Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The Mother of All Lies About 9/11
Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77
This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001.
This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001.
This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001. For this was the little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population.
Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the lie was so clever and diabolical in nature, it must have been generated by the “Power Elite” in one of its more earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission?
No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was flagged with a powerful political name, there was and remains no evidence to support the connection. Just like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal errors which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the work of members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had the methods and means.
The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built.
Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.
And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other “terrorists” on the way. By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator in America was either spilling his guts about those “Terrible Muslim hijackers”, or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin Laden. “Oh sure, it was Bin Laden,” they said blithely, oblivious to anything apart from their television appearance fees.
The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask yourself: What would most Americans have been thinking about on September 12, if CNN had not provided this timely fiction? Would anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government story about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy jets, then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns from the film of the same name? Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama Bin Laden, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.
This report is designed to examine the sequence of the Olson events and lay them bare for public examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance here, so if this report seems tedious try to bear with me. Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged calls, we first need to examine how CNN managed to “find out” about them, reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:
“Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN. Shortly afterwards Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon” … “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.”
At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly. If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel…”, the passage would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, “My wife said all passengers and flight personnel…” Whoever wrote this story was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor General Ted Olson.
Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse’s aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.
About the last thing on your mind [especially if you happened to be the US Solicitor General], would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a “scoop”. As a seasoned politician you would already know that all matters involving national security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.
The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally launched a full international newswire biography on obscure “killer” Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to check his world clock.
It was still “yesterday” in New Zealand on the other side of the International Date Line when the biography was wired from New York, enabling the Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a story about Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas police.
If the CNN story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he really had called them about Barbara on September 11, then he would most surely have followed the telephone call up a few days later with a tasteful “one-on-one” television interview, telling the hushed and respectful interviewer about how badly he missed his wife, and about the sheer horror of it all.
There is no record of any such interview in the CNN or other archives. Indeed, if you key “Barbara Olson” into the CNN search engine, it returns only two related articles. The first is the creative invention on September 12 at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT], and the second is on December 12, about President Bush, who led a White House memorial that began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center three months before. CNN includes this comment about Ted Olson:
“In a poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson referred to "the sufferings we have all experienced." He made no direct reference to the death of his wife, Barbara Olson, who was a passenger aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon…”
Regarding the same event, Fox News reports that, extraordinarily, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson then said Barbara Olson's call, made "in the midst of terrible danger and turmoil swirling around her," was a "clarion call that awakened our nation's leaders to the true nature of the events of Sept. 11."
So Ted Olson avoided making any direct personal reference to the death of his wife. Clearly this was not good enough for someone somewhere. By the sixth month anniversary of the attack, Ted Olson was allegedly interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, with his exclusive story “She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane” appearing in that London newspaper on March 5, thereafter renamed and syndicated around dozens of western countries as “Revenge Of The Spitfire”, finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.
I have diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an American newspaper but have so far failed. The reasons for this rather perverse “external” publication of Ted Olson’s story are not yet clear, but it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged by a Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the story could not be used against him because it was published outside American sovereign territory.
Regardless of the real reason or reasons for its publication, the story seems to have matured a lot since the first decoy news release by CNN early on September 12, 2001. Here we have considerably more detail, some of which is frankly impossible. In the alleged words of US Solicitor General Theodore Olson:
“She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn’t using her cell phone – she was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ ”
"What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?
But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.
It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network. Under these circumstances the passengers’ seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.
Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.
Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.
Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling high “G’ turns in the process.
Under these circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a phone, much less using it. Finally, the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links completely unusable.
Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the “hijackers” allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:
“Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists aboard.” Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.
As previously stated it is the Barbara Olson story that really counts, a view reinforced by the recent antics of the London print media. The photo at the top of this page is a copy of that printed in the West Australian newspaper. You only have to study it closely for a second to realize its full subliminal potential.
Here is a studious and obviously very honest man. The US Solicitor General sits in front of a wall lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court Arguments, with a photo of his dead wife displayed prominently in front of him. Does anyone out there seriously believe that this man, a bastion of US law, would tell even a minor lie on a matter as grave as national security?
Theodore Olson’s own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled “The Limits of Lying” by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.
Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."
Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the lie was so clever and diabolical in nature, it must have been generated by the “Power Elite” in one of its more earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission?
No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was flagged with a powerful political name, there was and remains no evidence to support the connection. Just like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal errors which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the work of members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had the methods and means.
The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built.
Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.
And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other “terrorists” on the way. By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator in America was either spilling his guts about those “Terrible Muslim hijackers”, or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin Laden. “Oh sure, it was Bin Laden,” they said blithely, oblivious to anything apart from their television appearance fees.
The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask yourself: What would most Americans have been thinking about on September 12, if CNN had not provided this timely fiction? Would anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government story about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy jets, then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns from the film of the same name? Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama Bin Laden, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.
This report is designed to examine the sequence of the Olson events and lay them bare for public examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance here, so if this report seems tedious try to bear with me. Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged calls, we first need to examine how CNN managed to “find out” about them, reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:
“Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN. Shortly afterwards Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon” … “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.”
At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly. If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel…”, the passage would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, “My wife said all passengers and flight personnel…” Whoever wrote this story was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor General Ted Olson.
Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse’s aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.
About the last thing on your mind [especially if you happened to be the US Solicitor General], would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a “scoop”. As a seasoned politician you would already know that all matters involving national security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.
The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally launched a full international newswire biography on obscure “killer” Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to check his world clock.
It was still “yesterday” in New Zealand on the other side of the International Date Line when the biography was wired from New York, enabling the Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a story about Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas police.
If the CNN story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he really had called them about Barbara on September 11, then he would most surely have followed the telephone call up a few days later with a tasteful “one-on-one” television interview, telling the hushed and respectful interviewer about how badly he missed his wife, and about the sheer horror of it all.
There is no record of any such interview in the CNN or other archives. Indeed, if you key “Barbara Olson” into the CNN search engine, it returns only two related articles. The first is the creative invention on September 12 at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT], and the second is on December 12, about President Bush, who led a White House memorial that began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center three months before. CNN includes this comment about Ted Olson:
“In a poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson referred to "the sufferings we have all experienced." He made no direct reference to the death of his wife, Barbara Olson, who was a passenger aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon…”
Regarding the same event, Fox News reports that, extraordinarily, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson then said Barbara Olson's call, made "in the midst of terrible danger and turmoil swirling around her," was a "clarion call that awakened our nation's leaders to the true nature of the events of Sept. 11."
So Ted Olson avoided making any direct personal reference to the death of his wife. Clearly this was not good enough for someone somewhere. By the sixth month anniversary of the attack, Ted Olson was allegedly interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, with his exclusive story “She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane” appearing in that London newspaper on March 5, thereafter renamed and syndicated around dozens of western countries as “Revenge Of The Spitfire”, finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.
I have diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an American newspaper but have so far failed. The reasons for this rather perverse “external” publication of Ted Olson’s story are not yet clear, but it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged by a Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the story could not be used against him because it was published outside American sovereign territory.
Regardless of the real reason or reasons for its publication, the story seems to have matured a lot since the first decoy news release by CNN early on September 12, 2001. Here we have considerably more detail, some of which is frankly impossible. In the alleged words of US Solicitor General Theodore Olson:
“She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn’t using her cell phone – she was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ ”
"What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?
But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.
It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network. Under these circumstances the passengers’ seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.
Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.
Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.
Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling high “G’ turns in the process.
Under these circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a phone, much less using it. Finally, the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links completely unusable.
Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the “hijackers” allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:
“Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists aboard.” Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.
As previously stated it is the Barbara Olson story that really counts, a view reinforced by the recent antics of the London print media. The photo at the top of this page is a copy of that printed in the West Australian newspaper. You only have to study it closely for a second to realize its full subliminal potential.
Here is a studious and obviously very honest man. The US Solicitor General sits in front of a wall lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court Arguments, with a photo of his dead wife displayed prominently in front of him. Does anyone out there seriously believe that this man, a bastion of US law, would tell even a minor lie on a matter as grave as national security?
Theodore Olson’s own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled “The Limits of Lying” by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.
Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."
For more information:
http://www.geocities.com/subliminalsuggest...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$205.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
(SLIGHTLY REVISED AND UPDATED)
The Sherlock Holmes mystery the "Silver Blaze" was about the theft of an expensive race horse from its stable. During the investigation, Inspector Gregory of Scotland Yard asked Holmes if there was any particular aspect of the crime calling for additional study. Holmes replied "Yes," and pointed to "the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime." Inspector Gregory replied, "The dog did nothing in the night-time." Holmes said, "That was the curious incident." In this case, the failure of the dog to bark when Silver Blaze was stolen showed the watch dog knew the thief. This was an important material fact; it considerably reduced the number of suspects, and eventually solved the case.
Having said that i would like to ask one question. I have searched the web thru and thru and high and low but could find NOTHING to answer my question.So short of asking Jeeves I would like to toss the question out to you and you tell me.As far as I know this is the FIRST time this question has ever bin raised on the intrnet.
As anyone who has been to a modern day airport probably noticed, there are security cameras that record your every move from the minute your car drives in the parking lot to your walking up to the ticket counter to your going thru the xray machine to your sitting in the departure lounge to your boarding your plane.
Are you with me so far? Does anyone dispute this FACT? Can anyone tell you otherwise?
Ok now to get to my question, I want to take you to a black and white still picture that was shown to the WORLD that showed two men checking in.One of them was called Atta the other was,does anyone remember his name? does anybody really care? We got the BIG BAD ARAB MOSLEM ringleader MohammadAtta ,thatsa all that matters right?
WRONG.
That wasnt the question in question,that was a rhetorical question.
The question that has bin nagging me for 7 months now that NOBODY has asked is:
Where the hell is the footage of the 17 OTHER 'hijackers'?
All we were shown were 19 passport pictures of 19 'dead men'.
I'd like to see the footage of ALL of the 19 'hijackers' please, do you mind?
Id settle to see some still pictures even.
Is it too much to ask? I need proof.I hunger for the truth,dont you?
I dont trust Tony Baloney Blair saw proof.Do you?
Forgive me for doubting and bringing up this maybe irrelevant point out to you here,but these are extraordinary times,and these are very relevant questions you should be aksing yourselves,and while we 're at it I have 6 more NAGGING questions:
2) Id like to see pictures of the plane that crashed into the Pittsburgh countryside...I never saw ONE shred of debris of a plane,did you?Has anybody seen ONE picture of a plane? In this day and age where we have footage of the lowliest car chase we dont have ONE picture of that plane that crashed in Pensilvania? All I saw were trees and some sort of sand dune debris in the background.I am in no way implying anything but SHOW US PLEASE,and that BLACK BOX? should be made public.Its fishy/suspicious to say the least when it is "revealed" to just the grieving family members who were sworn to secrecy.Has anyone heard a peep from them since?Why the secrecy?Because there was NO MENTION of ARABS anywhere on the taped conversations?
3) Id like to see the same for the pentagon 'plane crash'.I have gone thru ALL the pics made available. Wheres the plane? Where are the wings? Wheres the tail? Did the 4 engines evaporate into thin air? Where are the black boxes (supposedly found september 14) fer cryin out loud?Why were the 'hijackers'names not on the planes manifest? Why were there no ARAB names in AnY of the 4 'planes'manifests?Was it a missle that hit the Pentagon? A truck bomb a la Oklahoma?Shades of Timothy McVeigh?
4) If there are no planes in Pittsburgh and the Pentagon and there are no hijackers what the flock REALLY happened? Remote controled planes in the WTC case or was it our very own homegrown American homeboyterrorists?Shadow government?
5) Why has the MAIN Anthrax suspect NOT bin arrested yet? Are the feds afraid of his being Jewish?
6) Were the Mailbox bombs Bin Ladden and Saddams work too? Nope it was Khaddaffyduck?
7) Will King George Bush the Second declare martial law abolishing the writ of habeas corpus making everyone & anyone who opposes the war on terror and who questions whats going on a terrorist too?
The curious incident of the dog in the nighttime,Why didnt the dog(FBI) bark? Elementary my dear Watson? Cause he knew the culprits?
September 11, Lies & Damn Lies
The Afro-Asian region, particularly oil producing countries, is being subjected to naked US aggression and military threats under the pretext of 9/11. We have accordingly decided to publish a book to objectively review and expose those who could have been actually behind the 9/11 conspiracy.
The book will be titled `September 11, Lies and Damn Lies’ and will maintain that 9/11 was neither master-minded nor aided and abetted by Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban or any Muslim country. It will expose the various acts and omissions to cover up evidence pointing to those who were actually behind the attack. It will identify as part of the Goebles style mis-information campaign, the pre-meditated escalation of the harassment of Muslims within the US and the accusations by the Western media of the alleged involvement of Islamic countries in the attack.
It will canvass the view that the 9/11 attack was similar to the burning of the Reichstag and would establish that it was also a conspiracy master-minded, planned and funded by local war-mongers. The book will show that 9/11 was aimed at the forceful occupation, initially of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran and thereafter of the rest of the oil producing Islamic world.
We cordially invite writers, who broadly share the objectives of the book outlined above, to contribute one chapter each, on an agreed topic that would identify and refute the Lies & Damn Lies related to 9/11.
The book will be edited by Mr. Bernard Wijedoru whose more recent articles on related topics include `Was 9/11 an anti-Islamic `Reichstag’? `Hitler’s and Bush’s Final Solutions, a comparison,’ ; ` September 11, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran ‘ , `Contemplated military action against Iraq’ and BALI, September 11 & Oklahoma, a comparison’. Copies of these articles and Mr. Wijedoru’s responses to criticism from some American readers could be viewed on http://www.geocities.com/wijedoru
It is hoped to publish the English version of the book by January 2003 and it will be translated to some of the other languages as well. We welcome expression of interest for publishing translated versions of the book in Arabic, Chinese, German and Russian in the first instance.
of landing gear which is not made of aluminum but
alloy steel together with actuators etc. Poof!
They took the landing gear with them, too. Good work, Sheepdog!
We don't need aliens. We have nothing to
prove (chain of evidence) a large 100 ton
aircraft hit the pentagon. The bumble flight
scenario is starting to make more sense all the
time.
illijitamata non carborundom.
I never do.
I don't see the point in an investigation as far as you're concerned. If it were to conclude in a manner that did not indict the US government you would not believe it. For the sake of those who believe as you do, I say No to an investigation. I don't need the government to spend $500 trillion to tell me that water is wet.
Your lies and cover ups will catch up to you.
So you're saying an independent investigation is
Bad? Maybe we can't handle the truth, as difficult
as that may be to reach? My parents are gone, thank
you, and the government will never convince me that
I should wait till I grow up. Tell that to the sheep.
I'm a dog, and a bad one at that; I don't beg
or play dead.
from Roswell.
PS those jack booted rotten fucking cops purposley let that sniper kill those ten poor souls and planted that name and gun on that poor guy and his buddy. If we could get rid of the government and those dam cops we could all live in a perfect world of peace. Crime free in the loving utopia we all deserve.
Anybody got a line!!!
stop the smell, however.
No. I'm saying it's unnecessary. First. I'm not seeing a great outcry for it to take place and despite the fact that McKinney and a few others were asking for one it got no momentum. Most people believe that man actually landed and walked on the moon. Some still don't. I don't see the point in spending trillions upon trillions of dollar to suffice the nay-sayers who would probably still remain nay-sayers regardless of what the result was. Some people simply can't be pleased and we as a reasonable society don't live our lives catering to them. Second, if you've ever been to D.C. there's this great big freeway that goes right by the Pentagon and it's always crowded. I recall a few eyewitnesses who were interviewed and had it been something other than the plane you would have certainly had several people doing whatever they had to do to say "No, it's lie." Why do I believe that would happen? Because had I been there and what I saw happen was different than what was reported, I would have done all I could to get the message out. And I would have succeeded. Thirdly, I personally have a friend who works at the Pentagon and was there when the plane hit. I called her a few days later after it happened to see how she was, was everything OK with her, etc.... and she filled me in on a lot of stuff that happened and what she saw. Now being anonymous person on the internet I realize that #3 is my own personal evidence. But, I have no reason to believe anything other than what eyewitnesses said happened. I believe the eyewitnesses told the truth. Until someone can prove to me the eyewitnesses were lieing, then I'll stick with it.
Now if someone or some group wants to conduct their own investagation with their own time and money, they certainly have the right. But to use tax money for this, No.
The act of shutting down the investigation was a treasonous obstruction of justice. BUSH SHOULD BE LEGALLY EXECUTED FOR IT.
October 24—world exclusive
A Learjet belonging to the true owner of the Venice flight school that trained both terrorist pilots who flew into the World Trade Center was seized with more than 30 pounds of heroin onboard by Federal Agents in July of 2000 at the Orlando Executive Airport.
Authorities at the time called it the biggest seizure of heroin ever found in central Florida.
The seized plane belonged to 70-year old Wallace J. Hilliard of Naples, FL., multi- millionaire businessman, self-styled Mormon Bishop, and the newly-discovered secret owner of Huffman Aviation at the Venice Airport since its purchase in 1999, just months before terrorists began arriving in force in Southwest Florida.
Hilliard was already well-known in aviation circles as the 'money man' and deep- pocketed financial backer of Rudi Dekkers, according to local aviation observers like chief flight instructor Tom Hammersly, who taught at the Venice Airport while the two flight schools there experienced a flood of Arab student pilots.
"What we heard was that he (Dekkers) had somebody in Naples backing him financially. We all knew that the money he (Dekkers) flaunted was not even his money, that he was just a 'front' man for the man who had the money," stated Hammersly in an interview in "Mohamed Atta & the Venice Flying Circus."
Though in his many media appearances Rudi Dekkers portrayed himself as both president and owner of Huffman Aviation, this claim, like so many other Dekkers’ pronouncements, is untrue.
Lying on and off-the-record
Court documents filed in August at the Sarasota Courthouse reveal that the so-called 'Magic Dutch Boy' never completed the Huffman sale, ‘neglecting’ to pay for his shares of stock in the resulting corporation.
While terrorist student pilots flew in veritable squadrons (as many as sixteen at a time) over Venice, Wally Hilliard had been Huffman Aviation's true owner.
Nor is this the first time Rudi Dekkers has ‘neglected’ to pay for shares in business ventures. In 1995 in The Netherlands, the MadCowMorningNews has learned, Dekkers incorporated a company and never paid for his shares of stock in it either.
A Dutch court adjudged Dekkers guilty in that case of acting "in a manifestly improper fashion," and said that "his manifest failure to properly manage the company was an important cause of (the firm's) bankruptcy."
As a result, Rudi Dekkers, a man who was invited to testify before the Congress of the United States of America on his thoughts on preventing future terrorist attacks, is today a fugitive from justice in his native Holland.
And while Rudi Dekkers busied himself training thousands of young Arab men to fly, from his base in Naples, just a short helicopter ride south of Venice, his partner Wally Hilliard was running a charter jet service called Plane 1 Leasing which provided the jet carrying 30 pounds of heroin.
"Celebrity Endorsement as Double-Edged Sword"
At the same time their planes were flying back and forth from Venezuela with illegal cargo Hilliard's charter service was also, unbelievably, being utilized at virtually no cost––despite the fact that rentals for Lear jets can run as high as $1,800 an hour––by Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
Even stranger, both Governor Jeb Bush and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris were providing celebrity endorsements to Hilliard's operation well after the company's Lear (N351WB) had been busted by DEA agents armed with machine guns.
Pretty poor advance work, at the very least...
One would think a sitting Governor seems well-advised to steer well clear of anything to do with heroin trafficking. Yet Governor Jeb Bush honored Hilliard's operation–– called at various times Florida Air, Sunrise Airlines and Discover Air––with a personal visit, even posing for photos with the "Discover Air family."
The company promptly commemorated the memorable event by posting pictures of the visit on their website.
Finally somebody in the Bush camp realized their lethal potential exposure, and the webpage was hastily taken off the Discover Air site.
Getting Google-ed
But they didn't reckon with Google's heralded cache system. So today you can see the page in all its former glory.
Alas for Discover Air, soon after beginning operations they were forced to see their shortcomings in headlines, like this June 28, 2001 doozy from the hometown Orlando Sentinel: AIR SERVICE TO MIAMI FLOPS; NOT ONE PERSON BOUGHT A TICKET, SO DISCOVER AIR HALTED PLANS FOR FLIGHTS FROM DAYTONA BEACH.
Having "not one person buy a ticket" would seem to be hugely embarrassing to a fledgling airline... if scheduled passenger service was the true aim of the Enterprise.
Katherine Harris' endorsement of the Hilliard/Dekkers operation must also be providing her with some bad moments today:
"As one of Florida's top politicians, Katherine Harris doesn't have much time to do a lot of personal traveling," read the Sarasota Herald Tribune's chatty lead.
"But twice in the past month or so, the secretary of state --who received national attention for her role in the November presidential election -- has taken the 75-minute plane ride from her current home in Tallahassee to her old stomping grounds in Sarasota. Her choice of airline? Florida Air, a start-up commuter airline based here, grasping to be an air-taxi for the entire state."
'She has taken the airline twice,' Harris spokesman Ben McKay said. 'She
appreciates the convenience that Florida Air offers.'"
Since at the same time then-Florida Secretary of State Harris was "appreciating their convenience" Florida/Discover Air had been flying passengers without holding an air carrier certificate, Ms. Harris' reputation as a stickler for the letter of the law can be said to have suffered something of a beating.
Is it just incredible bad luck that these two prominent Florida politicians endorsed an operation that both trained murderous terrorists AND brought heroin into America?
Criminal Conspiracies & Florida: Like Cookies and Milk
Heroin overdoses kill more people in Orlando each year than anywhere else in Florida. The city's growing importance as a major transshipment point for heroin prompted Congress to officially designate Central Florida a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.
Thus the investigation which resulted in the big seizure was launched with some intensity after a Colombian national, Nassar Darwich, was arrested in Orlando with 1.3 kilograms of heroin in the soles of shoes he was carrying.
As a result of Darwich's arrest, DEA agents were waiting two weeks later when the Learjet landed at the airport on July 25, and swarmed the plane brandishing machine guns, according to eyewitnesses.
Passengers Edgar Valles and Neyra Rivas, both of Caracas, Venezuela, were arrested after 13 kilograms of heroin was found hidden in the soles of tennis shoes stashed in their luggage. The pilot was not arrested, according to a DEA spokesman, because of a lack of evidence.
The flight plan of the Lear 35A originated in Venezuela and made a stop in Fort Lauderdale before landing in Orlando, with New York as its final destination. Eventually five people in Orlando were convicted in connection with the seizure, including two Venezuelans who were traveling aboard the jet when it landed at Orlando's Executive Airport, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
"It confirms the sad fact that a massive amount of heroin is coming through Central Florida," U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration special agent Brent Eaton told the paper when the arrests were announced.
"It's very disturbing to the DEA that more and more high-quality heroin is coming from Colombia and at a cheaper price."
Apparently the DEA was "very disturbed" enough to look more closely at Hilliard's jet charter operation. The result was their firm opposition to returning the plane to Hilliard.
And although no one from Plane 1 Leasing was charged with any crime, there appears to be abundant evidence pointing to the conclusion that––at the very least––the company had to have known what was going on.
"It was just blatant," said one aviation observer. "That same plane flew that same run thirty or forty times, ferrying the same people. And they always paid cash for the rental."
"The red flags could not have been raised any higher."
The plane's frequent roundtrips to South America were confirmed by an official at Executive Jet Service, the facility which serviced the jet at Orlando Executive Airport, who stated the plane made weekly down-and-back runs to Venezuela.
This isn't Watergate. It's bigger.
Three weeks after his jet was impounded by the DEA, Hilliard asked for it back in a motion filed in the U.S. District Court in Orlando, arguing that he was an 'innocent owner' unwittingly duped by a known individual.
"Plane 1 and its officers shareholders and directors were not aware of the identity of the passengers utilizing the Lear 35A on this trip other than Mr. Valles," stated Hilliard's motion, and were "unaware that the individuals chartering the plane were engaging in criminal conduct," as well as being "not aware of any facts from which they should have been aware that individuals leasing the plane were engaging in criminal conduct."
The U.S. Attorney's office opposed the plane's return, "because the property was used or acquired as a result of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
In a hearing on November 3, 2000 Federal Magistrate Judge James Glazebrook denied Hilliard's motion to get his Lear back.
"Wally took a big hit on that one," stated one aviation observer at the Naples Airport. "The DEA was not going to let him have that plane back."
"The DEA was planning on adding it to their Border Patrol fleet," confirmed a spokesman for the Lear jet's current owner. East Coast Jets of Allentown, PA. bought the plane, they told us, after the insurance company which had insured it for the lender against seizure successfully wrenched it back from the DEA after Hilliard had been removed from the picture.
Wally Hilliard's central role in the purchase and operation of the flight school that was a magnet for Mohamed Atta and the Hamburg cadre requires raising some serious questions about his charter jet company's possible involvement in heroin trafficking...
Especially since the chief product for export of Osama Bin Laden's terrorist organization was also, strangely enough, heroin.
Perhaps this is all just coincidence.
But one has to wonder: will these questions ever be asked in a proper forum?
Is there even a pretense of democracy in America anymore?
Testifying in the wake of the 9/11 attack before the Senate Banking Committee about terrorist connections in money laundering, Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff said:
"Frankly, we can't differentiate between terrorism and organized crime and drug dealing. These groups don't hold themselves independently: they work with one another. Terrorists get engaged in drug activity. They have relationships with organized crime."
Too true, dude. Too true.
Who is this man and why does he pose such a threat to the media elite?
He is the man who exposed the IRS incompetence by going to the media with news that his school apparently got the "ok" to train some hijackers months after the official story of the 911 occurances was planted firmly in the mouths of media conglomerates.
He knows the truth... and therefore must be framed since the countless assasination attempts at his life are sabotaged/
I think you must be talking about the reporter
Get rid of the..........(DOT FUCKER)
hay hay, ho ho,
Dot head Fuckers have got to GO!
......., like yourself has the right to post his
opinion just as you yourself does. Are you nervous?
Deal with it. And quit your whining. It's annoying
and immature.
(Decoy, Distract and Trash)
by
Steven M. Greer M.D.
Director, The Disclosure Project
Copyright 2002
A former high official at the NSA (National Security Agency) told me about a protocol informally dubbed DDT - that old poisonous chemical long-banned in much of the world. In this application, it stands for Decoy, Distract and Trash - which is what sophisticated intelligence operatives use to set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject.
This pretty much sums up the lion's share of all things UFOlogical, with the latest example being the much-hyped Sci-Fi channel roll-out of Spielberg's mini-series, 'Taken'.
Late last spring or early summer, I was contacted by the PR firm responsible for the ramp-up to 'Taken' and was informed that they wanted to link it to Disclosure. I was told that those rolling out 'Taken' are "joined at the hip with the main stream media" and that they were going to spend a very large sum of money moving the UFO subject front-stage and center to empower Disclosure as sort of a sophisticated 'P and A' (entertainment industry jargon for Prints and Advertising that promotes a film or product).
DDT. By linking Disclosure and ensnaring Disclosure witnesses and evidence in a commercial undertaking like 'Taken' (on the Sci-Fi channel nonetheless) the ultimate DDT program can be achieved. It is not just the hijacking and trashing of serious witnesses and evidence into the silly season of 'Honey, I just had sex with aliens' routine. It is the association of important evidence, scientists and witnesses with a xenophobic titled science fiction product like 'Taken' and the entire abduction industry that can empower fear in the minds of the masses regarding all things extraterrestrial.
You will recall that no less a figure than Wernher Von Braun warned to his personal spokesperson Dr. Carol Rosin in 1974 that after the cold war, those operating behind the scenes would roll out global terrorism and then, finally, a hoaxed alien threat from outer space. Dr. Rosin gave this testimony before 9/11, by the way.
Why? Well, a xenophobic and hysterical take on visitors from space (so well represented by military hoaxed abductions made to look 'alien') would have something for everyone who enjoy secret power and control:
For the military-industrial-laboratory-intelligence-corporate complex, there would be trillions of dollars in lucrative spending for Star Wars - now with a REAL enemy to fight! As they said in the movie Independence Day, "Lets kick alien butt..."
For schemers wishing to unite the world in militarism and control through fear (as opposed to our common humanity and peace...) what better way to attain this goal than to roll out serious UFO evidence and link it to a body of hoaxed faux-alien encounters contained within the abduction sub-culture? People are easily herded and controlled through fear, and can there be anything more scary than evil 'aliens' floating poor, innocent humans onto UFOs to torture and sexually abuse them? Right.
For misguided religious fanatics and secret religious cults, who pine for the long-awaited end-of-the-world, Armageddon scenario, what better fulfillment of their misinterpreted prophecy than a Final Great Battle in space?
Well, there is just something for everyone, if you can get people to buy it. But how?
All good disinformation has some real, true information contained within it. The mixing of truth with lies makes the lies believable. So by hoaxing a scary alien abduction scenario with serious data, evidence, documents and witnesses, the lie goes down so much more smoothly...
Those inside the multi-million dollar abduction industry have for years told me of suppressed testimony from abductees who recall human military operatives running the show - essentially controlling the event. Dr. Helmut Lammer and others have documented this hideous abuse of civilians by rogue covert operations. And most importantly, we have interviewed military and corporate insiders who have described in excruciating detail how they have hoaxed these 'alien abductions' - and why.
The truth is hidden in plain sight, but it is wrapped in so much deception that it is seldom seen.
One such military operative explained to me how his team had abducted key military people at one point so that they would "learn to hate the aliens" and get on board the covert Star Wars juggernaut.
When you have billions of black-budget dollars at your disposal, reverse-engineered Alien Reproduction Vehicles (see the testimony of Mark McCandlish in the book 'Disclosure' available at http://www.DiscosureProject.org/shop.htm) biological creatures made on Earth that look 'alien' and sophisticated mind-altering psychotronic weapon systems, hoaxing an 'alien abduction' is like taking candy from a baby.
And you know, the truth is so much more bizarre than fiction (even Sci-Fi channel fiction) that who will believe it?
Well, we tried. I explained all this to Mr. Spielberg's representatives at the Sci-Fi channel and PR firm, and that I would say as much if included in any of their programs. An invitation has not been forthcoming. What a surprise!
By using Mr. Podesta, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, and other notables (including, alas, some Disclosure Project witnesses) this DDT operation is attempting to jump start Von Braun's long-ago predicted hoaxed alien threat. For what could be more terrifying than linking real ET and UFO evidence and serious military and government testimony, with a xenophobic-titled science fiction product like 'Taken', along with all the other virulent and fearsome hoaxed experiences purveyed by the abduction industry? A great DDT it is.
I do not know if Mr. Spielberg, Mr. Podesta, the Sci-Fi executives, George Washington University, PBS' Ray Suarez, or others know of any of this. In most cases, most players in a DDT disinformation scheme are unwitting victims themselves. Let's hope they are.
But with power comes responsibility. And Mr. Spielberg et al have money and power and need to do their due diligence lest they be used by a DDT scheme created to ramp up Star Wars and Armageddon.
Especially Mr. Spielberg. For I have long admired his dedication to documenting the history of the Holocaust by recording the testimony of those who survived it. I worry now that he is, perhaps unwittingly, being used to unleash the worst holocaust the Earth has ever seen.
Steven M. Greer MD
Director, The Disclosure Project
October 24, 2002
For more information, please refer to Dr. Greer's paper "When Disclosure Serves Secrecy" (and other related papers at http:// http://www.disclosureproject.org/writings.htm).
It is indeed disturbing that the US, UK & Australian Governments and the Western news
media have found it fit to conclude that Al Qaeda or alternatively a local Islamic organization
was responsible for the Bali attack. This allegation has been made without any evidence
whatsoever so far, .to substantiate it.
The speed at which such allegations were publicized reminds one of the same speed at which
Islamic organizations were accused of carrying out the September 11 attack and the Oklahoma
bombings. It clearly indicates that the parties to be accused had been planned well in advance of
all three events In this connection, the Indonesian Government in general and in particular the
Minister responsible for arrests must be congratulated for not cow-towing to condescending
Western pressure by taking into custody each and every Indonesian citizen whose arrest would
fit into the joint hidden agenda of the US, UK and Australia
If one tries to ascertain who is responsible for a particular act, one must assess who was going
to benefit mostly from the particular event and its reasonably expected consequences. There is
no doubt that the White anti-Islamic people and anti-Islamic countries are the main beneficiaries
of the events in the medium term, particularly from point of view of waging war to capture Islamic
countries. They include those who will now find an excuse to intervene militarily and politically
in Indonesia and take it over like a de-facto colony, under the pretext of finding the culprit,
particularly the US, UK and Australia who have all been clearly interested in breaking up
Indonesia and sharing the country’s resources .
In this connection, it would be worthwhile to make an objective assessment of the nature and
extent of direct and indirect support given to all the separatist movements in Indonesia by the
three Governments and their NGOs.. Such support has been clearly aimed at breaking up
Indonesia into smaller countries and sharing the resources among the three countries. It will be
worthwhile assessing how many people have been killed in the process of these separatist
movements , which were aided and abetted by the US, UK and Australia primarily for their
respective benefits but under other do-gooder pretexts..
The Bali incident has also given the new NEO-FASCIST AXIS, which has been following to the
letter the policies, strategies and propaganda tactics of its FASCIST predecessors, a `straw’
to cling on to, in their faltering campaign to secure UN approval to attack Iraq . The new
argument is that Iraq was shielding the Al Qaeda implying thereby that Iraq was vicariously
responsible for the Bali attack as well!.
The Oklahoma incident and the media propaganda ably carried out by the anti-Islamic media ,
increased the sentiments against the Islamic world and even resulted in a large number of Islam
ic people being subjected to physical assaults by hard line anti-Islamic Americans.
The September 11 incident gave the US the pretext to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the
Government, set up a puppet Government under the pretext of democratizing Afghanistan and
take steps to take over control of the oil and other resources of the country. September 11
also provided the US and UK an opportunity to threaten to militarily intervene in Iraq and Iran.
In this connection it is relevant to note that US officials have recently declared publicly that a
McCarthy style US Military Government similar to the post-war Government in Japan would
be set up in Iraq after President President Saddam is overthrown. So much for giving the people
of Iraq Democracy!
Fortunately, World opinion, including that of the UN Security Council have reduced the prospects of the US, and those suffering from pathological servitude to the US from taking the RISKS of attacking Iraq.
However in order to honour the undertakings given to campaign contributors from the arms &
oil Industries,in the respective AXIS countries, it was necessary to identify another oil producing Islamic country for intervening militarily and taking over its oil and other resources.
Bali was indeed the result .
Bernard Wijedoru
http://www.geocities.com
The comment: "Thirdly, I personally have a friend who works at the Pentagon and was there when the plane hit. I called her a few days later after it happened to see how she was, was everything OK with her, etc.... and she filled me in on a lot of stuff that happened and what she saw." So, can you fill US in, please? Did she see the plane coming in? Did she see lots of dead bodies? Did she see firemen spraying foam on the fire? What did she eyewitness?
You have a phone I bet - make some calls! Probably cost less than $100 in long distance charges. Spread that over a year and you have to kick in less than $10 a month. You can publish the results right here on Indymedia!
Heck, you can even record the interviews (with permission) and upload the audio files! But then you would have to confront the truth man-to-man / woman. Can't let that happen, can we?
http://www.unfriendlyskies.com