be what it has always been: a pathetic display of blind faith in
this administration's utterances, and in those of its media accomplices. At
present, it is astonishing that anyone places faith of any kind in either
party: by means of the "WMD" debacle, both have proven themselves amoral,
duplicitous, and utterly devoid of humanity. Indeed, why do we give them so
much as a moment of our attention? No one with a lick of sense would do
this.
A rigorous civilian investigation of 9-11 would help resolve such doubts. If
Bush and the rest were standing on firm ground, they would fully support
such a thing. Instead, they have worked to thwart both its formation and its
progress, using every resource within their reach. Some time last year, they
seem to have realized they were only fueling suspicions this way, so Bush
grudgingly approved an "independent" investigation. The arrogance of this
bunch is so disabling, however, that they actually damaged their credibility
even further by naming Henry Kissinger to lead it. This is a man whose
dedication to "US interests" verges on homicidal psychosis (see his
treatment of Cambodians 1970, Chileans 1973, East Timorese and Kurds 1975,
MUCH more). He could only be expected to skew this investigation
accordingly, i. e., to omit and cover up any issue not conducive to empire
building. Ironically, even Henry had the sense to admit he was an
inappropriate choice, thus resigning from this duty, whereupon Bush
immediately returned to his original tactic of stonewalling (1). Could the
man possibly have something to hide?
To appreciate the ugliest possibilities of the 9-11 attack, one must first
become aware of the continuous practice of such manipulations by the entire
progression of American politicians. The need to cultivate this awareness is
itself an enigma: if you have the honesty to see this pattern at all, its
full enormity, emerging over time, will at some point cause your previous
ignorance to amaze you. Imagine living your entire life with an 800-pound
gorilla, then realizing one day it's not a sofa, after all. At the same
time, finding this enlightenment is challenging, because the relevant facts
are usually withheld from the public for decades, seldom appearing in
mainstream discourse even after they become common knowledge -- not because
of some grand conspiracy, but because legions of 'America Firsters,'
including most of the famous and powerful, simply don't want to hear it. The
telling of these facts is an affront to their most cherished political
assumptions. Invariably, they respond with hostile apologetics, ranging from
simple denial and ridicule to the claim that such incidents are random and
unrelated "mistakes." That they can sincerely believe this 'unrelated' claim
is remarkable, given the way it crushes into dust under any burden of
historical proof: America's state crimes have been ethically monstrous, vast
in both scale and number, unilateral in their aggression, virtually
uninterrupted in their chronology, and very coherent in both motive and
method. Certain themes just keep popping up:
1) Greed, particularly for territory;
2) Supremacism, driven only partly by race, perhaps more so by delusions of
national grandeur allowed to ramify without limit;
3) An enthusiasm for "total war" -- i. e., the indiscriminate butchery of
entire populations. This seems most likely to happen when "strategic"
territories, resources, or victories are at stake. That is, when those in
authority feel they "must win," and so discard principle to whatever extent
is necessary;
4) The systemic corruption and antidemocratic functioning of every level of
American government, made abundantly clear by its relations with sworn
enemies of the public interest, namely corporations;
5) The bid for global empire that has all but defined the American agenda
since W.W.II, in flagrant violation of democratic principle.
This last "US interest," discussed openly by flacks and shills only since
9-11 suspended all moral judgment on such matters, actually represents the
driving passion of our ruling elite, going all the way back to the
Revolution. Indeed, grasping the means of power, beginning with sovereign
domain, was their main motive for pursuing revolution at all. Starting then
and continuing ever since, they have whipped the people up to support their
warped appetites, even as they have misrepresented them spectacularly. EVERY
SINGLE TIME we as a people have committed to a war of expansion, we have
been duped into doing so by their twin handservants, American politics and
American media:
1776 to 1890
Innumerable 'Indian wars'
In which the western frontier was pushed through the territories of one
Indian confederation after another, all the way to the Pacific. An early and
definitive example is George Washington's post-revolutionary conquest of the
Ohio Valley, where the Washington Family held deeds to immense tracts of
prime real estate never actually ceded by the Indians. The lore that George
was a "surveyor" is a populist distortion; he was no blue collar grunt,
laying out property lines to earn a living. He was in fact the most
ambitious of an elite family of 'land speculators' -- the colonial
equivalent of venture capitalists -- and his toils were in the service of
his own family fortune. Already one of the richest people in
post-revolutionary America, he was determined to get even richer through the
sale of his Ohio holdings, and wasn't about to be stopped by 'two-legged
vermin' like the Shawnees and Miamis. To this end, he abused his dominance
of the early federal government, arranging for Revolutionary War veterans (a
battle-hardened militia) to be compensated with "land warrants" deep in
Ohio's wilderness, far beyond his own holdings. He also encouraged the
issuance of large bounties, equivalent to several months' income, for Indian
scalps along the upper Ohio River. These were essentially open murder
contracts that targeted ALL Indians, regardless of age, gender, or tribal
affiliation. By this means, genocide was openly subsidized for decades
wherever intact Indian cultures presented an obstacle to "progress."
Primitive as media was, its role in all this was crude but sufficient:
posting the bounties while inflaming the settlers' hatred with tales of
Indian atrocities, real and imagined. In the Ohio Territory, these tactics
rapidly progressed to open war, orchestrated by Washington against
Tecumseh's Shawnee Confederation, and then to the total extermination and
westward displacement of the Ohio tribes (2).
1846 to '48
The Mexican War:
Beginning in 1818, when the Oregon Territory was acquired, American
imperialists developed an intense interest in California. Simply adding it
piecemeal to their territorial inventory wouldn't have worked, however: it
was too isolated, too defensible by the Mexicans. To take California, all of
northern Mexico -- what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas, and portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado -- would have
to be taken, requiring the invention of some PRETEXT for doing so. In 1836,
American "adventurers" (freelance political operatives) instigated a
regional coup in the Mexican province of Texas, splitting it off to form an
independent country, the Republic of Texas. Nine years later, this nation
was annexed as the 28th state. Immediately afterward, President Polk made
the predictable move of sending belligerent military incursions into
disputed lands along the new border with Mexico. The Mexicans replied with
patrols of their own, and then clashes developed, leading to the "spilling
of American blood on American soil." Or so the press told it (their bias
could be summed up in a phrase they coined around this time: "Manifest
Destiny"). In fact, the soil in question was situated between the Nueces and
Rio Grande rivers, an area both governments held equal claim to. But no
matter -- the people eagerly accepted this distortion, Polk got his dirty
little war, and then proceeded to steal something like 650,000 square miles
of territory from our next-door neighbor. Add to this the previous criminal
acquisition of territory from Mexico, i.e. the "Lone Star State," and the
area usurped approaches one-third of the contiguous 48 states, or HALF of
what was originally Mexico (3).
Some years later, a fantastic mineral strike in this stolen territory -- the
Comstock Lode -- would provide the Hearst Family with an immense fortune,
soon parlayed by William Randolph into an infamous media empire.
1898 to '99
The Spanish-American War/Philippine Campaign:
Though still a colonial client of Spain during the 1880s and '90s, Cuba was
also a hotbed of insurrection, thanks to the efforts of Jose Marti and
others. By 1898, the Cuban independence movement had Spain's colonial
government on the ropes. The prominence of blacks among the rebels made this
situation alarming for fin de siecle American royalists, among whom
"Darwinist" (i.e. proto-Nazi) political thought was at the height of its
popularity. Also, having just recently subdued the last free-roaming Indian
tribes back home, their passion for grabbing other people's land could now
be expanded into the Caribbean, Central America, and Pacific, via expanded
activities of that handy agency, the US military. So in the fall and winter
of 1897-98, the Hearst syndicate and other news organizations were blasting
Americans with "yellow journalism" on the subject of Cuba -- sensational and
often ludicrous accounts, custom made to induce support of US military
intervention. The public thus primed, the sinking of the battleship USS
Maine in Havana Harbor gave McKinley all the excuse needed to commence
grabbing up not only Cuba, but also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
It was in the Philippines that the US military took "total war" beyond North
America for the first time. Encouraged by the Filipino's uncanny resemblance
to Native Americans, US troops mass-murdered something like 25% of the
civilian population. As imperial outrages go, this was the equal of anything
that's happened since (4).
A 1975 investigation led by Admiral Rickover determined that the Maine's
hull was breached by an explosion originating INSIDE the ship. This could
have been a spontaneous "coal-bin explosion," or it could have been a bomb
placed by an imperialist traitor. As with 9-11, this catastrophe neatly
erased any inconvenient witnesses to its real mechanics.
1917 to '18
World War I:
Three years into the "Great War," it looked as though Germany would defeat
Britain and France, our primary capitalist hosts in Europe. Big financiers
like J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, who between them had billions
invested "over there," weren't about to just sit back and watch this happen.
They barked orders to their underling, Woodrow Wilson, who then declared
war, using German interference with US shipping activities as a feeble
pretext. Leading up to this, the media minions whipped the public into a war
frenzy, basing their wildly manipulative propaganda on incidents such as the
sinking of the Lusitania, two years earlier. Funny thing about the
Lusitania: it's hold contained a secret, illegal, and massive cargo of
ammunition and other materiel bound for Liverpool, and its passengers were
used as unwitting human shields for this cargo by the US government, which
is why they died. Neither Wilson nor the media of the day ever admitted any
of this (5).
The dynamics behind America's entry into World War II were virtually
identical. Over 500,000 Americans died in these two wars, with 875,000 more
wounded, and an additional and unknown number emotionally shattered, all of
which brought untold misery to their families and communities. Given the
choice between destroying all those lives or allowing the likes of Morgan
and Rockefeller to suffer the tragedy of somewhat less obscene wealth, our
"representatives" chose the former as the lesser sacrifice.
1941 to '45
World War II:
France already lying crushed beneath Hitler's war machine, and Britain under
a devastating siege, the White House was once again compelled to intervene
on behalf of its capitalist masters, whose European investments had grown
two magnitudes since the close of W.W.I. Unlike Wilson, however, FDR did a
truly brilliant job of constructing a pretext. in September of 1940,
Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact, a treaty committing
all three countries to counterattack against new foes faced by any one of
them. This gave Roosevelt a back door into Europe via the Pacific. Beginning
one month later, and fourteen months prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, he
launched secret military and economic operations against the Japanese
Empire, obstructing its only access to oil, rubber, and other strategic
resources. The Japanese response to this blockade -- open hostilities
against the United States, beginning with a crippling preemptive attack on
the Pacific Fleet -- was entirely predictable. In fact, it was Roosevelt's
whole purpose in setting up the blockade: Nearly unanimous "isolationist"
sentiment at home was his first military target, and precipitating a
"vicious sneak attack on US soil" was his deliberate design for destroying
that sentiment. For this reason, he concentrated the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii
as never before, where it would be seen as an imminent threat by Japanese
generals. He then withheld intelligence of Japan's attack preparations from
Pearl's top officers, continuing to exclude them even when radio intercepts
revealed the movement of a Japanese carrier group toward Hawaii (6).
From 1941 to '46, and again in 1995, Congress investigated "the intelligence
lapses that made this sneak attack possible" no less than NINE TIMES. On all
of these occasions, officials of the Roosevelt Administration and the Office
of Naval Intelligence perjured themselves and concealed vast amounts of
evidence to preserve the historical fictions surrounding the Pearl Harbor
attack. To this day, the NSA claims "national security" as its basis for
withholding relevant material from the public. "National security" stands
revealed, then, as a euphemism for this government's ruthless grip on
power -- a thing that certainly would be threatened, were we to become fully
aware of the treacheries it spawns. This context radically transforms
"national security" rhetoric into an ideal excuse for all sorts of betrayals
and deceits, and this seems to be it's actual interpretation among those who
"safeguard" it.
The agonies of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. under Hitler, not to mention those
of the Chinese and Koreans under the Japanese Empire, were incidental at
best to US motives for pursuing W.W.II, both before and during. It was only
afterward that the camps were seized upon as a full-blown "pretext in
retrospect" to maximize America's apparent heroism. With each year that has
passed since, this myth has been more shamelessly advanced, so that now some
stunning percentage of Americans believe that "halting genocide" was their
government's main motive for waging war at all.
1945 to '89
The Cold War (a.k.a. W.W.III):
was launched by the closing episode of W.W.II, i.e., the atomic bombing of
Japan. President Truman's official rationalization for the bombing,
trumpeted ad nauseum by the media of the day, was that it was the only way
to end the war quickly, thus avoiding a horrific house-by-house assault of
the entire Japanese Archipelago. In fact, the Japanese were already making
conditional surrender overtures. Accepting their terms, however, would have
made Truman's victory conditional as well, and he was determined to
humiliate them. Even the total surrender he insisted on was only a few
months away, by all signs. Meanwhile, the war in Europe having ended in May,
the Russians were now free to join the allied fight against this old enemy
of theirs, and were preparing to do exactly that. Given enough time to enter
the Pacific War, they would have claimed a portion of Japan upon its
surrender, just as they had recently claimed the eastern half of Europe. To
keep the Soviets from horning in on this pending crown jewel of America's
Pacific Empire, Truman needed his total victory immediately, and The Bomb
gave him an irresistible means by which to secure it. As an early devotee of
anti-Communist paranoia, he was also confronting the Russians with a
demonstration of America's 'invincible technological prowess.' Finally, his
decision to vaporize 200,000 Japanese civilians was made easier by his
avowed hatred of the entire race (7).
The cover provided by the Cold War enabled the United States to pursue its
largest campaign of expansion by far, extending its economic and strategic
tentacles into every corner of the planet and even into space by means of
literally hundreds of "anti-Communist" initiatives, interventions, and proxy
wars. Our present "global hegemony," a source of endless glee for Bush and
other miscreants, didn't "just happen" -- it was the overarching and
unspoken goal of US Cold War politics.
Another important thing to understand about the Cold War: the "War on
Terrorism" is directly adapted from it, just as the Cold War itself
developed directly from W.W.II, which was in turn a direct consequence of
W.W.I, which was Germany and Britain vying with one another for world
domination -- a contest America ended up winning. What an epic of
greed-crazed murderous lunacy! One that the present regime seeks only to
perpetuate, and for the same reasons as always: expansion and consolidation
of empire.
1950 to '53
The Korean War:
To coerce public support for this war, the press and the Truman
Administration whipped up public hysteria about the "Red Menace!" that was
then "swallowing up" obscure Far Eastern precincts. No mention, of course,
that the mounting anti-US sentiment in those precincts resulted entirely
from collaboration between US occupation forces and the Japanese fascists
they were supposedly there to remove. This collaboration ranks as one of the
most arrogant foreign policy blunders in US history. For people throughout
the Far East, it was an unbearable betrayal, as it effectively prolonged
what had already been one of the most gruesome and protracted military
occupations EVER. Similar dynamics had already developed in mainland China,
a hornet's nest so immense that withdrawal quickly resolved as our only sane
option. And also in the Philippines, where US troops and Huk rebels started
out fighting side by side to expel the Japanese. Indigenous sovereignty
being the Huk's ultimate goal, the Americans began killing them, too, as the
Japanese were subdued. Two thousand miles from all these places, in French
Indochina, the exact tensions seen in Korea arose AGAIN in response to
brutal French/Japanese collaboration -- abetted by American field agents,
naturally (8).
In all four places, revolutionary leaders greatly admired America's
political tradition of anti-colonialism and self-determination, and sought
to claim these values for their own countries. They even made earnest
attempts to form friendships with the US; they thought colonialism was a
'european thing,' so that we must therefore be 'the good guys.' For
strategic planners back in Washington, all this was at odds with their grand
design for the Far East: now being vacated by its previous colonial tenants,
it was seen as a "power vacuum," fairly begging for RE-colonization
according to America's obfuscated formula of puppet politics and corporate
infiltration.
American society has yet to recover from the "Red Menace!" propaganda
barrage, which soon became a constant theme of international news coverage,
and remained so for the next 40 years. As a means of inducing mass paranoia
and public consent to limitless militarization, the "Red Menace" lost its
punch following the collapse of the Soviet Union, necessitating its
replacement with a more robust methodology -- the "Terrorist Menace!" Nazi
Germany and Israel being the great innovators of this second method, America
owes a great debt to both of them.
1965 to '73
The Vietnam War:
By way of manipulating Congress into granting him war powers, LBJ reprised
the "vicious sneak attack" gambit with his brazen lies regarding such action
by the North Vietnamese against US Navy vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Beginning in 1969, Nixon and Kissinger expanded on this crime enormously,
adding Laos and Cambodia to North Vietnam as targets of a redoubled 'total
war' initiative. Several million tons of cluster bombs were then used to
totally destroy vast civilian districts in all three countries (districts
simply crawling, mind you, with subsistence farmers bent on global
domination). All of which exactly repeated the pattern of the Korean War --
right down to America not winning (9).
As huge as the American effort against Vietnam was, it was just one element
of a yet more enormous strategy of military encirclement (a.k.a.
"containment") directed against mainland China. Other elements were: the
permanent and massive U.S. military presence in Japan; a similar presence in
Thailand; unlimited military and economic support to Chiang Kai-Shek's exile
government on Formosa (Taiwan); the Korean War and subsequent permanent U.S.
military presence in Korea; a strong strategic interest in India, including
covert support of an otherwise preposterous nuclear weapons program; also, a
U.S.-equipped and -trained covert army of Chinese "nationalists" in eastern
Burma, within what became known as the "Golden Triangle." It was here that
the CIA first learned of the marvels of the international heroin trade.
To advance its "interests," the U.S. government has manipulated the affairs
of every region of the planet on this same incredible scale, and continues
to do so. Other hotspots include Europe, the Middle East, Central Africa,
and all of Latin America and the Pacific.
1991 to 2003
The Gulf War / "No-fly Zones" / Sanctions:
To con Americans into backing this outrage, Daddy Bush and his media
bed-buddies told a couple real whoppers. First there was the one about the
satellite photographs of a massive Iraqi invasion force assembling on the
northern border of Saudi Arabia (10). Then there was the Kuwait Incubator
Hoax, an inventive revival of the childish "babies on bayonets" propaganda
of World War I -- as told by a child, no less (11). As it turned out,
Operation "Desert Storm" was merely the opening episode of a ruthless
destabilization program, aimed primarily at hapless civilians, that would
continue for over a decade, killing no less than 500,000 Iraqis in a fairly
obvious attempt to turn them against their head of state. This fulfills any
sane definition of terrorism, and is probably the most grandiose recent
example of the state-sponsored variety. It was maintained with enthusiasm by
the Clinton Administration.
2001 to present
The "War on Terror" (a.k.a. W.W.IV):
Pretexts include: 1) the 9-11 attack; 2) this Administration's single-minded
incrimination of Al Qa'eda (a CIA proxy), backed up with such things as; 3)
an obviously fraudulent videotape of Osama "confessing;" 4) the conceit that
Al Qa'eda's guilt justified a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan (the
combined strike force for which began building up at least six months prior
to 9-11, disguised as a "war game"); 5) an implied equation between Al
Qa'eda and Iraq's Ba'athite regime, and; 6) the absurd fantasy that Iraq, a
country left all but helpless by the previous campaign, might pose a real
threat to the world's deadliest strategic power.
By rights, I should have included the Civil War in this run-down: all the
ingredients are there, with antidemocratic preservation of domain being
equivalent to expansion. Also, the fable that 'freeing the slaves' was its
entire purpose has to rank among the wildest disinformation campaigns ever
perpetrated upon Americans by our "free press."
Though they never precipitated the full-scale wars their authors had in
mind, a few other nasty episodes are especially relevant to 9-11:
Operation "Northwoods"
A Pentagon plan for a massive "false flag" terror campaign against American
citizens, the purpose being to provide pretext for a full-scale invasion of
Cuba. If approved, it would have entailed such things as sniper attacks on
random US citizens (a la the DC sniper), terrorist bombings, and a bogus
missile attack on an unmanned, remote-controlled US airliner in the
Caribbean, the plane's fictitious passengers to be reported as "entirely
lost." All of this was to be carried out by US intelligence agents posing as
Cuban operatives, whose dirty work would translate directly into the sort of
massive public manipulation campaign this government always launches when it
sees profit in war. The Northwoods plan was called off by Robert McNamara
only when it was submitted for executive approval, having already been
approved by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (12).
Northwoods would never amount to anything more than a glimmer in some agency
psychopath's eye. In Europe, however, the CIA's most deranged anti-leftist
terror tactics were actually implemented ...
Operation "Stay Behind"; Operation "Gladio"
As part of a larger US withdrawal strategy following W.W.II, the CIA created
underground right-wing militias throughout Western Europe, to be activated
as guerilla armies in the event of invasion by the Soviets. These were known
as "Stay Behind" forces; they were a rogue's gallery of mercenary scum,
dominated by devout ex-Nazis recruited by SS-cum-CIA agent Reinhard Gehlen.
As the years passed and the Soviets failed to provide the anticipated
invasion, the Stay Behinds resorted to other means of justifying their CIA
paychecks. All across Europe, beginning in the 1950s, they morphed into
right-wing hit squads and terrorist groups. They participated in massive
CIA-NATO destabilization efforts against the Soviet Bloc countries,
assassinating Soviet officials, sabotaging industrial plants and public
infrastructure, and generally terrorizing civilian populations. The pattern
should be familiar from similar terror campaigns against Cuba and Nicaragua.
In East Berlin, the activities of Stay Behind units were the primary reason
for the construction of the Berlin Wall. The Stay Behinds did not limit
their mayhem to the Soviet Bloc, however; as time passed, their attention
turned more and more to equivalent activities within their NATO home
countries. Throughout Western Europe, particularly in Italy, leftist
politics had a stronger following than it has seen in the U.S. since the
1930s, and the Stay Behinds were the CIA's primary footsoldiers in its
"dirty tricks" campaign against this percieved enemy. In a psy-war effort to
alienate the public from the political left, they launched bogus left-wing
terror outfits (the "Baader-Meinhof Gang") or framed real leftist
undergrounds (the "Red Brigades") for atrocities they committed themselves.
In Italy, where the Stay Behind operation was code-named "Gladio," agents
posing as left-wing extremists perpetrated many public bombings during the
'70s, killing at least 300 people. These culminated in the August 1980
Bologna Train Station Bombing, which killed 86. The 1978 kidnapping and
murder of Aldo Moro was another Gladio exploit. These activities had one
purpose: to portray the political left as public enemy number one, thus
isolating it domestically while building consent for military escalation and
NATO aggression against the Soviets (13).
* * * * * * * * *
So what's it all about, anyway, all this intrigue and stomping of jackboots
on distant shores? Thanks to its unrivaled military strength and exceptional
geographic isolation (oceans make bitchin' moats), this country is all but
perfectly invulnerable to invasion, and repelling invaders would seem to be
the only defensible function of armies. No one's invaded this country since
the War of 1812, when British expeditions came out of Canada, Florida, and
the Gulf of Mexico. Don't expect a repeat anytime soon. Although a massive
one, the Pearl Harbor Attack was still just a raid, on what at the time was
this country's farthest-flung primary military base.
To keep the entire planet under its thumb, our government burdens us with
the gargantuan cost of the world's largest military, which it mostly uses to
crush pitiful rebellions in the remotest and poorest corners of the world,
places we truly have no business being in. This is exactly like a bully
swaggering around a schoolyard, shaking down all the little kids. Is that
really how you want your government representing you to the rest of the
world? Shouldn't DOMESTIC policy take priority instead? Things like adequate
health care and effective primary education -- programs that would serve the
wants and needs of YOU, their citizen, whom they claim to be their master.
But this is not their priority, and never has been. The geometric growth of
this economy, by various forms of conquest, is their abiding passion, with
domestic policy being attended to almost as an afterthought. To force our
consent, they hypnotize us with lurid visions of one boogeyman after
another, maintaining childish fear as our primary political sensibility,
keeping us dependent, trusting, stupid, distracting us from our own
self-interests...
Why is that?
WHO BENEFITS??
The average American, who spends his or her life chained to the machinery of
wealth production, watching their share of its output dwindle steadily, sure
as hell doesn't. The stratum of society that truly gains from all this just
happens to be the same one that finds employment in high-level intelligence
positions: big-time spooks like Kermit Roosevelt, the Dulles brothers,
Nelson Rockefeller, George H. W. Bush -- i. e. America's ruling families. In
their parlance, "U.S. Interests" is just doublespeak for global empire and
corporate colonialism, and these have always been the real purposes behind
their warmongering.
All told, these wars killed over a million US soldiers, along with many
times this number of civilians and combatants in the lands invaded, and this
isn't even touching on the dozens of proxy wars that have been the American
Empire's main battle front for going on sixty years. All of these millions
of people, American and foreign alike, were MURDERED by a government intent
on advancing the interests of a tiny minority while betraying the rest of
humanity; a government willing to wield its power in their service in any
manner, including technological and economic terror campaigns waged against
entire national populations. And yet this government has the audacity to
call itself a "beacon of hope to the world!" And the majority BELIEVE THEM!!
It simply amazes.
America's shadowy patricians were already too powerful before the Cold War.
And then decades of public hysteria borne of imminent nuclear annihilation
delivered them into the fabled realm of "absolute power." This has been
pretty obvious. Americans have avoided realizing it only by actively
pursuing a mental state of utter denial on this subject, sort of like the
three monkey icons of Shinto. Thanks to this determined ignorance, keeping
the rest of us in the dark has been childishly easy for people like the
Bushes. They can even be incredibly brazen and sloppy and get caught
red-handed, as with Watergate. No biggy: just tell all the boobs it was
Nixon acting alone, assisted by his best buddies, who just happened to be,
um, CIA agents. Yah. They'll never notice this story's unbelievable stench;
they'll be too relieved at having any sort of excuse to NOT think about it.
You know, just like when the Warren Commission's whitewash came out.
One hypothesis is particularly good for sending 'America Firsters' into an
apoplexy of denial: that the political culture now emerging in Washington is
actually a product of 40 years of covert penetration into the Executive
Branch. To substantiate this, one need look no further than the lineage of
our present "leader." His grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a military spy
during W.W.I, a key financial collaborator with the Nazis, and a US Senator.
His father, George H. W. Bush, was heir to the CIA realm under our most
infamous presidential regime, a fixture in presidential politics for 20
years, and all in all one of the creepiest figures ever to darken the
American political stage. The 'quiet coup' that brought this man to power
traces back to the Eisenhower Administration, when the utterly creepy
"National Security" underworld first became a secret and malevolent force in
national politics -- a force whose power is still nearly impossible to
measure. There are ominous glimpses, though: in 1960, Eisenhower's VP and
political heir, Richard M. Nixon, was shouldered aside by John F. Kennedy,
who over the next three years developed grave misgivings about this
underworld and its power. Then he ended up dead, and yes, his assassination
DID stink of black ops, as did the similar jobs on Malcolm X, Martin Luther
King, and his kid brother "Bobby," who would have been the SECOND Kennedy to
sour Nixon's presidential hopes, had he lived to see the 1968 election...
Though the CIA denies it, several independent sources identify George H. W.
Bush as a high-ranking agent during the Kennedy Administration, commanding
covert operations against Cuba. The ships used in Operation "Zapata" (the
"Bay of Pigs" invasion) were named by him, it is said, after members of his
family. Those names indeed correspond with those of his wife and children.
Among the most conclusive sources is an official memorandum from J. Edgar
Hoover, dated November 29, 1963, which refers to a "Mr. George Bush of the
Central Intelligence Agency" (14). The memo refers to Bush's evaluation of
emotional reactions to Kennedy's assassination among Cuban exiles under his
watch.
From here, Bush the Elder went on to become a protege of Richard Nixon's,
was a mid-echelon member of his cabinet beginning in 1971, had very
interesting connections to CREEP, and somehow eluded Congress's Watergate
dragnet.
Watergate and a few other incidents proved that Nixon had a most unwholesome
relationship with the CIA. Once this scandal had hemorrhaged to the point
that Congress could no longer avoid taking action, containing the damage
could be seen as the main theme of its response -- a hallmark of
Congressional investigations. There was far too much eagerness to examine
this matter only in terms narrowly relating to impeachment, thus leaving
larger questions wholly unexplored: did the Watergate break-in really happen
on Nixon's orders, or was the intelligence underworld acting on its own,
using 'dirty tricks' to prop up their man in the White House, exactly as it
has on countless occasions for entire puppet governments all over the world?
In the latter case, letting Nixon take the fall would have been an extreme
measure, but possibly the only sure way to divert attention from an
abhorrent and illegal power structure, thus preserving it. Nixon himself
would have been a likely author of this tactic, as it was he who trumped
Congress' investigation by resigning, whence the entire matter was eagerly
dropped.
Bone-tired of Watergate in any case, the public was predisposed to accept
Nixon's implied guilt as the final answer: "responsibility can't go any
higher than the President, right? Harry 'the buck stops here' Truman said
so." In reaching this conclusion, we were assisted by major media organs,
which immediately began spinning this as Watergate's "final resolution." In
fact, this conclusion resolved nothing -- it left the most crucial questions
hanging in mid-air, soon to be shrouded in rhetoric by professional
apologists from all quarters. Its only definite outcome was the softening of
a renewed public spirit of scrutiny and resistance, which in turn allowed a
deadly authoritarian cancer to resume its march throughout our body politic.
After going underground for seven years, this cancer emerged in full force
as the Reagan Administration.
Dubya's announcement last April of another bogus 'conclusion' -- that of his
Hitlerian conquest of Iraq -- had a strikingly similar effect. Once again,
mounting vigilance was undone by a well-timed lie, universally disseminated.
Following Nixon's resignation, Poppy finally hit the big-time when Gerald
Ford named him Director of the CIA. After toppling Carter, he became VP
himself, and for the next twelve years was at the center of the Reagan era's
continuous parade of treasonous covert operations. A few highlights: 1) the
campaign to prevent an "October Surprise," in which Bush & Co. induced the
Iranians to delay release of the American embassy hostages, thus undermining
Carter's re-election bid; 2) an inhuman terror campaign against the people
and government of Nicaragua, even after Congress declared it illegal, at
which point the CIA was forced to devise covert funding arrangements such as
3) "Iran-Contra" and 4) operation "Watchtower." This last episode, which was
going on around the time of Bush Senior's succession, is easily the most
incredible: the CIA was a major domestic smuggler and distributor of "Crack"
cocaine during the late '80s, when this drug became an inner-city plague
(15).
At this point, the CIA was contemptuously wiping its ass with the
Constitution, and got completely away with it. If this were truly the
America the Boy Scouts taught you to believe in, the exposure of operation
"Watchtower" would have destroyed the CIA.
Late in Reagan's second term, 60 minutes was granted a horrifying personal
interview with Ronnie and Nancy in the Oval Office. Horrifying because, even
though Reagan's Alzheimer's wasn't disclosed for several more years, it was
perfectly obvious the man was totally gone. Faced with a steady stream of
unscripted questions from Mike Wallace, Reagan's usual patter rapidly
degenerated into stark senile mumblings. Desperate to conceal her husband's
incoherence, Nancy kept practically thrusting her face into the cameras.
This is consistent with puzzled accounts of writers and artists of the time,
who, as dinner guests of the Reagans, were mystified as to how such an oaf
could present himself so effectively on television.
All of which implies a striking parallel between the Reagan Presidency and
that of Bush II: in both cases, Bush Senior can be discerned as the man
behind the curtain, while the "president" is a mere speech reader, whose
real job is to keep the public distracted with his amiable, vacuous,
universally televised performances. Dubya's main puppeteers -- Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Powell -- are all Poppy's cronies, going all the way
back to the Nixon Administration. The five Supreme Court Justices who put
Junior in power are also Nixon/Reagan/Bush cronies, and their cancellation
of democratic process was a classic "installation," reminiscent of the CIA's
long-running antidemocratic escapades throughout the world.
It has Poppy's pawprints all over it.
If not for daddy's influence, Silver Coke-spoon Boy would be lucky to find
work fishing golf balls out of water hazards at the local country club. This
is obvious, and widely acknowledged. Most Americans, however, aren't willing
to examine the enormously sinister ramifications, given Poppy's background,
of the Bush Family's dynastic grip on American politics. Most Americans,
after all, are a weak-minded lot -- though harassed by apparitions of
unprecedented corruption, they lack the courage needed to fix their gaze
upon them.
Which brings us to 9-11...
The most venerable means of transmitting control inputs from a plane's
cockpit to its various aerodynamic control surfaces (rudder, ailerons, etc.)
is via a system of cables, i.e. "aircraft cables." With the introduction of
huge planes during and after W.W.II, unassisted human arms could no longer
provide the force needed to actuate proportionately huge control surfaces,
and so hydraulic assist devices and fully hydraulic control systems were
developed. The introduction of autopilots and landing guidance systems over
the next three decades layered yet another 'control system' over this one,
an electronic layer capable of manipulating the hydraulics directly and thus
flying the plane on its own. In the 757- and 767-series planes boarded by
"the hijackers," Boeing expanded this layer enormously, making it much more
sophisticated and integral to the continuous operation of these planes. For
one thing, it continuously monitors such things as attitude, acceleration,
turn rates, etc., and if necessary can assert exclusive control of the
hydraulics at any time, modifying or even overriding pilot decisions that
would otherwise result in drastic maneuvers, inappropriate for passenger
service. Though meant to provide an added margin of safety in the event of
gross pilot error, this arrangement introduces an ominous new dimension: in
a very real sense, the humans on the flight deck have only tenuous control
of flaps, rudder, etc.; the computer, the arbiter between the two, allows
them direct control only on it's own immutable terms. If the computer can
override the pilot some of the time, a potential exists for it to override
the pilot ALL of the time. This is a vulnerable arrangement, as anyone who
has dealt with a virus should know. In other words, the advancing dependency
on avionic interfaces has brought with it an advancing potential for the
total electronic co-optation of those interfaces. As they have grown
exponentially in complexity, so too has the number of entry points by which
such co-optation might be effected. All that was needed was for
technologists to devise a "back door"...
Enter the U.S. government and its defense contractors, who began joint
development of remote flight control and flight circumvention technology at
least two decades ago, using the full force of their virtually infinite R&D
resources. The existence of these programs, and of the resulting technology,
was verified soon after 9-11 by a panel of commercial and military pilots
participating in an independent inquiry (16).
The existence of such technology IN ANY FORM raises intriguing
questions/possibilities about 9-11: 1) could the planes have been hijacked
via this technology alone? 2) Were they? 3) Remote hijacking and on-board
hijacking are not mutually exclusive scenarios; if there were actual human
hijackers on those planes, their plot may have been remotely co-opted by
another party they knew nothing about, leaving them as horrified as anyone
when the planes took control of themselves and banked straight into
buildings.
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea that the
override functionality of the planes' computers was somehow defeated,
allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited maneuvers. For example, there
are multiple photographs and video clips showing AA Flight 175 making an
outrageously hard turn into the second tower. According to official
information, the plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in this
manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced large plane skills,
and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems. Since that flight school
they attended in Venice, Fla. probably didn't offer a course titled "Hot-dog
Maneuvers with Airliners 101," they must have possessed these abilities
already, so why would they have bothered with flight lessons at all? Any
benefit they realized in terms of understanding new control layouts would
have been at the cost of increased exposure, thus endangering their mission.
On the other hand, if they were as inexperienced as the presstitutes tell us
("I just want to learn how to steer"), they couldn't possibly have flown the
planes this way at all, which means someone else must have.
However distasteful, there is a real possibility that remote circumvention
occurred on those planes, a possibility that any credible investigation
would hardly ignore. All the more so because the necessary hardware isn't
just a cockamamie theory: a fully developed, totally programmable remote
flight control platform actually exists. Suggestively named the "Flight
Termination System," it is manufactured by Systems Planning Corporation of
Rosslyn, Virginia, which maintains web pages devoted to the FTS and various
subsystems:
A system overview:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS
The transmitter hardware:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS
Related software:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/MkVSW
The CEO of Systems Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a
long-time DoD and Republican Party insider, and a founding member of the
Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim became
one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and
strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs. After the 2000 "election,"
Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important
position -- Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.
Zakheim also co-authored the Heritage Foundation's infamous tract,
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," in which the Bush Administration's entire
design for renewed global conquest was laid down a full year prior to 9-11.
On page 63, the authors note that timely implementation of their ideas would
require "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
See for yourself:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
To identify the expansionist motive behind the "9-11 Wars," one need look no
further than this document. Echoing Ziggy Brzezinski's thoughts in "The
Grand Chessboard," the authors identify the Persian Gulf / Central Asian
region as the world's greatest geopolitical prize, and recommend that
decisive control of this region be made a top strategic priority.
The remote control scenario also neatly punctures the 'yada-yada objection'
always employed by conspiracy theory critics: "It couldn't have happened
that way, because too many people would have known, and someone would
blab..." In fact, the most sensitive part of this plot would be that of
anticipating or enabling nineteen flesh-and-blood "hijackers," and yet this
part of the scenario is all but universally accepted. Nineteen men backed by
a larger organization schemed to get on those planes and take control of
them, and then they did; everyone knows they did because CNN has stated this
"fact" about ten thousand times and counting. As for exactly WHICH
organization did the backing, well, there's a saying about 'dead men' ...
Once the patsies were in position, the rest of this scenario -- the "really
unbelievable part" -- could have been carried off in its entirety by a tiny
team wielding extravagant technical skills and multimillion-dollar
equipment. No larger conspiracy is necessary. As for the apparent complicity
of the entire government and media, this is mostly just cynical opportunism
and jello-brained obedience rising to the occasion -- a response easily
anticipated by the real conspirators, for whom history provides a
never-ending parade of examples on which to base such expectations.
Mind you, this is not to say that remote circumvention is definitely what
happened. On its face, this scenario is wildly improbable. Speaking of
improbable, what about four airliners being taken over simultaneously and
used as missiles? Since this actually happened, we have no choice but to
consider fantastic scenarios, and since the official scenario is itself an
unsubstantiated "conspiracy theory," competing scenarios should also receive
serious attention. Our reluctance to question official doctrine on this
matter is a symptom of the societal role most of us have been bred and
trained for: to be ever-faithful hounds, tails thumping the floor as we
contentedly slorp the hand of class authority. Such credulity also becomes
inevitable when the alternative is so unbearable: if someone in Bush's
position is capable of lying to us about something as huge, as
gut-wrenchingly horrible as 9-11, then everything we believe about this
country -- about the nature of civilization itself -- might just be childish
nonsense...
Most people simply don't have the guts to go there.
Given a desperate enough need to sustain the childish belief in
government-as-benevolent-father, a person will adapt that belief to any
circumstance. The behavioral end result can resemble courage; indeed, we are
taught to regard it as the DEFINITION of courage. Actually, it's one of
cowardice's darkest moments. Even a casual examination of Nazi Germany,
where this phenomenon was rampant, will drive this point home.
It's almost funny, the way people readily see the threat of technological
circumvention presented by Diebold's electronic voting machines, yet when
the subject switches to the "Flight Termination System," which is every bit
as real, and to the exactly parallel possibilities it represents vis-a-vis
9-11, they suddenly retreat into profound and combative denial. It's as if a
threshold has been crossed into a realm of possibilities too vile to
entertain, so they simply don't. Never mind that this country's operatives
have been traveling the world, perpetrating similar horrors, for all of the
past century. Rather than acknowledge the possibility of a unifying pattern,
Joe Average would much rather 'shoot the messenger.'
Every so often, such people establish a new high-water mark for cowardice
and facultative stupidity, and the present is definitely one of those times.
After all, the official 9-11 scenario they cling to with such desperate
faith comes from only one source: the Western "intelligence community" --
the most brazen, systematic, resourceful, and interlocked association of
habitual liars this world has ever seen. As should have been made clear by
the 'British dossier' scandal of last winter, the credibility of this bunch
goes past zero into the negative: pending airtight proof, anything they say
should be reflexively deemed a lie. You may remember that MI5 also provided
the identities of "the 19 hijackers" -- information that soon also became
quite suspect. At least six of the hijackers, possibly as many as nine, are
still alive in the Middle East -- a pretty good alibi, considering. Several
of these ex-suspects had their passports or other IDs stolen from them over
the years, and it's entirely possible that all 19 hijackers had stolen
identities, meaning they could have come from anywhere, or been absent
altogether. The US media was pretty slack about acknowledging this at the
time, and since then has dropped this ball entirely (17).
Rather than allow the "intelligence community" to render every detail of our
comprehension on this matter, we would be much wiser to carefully identify
and discard every assumption they hand us.
Far from being a source of independent corroboration, our "free press" is
more like a public relations contractor for the spooks. This is because the
entire fourth estate AND the governments of the West, including their
intelligence services, are essentially employees of a single entity: the
US-dominated coalition of international corporations -- by several
magnitudes the largest concentration of wealth in human history.
The subjugation of governments by such an entity is hardly unprecedented.
The Twentieth Century saw several extremely unsavory examples. It's called
Fascism. You don't need to take my word for this -- just peruse the opinions
of acknowledged experts:
Benito Mussolini:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism
because it is a merger of State and corporate power.
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate
the growth of private power to the point where it becomes
stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence
is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a
group or any controlling private power. Among us today
a concentration of private power without equal in history is
growing.
For many Americans, the word 'fascist' instantly evokes jackbooted Germans
wearing Swastikas and stuffing Jews into ovens. In fact, that representation
is a cardboard diorama, empty of nuance and historically specific almost to
the point of meaninglessness, which is why the closet fascists who own the
media keep force-feeding it to you.
Fascism is certainly a violation of every noble and enlightened political
impulse. To advance their agenda, fascists must bring about a mass rejection
of egalitarian and democratic ideals, and seem to get the best results by
inflaming and feeding upon common fears and popular bigotries -- racist,
nationalist, classist, religious, political, etc. ANY set of bigotries,
suitably stimulated, will provide fertile soil for fascism, and the
incurably ignorant, always a majority, are easily swayed by such methods --
fascism is a dictator's fantasy formula for subverting democracy. Bigotry,
however, isn't fascism's whole essence; it's simply an expedient means by
which fascism's agents, classic political pragmatists, consolidate the
monolithic pattern of government corruption that is their true calling -- a
syndrome America has been sliding into deeper and deeper throughout its
history. Just look at the consistent warnings from all the presidents who
noticed this trajectory and tried to alert a nation of groveling
candy-asses:
Thomas Jefferson:
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge
our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to
the laws of our country.
Abraham Lincoln:
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace
and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more
despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy
and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces,
as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw
light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern
Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two,
the one at the rear is my greatest foe.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves
me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned .....
An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money
power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the
prejudices of the people... until wealth is aggregated in a few
hands ... and the Republic is destroyed.
Theodore Roosevelt:
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible
government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no
responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible
government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt
business and corrupt politics is the first task of the
statesmanship of today.
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know,
that a financial element in the large centers has owned
the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, from his farewell address, 1961:
In the councils of government, we must guard against
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
John Kennedy took Eisenhower's warning to heart, apparently. During the last
year of his life, as he contemplated a second term and his own final
contribution to history, he resolved to reverse America's moral and civic
death-spiral, a.k.a. "the Cold War." His ideas included: ending the CIA's
freedom from oversight; abandoning the country's rabid anticommunist stance,
beginning with de-escalation in Vietnam; normalizing relations with Cuba and
Moscow; by doing these things, redirecting Washington's immense weapons
budget into sweeping domestic reforms (18). What's more, Kennedy's popular
mandate was strong enough by this time that he probably would have
succeeded.
From the viewpoint of the corporate capos that truly rule this country, one
aspect of the Cold War was all-important: it was a pork barrel straight out
of their wildest dreams of avarice. Watching Kennedy plant his feet and
reach for its plug, these 'absolute power' addicts would have been sorely
tempted to seek his removal by any means. As it just so happens, several of
them were also supreme civilian commanders of the 'National Security'
apparatus, meaning they had direct control of the most suspect means of
effecting that removal (19).
Since Kennedy's death, dire warnings about corporate power have been
conspicuously absent from the pronouncements of American presidents. Funny,
huh? By daring to stand on his conviction that it was he, not them, who held
the reins of American society, Kennedy quite possibly forced the financial
elite to make an example of him. Since that time, their supremacy has been
unchallenged by politicians.
It's as if democracy itself 'got whacked' by the Corleones and Gambinos!
Fortunately for them, Americans are kept too delusional to notice.
* * * * * * * * *
On the strength of the fear-driven and essentially mindless popular mandate
that followed the 9-11 attack, the Bushes and their kind are now concluding
a plan they began formulating long before 1963: transforming this country
into an abomination, a clinically exact violation of everything their core
public THINKS it believes in. The situation is a three-ring circus of
ironies: People like the Bushes, Ashcroft, etc., don't operate in a vacuum;
they don't suddenly and magically "seize power," any more than Hitler did.
The history of the Nazis holds many lessons of great value to present-day
Americans. Among the more important: political lunatics become dangerous
only when whole populations lose their marbles enough to deliver them into
real power. Truly, it's absurd to blame amoral monsters who insinuate
themselves into high places. OF COURSE they're going to do that; it's why
they were born. The sensible object of that disgust is 'The People' who
allow them to stay there; who idly watch as other groups suffer, too stupid
to realize that tomorrow the guns will turn on them; The People, who hand
these scumbags ALL of their power by becoming eager footsoldiers in the
global mafias they create. Helen Keller knew this:
"Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought!
Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of
murder!
Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human
beings!
Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction!"
So did Emma Goldman:
"How long would authority ... exist, if not for the willingness of the mass
to become soldiers, policemen, jailers, and hangmen."
No matter what label a government assigns itself -- democratic, communist,
etc. -- The People who live under that government, who are its real
repository of power, have an uncanny way of getting exactly what they
deserve. If a government has descended into utter moral dissolution, and its
people actually deserve better, they will summon the courage to do what's
right for themselves, as did the French, the Russians, the Cubans. If a
government is basically sound, but its people are grotesque petulant infants
gobbling at giant tits of material excess, then it won't be long before that
government sees its opportunity to build jail cells around them. Why not?
Frantic tit-suckers aren't likely to notice, and if they do, a jail cell
isn't so unlike a womb. If by some bizarre chance they should actually
protest, they can simply be told it's for their own safety. Infants are
easily duped with such talk, which they will regard as irrefutable when
backed up with lurid cartoons showing "The Enemy In Action!!"
This was the context in which Jefferson used terms like 'inalienable' and
'self-evident.' People determined to discover their own power will find a
way. So will those determined to live as slaves. The role of government is
secondary. If the American people didn't deserve this buffoon president and
his panel of corporate handlers... if this were other than a land of selfish
tit-feeders, spoiled insane... if "The Home of the Brave" didn't ring quite
so false... then the outrage of the 2000 "election" would have unleashed a
nationwide tsunami of riots, martial law would have been declared, and the
ruling class would have hastily dumped him before things REALLY heated up.
As it stands, Dubya's sickening success is owed primarily to a curious
"political awareness," shared by a decisive majority of Americans:
intuitively, they know they're on the sugar-dumpling end of the global
economy. If staying there means everyone else gets hurled at birth into a
fuming acid bath, well that's okay, too -- just don't ask them to notice.
Just as rampant corruption is symptomatic of fascist governments, this 'let
them eat cake' mindset is also typical of the national populations that
sustain those governments through their complicity and inaction. Corruption
isn't just a disease of governments, elites, etc. -- it's a creeping
contagion that infects whole societies, eventually reducing them to colonies
of moral bacteria. If the wealth of a society is large enough that this
degeneracy can progress long enough, its members become so drained of the
essentials of character that whatever 'Great Things' they've accomplished
become like marble temples built on a lake of pus.
America, for example, once had a heroic reputation among freedom-seekers
around the world. Starting many years ago, the keepers of that legacy grew
so arrogant, so artless, that their attempts to disguise their selfish
motives became transparent to the average ten-year-old, so now America finds
itself becoming an object of generalized hatred. And deservedly: when an
elite cult of villains and cowards waylays all the governments of the world
by holding a nuclear gun to their heads, they SHOULD be hated, and that's
exactly what this government did while its subjects snoozed at the Big Boob
these past five decades. The aggrieved parties will of course be deemed
"just jealous" by the press, whose pronouncements are both source and
product of the tit-feeder mentality.
With Buffoon & Co., the pretenses are now so tissue-thin that even Americans
should have no trouble seeing through them. The one thing stopping them is
all-determining: they don't want to. This sort of delusion even extends to
self-described "liberals," who love to vomit the platitude that "America's
PEOPLE can't be held responsible for the excesses of their GOVERNMENT."
I wish one of these nutless wonders would explain to me exactly how this
works; from where I sit, ultimate responsibility for the criminal conduct of
this government belongs to THEM. After all, thirty years ago most of them
were intensely aware of this government's capacity for evil. Since then,
they've been seduced by accumulations of property, privilege, and mental
lethargy, thereby settling into America's most selfish middle class
generation EVER. Watching them recite fatuous denials to themselves, I'm
reminded of the French Court under Louis XVI. Their stock concept of
'political involvement' -- filling in a ballot once a year -- hardly seems
likely to fix a goddamn thing, since the forces of wealth clearly have both
major parties in their pocket. By all indications, they don't even care; the
interests of wealth have become their own. If Bush's 2000 installation left
any doubt about collusion between the two parties, Schwarzenegger's triumph
in California just removed it. The California Democratic Party simply HAD TO
KNOW that Gray Davis was history, so why did they fail to put all their
marbles behind ONE potent alternative candidate? They can't strategize on
their own behalf worth a damn, but they sure do a bang-up job for the
repugs. Is it insane to wonder if they both get their marching orders from
the same place?
Voting should certainly be part of a larger strategy -- it may not mean as
much as we're told, but at least it's something. Real change, however, would
seem to require much more from us: open dissent and resistance, civil
disobedience, total rejection of bourgeois sensibilities, including
careerism, as this is the path taken by most on their journey into apathy
and selfishness. It's no wonder, then, that causing each of us to nurture
dreams of professional glory has long been this country's most lavish
"philanthropic" project. Our unprecedented university system -- is it really
about giving us all a leg up, or is it a clever and utterly cynical social
engineering program? As they hand out huge endowments, what do the bloodless
billionaires really mean with all their malarkey about "investing in the
future." The working class is the true home of the political left.
Demographically and politically, it once dominated this country, and
thoughtful people didn't always have reason to flee from it. Now it's a
defeated mass of Bush-boosting, TV-mesmerized morons. When class assignment
at birth is an immutable life sentence, intelligent members of an exploited
class tend to become revolutionaries. By its very nature, the "classless"
careerist ethic solves this problem by identifying the gifted among them as
young as possible and reassigning them to a separate social order, where
they're supplied with selfish reasons for staying quiet. Added together,
their class defections and betrayals make up the aforementioned
billionaires' "return on investment." Divide and conquer, divide and
conquer...
In so many ways, the true genius of American politics has been in making
sure the average slob has far too much to lose by rejecting bourgeois
temptations. The tragedy of this design is that it makes us all full
partners in the prevailing order of plunder and corruption. During the Great
Depression, poverty was so rampant here that this formula began to unravel,
prompting our keepers to feign benevolence with an improvised Head
Amputation Prevention System, otherwise known as "the New Deal." Given the
power of the information technology now at their disposal, they seem to be
preparing to let it unravel again, this time to be replaced with an
all-seeing electronic security state. This is probably the real reason
behind the USAPATRIOT Act, rampant domestic spying, mounting repressive
tactics and nationalist propaganda, vast enlargements of prison
infrastructure, and so on. Kudos to all the technological utopians out
there; far be it from them to realize that those in power always pervert
emerging technology into a means of grabbing even more power.
The American political scene is now becoming so ominous that many Americans
are finally waking up, achieving real political awareness for the first time
in their lives. As they discover reality, they are finding themselves in a
horrifying predicament: this country is but a few steps away from becoming
an overt dictatorship, and the Neo-cons seem determined to go the distance.
All they need to do at this point is arrange another "Pearl Harbor."
Anything short of massive, uncompromising civil disobedience seems unlikely
to stop them, and the vast majority of Americans are unlikely to engage in
any such thing. Incapable of even noticing how bountiful their lives are,
what could possibly induce them to reflect on the malevolent work by which
that bounty has been concentrated, or to acknowledge the rights of people
and other beings, living and dead, from whom it has been stolen? The
hopelessness of the situation is deepened by the relentless and all but
inescapable onslaught of commercial media, whose role of promoting this
exact selfishness and civic apathy is now performed with incredible
audacity. Most of these "Good Americans" just trudge along mindlessly in the
rut indicated by their message, willfully oblivious to its subtexts.
America's malaise isn't entirely a product of conscious effort, but on the
other hand, none of it is accidental. How is this possible? The main thing
people use "logic" for is to conceal even from themselves the mediocre
nature of their true motives. America's corruption, like that of all
nations, is an organic phenomenon, i. e. it is neither orchestrated nor
needs to be. It has been advanced not by the lurking efforts of secret
circles so much as by the main thrust of American culture. Those
frontiersmen in Ohio, for example, scarcely needed the inducements
Washington offered them; they were eager to exterminate the Indians and
steal their land. And so it goes. By such means, the corruption of our
entire civic culture has been advanced by all of us, through habits of
thought that lie beneath the level of consciousness -- for example, in the
sane and humane alternatives we consistently choose to NOT consider. Again,
media's leadership in this area has been inestimable.
My gratitude to those who have protested and been civilly disobedient over
the years is beyond measure -- they are the true bearers of Liberty's
flame -- but I am doubly contemptuous of those among them, seduced by
privilege, who have ended up swinging to the other side. They are the very
soul of corruption, and traitors even to their own dreams.
Here's the richest irony of all: Bush's most avid supporters are a
puritanical bunch. They attend church. They pray on streetcorners. They
bludgeon the unwitting with their sanctimonious talk of God, Family, and the
American Way. So convinced are they of their moral superiority, they have no
qualms about marching toward even greater material gluttony over a pavement
of charred corpses. In fact, they seem to see this as a divine quest. You
don't need a doctorate in Theology to know that if Hell is real, its inmost
pit has got to be reserved for hypocrites such as these.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes:
1) Even now, the "independent commission" is shot through with incredible
conflicts of interest, exemplified by the present chairman's financial ties
to members of the Bin Laden Family. Such a panel can hardly be expected to
deviate from the gutless pattern of past "investigative commissions": the
Warren Commission, the Rockefeller Commission, the Iran-Contra hearings,
etc.
Chossudovsky, Michel. Who's Who on the 9/11 "Independent" Commission.
see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO307B.html
2) Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the
Americas, 1492 to the Present. (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997) pp.
209 - 214
3) Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States, 1492 - Present.
(New York: Harper Collins, 1999) pp. 149-169
4) ibid, pp. 297-320
5) ibid, pp. 359-376
6) Stinnett, Robert. Day of Deceit: the Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor.
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000) See ALL
7) many historical documents support this analysis, including:
United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Summary Report (Pacific War)
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1946) p.26:
"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks,
air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring
about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion... Based on
a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of
the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that
certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1
November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not
been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no
invasion had been planned or contemplated."
8) Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since
World War II. (Monroe, Maine, USA: Common Courage Press, 1995) pp. 21-23,
39-43, 50, 51, 122-127
9) ibid, pp. 129-145
10) Heller, Jean. Public Doesn't Get Picture With Gulf Satellite Photos. St.
Petersburg Times, 1/6/1991
11) MacArthur, John R. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf
War. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1992) pp. 37-77.
12) Bamford, James. Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National
Security Agency from the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century. (New
York: Doubleday, 2001) pp. 82-91
13) Blum. Killing Hope. pp. 106-108
14) A scanned copy of this memo can be seen in
http://www.internetpirate.com/bush.htm -- scroll down
15) Webb, Gary. Dark Alliance. San Jose mercury News, 9/18/1996
available online at:
http://home.attbi.com/~gary.webb/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
16) de Grand Pre, Donn; Col. US Army (Ret.). The Enemy is inside the Gates
available online at
http://scribblguy.50megs.com/evidence.htm#THE%20ENEMY%20IS%20INSIDE%20THE%20GATES
17) multiple sources:
Kennedy, Dominic. Suicide Hijackers Hid Behind Stolen Arab Identities.
London Times, 9/20/01
MacFarquhar, Neil. A Nation Challenged: The Hijackers; Confusion Over Names
Clouds Identities of Attackers on Jets. New York Times, 9/21/01
available online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/21/international/middleeast/21IDEN.html
Jeffery, Simon. Special Report: Terrorism in the US. The Guardian, 9/21/01
available online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601550,00.html
Harrison, David. Revealed: the men with stolen identities. The Daily
Telegraph, 9/23/01
available online at
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
Author unknown. Hijack 'Suspects' Alive and Well. British Broadcasting
Corporation, 9/23/01
available online at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm
18) Hepburn, James. Farewell America. (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Frontiers
Publishing, 1968) see ALL.
Available online at http://www.voxfux.com/Kennedy/farewell/farewell00.html
19) The most suspect parties here are Nelson Rockefeller and his demonic
lackeys, the Dulles brothers. The threads implicating Rockefeller in
Kennedy's death are explored rigorously in:
Colby, Gerard and Charlotte Dennett. Thy Will Be Done -- The Conquest of the
Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. (New York, USA:
HarperCollins, 1995)
Approaching this matter from different directions and supporting their
arguments with extraordinary historical documentation, the authors of
'Farewell America' and 'Thy Will Be Done' arrive independently at strikingly
similar conclusions.
Dick Eastman
be monitored and manipulated by applied social psychology
I am too warn out right no to read Leonard's letter(below) -- a supeficial
glance tells me it is civil and that I was indeed unfair -- the last line:
asking what does it matter about the exact size of the killer jet is
certainly a good question -- my answer is only that that a fighter-jet is
the best explanation that the filter of the facts leaves me with -- but
maybe I have overlooked something that Leonard points out in the body of his
letter -- I will check --
but when his letter arrived I was writing a despair letter to myself --
might as well share it -- in case you were wondering what it really feels
like to be a crackpot ... (as I said: despair)
--------
did the internet prevent the oligarchy's two choices for the bi-partisan
election charade?
has the internet generated discussussion and selection of who would make a
good libertarinan, green, populist, reform, anti-oligarchy, honest money,
Jeffersonian, pro-peace candidate? is their any discussion of who now to
prun against Bukerrysh?
for all the efforts of the 9-11 investigators to present the clear
unmistakable conclusive evidence that 9-11 was a frameup is anyone else,
other than these few rational informed good minds, reacted rationally to
this information -- are they, exhibiting any sign that the have accepted the
facts and are willing to discuss them?
is there anyone anywhere seeing in their town any indication (signs, bumper
stickers, letters to the editor, reports of demonstrations) that the threat
of terrorism is phony, that al Qa'eda is not real?
how can it be that everyone is for kerry -- that people like me are loons
and whackos for suggesting that people keep looking for another candidate?
on the fact that 9-11 was a frameup and the wars foisted on us by fraud, on
the total innocence of the Moslms, on the theft of political power by
organized-crime/plutocracy/Zionism who has said a word?
I post to many lists -- and have quit in discouragement many many times
getting maybe one letter of a newly convinced mind maybe once every two
months.
Who is in real political mode? who is doing more than taking in mail and
passing on mail that they think somehow is relevant to improving things and
that is as far as they ever go
Did you know that big names -- who get all my stuff, have never gone through
the Pentagon evidence to know what it is about?
Did you know that in all these recent months of sending out my best
compilation of Pentagon evidence, organized into five separate proofs, where
you read the first which contains links to the other four, THAT THE LINK TO
PROOF NUMBER THREE WAS DEAD AND NO ONE BOTHERED TO TELL ME -- WHICH MEANS
THAT OF EVERYONE WHO RECEIVED THAT SMOKING GUN PROOF -- WHICH REALLY DOES
WHAT THE PHONY COMMISSION WAS SUPPOSEDLY OFFICIALLY INTENDED TO DO BUT
CLEARLY WAS NOT -- WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WAS NO ONE WHO GOT THE EVIDENCE,
TRIED TO READ IT AND THEN, WHEN THEY SAW THAT A CRITICAL PORTION WAS
MISSING, BOTHERED TO TELL THE AUTHOR SO HE COULD FIX IT????
I HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED ABOUT THE PENTAGON EVIDENCE ON EXACTLY TWO RADIO
PROGRAMS (INTERNET AND SHORT WAVE -- NOT THE AM/FM AIRWAVES), IN EACH CASE
AS A STAND-IN FOR JOHN KAMINSKY -- AND IN NEITHER CASE IS AN ARCHIVED COPY
OF THE INTERVIEW AVAILABLE -- I WAS ALSO TWICE ON TOM VALENTINE'S POPULIST
RADIO FREE AMERICA TO SPEAK ABOUT REMOTE CONTROL PLANES AND THE WTC, BUT NOT
SINCE THE REAL SMOKING GUN (THE PENTAGON PHOTO EVIDENCE) HAD BEEN FOUND,
ORGANIZED LOGICALLY ESTABLISHING PROOF AND PRESENTED)
THE PENTAGON EVIDENCE CASE IS DENIED BY MIKE RIVERO, JOE VIALLS, JOHN
JUDGE, CAROL BROUILLET, AND MIKE RUPPERT. NONE WILL DEFEND THEIR BLANKET
REJECTIONS, ALTHOUGH I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT NOT ONE OF THESE HAS A FIRM
BASIS FOR AN OBJECTION, MUCH LESS A REFUTATION OF WHAT THE PHOTO EVIDENCE
IMMEDIATELY SHOWS BY DIRECT INSPECTION.
And Jeff Rense refuses to post the small-plane evidence -- the single most
important obstacle in my opinion to the breakthrough of the truth into
general public awareness that should have taken place 15 months ago --
posting instead exposed disinformation of Sarah Roberts, Ron Harvey and a
host of others -- each of these disinfo efforts exposded and torn to
ribbons.
I conclude that most of our "friends" with any capital (big websites, radio
shows, printing presses) are bought off, manipulated off, or outright
"false-opposition" disinformation -- such as webfairy's patentent absurdity
the "hologram airliners"
If only someone would write to me and say -- Mr. Eastman, I've read your
compilation of evidence and have these questions .." or "I see your
argument, but how do you account for this and this?" etc.
But silence.
I might as well be talking to a wall. Or better -- I might as well be
playing Gamecube or Playstation 2 or Xbox -- because what difference does
it make?
What difference does the internet make, other than pulling you away from
your own real physical and social habitat where the truth still holds -- all
politics is local
so much easier to have sex on the internet than to find a real woman and get
it on, right?
so much easier to play games on the internet than goin a team and play a
sport with real human beings, right?
so much easier to get the straight ideas -- passed around by idea-shuffling
zombies -- than to engage in real politics of "this is the problem, these
are the facts, what will we do, who will we recruit, how will we get the
message out -- let's do it are you with me"
And idiot DIck Eastman, quits and comes back, quits and comes back --
reason tells him its futile, the heart won't let me give it up -- but it is
fly paper -- it is an illusion that things are possible -- when the only
ones really doing things with what we say on the internet are well-paid
analysists working for the oligarchy who run statistical and behavioral
analyses on our words and perfect their counter-propaganda.
DIck Eastman the whacko -- spamming you all -- versus all together
Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter for a photo op?
WHo the hell is Eastman, right?
The 9-11 commission -- thats what you all want to talk about? -- to hear
ALbright say that "we did everything we could think of to prevent.." etc.
etc. -- AND I SEE PERFECTLY THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION IS TO
DIVERT YOU FROM THE FACTS THAT PROOVE THE ADMINISTRATION DID 9-11 TO THE
TOTALLY MISCONSTRUED NON-PROBLEM (GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE TRUTH) OF SOMEONE
BEING FLAGGING IN VILLAGENCE SO THAT THOSE HATEFUL ARABS MANAGED TO SNEAK ON
IN WITH THEIR BOXCUTTERS!!!
AND YOU POST YOUR VIEWS OF THIS COMMISSION AS IF THEY MEAN ANYTHING --
BECAUSE IT HAS THE TRAPPINGS OF POWER, OF BEING OFFICIAL, OF AUTHORITY, OF
HIGH STATUS.
It is autistic -- playing a game -- an nervous habit -- and you think
you are "connected!" Ha! What a laugh!
-- idot machines -- together a cacophany of white noise where nothing is
understood, nothing validated, nothing decided.
And so, you who have continued reading this far and know that what I am
saying is all too true -- what is there left to fight with? Should I rent
a room somewhere and put up signs on telephone poles inviting people to see
my evidence -- line up folks as you pass the computer monitor, don't examine
it too long, there are people in line behind you waiting for a look?
It takes capital to fight capitalism -- and capitalism is only willing to
pay people to infiltrate anti-capitalism to subvert and sabotage it -- and
there are plenty of those -- they are the popular ones -- they are the
ones with decent platforms and connections for news conferences (John Judge
and Carol Brouillet especially come to mind -- what did that People's
Investigation of 9-11 ever do but slim me and then, its mission
accomplished, fold up and go away -- it was the same kind of fraud as the
9-11 COmmission in Washington -- the honest names that were attracted were
sidelined -- their names appropriated to sponsor false conclusions and
trivial conclusions notable only because they represent completeness and
closure but in fact deliberately exclude the truth, the proof that 9-11
was a frame-up. They exclude, specifically this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
More than enough said by me already, I am sure.
===============
From: "Peter Meyer" <p...@serendipity.li>
To: "Dick Eastman" <de1...@nwinfo.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:03 AM
Subject: Leonard Spencer's reply to Dick Eastman
In response to the publication on Serendipity of
Leonard Spencer's article "The Attack on the Pentagon"
at http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm
our esteemed colleague Dick Eastman sent to this list a message
on March 23rd entitled "DE on Leonard Spencer's latest effort
to refute the small-plane thesis". I forwarded this to Leonard,
and he sent me the following message in response. I now forward it,
with Leonard's permission, to this list.
---------------
Dear Peter
Thank you for forwarding to me Dick Eastman's recent response to my Pentagon
article. He is certainly correct to point out that most of it is a rehash of
other people's work and that I have been less than conscientious in
referencing my sources. I'm not even sure that I come up with any 'good new
facts' as he seems to suggest.
I didn't set out to do a hatchet job on the small plane theory, only to
collect together what I felt was the best evidence lying around and see
where it led me. At some point however I was bound to get to the vexed issue
of what it was that actually hit the Pentagon and, to my mind, the evidence
simply didn't point to a small plane. I didn't consider it my job to present
the small plane theory in the best or most coherent way; I'm happy to leave
that to those whose reading of the evidence leads them to favour this
interpretation.
I find his contention that 'the small-plane thesis takes the witnesses more
seriously than the official story or any of the wannabe theories' puzzling.
While accepting that the small plane thesis allows additionally for the
presence of a Boeing jet (and I certainly make no attempt to 'conceal' this)
I just cannot find a single eyewitness report that supports this idea. The
great majority of witnesses report seeing a large or medium sized passenger
jet; just three report seeing a small plane. Not a single eyewitness speaks
of seeing both, though there is one hearsay account to that effect. I find
his remark that 'it is the witnesses who place the Boeing coming over the
Sheraton Hotel, over the Naval Annex and over the CItgo gas station, that
establishes that the Boeing they saw was not the plane that knocked down the
southmost damaged lamppost on Washington Bvld', equally puzzling. According
to my map the route thus described is entirely consistent with the damage to
this lamp post.
On the matter of those lamp posts, I'm probably not as aware of the history
of this discussion as Eastman seems to think. Has the lamp post evidence
been discredited? I didn't know that. His argument about air turbulence
bringing the posts down, rather than the wings of a larger plane, is
interesting and I hadn't thought of it before. I'm sure he's right that the
posts are designed to minimise injuries to motorists who crash into them.
On the other hand they're probably not so flimsy that they collapse in
gale-force winds otherwise they'd be injuring pedestrians instead. A problem
with the air turbulence idea is that one of the lamp posts en route remained
standing, for some reason unaffected by the turbulence that Eastman believes
brought down its neighbours. This is easier to explain if the posts were in
fact brought down by a plane's wings and the plane rolled slightly at this
point, so missing this particular post.
Eastman then changes his mind on the lamp posts and contends that 'downed
poles 3, 4, and/or 5 may have been brought down by the Boeing 757 as it
proceeded to overfly the crash location on its way to Reagan National
Airport'. I find this astonishing. Is he really suggesting that a Boeing
757, flying at over 450 mph and only a few feet above the ground, was
capable of ascending so rapidly at this point that it could avoid hitting
the Pentagon, by now only a couple of hundred metres in front of it? And
what about those eyewitnesses, whose accounts he claims to hold in such high
regard? Where are the accounts that tell of the plane suddenly flying up and
over the Pentagon, rather than into it? I certainly haven't seen them. You'd
think someone would have noticed.
In response to my point that a fighter jet is no more capable than a
passenger jet of flying through a doorway without damaging the door frames,
or of crashing into the Pentagon without leaving any wreckage, Eastman
finally gets round to citing the evidence that he believes actually supports
the small plane hypothesis. He says:
'The small-plane finding is based on the security camera video, the
witnesses who heard a jet fighter, the witness who heard a sonic boom, the
performance of the radar blip, the need of a platform from which to fire the
missiles...'
Let's take them one by one. The security camera footage actually shows only
a tail-fin, which could be that of a small plane but could equally belong to
a missile. The witnesses who heard a jet fighter did not actually see one,
they only heard an engine. The sonic boom indicated only the plane's speed,
not its size. The radar blip indicated its speed and manoeuvrability, again
not its size. And missiles can be fired from planes of any size and can also
fly independently. None of this therefore constitutes solid proof of a small
plane, though admittedly the radar blip is suggestive of one. He then adds:
'the flash-powder proximity warhead that left powder burns on the outside of
the building, the warhead that brought down the first floor outer wall over
thirty feet on either side of column 14 -- and the penetrating warhead that
entered on the second floor to the right of the killer jet entry point.'
These unsubstantiated assertions about warheads do not constitute proof of a
small plane. It's not that I necessarily disagree, it's just that evidence
of missiles does not constitute evidence of a small plane. And he never does
get round to explaining how a fighter jet could fly through that doorway
without damaging the doorframes or leaving its wreckage on the lawn. He
merely asserts that 'the F-16 entered the first floor unobstructed'. Really?
How did it manage that then?
When he says 'For Leonard Spencer to say that no one saw F-16 debris INSIDE
THE BUILDING' Eastman is actually on the verge of making a good point. He's
right; I indeed don't know what wreckage was really found in the Pentagon.
But when he concludes from this that it 'reveals a lot about Leonard Spencer
and his very obviously dishonest grasping for straws to make a counter
argument where no counter argument is possible', I can't help wondering who
is really grasping for straws here. The point is that if an F-16 deposited
its wreckage in the Pentagon then it had to get into the Pentagon in the
first place. There is no entry hole of sufficient size to support this.
When Eastman concludes that I wrote my article to garner 'all of the
prestige for research' and 'to discredit the hard evidence', I can only
suggest he's getting slightly carried away. I certainly deserve no prestige
for what is, as I have already conceded, a largely derivative piece of work
(and yes, I should have been more careful in citing my sources). Whether or
not I discredit the hard evidence I leave to others to judge, though I'm not
quite sure what hard evidence Eastman has in mind. He says also that my
alternative theory 'has no basis whatsoever'. In a sense that's true. The
theory is only conjecture, because there is no photograph or video footage
of the plane to corroborate it, but this of course applies to all the
hypotheses out there, including Mr Eastman's. I must confess that I too find
my theory unsatisfactory and only half-plausible and say as much in the
article. I nonetheless feel, perhaps wrongly, that it goes some way towards
reconciling all the available evidence in a way that some other theories,
including Mr Eastman's, do not.
He believes my article is a 'SOPHISTICATED DISINFORMATION-OP' and that my
motive is to discredit other 9-11 investigators. It's not. It's just yet
another attempt to make some sense out of what is pretty skimpy and
confusing evidence. I can't help wondering whether what really irks Eastman
is that I've strayed onto his patch and should have stuck with the New York
planes where I belong. If this is the case I can only suggest that he calms
down a bit and allows others to have their say. We are, after all, on the
same side in all this. We both know that 9-11 was an inside job and that the
future of humanity is at risk if people don't wake up to the fact. Does it
really matter how big the damned plane was?
Regards
Leonard Spencer
"Dick Eastman" <de1...@nwinfo.net> wrote in message news:...
Dick Eastman
In response to the publication on Serendipity of
Leonard Spencer's article "The Attack on the Pentagon"
at http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm
Leonard Spencer:
I didn't set out to do a hatchet job on the small plane theory, only to
collect together what I felt was the best evidence lying around and see
where it led me. At some point however I was bound to get to the vexed
issue of what it was that actually hit the Pentagon and, to my mind, the
evidence simply didn't point to a small plane. I didn't consider it my job
to present the small plane theory in the best or most coherent way; I'm
happy to leave that to those whose reading of the evidence leads them to
favour this interpretation.
Dick Eastman:
A crime has been committed with tens of thousands of lives and the freedoms
of more than one nation at stake. If a small plane fired one or more
missiles into the Pentagon ahead of its own crash penetration as the Boeing
overflew the crash and landed at the airport one mile beyond -- then the
implications change the entire world.
The investigators who have concluded the preceding from the evidence have
painstakingly set out the proofs for people to examine and confirm so that
public opinion can build for stopping the criminals who are still active and
dangerous from doing more damage to the human race. The proofs are multiple
and each is sufficient to discredit the Boeing thesis. Now, Leonard, when
someone puts up a website representing itself as a theory or solution to the
case and presents evidence in support of its view as you have done, and
when in making this presentation you present your findings as definitive
conclusions as you did, then you have, in so doing, conveyed to the reader
that you have taken into account all of the arguments of the reigning
explanation -- you represented the small-plane theory as being based on
certain facts when it was not based on those facts and furthermore you
omitted the proofs that did exist. You did have an obligation not to
misrepresent the position you were attacking. You failed in that
obligation. You also had an obligation to be rather complete when listing
the reasons, i.e., the lines of proof based on evidence, supporting the view
that you claimed to have refuted. This also you did not do.
Leonard Spencer:
I find his contention that 'the small-plane thesis takes the witnesses more
seriously than the official story or any of the wannabe theories' puzzling.
Dick Eastman:
No puzzle. A witness heard a missile. A witness heard a sonic boom. A
witness saw a radar blip behaving like a jet. Witnesses saw the Boeing on
an approach to the Pentagon that was too far North to have hit the
southwest-most lamppost that was downed, ie.e, seeing it come over the
Sharaton, the Annex and the Citgo gas station. Sgt. Lagasse, pumping gas
saw the Boeing pass overand to the north so that he could see the windows of
the starboard side. Riskus claimed that the Boeing passed close to him (he
said 100 feet) and that it appeared to go straight in. Every one of these
statements is compatible with the small plane thesis and incompatible with
the official version. There are other examples as well.
Leonard Spencer:
While accepting that the small plane thesis allows additionally for the
presence of a Boeing jet (and I certainly make no attempt to 'conceal' this)
Dick Eastman:
Omission is concealment, Leonard. And you clearly attempted to discredit
the small-plane thesis by saying "witnesses saw a Boeing", did you not? You
left the trusting reader with the impression that the view that you were
refuting held that there was no Boeing present.
Leonard Spencer:
I just cannot find a single eyewitness report that supports this idea.
Dick Eastman:
What idea? The idea that the plane they saw was a Boeing? Or the idea
that a small camoflaged jet fighter, flying low to the ground (20 feet of
the ground) at nearly 700 mph, could be missed when all eyes are rivited on
the big shiny Boeing 757 at 80 feet, out of the flight path, coming over
buildings towards the Pentagon when everyone's mind is full of the two
airliners that have struck the World Trade Center? Killer jet was on-stage
for less than four seconds. Most of the grandstand seats were occupied by
the dead of Arlington National Cemetery, the rest of the people were driving
their cars. And 30 seconds after the crash and overfly a C-130 passed
through the smoke over the crash. It is no surprise that no one saw the
attacker. No witness would have been able to take it in. And we also
have the witnesses who did see a flash close to the ground which they
interpreted as the Boeing hitting the lawn and bouncing -- their minds not
being able to take in what they actually saw.
Leonard Spencer:
The great majority of witnesses report seeing a large or medium sized
passenger jet; just three report seeing a small plane.
Dick Eastman:
This is what one would expect given the way it happened. Hijacked
crashbombing airliners are in their minds, and an airliner is what they see
coming at the Pentagon. Remember, these are people suddenly taken out of
their context and shown something very vast. The blurr of the killer jet
would easily be ignored as a shadow -- if you see someone jumping off a
building, while the person is dropping you are not going to notice even
someone naked walk up and stand beside you. Undetection is the whole point
of low-to-the-ground contour-hugging fighter-missile attacks.
Leonard Spencer:
Not a single eyewitness speaks of seeing both, though there is one hearsay
account to that effect.
Dick Eastman:
Yes, and Gerard Holmgren has found that a great many witness accounts of the
event, are, upon examination, the reporter putting into his/her own
over-assuming words the context in which the remarks are made. Most direct
quotes say "the plane", but many reporters go beyond their collected data
and refer to the airliner. BUT this is not an argument I make -- just a
comment to your remark. ALL THAT IS RELEVANT ABOUT THE WITNESSES SEEING THE
BOING IS WHERE THEY LOCATE IT -- THE PATH OF APPROACH TO THE CRASH
COORDINATES.
Leonard Spencer:
I find his remark that 'it is the witnesses who place the Boeing coming
over the Sheraton Hotel, over the Naval Annex and over the CItgo gas
station, that establishes that the Boeing they saw was not the plane that
knocked down the southmost damaged lamppost on Washington Bvld', equally
puzzling. According to my map the route thus described is entirely
consistent with the damage to this lamp post.
Dick Eastman:
Then why, since you were putting up a website on the subject, didn't you ask
someone who has analyzed the photos -- at least to find out what photo and
map evidence were used to derive the conclusion.
I show photos from the gas station where Lagasse was pumping gas. We see
straight ahead the smoke pouring from the Pentagon. We see to the right
(south) the Washington Blvd. overpass where the famous black taxi was hit by
the falling first pole. And that pole had been standing at the southwest
corner of that overpass. Well to the right of the path of the Boeing (i.e.,
to the south of the path) as it went over the gas station on its way to
overfly the wall that was hit. What's more is the fact that Sgt. Lagasse
clearly states that as he was pumping gas and the Boeing went by him nearly
overhead -- and the off-wing blew him into his car he told the network
reporter -- he actually saw the starboard side of the plane above him --
seeing the windows of the right side -- which means that the plane was north
of him -- and, as the photos of these locations clearly demonstrate -- the
Boeing could not have hit that pole -- the pole had to have been brought
down by something other than the Boeing. There is no reason to puzzle over
that, once you have taken the responsiblity to check out the evidence
supporting the thesis you are claiming to have refuted.
Leonard Spencer:
On the matter of those lamp posts, I'm probably not as aware of the history
of this discussion as Eastman seems to think. Has the lamp post evidence
been discredited?
Dick Eastman:
The lampposts were knocked down. Originally, Ron Harvey appeared on the
discussion scene showing the lampposts, how this Englishman in London got
the data on the lampposts ahead of every American is a mystery to me -- but
also claiming that people saw the Boeing knocking down the lampposts. The
lamppost data forced everyone to revise their notions of the angle at which
the killer jet attacked. But Harvey was caught telling people that Riskus
saw the lampposts being knocked down -- in fact I at one point conceded the
point and admitted I must be wrong -- UNTIL IT OCCURED TO ME TO CHECK WITH
RISKUS HIMSELF, RATHER THAN TAKE RON HARVERY'S WORD FOR IT. Riskus did not
see the poles being hit by the Boeing or by anything else. And the Taxi
driver, Michael England, also did not see a plane hitting the first pole,
the pole which penetrated his windshield and which he carreid along a bit as
he was headed south on Washington Blvd. (Only after bringing his car to a
stop did he look out his window and see, to his left (east) the Boeing
headed for the Pentagon -- and he did not see it crash, and he did state, to
Mark Bilk, that from where he saw it and when he saw it, the Boeing could
indeed have lifted to clear the roof of the building -- along a path where
it might have hit the 4th and 5th poles that were knocked down.
Leonard Spencer:
I didn't know that. His argument about air turbulence bringing the posts
down, rather than the wings of a larger plane, is interesting and I hadn't
thought of it before. I'm sure he's right that the
posts are designed to minimise injuries to motorists who crash into them.
On the other hand they're probably not so flimsy that they collapse in
gale-force winds otherwise they'd be injuring pedestrians instead. A problem
with the air turbulence idea is that one of the lamp posts en route remained
standing, for some reason unaffected by the turbulence that Eastman believes
brought down its neighbours. This is easier to explain if the posts were in
fact brought down by a plane's wings and the plane rolled slightly at this
point, so missing this particular post.
Dick Eastman:
The turbulence coming off the wing can actually be a tiny cyclone moving
faster than the jet itself -- no pole is contructed to withstand that kind
of speed if it should strike. But another thing about the cyclone is that
its movement is not linear, not predictable. And it slows down rapidly --
unlike cyclones sustained by continuous energy feeding by a complexity of
wind, hot and cold air , the coriolis effect and so forth -- although you
are aware of the stories of houses in mid-west tornadoes being spared while
all the houses surrounding it are destroyed. The movement is erratic.
I grant you that it is "easier to explain" the lampposts being downed by
saying the plane hit them. But is it a better explanation -- wouldn't
those posts have flown a heck of a lot further than they did and shown a lot
more damage to their shafts?
But you are not trying to explain the down posts, you are making the claim
that only a plane the size of the Boeing could explain these downed
oles -- when that is not the case. You needed to show that the poles had
to have been brought down by the Boeing -- that the killer jet could not
have brought down pole number one (the southwest most pole) and other poles
which you have not done.
Turbulence could have knocked down poles. And the Boeing could have knocked
down one, two or three of the northern downed poles while the figher jet,
one way or another, brought down one or more poles south.
Leonard Spencer:
Eastman then changes his mind on the lamp posts and contends that 'downed
poles 3, 4, and/or 5 may have been brought down by the Boeing 757 as it
proceeded to overfly the crash location on its way to Reagan National
Airport'. I find this astonishing. Is he really suggesting that a Boeing
757, flying at over 450 mph and only a few feet above the ground, was
capable of ascending so rapidly at this point that it could avoid hitting
the Pentagon, by now only a couple of hundred metres in front of it? And
what about those eyewitnesses, whose accounts he claims to hold in such high
regard? Where are the accounts that tell of the plane suddenly flying up and
over the Pentagon, rather than into it? I certainly haven't seen them. You'd
think someone would have noticed.
Dick Eastman:
"You'd think" doesn't cut it here.
I have presented evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a jet fighter and one
or more missiles. The security camera shows the fin of the killer jet, the
trailing smoke of the missile being fired in right relation to the tail fin.
The plane is shown in two ways (comparison with the 71' height of the
Pentagon and the too-long-to-fit-the-picture proportion between the size
of a Boeing 757 tail fin and the length of its fuselage) -- the plane that
is shown is too short to be a Boeing 757 and it is firing a missile (as
further atested by the 120 ft. high bright white hot flash explosion that
lights up the surroundings, that leaves powder burns on the side of the
building, that is consistent with a warhead explosion -- (and did I
mention the witness who smelled burned chordite?) -- and we have
additionally, the many proofs derived from the photos of the Pentagon wall
after the attack and before its collapse 19 minutes later. These photos
show that the plane entered the first floor, that its tail fin took out the
pillar between two windows on the second floor (pillar #14) -- that where a
Boeing starboard engine would have had to have penetrated (between columns
#16 and 18) there is interor structure, interior wall, still standing
proving that no starboard wing engine of an airliner entered there. Yet
there is room for an F-16 or comparable aircraft to have made that
amage -- provided we allow for a missile that seems to have entered the
second floor to the right of pillar 18 as well.
The Boeing was never down to ground level. Washington Blvd. where the poles
are is elevated above the Pentagon, which sits in the floodplane of the
Potomac, at the base of the Arlington Cemetery hill where the hotel, and
Naval Annex stand. The Boeing flew 80 feet over the Annex which is itself
a five story building on a hill above the Pentagon. Had the Boeing been
that low people would have remarked on it -- and they would not have been
reporting a dive and a "bounce." The Boeing overflew eighty or more feet
abvove the ground -- the wall being 71 feet hight -- was covered by the
flash of the missile warhead explosion (doubtless there for that purpose)
You are the only one to find the overflight and landing at Reagan National
astonishing -- most people when they learn the proximity and location of
the airport seem to dispel all remaining doubt as to what happened to the
Boeing. Furthermore, the first telephoned in reports were of an airliner
crashing on the 14th street bridge, the bridge that is beyond the crash and
just north of the airport -- others reported a crash at the southmost end
of the runway of Reagan.
Leonard Spencer:
In response to my point that a fighter jet is no more capable than a
passenger jet of flying through a doorway without damaging the door frames,
or of crashing into the Pentagon without leaving any wreckage, Eastman
finally gets round to citing the evidence that he believes actually supports
the small plane hypothesis.
Dick Eastman:
But the "doorframes" were damaged within the compass of where an F-16 or
comparable jet fighter went through -
the hole at pillar 14 (where the nose hit) on the first-floor level does
accomodate the entire F-16 jet -- and the jet did not hit anything because
the missile blasted away the outside wall at that point, leaving the tail
fin to collide with the pillar between windows on the second floor --
disintegrating in the process -- certainly not being recongnizabel
afterwards -- which is a far different problem than an entire Boeing 757
which would have had to have had the engines go through the first floor and
the fuselage throught the second and the tail fin through the third, which
pillar wasn't even scratched, nor windows broken on the third floor. (And
don't forget the engine that broke out in the C-ring.
Leonard Spencer:
He says:
'The small-plane finding is based on the security camera video, the
witnesses who heard a jet fighter, the witness who heard a sonic boom, the
performance of the radar blip, the need of a platform from which to fire the
missiles...'
Dick Eastman:
Hell, no. This is not all -- I merely am giving you some examples to show
that the small-plane finding is based on other lines of evidence than those
you were addressing. How misleading of you to you take this little off the
cuff list of points as doing adequate justice to the many pieces of evidence
pointing to a jet figher attack and the jetliner overflight.
The evidence can be examined by the reader by going here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
And notice that Leonard has not referenced this site -- he has merely
attempted to answer me on the fly, glib and dishonest and still
misrepresenting conclusive evidence more imposing than he would care for you
to know.
Leonard Spencer:
Let's take them one by one. The security camera footage actually shows only
a tail-fin, which could be that of a small plane but could equally belong to
a missile.
Dick Eastman:
1) The tail-fins of most air to ground missiles, are about the height of
your computer tower. Missiles to not have the standard aircraft near
parallelogram trapeziod shape: [] 2) The smoke trail left by the
missile is too low with respect to the position of the tail fin, for it to
be coming from that aircraft -- because -- if the missile was symmetrical
in its fin configuration -- i.e., so that it looked like this from the
rear: + -- then the bottom fin would be plowing through the lawn.
HOWEVER -- IF YOU HAVE READ MY ACCOUNTS I AM OPEN TO THE IDEA OF A CRUISE
MISSILE BEING THE "KILLER JET" AS LONG AS IT IS CAPABLE OF FIRING ANOTHER
MISSILE AHEAD OF ITS OWN CRASH. There are a host of reasons why the F-16
would be the better choice -- but I have repeadedly said for over a year
that the killer jet could have been a custom made attack platform -- but
the tail fin and the smoke trail bespeak a fighter jet --
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
Leonard Spencer:
he witnesses who heard a jet fighter did not actually see one,
they only heard an engine.
Dick Eastman:
Yes, that's what I said. Military man in the Pentagon heard a jet fighter.
Don't witnesses ears count in your kind of analysis. I mentioned it because
it is positive support -- THIS WITNESS HEARING A JET IS NOT ONE OF MY
PROOFS -- IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SMALL-PLANE THESIS, IT DOES NOT PROVE
IT -- MY OTHER EVIDENCE (SEE URL) DOES THAT -- EVIDENCE I HAVE DISCUSSED
ABOVE AND OTHER EVIDENCE.
Leonard Spencer:
The sonic boom indicated only the plane's speed, not its size.
Dick Eastman:
But the airliner that wintesses saw was going much slower, "as though
coming in for a landing." Nothing could be making a sonic boom near the
Pentagon except a military jet fighter, most likely an F-16. The boom
definitely is not consistent with the plane the passengers were watching,
i.e., with the Boeing.
Leonad Spencer:
The radar blip indicated its speed and manoeuvrability, again
not its size.
Dick Eastman:
Yes, Leonard, it had the speed of an F-16, the maneuverability of an F-16.
Those are the significant data. The blip cannot tell the size -- that is a
datum we must forego -- but the other two data are signficant and they say
fighter jet.
Leonard Spencer:
And missiles can be fired from planes of any size and can also fly
independently. None of this therefore constitutes solid proof of a small
plane, though admittedly the radar blip is suggestive of one.
Dick Eastman:
"None of this constituties solid proof" and non-of it was claimed to
constitute solid proof, or even deemed relevant, except as a report from the
air-traffic controllers of aircraft behavior consistent with a "small
aircraft" and inconsistent with a Boeing 757.
I do not think that the perpetrators would have risked something so unusual
and "tell-tale" as firing a missile from some location remote from the
Pentagon. A missile fired from a plane is a visible event. A missile fired
from a nearby truck also has it risks. A missile coming in on its own from
a great distance -- a missile with a tail fin like a plane, is possible.
But the best missile of this type to use would be a remote-controlled
-16 -- which is my thesis and what I have said all along -- the best
documented presentation of a position in internet history.
Leonard:
He then adds:
'the flash-powder proximity warhead that left powder burns on the outside of
the building, the warhead that brought down the first floor outer wall over
thirty feet on either side of column 14 -- and the penetrating warhead that
entered on the second floor to the right of the killer jet entry point.'
Dick:
Yes, it is all shown. Civil Engineers diagrams. Photos of the wall damage.
All of it right here in proof #2:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
Leonard Spencer:
These unsubstantiated assertions about warheads do not constitute proof of
a
small plane.
Dick Eastman:
I have offered a range of possibilities -- the F-16 being the most likely
given what is known, but also admitting the possibility of other fighter
aircraft, of a missile-firing cruise missile, of a specially designed
aircraft specific to this operation. All of them together are given the
general name "small-plane" explanations, to distinguish them from the
ruled-out Big-Boeing-did-it explanation. Leonard is simply, without
compelling reason, saying that he has ruled out the jet fighter explanation,
but has not given one reason to back this decision on his part -- he has
given nothing that is incompatible with the jet fighter explanation -- nor
has he undermined the various evidence that makes this the most likely among
"small plane" choices. Leonard has just wasted more of my time and your
time -- and created more division for the coverup to point to as they say
"See, not two 9-11 investigators can agree on what happened."
But most serious of all is this: Anyone reading Leonard's hatchet job on
the "small plane" thesis would walk away convinced by Leonard, because of
the straw-man version he has presented, and that deceived person would never
suspect the multiple lines of evidence each independenly proving that the
Boeing did not crash into the Pentagon, that the Boeing overflew the
building, and that several other things were going on ancillary to the
operation, both before, during and after the intial explosion-crash event
that eliminate any innocent explanation, that rules out the official story,
that deiscredits the coverup, that proves Pentagon-leadership complicity in
the 9-11 frameup operation.
Leonard Spencer:
It's not that I necessarily disagree, it's just that evidence of missiles
does not constitute evidence of a small plane.
Dick Eastman:
See what I say about size and relative position of tail fin with respect to
smoke trail, above.
Leonard Spencer:
And he never does get round to explaining how a fighter jet could fly
through that doorway
without damaging the doorframes or leaving its wreckage on the lawn.
Dick Eastman:
There is no "doorway." The missile brought down the outer wall on the first
floor, which had been a row of windows -- and with the wall section
destoyed the jet fighter flew directly into the building -- only its tail
fin hitting on the second floor -- where it pushed out column #14.
Leonard Spencer:
He merely asserts that 'the F-16 entered the first floor unobstructed'.
Really?
How did it manage that then?
Dick Eastman:
That was one of the functions of the missile. (And there likely was a
second missile the funcion of which was to kill specific personel in Naval
Intelliegnce targeted by Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz, Perle, Kissinger, Meyers
etc.)
Leonard Spencer:
When he says 'For Leonard Spencer to say that no one saw F-16 debris INSIDE
THE BUILDING' Eastman is actually on the verge of making a good point.
Dick Eastman:
I'm content to leave it to the readers of this exchange to determine whose
points are valid and who is simply blowing smoke all around the issue for
reasons becoming more and more obvious. (I am accusing you of not wasting
our time and deflecting our focus out of stupidity, but for a definite
nonlaudatory purpose. Otherwise there is not point for your frivolous
attack and your rotten attitude.
Leonard Spencer:
He's right; I indeed don't know what wreckage was really found in the
Pentagon. But when he concludes from this that it 'reveals a lot about
Leonard Spencer and his very obviously dishonest grasping for straws to
make a counter argument where no counter argument is possible', I can't
help wondering who is really grasping for straws here. The point is that if
an F-16 deposited
its wreckage in the Pentagon then it had to get into the Pentagon in the
first place. There is no entry hole of sufficient size to support this.
Dick Eastman:
The hole, after the bottom floor wall was taken down by the missile -- see
evidence of how pillar #15 was blasted away, with the steel reinforcement
rods still in hanging there -- the hole of sufficient size was there before
the fighter reached the wall.
When Eastman concludes that I wrote my article to garner 'all of the
prestige for research' and 'to discredit the hard evidence', I can only
suggest he's getting slightly carried away. I certainly deserve no prestige
for what is, as I have already conceded, a largely derivative piece of work
(and yes, I should have been more careful in citing my sources). Whether or
not I discredit the hard evidence I leave to others to judge, though I'm not
quite sure what hard evidence Eastman has in mind. He says also that my
alternative theory 'has no basis whatsoever'. In a sense that's true. The
theory is only conjecture, because there is no photograph or video footage
of the plane to corroborate it, but this of course applies to all the
hypotheses out there, including Mr Eastman's.
Dick Eastman:
Here we see that Spencers goal is to deny the hard evidence exists -- the
hard evidence proving that the Boeing did not hit the wall, that another
smaller aircraft with the tail fin of an airplane and that fired a missile
from a postion relative to the fin that fits a missile launching from under
the attacking aircraft's wing.
Leonard has floated a deliberately weaker theory, concealed the completeness
and abundance of the various lines of proof of the small-plane finding --
all for the purpose of leaving with the reader the definite impression that
the quality of evidence is much inferior than what it really in fact is.
Leonard Spencer:
I must confess that I too find my theory unsatisfactory and only
half-plausible and say as much in the article. I nonetheless feel, perhaps
wrongly, that it goes some way towards reconciling all the available
evidence in a way that some other theories, including Mr Eastman's, do not.
Dick Eastman:
There it is! Spencer now says, truthfully, that his theory isn't much, and
adds, very untruthfully, that his theory is the best thought out theory
possible and better than all those that have been offered, including every
variant of the "small plane thesis."
Leonard Spencer has moved up from his old role as tomato thrower -- to the
status of a very shifty trial lawyer skilled in discrediting honest people
by careful crafting of oblique allusion, misrepresentation, insinuation --
hoping to convince those to lazy to check the evidence themselves -- which,
although the evidence is there to see by simple direct inspection, still
requires some thinking and effort -- and so Spencer hinges his hope of
keeping down the only evidence that can stop the oligarchy.
Leonard Spencer:
He believes my article is a 'SOPHISTICATED DISINFORMATION-OP' and that my
motive is to discredit other 9-11 investigators. It's not. It's just yet
another attempt to make some sense out of what is pretty skimpy and
confusing evidence.
Dick Eastman:
Not to sophisticated, because it is so easily dispensed with, Leonard.
There are five distinct proofs that the Boeing was not the plane, and more
proofs that an operation was underway. You, Leonard Spencer, I accuse of
withholding the real small-plane evidence as you did you hatchet job on the
straw man. You never wrote to me about the theory you were bent on
discrediting, not as you were preparing your material nor after you put it
out. And it never appeared in any of the forums where I am known to
subscribe -- and I would never have seen your bogus send-up of the small
plane thesis, had not Peter Meyer and John Kaminsky sent me the URL.
In other words, I caught you -- doing the same kind of decitful coverup
dirtywork that I early caught Sarah Roberts and John Judge doing.
Let it be known to all reading this -- the proof of the guilt of the Bush
Administration is the evidence from the attack on the Pentagon -- the
various evidence that all points to a smaller aircraft and a missile being
involved in the crash and deaths and the Boeing overflying the crash and
landing at Reagan National Airport just six seconds beyond.
I can't help wondering whether what really irks Eastman is that I've
strayed onto his patch and should have stuck with the New York planes where
I belong. If this is the case I can only suggest that he calms down a bit
and allows others to have their say. We are, after all, on the same side in
all this. We both know that 9-11 was an inside job and that the future of
humanity is at risk if people don't wake up to the fact. Does it really
matter how big the damned plane was?
Dick Eastman:
Does it matter how big the plane was? Answer: Yes. It matters that the
plane could not have been as big as a Boeing. IT matters that the plane
behaved as a jet fighter on radar, that it sounded like a jet fighter to one
military ear. That a missile was also heard and a sonic boom. It matters
that the actual picture of the attack shows a plane that is too short to
have been the Boeing -- that it shows the missile trial.
BECAUSE -- SAVING THIS FOR LAST -- THE MISSILE WAS NOT FIRED FROM THE
PLANE JUST BEFORE IMPACT -- THEN HOW COME THE MISSILE SMOKE WAS NOT SEEN
WAY BACK WHERE THE LAMPPOSTS WERE -- OR ANYPLACE WHERE WITNESSES SAID THEY
SAW PLANES APPROACHING -- WHY WAS THE MISSILE TRAIL ONLY AT THE CRASH
OINT -- ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER: BECAUSE THE MISSILE WAS FIRED FROM RIGHT
THERE AS THE PLANE WAS HEADING IN.
Regards
Leonard Spencer
Sincerly,
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Dick Eastman
that appears just in time to provide Pat Answers for Condoleezza! Wait and
see-- she will answer everything in terms of this "al Qa'eda admission."
by Dick Eastman
Al-Qaeda chief reveals full 9/11 plan By Christina Lamb 29mar04 (see below
for this article)
My response:
Reading this "confession" and mindful of the two phony bin Laden videos, so
thoroughly exposed by yours truly and by others -- I read this monstrous
fiction -- written by a really sharp young Ivy League women journalist etc.
At any rate:
The World Trade Center is not a target that would be selected after "leafing
through pictures of US skyscrapers."
The Pentagon, because it is low-profile, would not be an obvious target, as
a building -- only as a symbol -- and it is very doubtful that men in
hiding in central asia would know of the existence of the control group led
by Richard Perle under the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Wolfowitz) that
included Kissinger, Gingrich etc. Apart from the fact that we know the
Boeing, although there, was not the killer missile-firing jet.
Note to that this confession does not discuss the mans ideology, his reasons
for picking the World Trade Center as the symbol of godless Zionist economic
imperialist global enslavement etc.
I am especially alarmed that they have this man captured at the home of a
microbiologist -- an item within the fiction that is not there by
caprice -- the fiction -- like the fake call from "al Qa'eda" following
the mass-murder bombing of a train station in Madrid, points to a coming
biological attack -- which we know (from all the microbiologists murdered
recently, the anthrax attack that closed down Congress after 9-11 with the
anthrax subsequently traced to US military sources, and from the
prepartations by the US for responding to bio-chemical attack with FEMA
takeover) that the our organized crime (hostile merchant-banker, Zionist,
Chinese Triad princeling all at war with the middile classes of the world
because middle classes stand for justice and the hated common man)
government is planning another frame-up more horrible and pervasive that
localized 9-11 -- the event that will result in the instant shut-down of
the internet, the only remaining souce of real information and honest
informed opinion remaining to Americans.
Note that we are seeing "interrogation reports" from a man in an
organization that is known to be affiliated with the CIA, an asset of the
CIA -- a report released from a US government that has stonewalled on every
investigation and has released nothing from any of its islolated prisoners
since the first detainees were sent to Guantanamo.
And notice how this man takes credit for exactly everything that the
evidence is now showing were frame-up operations, including the Bali attack.
Where is the decentralized structure that al Qa'eda was supposed to have
ad -- no we have the central mastermind -- hidden by all -- only
transcripts released by the wolfowitz-rumsfeld pentagon -- admitting
everything exactly as needed by an administration already proven guilty by a
hundred citizen investigations of the existing data!!!!
Note that Ms. Lamb -- so innocent -- plays her part well: "Although the
interrogation transcripts are prefaced with the warning that "the detainee
has been known to withhold information or deliberately mislead", it is clear
that he is talking - and that the September 11 conspiracy was much more
extensive than has previously been revealed." And then the planted seed: "
'Osama had said the second wave should focus on the west coast,' he said."
{NOTE TO READER: THIS IS WHERE MY LAST "SAVE" WAS MADE THE FIRST TIME I
WROTE THIS -- WHEN A QUICK SHUT OFF OF ENERGY AT MY HOME ERASED ABOUT SIX
PARAGRAPHS I HAD WRITTEN -- NORMALLY I AM WRITE AND FOREGET IT TYPE --
BUT YOU KNOW THE FRUSTRATION, GRIEF AND SUSPICION THAT FOLLOWS -- ANYWAY I
JUST MENTION IT FISHING FOR THE COMMISERATION OF MY FRIENDS (ALL THREE OF
THEM). NOW, UP AGAIN AND AT 'EM.}
To me it is very significant that the people who wrote this disinformation
document chose to include these suggestions of major attacks on the West
Coast -- where the Eastern Establishment does not live. California has had
it bad from oil corporations and clandestine weather modification -- but we
have here the indication of worse to come -- the preparation of public mind
for a new frameup -- the laying of a "we saw it coming" groundwork -- to
make the next mass-murder frame-up more believable than it would be
otherwise.
Note how all the players mentioned are conveniently known to the US and are
in fact already embroiled in "our-word-against-their's public controversy
reflecting heavily on the integrity of the US Administration.
We know the al Qa'eda is a CIA front and we know that those being held
extra-legally at CIA drug-base Guantanamo are mostly innocent me who know
too much or else men being psycologically modified to become the next
"frame-up" terrorists -- using the technology that was used on kids to
shoot up their high-schools (e.g., Columbine) to provide incentive for the
disarming of the US middle-class, and by Israeli to provide the needed
"Palestinian 'genocide' bomber.
"To date, Khalid is the most senior al-Qaeda member to have been caught.
Until now there has been no word of where he is being held or what, if
anything, he is saying. "
BUT REMEMBER THE EXPOSED FRAUD OF THE TWO EARLIER "BIN LADEN" VIDEOS. On
the very day that it was released I presented demonstration of the
interview's deceit. I have no doubt that this piece of creative fiction was
the work of the unified CIA/Pentagon/Mossad/MI6 organization, their
Pakistani accomplices -- working with, I am also convinced, the Chinese PLA
and probably the secret scum of the criminal elite in India's government as
well.
At any rate, here is my analysis, exposing the first "bin Laden video"
disinformation op, produced the day the fraud was released. You can't see
the obviousness of this fraud and not be certain that the "confession" of
"operations chief" Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- ( btw, do you really thing an
Islamic organization would have an "operations chief"-style organization?
Especially when the decentralization of the organization was so well
publicized, and made so much sense given the risks such an organization
would face if it existed.
Analysis of the "bin Laden" video -- tells us all we need to know to suspect
the source and motives and oddities of the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
confession.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/5
So far we are seeing a pattern of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "confession"
helping the Bush Administration in each of the specific areas where their
standing in world opinion, and remaining informed opinion within the United
States has been totally without credibility.
And now we come to the part about Zacarias Moussaoui.
Moussaoui is the innocent Moslem who was set up by the frame-up planners to
take some of the wrap for 9-11. Here is a man who really and truly did hate
the US for its foreign policy, its Zionist policies supporting Jewsih
supremacist murder and land theft in Israel and injustice against the entire
Moslem world -- and yes, I'll even grant that Moussaoui had talked about
doing violence in some way to the United States -- as many 1960's
adical -- now in boardrooms all along the Atlantic Seaboard, also planned
murderous mayhem at coffee tables at Harvard, Columbia etc. etc. -- but
what is that? How many "good" people that we know, against whom great
injustice has been done (very common these days) -- while alone in the
shower have plotted murders or acts of sabotage against the untouchable
power of injustice, only to have the thoughts dispelled as soon as the
shower curtain is drawn back and the towel is grabbed. And the poorer and
less educated someone is the more this form of compensatory big-thinking
fantasy gets -- the big talk -- like all the poor blacks caught up in
impotent "black power" talk in the 1960's and early '70's. So Moussaoui
was perfect to be set up by the Frame-up for 9-11 -- he was perfect as
someone the FBI could "catch" to look good after the false-flag killing of
over 2000 people needed by the Oligarcy for its geopolitical and economic
ambitions.
BUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS EMBARASSED THAT MOUSSAOUI WAS NOT LOOKING
GUILTY -- THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PIN ON HIM -- AND THE
ADMINISTRATION (WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MASTERMINDS, PERLE, WOLFOWITZ,
KISSINGER AND MAYBE CHENEY HERE) WAS TAKING HEAT, BECAUSE IF THERE WAS
NOTHING SOLID AGAINST MOUSSAOUI, THEN HOW CREDIBLE WAS THE CLAIM THAT ANY OF
THE DETAINEES HELD WITHOUT CHARGES AT GUANTANAMO OR THE BRITISH GULAGS WERE
ANYTHING BUT VICTIMS OF ARBITRARY TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT LOCKING AWAY
PEOPLE WITH EMBARRASSING THINGS TO SAY.
AND SO NOW WE HAVE THIS WHOLLY IMPROBABLE "CONFESSION" LINKING MOUSSAOUI TO
EVERYTHING -- JUST LIKE THE CIA AND FBI "KNEW" ALL ALONG, JUST LIKE THEY
KNEW ALL ALONG BUT HAD NEVER GIVEN ONE SHRED OF INDICATION AS TO WHY OR HOW
THEY "KNEW."
And so once again a patsy -- a big black man (Moussaoui looks like any
young black American you would meet at McDonalds -- not a hostile face by
any means ) -- is being sent up by a fraud psy-op disinfo
"confession" -- not a claim that Administration officials will have to take
credit for -- after all it is not the "good guys" who are saying it, but
the "evil mastermind" himself, right? (I can see the top corporation lawyer
who came up with this plan affording maximum alibi with minimum legal
exposure for misstatement and obstruction of justice.)
And note this: " Khalid said: 'Osama declared (British Prime Minister Tony)
Blair our principal enemy and London a target.' " Does this mean that Tony
Blair is not a liability, soon to be knocked off in such a way as to derive
the maximum political boost for the Anglo-American-Israeli "war on terror?"
ANd last but not least we have this fraudulent disinfo-op covering the
Administration from the growing world awareness that the evidence proving
their (Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, CIA, Sharon, Blair etc.) guilt in planning
and perpetrating the 9-11 mass-murder frameup and subsequent coverup
operations like this one.
We know from the following that the Administration is guilty of 9-11:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
And we know from about 50 different 9-11 investigation sites (Hopsicker's
Mad Cow is the best) that there is more than a little that is screwy about
the alleged "hijackers" and their whereabouts (an apartment right next door
to CIA headquareters at Langley etc.) and connections and flight training
etc. before the attack.
And yet, HOW MARVELLOUSLY FORTUITOUS THAT KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED in
Afganistan should know all the minute incidentals of the whereabout and
doings of "the hijackers" as though he was micro-managing the whole 9-11
operation from Afganistan -- sending all those orders, having all of the
progress reports sent to him regardless of the risk of interception etc.
Give me a massive break.
This document is yet another nail in the coffin of the Great 9-11 Frameup
and Coverup -- or else I underestimate the intelligence of my fellow
countrymen.
Like all my essays this is a mess -- but it is important to get out a
rational analysis before the disinformation analysis of the Administration
sets in cement.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
recent articles related to bi-partisan Oligarchy state treason
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/?yguid=141292515
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Mooney
To: cia-drugs
Cc: Quig
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:31 AM
Subject: [Quigs_Fight] Fwd: Al-Qaeda Chief Reveals Full 9/11 Plan
Al-Qaeda chief reveals full 9/11 plan
By Christina Lamb
29mar04
IT makes a chilling picture. The mastermind behind the September 11 attacks
has told interrogators that he and his terrorist nephew leafed through
almanacs of US skyscrapers when planning the operation.
Sears Tower in Chicago and Library Tower in Los Angeles - which was "blown
up" in the film Independence Day - were both potential targets, according to
transcripts of interrogations of al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed. "We were looking for symbols of economic might," he told his
captors.
He recounted sitting looking at the books with Ramzi Yusuf, his nephew by
marriage, who was the man behind the first World Trade Centre bombing in
1993. In that attack Yusuf succeeded only in ripping a crater into the
foundations with a van bomb.
"We knew from that experience that explosives could be problematic," Khalid
said, "so we started thinking about using planes."
When he was captured last March in the house of a microbiologist in
Rawalpindi, Pakistan, the paunchy 37-year-old was unshaven and wearing a
baggy vest. He looked more like a down-and-out than one of the most
dangerous men in the world.
The interrogation reports make clear, however, that he was not only the
chief planner for September 11 but also introduced Osama bin Laden to
Hambali, the Indonesian militant accused of orchestrating the Bali bombing
13 months later.
To date, Khalid is the most senior al-Qaeda member to have been caught.
Until now there has been no word of where he is being held or what, if
anything, he is saying.
Although the interrogation transcripts are prefaced with the warning that
"the detainee has been known to withhold information or deliberately
mislead", it is clear that he is talking - and that the September 11
conspiracy was much more extensive than has previously been revealed.
The confessions reveal planning for the atrocity started much earlier than
anyone had realised and was intended to be even more devastating.
"The original plan was for a two-pronged attack with five targets on the
east coast of America and five on the west coast," he told interrogators.
"We talked about hitting California as it was America's richest state and
bin Laden had talked about economic targets."
Bin Laden, who like Khalid had studied engineering, vetoed simultaneous
coast-to-coast attacks, arguing that "it would be too difficult to
synchronise".
Khalid switched to two waves: hitting the east coast first and following up
with a second attack. "Osama had said the second wave should focus on the
west coast," he said.
Zacarias Moussaoui, a French-Moroccan who had lived in London, was sent to
the Pan Am international flight school in Minnesota to train for the west
coast attack, according to Khalid. His instructor alerted the FBI, however,
after the Moroccan showed no interest in landing planes - only in steering
them. He was arrested in August 2001.
Until now it had been widely believed that Moussaoui was meant to have been
the 20th hijacker on September 11. The revelation by Khalid that he was part
of a "second wave" is lent weight by the FBI's recent arrest of two other
men who were allegedly part of the west coast conspiracy.
Despite the setbacks, Khalid described the September 11 attack as "far more
successful than we had ever imagined".
Khalid, whose family came from Pakistan, was born in 1965 in Kuwait City,
where his father was a preacher. He joined the Muslim Brotherhood as a
teenager and went to the US to study engineering in North Carolina.
At that time the Afghan jihad against the Russians was in full flow. After
graduating, Khalid headed for one of bin Laden's guesthouses in the
Pakistani frontier town of Peshawar. He has told interrogators it was there
that he first met Hambali.
In 1992 Khalid moved south to Karachi. Posing as a businessman importing
holy water from Mecca, he acted as a fundraiser and intermediary between
young militants and wealthy sponsors in the Gulf.
Yusuf's attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre inspired him to conceive
his own operations. The first was a plot to blow up 12 American airliners
over the Pacific. Both Yusuf and Hambali were involved. It failed after
their Manila bomb factory caught fire. The men fled to Pakistan where Yusuf
was arrested.
Undeterred, Khalid decided to start working on something "far more
spectacular" for which he "hoped to persuade bin Laden to give him money and
operatives". He also decided to introduce Hambali to bin Laden.
-Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, was believed to have been plotting
a wider wave of attacks on the US west coast before he was arrested / AP
Hambali headed Jemaah Islamiah, which wanted to unite Southeast Asia under
an Islamic banner.
Khalid told interrogators: "I was impressed by JI's ability to operate
regionally and by Hambali's connections with the Malaysian government. He
told me that his group had a training camp in The Philippines and a madrasah
(religious teaching) program in Malaysia on the border with Singapore.
"In 1996 I invited Hambali to Afghanistan to meet Osama. He spent three or
four days with him and it was agreed that al-Qaeda and Hambali's
organisation would work together on 'targets of mutual interest'."
Hambali, who had been operating on a shoestring, was provided with a new
car, mobile phones and computers.
Bin Laden was apparently impressed by Khalid's networking and ideas and made
him head of al-Qaeda's military committee. From then on he was a key planner
in almost every attack, including the simultaneous bombings of the US
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1988. Bin Laden dubbed him The Brain.
The big challenge was to attack Americans on their own soil. Initially
Khalid proposed leasing a charter plane, filling it with explosives and
crashing it into the CIA headquarters. But the plan expanded.
Bin Laden pointed out that on a visit to the US in 1982 he had been to the
Empire State Building in New York and was astonished by how unprotected such
key landmarks were.
A committee, known as the shura, was formed comprising bin Laden, Khalid and
four others. It met at what was known as the war room in bin Laden's camp
outside Jalalabad in Afghanistan. The plan for a two-pronged attack was
formed. "We had scores of volunteers to die for Allah but the problem was
finding those familiar with the West who could blend in as well as get US
visas," Khalid told his interrogators.
Two Yemenis and two Saudi pilots, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, were
selected and given commando training in Afghanistan. "All four operatives
only knew that they had volunteered for a martyrdom operation involving
planes," Khalid said.
In 1999 the two Yemenis were refused US visas; but a few months later four
jihad recruits from Hamburg arrived in Quetta, Pakistan. Led by Mohammed
Atta, an Egyptian, they had originally planned to go to Chechnya to fight
the Russians, but a former mujaheddin in Germany had given them an
introduction to bin Laden.
After meeting the al-Qaeda leader in Kandahar, they delivered the baia, the
oath of allegiance required to gain access to his inner circle, and were
invited to his Ramadan feast. He told them that they had been selected for a
top-secret mission and promised that they would enter paradise as martyrs.
They were instructed to go home and destroy their passports so their trip to
Pakistan would be undetected. They were then to shave off their beards, go
to the US and obtain pilot's licences.
Khalid told interrogators he had provided them with a special training
manual which included information on how to find flight schools and study
timetables.
Three of the four were granted US visas and travelled to the US. The fourth,
Ramzi Binalshibh, failed and returned to Afghanistan, where he communicated
with them through internet chat rooms.
In the spring of 2000, after a planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, bin Laden
scaled back the plan from two-prong to two-wave because they had been unable
to get enough potential pilots into the US. Moussaoui succeeded in entering
the US, but the order went out for potential recruits who were not Arab,
Khalid told his captors.
A date was set for the first-wave attack, codenamed Porsche 911, and a
message went around the world for followers to return to Afghanistan by
September 10.
The messages were intercepted by several Western intelligence agencies but
none apparently realised their significance.
When the suicide planes struck on September 11, al-Qaeda seems to have been
taken by surprise - both by the success of the attacks and by the US
reaction.
"Afterwards we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on
the run," Khalid said.
"Osama declared Tony Blair our principal enemy and London a target."
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,
to US interrogators
He said the war on terrorism and the US bombing of Afghanistan completely
disrupted their communications network. Operatives could no longer use
satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they still used
internet chat rooms.
"Before September 11 we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of
follow-up contact but after October 7 (when the bombing started) that
changed 180 degrees. There was no longer a war room or shura and operatives
had more autonomy."
He told interrogators that he remained in Pakistan for 10 days after
September 11, then went to Afghanistan to find bin Laden: "I went to
Jalalabad, Tora Bora, looking for him and then eventually met him in Kabul."
The al-Qaeda leader instructed him to continue operations - with Britain as
the next target.
"It was at this time we discussed the Heathrow operation," Khalid said.
"Osama declared (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair our principal enemy and
London a target."
He arranged for operatives to be sent from Pakistan and Afghanistan to
London, where surveillance of Heathrow airport and the surrounding areas
began. However, he claimed, the operation never got beyond the planning
stages. "There was a lot of confusion," he said. "I would say my performance
at that time was sloppy."
One priority was to get Hambali out of Afghanistan. In November 2001, Khalid
arranged for him to go to Karachi. There he gave him $US20,000 and a false
Indonesian passport with which he could travel to Sri Lanka and on to
Thailand, from where he would help to organise the Bali nightclub bombing
the following year. They kept in touch through Hambali's younger brother,
who was in Karachi.
The net was closing in around Khalid. Another shura member, Abu Zubayda, was
arrested in Faisalabad in March 2002. Six months later Binalshibh was seized
in a Karachi apartment he shared with Khalid.
Khalid escaped, but his flight came to an end in the early hours of March 2
last year in Rawalpindi.
Questioned for two days by Pakistan's military intelligence, who say he did
nothing but pray repeatedly, he was flown blindfolded to Bagram, the US base
in the mountains above Kabul.
It is not clear how long he was held there, nor what methods were used to
make him talk. Afghans freed from Bagram claim to have been subjected to
sleep deprivation and extremes of hot and cold. There have also been reports
of truth drugs.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9109387%255E401,00.html
================
aLSO
CNN altered the transcript of Dr. Condoleezza Rice
But worse, actual evidence is available that the White House and CNN
doctored
the transcript of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's damage
control
press conference, held at 4 pm that afternoon on May 18, 2001.
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=51905;title=APFN
Dick Eastman
June 2001) -- The "keys" to all air defense interceptions and shootdowns
were in Rumsfeld's pocket by order of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff on Sept. 11, 2001, and had been there since June.
9-11 Air Defense Standdown traced to Rumsfeld -- new regulated stripped
commanders in field of all authority to act -- interception and shoot-down
orders had to come from the Secretary of Defense personally. An irrational
move if the goal was saving lives and protecting the government, contrary to
all US defense doctrine -- and not explained by any recent high-level
discussions or policy moves. Simply an order that made air defense of the
nation subject to the caprice of the Defense Secretary and implemented just
in time to allow 9-11 to happen -- or rather to go smoothly according to
plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Jerry Russell:
Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important
to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD
procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing
intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to
act. This amazing order came from Vice Admiral, S.A. Fry US Navy,
Commander Joint Chiefs of Staff. So failure to intercept an attack on the
Pentagon fourty minutes after the World Trade Center was first crashbombed
falls directly on the CJCS and Rumsfeld.
There is not good reason for changing standing Air Force procedures that
have served the nation for over fifty years -- just prior to the 9-11
attack.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1
June 2001) was represented as "guidance to the Deputy Director for
Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational
commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for
destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded
CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.
This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be
notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the
exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward
requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18,
1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to
save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving
"potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles,
vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the
Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in
any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf
-------------------------
Navy Public Affairs Officer in Iraq "Condemns" Bush & the U.S.
Invasion
By Democracy Now!
Friday 26 March 2004
A year ago Navy Lt. John Oliveira was appearing daily before
television cameras defending the U.S. invasion. He was the top public
affairs officer aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt. In a Democracy
Now! exclusive he speaks today on a national program for the first
time criticizing the invasion he was once paid to defend.
A year ago Saturday Lt. John Oliveira was aboard the USS Theodore
Roosevelt in the Mediterranean Sea. He was serving as public affairs
officer for the 5,000-troop aircraft carrier.
He was overseeing
embedded reporters. He was speaking to the national and international
media defending the U.S. invasion.
To mark the first anniversary of the invasion, Oliveira was far from
the battlefront -- he was taking part in his first peace rally. Two
months after being honorably discharged,
Oliveira decided to speak
out against the invasion of Iraq for the first time. Today this
decorated 16-year Navy veteran talks with Democracy Now! in his first
national interview to criticize the U.S. invasion of Iraq and
President Bush.
Lt. John Oliveira (Ret.), served as public affairs officer for the
USS Theodore Roosevelt and was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In
September of 2001 he was part of the first battle group to deploy
following the attacks of Sept 11th. He spent six and a half months
overseas mostly in the northern Indian Ocean managing the public
relations effort of a 102 ship international force during the U.S
attack on Afghanistan. Last year he was stationed near Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Lieutenant John
Oliveira.
JOHN OLIVEIRA: Thank you. Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. As you listen to
this discussion starting with President Bush this week joking about
the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, your response?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: Well, you know, I think it's very typical Bush
administration callousness towards our military and to the American
public, people all over the world, in the way they've handled their
foreign affairs and callously going into combat.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about -- well, speaking out for the
first time, why you have chosen us. You were the press officer for
the Navy.
JOHN OLIVEIRA: Yeah, and after Afghanistan where we went in
there, the military was used in response to remove the terrorists
from their positions in Afghanistan and destroy the government
supported that terrorism, we went in there and failed to build a
peace. Shortly after I got back from Afghanistan, I saw that the
things had not changed in outlying areas. The only place that was
relatively secure was Kabul. So, I saw no major improvement in
Afghanistan. As things started developing for Iraq, things just
weren't making sense to me. But obviously, I had taken on oath and
went off to war in January of last year, and I just didn't realize at
the time what kind of an impact that that would have on me once
things started, when I had to get on television every day to talk to
the American people and the international public and continue to sell
them on the administration's policies, which I did not believe in,
and as the war progressed, obviously, we discovered more things.
Today we still see we haven't been able to develop the peace. So, in
my perspective, I'm doing what I can to support our troops. Up until
two months ago, I was one of those troops. I was unable to voice my
opinion regarding the administration policies on how they were using
our military. And one of the key things I say to Mr. Bush, "support
our troops and join us." Because the way he's doing it is not
supporting our troops, it's using them.
JUAN GONZALEZ: We have heard from Ivan Medina, who served in
Iraq, who recently his twin brother died there. And he talked about
the conditions of the troops, the lack of equipment that they had
necessary to fight the war. As the months passed over the last year
and you saw that the occupation was going so badly, not anywhere near
what was expected, what were your thoughts having to be the
spokesperson and put out a message while at the same time you were
facing this reality?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: It was difficult, at best. I was -- in fact, I
had gotten to the point that I had a nervous breakdown, that I could
not continue to do it anymore. It wore on me that much--which I never
thought it did. Even my wife, who I would call routinely from sea
early on, she even had one of her friends onboard keep an eye out for
me. She sensed there was something wrong. I never even noticed it
myself. It was difficult. Maybe if I had not been a spokesperson, I
may have been able to deal with it a little bit better. But I started
seeing -- I mean, this was back in February and March of last year,
that a lot of the sailors were questioning why we were going into
Iraq. And it just wasn't our junior sailors. I'm -- we were talking
our senior leadership. When I put in my resignation papers about two
weeks before the end of the hostilities phase, I had senior
leadership look at me and say, "John, we agree with you, but this is
our job." I understood -- I understood the oath that we took. But
that just made me feel that much better about what I was doing, and
what I was doing was right when I see senior leadership questioning
the policies. Unfortunately, we don't have that voice to oppose those
publicly.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Lieutenant John Oliveira, who was
a spokesperson for the Navy, and is speaking out for the first time.
Juan.
JUAN GONZALEZ: In terms of the -- as the war progressed, and you
must have been receiving, all of the public affairs people, you must
have been receiving talking points from higher-ups, could you talk a
little bit about the message that you were being told to put out?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: Amazingly enough, we received one set of
communication points from the DOD and the White House that kind of
came out simultaneously, and that was about two weeks before the war
started, when we first got our embedded media. And on the day the
shooting started, all of those communication points were basically
moot. That was, you know, bringing the war on terrorism to the
terrorists, the weapons of mass destruction. How Saddam Hussein was a
direct threat to the American public. We never received any
communication points after that. I routinely called questioning,
saying, "Hey, I need something to work with. I'm looking like an
idiot on television talking about the same communication points that
now as the shooting has started mean absolutely nothing." So, even
from that respect it, was very disorganized, very slow to get a
response back from the administration and DOD regarding what we were
supposed to be talking about. And I think what happened -- I think
events overran them and their public affairs program that as weapons
of mass destruction weren't found, when people started to question
the lack of terrorist activity in Iraq, when people started to
question whether Saddam was really a threat, that the administration
couldn't -- wasn't able to spin out any new things to say as fast as
we needed it on the front line.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Lieutenant John Oliveira, perhaps
one of the highest ranking military to speak out against the invasion
of Iraq. You had a nervous breakdown in April. Can you talk about
that and do you see it as related to what your job was as a
spokesperson for the Navy?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: Oh, no question. I mean, I am very proud of my 16-
and-a-half years of active service. I loved my job. I loved talking
to the American public about the great job that our young men and
women do every single day. And insuring that we have the ability to
do what I'm doing now, to speak out, to enjoy those rights of free
speech. That's just so important and so integral to our country and
our success as a nation. I absolutely loved it. I was highly
decorated, but as -- really, once we started getting word that we
might be going to Iraq in November of '02 I started -- and then --
not at the time realizing it, but I slowly got into a deeper and
deeper depression, until mid April when I actually had my nervous
breakdown.
JUAN GONZALEZ: We have just seen a report come out from a new
study that the Pentagon did of troops back in the summer that shows a
very high incidence of depression among many of the -- and low morale
among many of the troops. They were looking at, obviously, the
suicide rates that seem to be higher than soldiers who were not in --
who were not at the scene. Your reaction to this recent report?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: Well, yeah. Absolutely. You look at those suicide
numbers. They're high. And of course, the administration does not
tack those on to the numbers of dead in Iraq because it doesn't help
their cause any. I saw it firsthand. When we went into Afghanistan,
troop moral was probably the best I had ever seen. The support from
the nation was unbelievable. A year later, with pretty much the same
crew, the morale was 180 degrees out. Discipline problems were backed
up. People weren't giving the 110%. They were basically doing their
job. People were seriously questioning -- I had never seen that
before in my 16-and-a-half years where we would sit around at the
table in the wardroom or around the ship listening to people talk
about how -- why we were doing what we were doing. It was -- I had
never seen military people and officers question it as much as I did
when we went into Iraq. There's no question, morale was down. It's
down even worse as we get into this quagmire that we cannot get out
of, and it's almost reminiscent, I think, of those that were involved
in the Vietnam War. I think a lot of those people would see many
similarities with Iraq right now.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Lieutenant John Oliveira, speaking
about his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Spokesperson for the
military, for the Navy, and January 2003 deployed again to lead naval
public relations efforts in the eastern Mediterranean
during "Operation Iraqi Freedom", returned to the US in May. Was
assigned to the community relations office for the commander, US
Atlantic Fleet. Lieutenant john Oliveira, you oversaw the embedded
reporters program. Can you talk about it?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: Yeah. You know, to me, that was not a big change.
I knew -- the Department of Defense made this big to-do over the
embedded media. I think for a lot of units, especially Army units,
that was a big change. For the way that I operated onboard the
aircraft carriers for the previous three years, it really wasn't a
change for me. I had about two dozen media during Iraq. Most of those
folks that I had embedded were people -- were reporters that had been
with me in Afghanistan that had requested DOD that they be assigned
to the Theodore Roosevelt, because of the working relationship that I
had with them. The embed process, I think is great. Unfortunately,
depending on the service, depending on the individual public affairs
officer, you are going to get some very extremes in what reporters
are allowed to do, and what they can't do. I tended to be extremely
open, allowed interviews with anyone, didn't preview any stories that
were released. They could send them straight out. But I heard stories
from the -- from some of the same reporters that said they would go
to other ships and were told you can only interview ten people and
their day was managed like if was a three ring circus right on
schedule. I was letting them go around the ship, talk to sailors.
Whatever they wanted to do. My job -- I would get -- pitch them story
ideas, that kind of a thing. But the more openness I gave them,
generally the better press coverage that I got. It was kind of a two-
edged sword. It does allow the media some access that they normally
would not have, however, I think that the media and the American
public also need to look at it as that they are being managed to an
extent. To what that extent is going to vary greatly. But that people
do need to be aware of that fact. Yeah, Ivan brought up a good point
about the lack of equipment. The DOD can spend billions of dollars on
research of weapons systems, but they cannot provide our troops with
adequate personal protection, you know, onboard ship. You know, we're
trying to manage money for spare parts to keep our airplanes flying.
Once again, I go back to the administration and say, that is not
supporting our troops. Supporting our troops is ensuring that our
young men and women have the right tools to do the job and are
protected and used properly, not necessarily spending billions of
dollars on research. The president has sold the American public and,
another issue, which is supporting the troops, means supporting him.
That does not go hand in hand.
JUAN GONZALEZ: In your opinion, of press coverage that you saw
of the war in Iraq, were the press being objective enough or critical
enough about the information they were receiving from you, the
military?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: From my perspective, and what I was seeing from
the reporters onboard my ship, I -- most -- I think they were -- most
of them were very happy with what they were able to get, since we
weren't in the Gulf, we were in the eastern Mediterranean, a lot of
the reporters were somewhat dissatisfied with where they were, but
not with the information they were getting. I think a lot of the
reporters, though, that were in the gulf and on the ground in Iraq
had some issues because they were being managed a lot more by their
public relations officers over there. So, I -- you know, without
actually being over there, I will go by what I saw and talking to
other public affairs officers during our conferences, a lot of them
had problems with the media, because the media were constantly
hounding them and harassing them to get them some timely information.
AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Oliveira, did you ever change reporters'
pieces?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: No. I had reporters routinely -- I think it was
because of the relationships that we had. I never asked, but they
would start giving me their copy and asking me it take a look at
this. Most of the time, if I suggested anything it was usually
because of a technical thing. I didn't want them -- especially for
the reporters that had no military background, it was an F-14 Tomcat
is not called an F-14 Intruder. Things that were not going to make
them that -- I wanted their article to be credible, and if they were
getting little technical things wrong, then that just did not do
anything for their article. Occasionally if I'd see something that
was somewhat negative that I thought could have had a bit of
different spin on it, I would mention it, but never asked them to
change it, never change it on my own, because they sent it directly
to their editors by themselves. So, you it didn't have to go through
me to be sent to the editors. I think because of that was because of
the working relationship that I had with them and the mutual respect
we had for each other. As you know, public affairs officers that
looked at every story and made it sometimes difficult for reporters
to release their information because they did not like what was being
written.
AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Oliveira, we have seen Richard Clarke,
the counter terrorism chief now being thoroughly disparaged by the
Bush administration, Joseph Wilson, the ambassador who -- whose wife
was exposed, and an investigation going on of the White House, who
did it, as an undercover CIA Operative, are you concerned as one of
the most high level military people ever to speak out after this
invasion of Iraq. Are you concerned about what could happen to you?
JOHN OLIVEIRA: No. I haven't really thought about it. You know,
I kind of say was John Kerry overly concerned when he came back from
Vietnam and went very public about his opposition to the war that he
had just come from, and no, I'm not. My concern is for our troops. I
want it make sure that I know -- they know that I support them. I was
very grateful for the folks that were back here in the United States
and worldwide that supported us back when we went to war last year,
who were voicing their opinions then at that time this war was wrong.
I'm thankful for those people today. And I was thankful for them back
then.
AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant John Oliveira, I want to thank you very
much for being with us. Speaking to us from Washington State,
speaking out nationally for the first time against the invasion of
Iraq. Thanks for being with us.
JOHN OLIVEIRA: Great. Thank you.