Thursday, June 28, 2007


You will find my latest posts, and those of fellow team-members, on Suzie-Q and my own website, Friends of the American Revolution.

Suzie-Q is a liberal blogsite devoted to news and current affairs, while Friends of the American Revolution looks at a number of themes connected to the American Revolution.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 24, 2007

"Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)
The US media consensus is that "the United States faces its greatest threat of a terrorist assault since the September 11 attacks" (USA Today, 12 February 2006) The American Homeland is threatened by " Islamic terrorists", allegedly supported by Tehran and Damascus.

America is under attack" by an illusive "outside enemy".

Concepts are turned upside down. War becomes Peace. "Offense" becomes a legitimate means of "self-defense". In the words of President Bush:

"Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response: We must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to them." (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007)
The intent is to seek a pretext to wage a preemptive war.

A "terrorist attack on America" could be used to justify, in the eyes of an increasingly credulous public opinion, on "humanitarian grounds", the launching of a major theater war directed against Iran and Syria.

Allegedly supported by Iran, the terrorists are said to possess nuclear capabilities. They are supposedly planning to explode "radiological dispersion devices" (RDD) or "dirty bombs" in densely populated urban areas in the US. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had already forewarned in 2003 that, "It would be easy for terrorists to cook up radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs to explode inside the U.S. … How likely it is, I can't say..." (10 February 2003).

The sheer absurdity that Al Qaeda might have advanced capabilities to wage a nuclear attack on America is, nonetheless, pervasive in US media reports. Moreover, numerous drills and exercises, simulating a terrorist attack using nuclear devices, have been conducted in recent years, creating the illusion that "the threat is real":

"What we do know is that our enemies want to inflict massive casualties and that terrorists have the expertise to invent a wide range of attacks, including those involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons. ... [E]xploding a small nuclear weapon in a major city could do incalculable harm to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to businesses and the economy,...(US Congress, House Financial Services Committee, June 21, 2007).


More

Sunday, June 24, 2007

New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

by Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Global Research, June 24, 2007

Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.

Madison, WI (PRWEB) June 21, 2007 - A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission":

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, "The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001." The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, "Pandora's Box: Chapter 2," available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Pandora's+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 .

According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. "We have developed four lines of argument that prove--conclusively, in my judgment--that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot's study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon."

Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot's results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, "We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building," including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government's official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

"Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer said. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact." Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Bohemian Grove Roster Sent Anonymously to Infowars

Membership List Reveals Former Presidents, Host of Academics and NWO Operators

An interesting package came into the Infowars mailbox recently-- sent anonymously with no return address-- but the contents revealed the reason for secrecy. Someone has shipped our office the 2006 membership roster for the secretive and exclusive Bohemian Grove, which Alex Jones infiltrated and exposed in 2000.

A number of high profile elites appear on the list, including David Rockefeller (and son), Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, David Gergen (who Alex Jones confronted about his grove membership), Colin Powell, George P. Shultz, Donald Rumsfeld and even Kenneth Starr, who gained attention after prosecuting Bill Clinton.

See a 1981 news report on the grove.

Many U.S. Presidents have gone to the grove, but most do not appear on the membership roster, though we know that Reagan, Nixon (both pictured below at the Grove), George W. Bush, Herbert Hoover and many other presidents have also attended but are not listed, as is the case for presidential advisor Karl Rove.

Walter Cronkite, the infamous and notable TV journalist, is also a member and listed in the directory. The 'P' next to his name denotes "Regular - Professional." Also listed is the King of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf.

Beyond Presidents and elite world controllers, the exclusive male-only club has obviously used the appeal of the retreat to influence the world of academia-- at least 50 well-known universities are represented at Bohemian Grove, including almost every school in California, at least any that come to mind. The members-- which includes listings of older and deceased members who no longer attend-- are influential faculty members, board members, trustees or presidents of universities.

Stanford University with 17 members and U.C. Berkeley with 19 members, were the most heavily represented schools. (See members from academia below-- note: only those members with schools listed by their name were counted as academia, with many other members listed by city and name or only by name).

Treaty 'hands swathes of power to Brussels'


Tony Blair emerged from tense negotiations today claiming to have secured a new European treaty which protects Britain’s interests but which opponents say hands vast swathes of power to Brussels.

The Prime Minister won a legal exemption from a new Charter of Fundamental Rights, one of four "red lines" fought over during days of acrimonious negotiations.

But he surrendered Britain’s right to veto EU decisions in more than 40 other areas of policy including energy, tourism, space policy, transport, civil protection and migration.

The visibly-tired Prime Minister said the most important thing about the deal was that it allowed European nations to focus on the issues that concerned their citizens: "The truth is we’ve been arguing now for many years about the constitutional question.

"This deal gives us a chance to move on. It was important to get out of this bind into which we’d got with the constitutional treaty: to go back to making simple changes in our rules that allow us to operate more effectively now we are in a large European Union."

The outgoing Prime Minister, who hands over to Gordon Brown on Wednesday, said his work on Europe was a key part of his legacy.

He told reporters as the negotiations came to an end shortly before 4am (GMT): "My position throughout the course of my time as Prime Minister has been to get out of this endless destructive negativity and realise that actually Britain has a lot to offer Europe and Europe has a lot to offer Britain."

Full Story

How can Blair possibly be given this job?

I suppose that astonishment is not the word for it. Stupefaction comes to mind. I simply could not believe my ears in Beirut when a phone call told me that Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara was going to create "Palestine". I checked the date - no, it was not 1 April - but I remain overwhelmed that this vain, deceitful man, this proven liar, a trumped-up lawyer who has the blood of thousands of Arab men, women and children on his hands is really contemplating being "our" Middle East envoy.

Can this really be true? I had always assumed that Balfour, Sykes and Picot were the epitome of Middle Eastern hubris. But Blair? That this ex-prime minister, this man who took his country into the sands of Iraq, should actually believe that he has a role in the region - he whose own preposterous envoy, Lord Levy, made so many secret trips there to absolutely no avail - is now going to sully his hands (and, I fear, our lives) in the world's last colonial war is simply overwhelming.

Of course, he'll be in touch with Mahmoud Abbas, will try to marginalise Hamas, will talk endlessly about "moderates"; and we'll have to listen to him pontificating about morality, how he's absolutely and completely confident that he's doing the right thing (and this, remember, is the same man who postponed a ceasefire in Lebanon last year in order to share George Bush's ridiculous hope of an Israeli victory over Hizbollah) in bringing peace to the Middle East...

Full Story

Will the last person to leave the DoJ pleae turn the lights out! (continued)



Bush pick for key Justice Department job withdraws

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's nominee for the third-ranking U.S. Justice Department post withdrew on Friday, becoming the department's latest casualty amid congressional scrutiny of the firings of federal prosecutors.

The move by William Mercer, selected by Bush for the post of associate attorney general, came just days before a scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday on his nomination. Mercer had been serving in the job on an acting basis since last September while also holding the job of U.S. attorney in Montana, a post he will retain.

Mercer becomes the sixth Justice Department official to step aside since March as the Democratic-led Congress investigates the department's firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

"After much consideration, I have concluded that it is highly unlikely that both the Judiciary Committee and the Senate will take prompt action on my nomination in the near term, if ever," Mercer said in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explaining why he asked Bush to withdraw his nomination.

"This view is informed in part by statements suggesting that some senior Justice nominees will not be voted upon until the Senate receives e-mails and witnesses it has demanded from the White House," Mercer added.
Gonzales, who has fended off demands from some lawmakers for his resignation, ousted the prosecutors last year as part of a plan that originated at the White House.

Critics have questioned whether partisan politics played an improper role in the dismissal plans. Bush and Gonzales say the firing of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys, all Bush appointees, was justified, although mishandled.

THE CURSE OF DICK CHENEY

As vice president, Cheney has been the decisive force pushing America into war. In the inner councils of the administration, it was he who emasculated Colin Powell, cut the State Department out of effective policymaking, foisted fake reports on the intelligence agencies and supplanted the National Security Council. It was also Cheney who placed appointees personally loyal to him, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, in charge of the Pentagon and speckled the warmaking bureaucracy with desk officers culled from neoconservative Washington think tanks -- ideologues with no military experience ~ Those who have known him over the years remain astounded by what they describe as his almost autistic indifference to the thoughts and feelings of others : T.D. Allman / Rolling Stone
Vice President Dick Cheney's shadow presidency is now in full view where he has now asserted that his office is not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, and therefore not bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information by government agencies.

This is further evidence that Cheney's fingerprints are on virtually every lie and abuse of power committed by this corrupt administration. This latest abuse of power as well his shameless, deceitful and vindictive speeches during the build up to our illegal war and occupation of Iraq remind me of an insightful article by Rolling Stone entitled THE CURSE OF DICK CHENEY.

ROLLING STONE revealed the unvarnished truth ~ Dick Cheney is as big a loser as George W Bush . It's the blind leading the blind ~ no wonder we are in such deep trouble.

T.D Allman brilliantly reveals in detail how Cheneys career has been marred by one disaster after another . This is a compelling insight into, perhaps, the most dangerous and shameless man in our government today. To fully understand this unindicted criminal ~ you must read this article.

Excerpt:

" The period between August 1974 and November 1976, when Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter, is essential to understanding George W. Bush's disastrous misjudgments -- and Dick Cheney's role in them. In both cases, Cheney and Rumsfeld played the key role in turning opportunity into chaos. Ford, like Bush later, hadn't been elected president. As he entered office, he was overshadowed by a secretary of state (Kissinger then, Powell later) who was considered incontestably his better. Ford was caught as flat-footed by the fall of Saigon in April 1975 as Bush was by the September 2001 attacks. A better president, with more astute advisers, might have arranged a more orderly ending to the long and divisive war. But instead of heeding the country's desire for honesty and reconciliation, Rumsfeld and Cheney convinced Ford that the way to turn himself into a real president was to stir up crises in international relations while lurching to the right in domestic politics."

E-vote 'threat' to UK democracy

British democracy could be undermined by moves to use electronic voting in elections, warns a report.

The risks involved in swapping paper ballots for touch screens far outweigh any benefits they may have, says the Open Rights Group report.

It based its conclusions on reports from observers who watched e-voting trials in May's local elections.

The group called for a halt to e-voting until it is reliable, easy to oversee and has proven its integrity.

Cost counting

Observers acting for the ORG scrutinised local elections in England which tried out e-voting as well as Scottish elections using electronic counting systems to tally votes.

What the observers saw led the ORG to express "serious concerns" about e-voting and whether it should be used local and national elections. In England, e-voting systems using kiosks, laptops, touch screens and mobile phones have been tried.

The ORG's main objection was that e-voting was currently a "black box" system which stopped voters seeing how their votes were recorded or counted.

This, said the ORG, made oversight of elections "impossible" and left them open to "error and fraud".

More

A Miscarriage of Justice

On 21 December 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was 38 minutes into its journey when it was blown up at 31,000 feet.

...Twelve years later, on 31 January 2001, a panel of three Scottish judges convicted a former Libyan intelligence officer for mass murder at Lockerbie. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was tried at a specially convened court on a former US air force base near the Dutch town of Zeist. Under a special international arrangement, the court, which sat without a jury, was temporarily declared sovereign territory of the United Kingdom, under the jurisdiction of Scottish law.

Al-Megrahi is still the only person to have been found guilty in connection with the attack. He was sentenced to 27 years in jail. His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, a fellow Libyan intelligence officer, was acquitted. Al-Megrahi was initially told that he would spend at least twenty years in prison, but the Crown, which was prosecuting, protested that this sentence was unduly lenient and petitioned the judges for a longer one. In 2003 the judges reconvened to rule that he must serve no less than 27 years before the parole board would consider his eligibility for release. Al-Megrahi’s defence team had already lodged an appeal against the conviction, but in March 2002 the guilty verdict was upheld.

...Lawyers, politicians, diplomats and relatives of Lockerbie victims now believe that the former Libyan intelligence officer is innocent. Robert Black QC, an emeritus professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, was one of the architects of the original trial in Holland. He has closely followed developments since the disaster happened and in 2000 devised the non-jury trial system for the al-Megrahi case.

Even before the trial he was so sure the evidence against al-Megrahi would not stand up in court that he is on record as saying that a conviction would be impossible. When I asked how he feels about this remark now, Black replied: ‘I am still absolutely convinced that I am right. No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted him and it is an absolute disgrace and outrage what the Scottish court did.’

Full Story

President Bush claims he's exempt from security oversight too, Los Angeles Times reports

The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's.

WASHINGTON — The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

The issue flared Thursday when Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) criticized Cheney for refusing to file annual reports with the federal National Archives and Records Administration, for refusing to spell out how his office handles classified documents, and for refusing to submit to an inspection by the archives' Information Security Oversight Office.

The archives administration has been pressing the vice president's office to cooperate with oversight for the last several years, contending that by not doing so, Cheney and his staff have created a potential national security risk.

More

Friday, June 22, 2007

DON'T UNDERESTIMATE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

New York Mayor is jumping the Republican ship for two good reasons ~ Bush is determined to take the party down with him in 2008 and, as an Independent, Bloomberg offers the electorate a fresh and compelling alternative versus seeing the Clintons in the White House again: Allen L Roland



Despite Bloomberg's statements, he is often talked about as a potential 2008 independent presidential candidate. Bloomberg denies these plans, but has dropped several coy hints over the past year that the idea has crossed his mind:

In summer 2006, he met with Al From of the centrist group the Democratic Leadership Council to talk about the logistics of a possible run.

Bloomberg re-launched his personal website (http://www.mikebloomberg.com), which had been defunct since his successful election to a second mayoral term. Writing in the New York Sun, Jill Gardiner noted Bloomberg's site was conspicuously red white and blue and "strikingly similar to the sites of the 2008 presidential candidates."

After a conversation with Bloomberg, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has also suggested that he and Bloomberg could run on a shared independent ticket for the presidency.

On This Week on June 10, 2007, anchor George Stephanopoulos mentioned four necessary conditions Bloomberg insiders say would be prerequisites to a presidential campaign for the Mayor:

  • 70% of the nation would need to feel as though the country is moving in the wrong direction.

  • Both nominees would need to have disapproval ratings in the 40% range.

  • 40% of the country would need to be open to a third party candidate.

  • 20–25% of the country would need to be "open to Mike Bloomberg". During that airing, panelist Jay Carney also made allusions to a conversation between Bloomberg and top staffers. During said conversation, Bloomberg asked approximately how much a presidential campaign would cost, one staffer replied "around $500 million."


A $500 million budget would allow Bloomberg to circumvent many of the common obstacles faced by third party candidates seeking the White House.

On June 19, 2007, Bloomberg left the Republican Party, eschewing the labels of party politics and filed papers to change to an Independent after a scathing speech about the current political climate in Washington. This has only increased speculation about his future plans, but Bloomberg continues to say he won't run.

The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy: Privatizing Our

The hot story in the Blogosphere is that the "erroneous" exit polls that showed Kerry carrying Florida and Ohio (among other states) weren't erroneous at all - it was the numbers produced by paperless voting machines that were wrong, and Kerry actually won. As more and more analysis is done of what may (or may not) be the most massive election fraud in the history of the world, however, it's critical that we keep the largest issue at the forefront at all time: Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes?

Maybe Florida went for Kerry, maybe for Bush. Over time - and through the efforts of some very motivated investigative reporters - we may well find out. Bev Harris of http://www.blackboxvoting.org/just filed what may be the largest Freedom of Information Act [FOIA} filing in history), and bloggers and investigative reporters are discovering an odd discrepancy in exit polls being largely accurate in paper-ballot states and oddly inaccurate in touch-screen electronic voting states Even raw voter analyses are showing extreme oddities in touch-screen-run Florida, and eagle-eyed bloggers are finding that news organizations are retroactively altering their exit polls to coincide with what the machines ultimately said.

But in all the discussion about voting machines, let's never forget the concept of the commons, because this usurpation is the ultimate felony committed by conservatives this year.

More

See also: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Thursday, June 21, 2007

New Study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon

by James Fetzer
OpEdNews
June 21, 2007 at 06:12:39

A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission".

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

b. All altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, "The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001." The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, "Pandora's Box: Chapter 2," available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Pandora's+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 .

According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. "We have developed four lines of argument that prove--conclusively, in my judgment--that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot's study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon."

Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot's results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, "We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building," including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government's official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

"Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer said. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact." Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."

VIDEO: The Empire of Oil: The Hidden History of 9/11

by Aldan Monaghan
Global Research, June 21, 2007

Learn the secret history behind the events leading up to the September 11 attacks, seldom revealed to the public and who actually may have benefited the most from the attacks and why.

Purdue Simulation Full of Hot Air

George Washington's Blog
Thursday June 21, 2007

The newest volley in the disinformation campaign regarding 9/11 is a simulation of the Twin Towers created by Purdue University. As summarized by Raw Story:

The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according to an Associated Press vide report.

Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.

"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.
However, Kevin Ryan has already demonstrated that there was not enough energy from the airplane impacts to have knocked much of the fireproofing off. See also this article.

And very few of the core columns were severed by the planes' impact. And tests by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner core.

Researchers have stated that the Purdue simulation contradicts the observed facts in other ways, and in the next couple of weeks, they will publish their findings.

Moreover, the Purdue simulation still does not address the flies in the ointment which NIST also ignored:

(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.

(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could not hold true for the South Tower.

(3) The people who designed the Twin Towers did not think that an airplane plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed, they assumed that "all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet assumed "The building structure would still be there." Since most of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?

(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence, why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?

(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?

(6) How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?

(7) No one can explain why "steel columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Absent controlled demolition, how could such temperatures have been generated by jet fuel or diesel?

As if that's not enough, Kevin Ryan pointed out to me today by email that the Purdue simulation contradicts many aspects of NIST's findings:

"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.

2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fule tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.

3. How did the fieproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."
In other words, not only does the Purdue simulation contain many of the same errors as the NIST reports, but, as if that's not bad enough, it stretches the truth beyond even what NIST itself has done.

Moreover, as pointed out by the blog Truth Or Lies:

"The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'”
As Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory put it:

“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion: this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well in advance."
Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

NYT: Bush 'strangely quiet' on 'Attorneygate' subpoenas


RAW STORY
Published: Saturday June 16, 2007

Two former White House officials will face subpoenas for their involvement in the firing of 8 US Attorneys earlier this year, as Michael Roston reported for RAW STORY Wednesday.

House Judiciary Committee investigators issued a subpoena for Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel and one-time Bush Supreme Court nominee, and the Senate issued one for Sara Taylor, a former top aide to Karl Rove. Both committees also sought a variety of documents from the White House.

In a column slated for Sunday's New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg notes that "President Bush was strangely quiet last week," even though he "had been quite vocal, and perfectly clear, back in March when Democrats first delivered their subpoena threat."

Bush had said, "I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials," and added that he was "absolutely" willing to fight over subpoenas in court.

"But when the subpoenas actually arrived on Wednesday, for Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, Bush said nothing," Stolberg observes. "The current White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding -- who recently beefed up his staff by hiring additional lawyers to handle the growing demands for documents and testimony -- has yet to offer a response."

Stolberg continues, "Those sounds of silence suggest that the White House is grappling with a dilemma. If Bush reaches an accommodation with lawmakers on testimony from Miers and Taylor, Democrats will inevitably demand similar terms for Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser. The last thing Bush wants is Rove going up to Capitol Hill to submit to questions from Democrats."

Developing...

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Will the last person to leave the DOJ please turn out the lights!



Official close to attorney firings quits

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 15, 7:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A senior Justice Department official who helped carry out the dismissals of federal prosecutors said Friday he is resigning. Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, is the fifth Justice official to leave after being linked to the dismissals of the prosecutors.

Elston was accused of threatening at least four of the eight fired U.S. attorneys to keep quiet about their ousters. In a statement Friday, the Justice Department said Elston was leaving voluntarily to take a job with an unnamed Washington-area law firm.

The firings have led to congressional investigations, an internal Justice Department inquiry and calls on Capitol Hill for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Reached Friday afternoon, Elston confirmed his plans to leave but declined further comment. His departure is effective at the end of next week and was widely anticipated since McNulty announced his own resignation last month.

In a statement, McNulty said Elston served the Justice Department "with distinction for nearly eight years."

"With his breadth of trial and appellate service, I have no doubt he will continue to enjoy an outstanding legal career," McNulty said.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) said the resignation raises a red flag for investigators.

"When yet another significant player resigns in the U.S. attorney scandal, it only deepens the mystery of who targeted U.S. attorneys for firing, why they did it, and what exactly is going on in the highest reaches of the Justice Department and who is filling the vacuum of leadership that has developed there," said Conyers, D-Mich.
As McNulty's top aide, Elston's duties included overseeing the government's 93 U.S. attorneys nationwide. Elston helped plan and carry out the firings of seven of the eight prosecutors who were dismissed in 2006 — firings which were orchestrated by two of Gonzales' top aides beginning shortly after the 2004 elections. Elston also called several of the U.S. attorneys afterward trying to quell the growing outcry.

At least four of the prosecutors Elston contacted said they felt threatened by his calls, which they interpreted as demands to stay quiet about why they were fired. Congress is investigating the firings, which Democrats believe were politically motivated.

Elston and his attorney, Bob Driscoll, said the phone calls were never meant to be threatening.

Statements released from the House Judiciary Committee painted a different picture.

Anthony says: Will the last person to leave the Department of Justice please turn out the lights!

Push for Blair as new EU president

By George Parker in Brussels, John Thornhill in Paris and James Blitz in London
Financial Times
Published: June 15 2007 22:02 | Last updated: June 15 2007 22:02

Tony Blair, the British prime minister, could end up swapping Downing Street for a job as the first full-time European Union president, under a plan being actively touted by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.

Mr Sarkozy is understood to have discussed the idea with other EU leaders ahead of next week’s European summit, Mr Blair’s last major international event as prime minister.

His support for Mr Blair taking on a big European job is a remarkable sign of Anglo-French rapprochement since Mr Sarkozy replaced Jacques Chirac as president last month.

German diplomats say Mr Sarkozy put his plan to Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, while EU officials say the French president has also touted his idea around other capitals, including Madrid. But the British prime minister remains unpopular with governments in countries such as Italy and Spain, which opposed the Iraq war. Mr Blair’s failure to take Britain into the euro will also count against him.

Mr Blair’s aides admit that Mr Sarkozy and other EU leaders have suggested the idea, but Downing Street insisted that Mr Blair was standing down from frontline politics on June 27. He has denied interest in the job.

Number 10 said talks on “theoretical” jobs formed no part of sensitive negotiations on a new treaty, which aims to establish an EU president and foreign minister in 2009. The new role of president of the European Council – representing the bloc’s 27 member states – would be a permanent replacement for the six-monthly rotating presidency of the EU.

One of Mr Sarkozy’s allies said they could not confirm the president was backing Mr Blair, but expressed support for the idea: “Why not? He is qualified for it. We want a politically strong Europe. We want a president who is credible.”

The president would have few formal powers, but would give the EU strategic leadership and represent the bloc on the world stage on issues such as climate change, bilateral relations and development in conjunction with the new foreign minister.

An FT/Harris opinion poll, out on Monday, suggests Mr Blair remains a divisive figure, with 64 per cent of Germans, 60 per cent of Britons and 53 per cent of French respondents saying he would not be good for the job.

Turds found in Capitol, but no 'blossoms' in sight

RAW STORY
Published: Friday June 15, 2007

According to a Capitol Hill newspaper, police are unable to solve the mystery of the "caca caper."

"Usually, if a turd gets into the Senate, it’s because he or she was elected," Emily Heil reports for Roll Call. "But on Wednesday, several large piles of actual, nonmetaphorical 'No. 2' found their way into the Capitol, and the source isn’t yet clear."
Heil continues, "On Wednesday afternoon, Capitol Police cordoned off a section of the hallway on the third floor of the Senate side of the Capitol, where at least three piles of the stuff were causing a stench — and a stir. At first, the word circulating among the staff was that a visiting child had fallen ill while in the gallery. But then the prevailing theory was that the foul stuff had come from an adult or group of adults making a yet-to-be-determined political statement."

According to the paper, "Reports also circulated that the yucky stuff had been smeared on seats in the gallery overlooking the chamber floor, and the gallery remained closed hours after the incident was first noted."



To see a full list of all Turds including the new 2006 Range click here

Ministry - Lies Lies Lies (9/11 Truth Music Video)

Gentlemen we have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center? (Laughter) Does anybody else see a problem here? If the government has nothing to hide why are they so afraid to answer a few questions? This story does not add up

We're on a mission to never forget 3,000 people that I’ve never met We want some answers and all that we get Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies X3 Surpise surprise

Lies Lies

We're on a mission to dig up the truth You think we’re stupid and there’s no proof Well let me tell you that the time has come To pull the trigger on the smoking gun Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies X3 Surpise surprise

Lies Lies Lies Lies

Don’t listen to me listen to your head Don’t listen Don’t listen to anything, they’ve said Don’t listen

Lies Lies Lies Lies

America has been hijacked Not by Al Qaeda, not by Bin Laden But by a group of tyrants That should be of great concern to all Americans

We're on a mission to bring out the facts You got your stories but they all have cracks Misinformation, lies and deceit What made you think that we were all asleep Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies X3 Surpise surprise

Lies Lies Lies Lies

Don’t listen to me listen to your head Don’t listen Don’t listen to anything, they’ve said Don’t listen

Lies Lies Lies Lies

Don’t listen to me listen to your head

Friday, June 15, 2007

Colbert "Confused" By Republican Ron Paul

Comedy Central
Thursday June 14, 2007

Snow: President Bush Is ‘On The Frontlines’ Of The Iraq War ‘Every Day’

In today’s White House press briefing, reporter Helen Thomas asked Tony Snow if there are “any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war.” Stunningly, Snow claimed that President Bush is actually on the “frontlines” of the war in Iraq:

Q: Are there any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war?

SNOW: Yeah, the President. The President is in the war every day.

Q: Come on, that isn’t my question –

SNOW: Well, no, if you ask any president who is a commander in chief –

Q: On the frontlines, where ever…

SNOW: The President.

Blair could face Trial for War Crimes

Tony Blair could face prosecution for war crimes in Iraq following a legal bid launched on June 11.

Former SNP MP Jim Sillars has handed a 10,000-word dossier to Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini urging her to charge the PM under Scots law.

He claims Blair should be held to account for conspiring to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime and for starting the war in Iraq.

Both are illegal under international law. An attempt to have Blair hauled before a criminal court in England failed after lawyers said it wasn't the place to deal with international law.

But Sillars claims Scottish courts have the power to try Blair for war crimes if they believe an established offence, such as murder, has been committed in the process.

Sillars said: "There can be no prosecution at the international criminal court because it doesn't have jurisdiction."

"There is no chance of a special court being established by the United Nations because Britain and the United States have the veto at the Security Council. There is no chance of a prosecution in England and Wales."

"But of course Scots law is an entirely different entity, an entirely different jurisdiction with different rules, procedures and instruments available to it."

Sillars said he had been told by legal experts that the Prime Minister has a case to answer.

And he warned: "The Lord Advocate would have to give a very good explanation why, with the evidence presented, she didn't instigate an investigation -- because we have jurisdiction."

New French President Clearly Pissed as a Fart

Anger at Blair's 'secret deal' to sign new EU constitution

UK Daily Mail
Friday June 15, 2007

Tony Blair has been engulfed in a row over Europe after it became clear he is under huge pressure to sign a "son of constitution" treaty next week.

A leaked letter by current EU president Angela Merkel revealed that a deal is being drafted to revive almost all the controversial elements of the flopped European Constitution.

The disclosure sparked demands for a UK referendum on the new treaty - and angry claims that EU leaders were trying to smuggle in a massive new extension of Brussels power "by the back".

Today Downing Street, which has already made plain that Mr Blair will not sanction a referendum, played down the fears and insisted that the final shape of the deal was unclear.

But the Merkel letter, which was leaked in Brussels, made plain that there is already broad agreement that "much of the substance" of the defunct constitution should be resurrected.

GOP Would be Wise to Back Ron Paul

by David Ferraro
June 15, 2007 at 10:00:51

After three Republican debates there is one thing that is abundantly clear. None of these men, with one exception, have much of a chance in the general election. That exception is surprisingly the little known Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

The fact is that the war in Iraq is the biggest issue of the 2008 election and that 70% of the American people want to see it come to an end. If the GOP decides to go the Rudy McRomney route, a trio that refuses to hold President Bush accountable for the mistakes of the past year, the result will undoubtedly be a Democratic win whether it is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

If most Republicans do not realize this then they are truly out of step with the rest of the country. The fact of the matter is that most Americans will not bother voting in the primaries or even do their homework and examine the two main candidates in the general election. They will rather vote with the pulse of the nation, and currently the nation wants to see us leave Iraq.

The Democrats know that they will reap the benefits in November 2008 if we are still patrolling the streets of Iraq next year. It is sickening to see how they are using the lives of our soldiers in Iraq as a political boost, and they are very blatantly shaping the issue to their benefit for the next election. It sure is politically expedient to continue to have the ruling Democratic Party fund an unpopular war without a timeline to withdraw but still have the top tier all vote against it. They are able to ensure that this issue will still be relevant for the presidential election but still have their top ponies with the voting record that says they tried to end it.

Further proof that the Democrats are framing the Iraq War to their benefit can be found in the last debate, when Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraq War was "George Bush’s war". Apparently she somehow forgot that she voted for it. She also stated that every Republican candidate was in favor of the war. I am sure that every Ron Paul supporter was taken back when they heard that lie. Maybe Hillary just figured Paul is so unlikely to win the GOP nomination that she didn’t include him in her assessment, but the fact is that she said this because she wants to be running against a pro war candidate. Alternatively, if Ron Paul were to win the nomination, the Democrats would rather find themselves running against a man with more credibility regarding the anti-war stance and effectively give the GOP the high ground on one of the most important issues of the election.

THE GERMAN SECRET SERVICE SPEAKS OF 9/11

by Christopher Bollyn
June 15, 2007 at 10:41:55

European intelligence experts dismiss the Bush "war on terrorism" as deception and reveal the realpolitik behind the aggression against Afghanistan.

Berlin - In Germany, where war plans for Afghanistan were already being discussed in July and where several of the "Arab hijackers" lived and studied, intelligence experts say the terror attacks of September 11 could not have been carried out without the support of a state secret service.

Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, told AFP that "the deathly precision" and "the magnitude of planning" behind the attacks of September 11 would have needed "years of planning."

Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, would require the "fixed frame" of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a "loose group" of terrorists like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg.

Many people would have been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach pointed to the absence of leaks as further indication that the attacks were "state organized actions."

Andreas von Bulow served on the parliamentary commission which oversees the three branches of the German secret service while a member of the Bundestag (German parliament) from 1969 to 1994, and wrote a book titled Im Namen des Staates (In the Name of the State) on the criminal activities of secret services, including the CIA.

Von Bulow told AFP that he believes that the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, is behind the September 11 terror attacks. These attacks, he said, were carried out to turn public opinion against the Arabs, and boost military and security spending.

"You don't get the higher echelons," von Bulow said, referring to the "architectural structure" which masterminds such terror attacks. At this level, he said, the organization doing the planning, such as Mossad, is primarily interested in affecting public opinion.

The architectural level planners use corrupt "guns for hire" such as Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist who von B'low called "an instrument of Mossad," high-ranking Stasi (former East German secret service) operatives, or Libyan agents who organize terror attacks using dedicated people, for example Palestinian and Arab "freedom fighters."

The terrorists who actually commit the crimes are what von Bulow calls "the working level," such as the 19 Arabs who allegedly hijacked the planes on September 11. "The working level is part of the deception," he said.

"Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation," von Bulow said, which is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events. "Journalists don't even raise the simplest questions," he said adding, "those who differ are labeled as crazy."

Both Werthebach and von Bulow said the lack of an open and official investigation, such as congressional hearings, into the events of September 11 was incomprehensible.

AFP asked von Bulow about the Taliban's ban on opium production: "Seventy percent of the drug trade is licensed by the intelligence agencies," von B'low said, and they are interested in keeping the drug traffic "running through their mills."

"The BND (German secret service) is steered by the CIA and the CIA is steered by Mossad," von Bulow said.

Horst Ehmke, who coordinated the German secret services directly under German prime minister Willi Brandt in the 70s, predicted a similar terrorist attack in his novel, Torches of Heaven, published last year, in which Turkish terrorists crash hijacked planes into Berlin.

EERIE PREDICTIONS

Although Ehmke had long expected "fundamentalist attacks," when he saw the televised images from September 11, he said it looked like a "Hollywood production."

"Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with 4 hijacked planes without the support of a secret service," Ehmke said, although he did not want to point to any particular agency.

"The most important thing in the struggle against terrorists, who are abusing religion, is the battle for the soul of the people and the nations," Ehmke said. "If this isn't resolved successfully, the 21st Century could be bloodier than the last."

A former Stasi agent who had warned the German secret service of terror attacks in America between September 10-20 told AFP that a high ranking Stasi chief named Jurgen Rogalla, who is "an airplane terror specialist," was probably involved in the attacks of September 11 along with Abu Nidal.

Both Nidal and Rogalla work with the Mossad, the former agent told AFP. Nidal, was said to be in Baghdad, and is a "leading officer for some Mossad agents." The agent said that Nidal was "involved directly" in the events of September 11.

September 11 was preparation for a larger attack on the United States, which is part of "an old plan," the agent said. Based on prior knowledge of this plan, the agent said that more attacks are imminent and that aircraft carriers may be targeted next. Rogalla is also strongly anti-religious and attacks on cathedrals or places of religious significance before Christmas are likely.

Rogalla was responsible for "turning NATO men" to spy for the East. One of the East's NATO spies, Reiner Rupp, known as "Topaz," provided Stasi and the Russians with the organization's highest secrets until he was discovered in 1993 by the BND. A CIA agent known as "Frank Lindsey" worked with Rogalla, according to the former Stasi agent.

TERROR INVESTIGATION BLOCKED

Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the administration of George W. Bush blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In a recently published book, "Bin Laden, la verite interdite" (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest due to official obstruction of his investigation of terrorism.

O'Neill had been in charge of national security in New York. While with the FBI, O'Neill led an investigation of Osama bin Laden and had forecast the possibility of an organized attack by terrorists operating from within the country.

O'Neill had investigated the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, FBI agents working under O'Neill captured Ramzi Yousef, a suspected lieutenant of bin Laden, who later was among those convicted for the World Trade Center bombing.

O'Neill was considered a top-notch investigator and was known for his pugnacity. He was barred by U.S. Ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine from that country. That dispute reportedly involved a struggle between the State Department, which sought to preserve relations with Yemen, and the FBI, represented by O'Neill, who wanted access to Yemeni suspects.

O'Neill, 49, was hired as chief of security at the World Trade Center following a 25-year career with the FBI and died on Sept. 11, the first day of his new job. O'Neill reportedly died after reentering the building to assist others.

Brisard said O'Neill told them that "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it."

EARLY WARNINGS

Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, according to The Guardian (UK).

The warnings to the Taliban originated at a four-day meeting of senior Americans, Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July. The meetings took place under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN secretary general Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.

The three Americans at the Berlin meeting were Tom Simons, former US ambassador to Pakistan, Karl "Rick" Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs, and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the state department until 1997.

There were other meetings arranged by Vendrell in which "representatives of the U.S. government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present," according to the French authors. "Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table."

The Berlin conference was the third meeting since November 2000 arranged by Mr. Vendrell. As a UN meeting, its official agenda was supposedly confined to trying to find a negotiated solution to the civil war in Afghanistan, ending terrorism and heroin trafficking, and discussing humanitarian aid.

CARPET OF GOLD -- OR BOMBS

The U.S. government's primary objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime in order to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia, the French authors wrote.

Until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia," from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean, they said.

"The oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that," the book says. When the Taliban refused to accept U.S. conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one."

"The Americans indicated to us that in case the Taliban does not behave and in case Pakistan also doesn't help us to influence the Taliban, then the United States would be left with no option but to take an overt action against Afghanistan," said Niaz Naik, a former foreign minister of Pakistan, who attended the meetings.

On French television, Naik said during the "6+2" meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around "the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid."

"And the pipe lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come," he added.

Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the U.S. representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan.

"Simons said, 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option'. The words Simons used were 'a military operation'," Naik said.

"At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'," Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the CIA.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Crooked Bank May Be Tie Between Prince Bandar, Big Defense Contractor

By Spencer Ackerman - June 12, 2007, 6:06 PM

Accusations continue to swarm about a British defense corporation's alleged kickbacks over 20 years to Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States.

Last week, the BBC and the Guardian reported that BAE Systems, the world's fourth-largest defense company, paid approximately $2 billion to an Saudi account in the now-defunct Riggs Bank controlled by Bandar as part of Britain's largest-ever defense deal. That purchase, known as al-Yamamah, brought Britain over $80 billion in Saudi money in return for BAE-manufactured aircrat in 1985, and has been a fruitful target for UK scandal-watchers ever since. Tony Blair personally scotched an investigation by his government's Serious Fraud Office into the alleged kickbacks in December, and he reaffirmed that decision last week when the Bandar allegations broke, saying, "I don't believe the investigation would have led to anywhere except to the complete wreckage of a vital interest to our country."

Both Bandar and BAE strongly maintain their innocence. BAE claims that paying the money into the Saudis' Riggs accounts was an above-board investment in "local advice, capabilities and guidance" in order to ensure the purchase went smoothly. Bandar's lawyers released a statement saying that the prince was an "authorized signatory" to the accounts, which were controlled by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defense and Aviation (MODA), and any withdrawals were used "exclusively for purposes approved by MODA." Bandar's father, Prince Sultan, is the Saudi defense minister.

Following lengthy investigations by the Treasury Department and the Senate, in 2005, Riggs Bank, once one of the most prestigious banks in the U.S., admitted its guilt in numerous money laundering schemes involving, among others the Saudi Embassy to Washington (which Bandar helmed), former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and the government of Equitorial Guinea. According to this week's Newsweek, Riggs's documentation of its Saudi accounts may contain clues about what Bandar in fact received from BAE:

The Riggs Bank records show the use of those funds raised concerns among bank officials and U.S. regulators. In November 2003, Riggs filed a "suspicious activity report" with the Treasury Department disclosing that over a four-month period, $17.4 million from the Saudi Defense account had been disbursed to a single individual in Saudi Arabia. When Riggs officials asked the Saudis who the person was and why he was receiving the funds, they were told the individual "coordinates home improvement/construction projects for Prince Bandar in Saudi Arabia," and the payments were for a "new Saudi palace," one document shows.

In another instance, Bandar wired $400,000 from a Riggs account to a luxury-car dealer overseas. "It was impossible to distinguish between government funds and what would normally be considered personal purposes," said David Caruso, who served as Riggs's compliance officer at the time. Caruso also confirmed to NEWSWEEK that the Saudi Defense account was regularly replenished with $30 million each quarter from an account in London. But the bank never knew the source of the funds. The bank was so concerned about the withdrawals that it cut off all business with the Saudis. In May 2005, the U.S. Treasury fined Riggs $25 million for failing to monitor "extensive and frequent suspicious" activity in Saudi and other accounts. (Asked about the Riggs records, Bandar's lawyer said the palace in question was "Prince Bandar's official residence" in Saudi Arabia and that audits by the Saudi Finance Ministry found "no irregularities" in the Saudi accounts while Bandar was ambassador.)
Look for more to come out of the Riggs collapse involving Bandar in the near future.

Republicans' Outlook Dims for '08

Majority in Poll Prefers Democrats; Thompson Gains

By John Harwood

WASHINGTON -- The race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination has become wide open, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. But the value of winning it has fallen sharply.

The survey shows that without formally entering the race, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has risen to second place in the Republican field. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to leak support, but leads the pack with 29% to Mr. Thompson's 20%, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has pulled even with Sen. John McCain at 14%.

Of greater concern for Republicans generally, however, is the party's weak state heading into the 2008 election. By 52% to 31%, Americans say they want Democrats to win the presidency next year.

Americans give the Republican Party their most negative assessment in the two-decade history of the Journal/NBC survey, and by 49% to 36% they say the Democratic Party more closely shares their values and positions on the issues.

New evidence in Madeleine McCann case

Radio Netherlands
14-06-2007

Portuguese police are interviewing two Dutch newspaper reporters who have found a towel in the area identified as the possible burial location of four-year-old British girl Madeleine McCann in a tip-off from a Dutch source.

Wrapped in towels

According to their newspaper De Telegraaf, another tip-off has come in from a different source claiming that a man was seen carrying a child wrapped in towels near the place where Madeleine disappeared. Five Portuguese detectives accompanied the Dutch reporters to the spot where they found the towel, followed by a Portuguese TV camera crew.

Letter

It was De Telegraaf which received the anonymous letter containing clues regarding the whereabouts of the missing child. Both Dutch and Portuguese police are taking the letter very seriously, because it seems to have been written by the same person who last year sent a letter providing the exact location of the two murdered Belgian girls Stacey and Nathalie.

Shrubland

The letter said Madeleine could be found not far from the hotel room she was abducted from on 3 May this year near Praia de Luz, Portugal. It says that she lies buried "north of the road under branches and rocks, around six to seven metres off the road" in a barren and deserted hilly landscape.

Crosses on a map that came with the letter show the alleged location of her body. De Telegraaf handed the letter over to Dutch police who sent a full colour scan to detectives in Portugal. A full-scale search of the area with sniffer dogs is taking place today.

Celebrity appeal

The McCann family has enjoyed broad public support following the abduction of their daughter. A British businessman has offered a reward of 1.5 million euros for a golden tip regarding Madeleine's whereabouts. The famous football players David Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo have appeared on television to appeal for her release.

Kucinich working on 'renewed efforts' for Cheney impeachment

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday June 13, 2007

With his resolution calling for the ouster of Dick Cheney, Rep. Dennis Kuchinich on Wednesday announced renewed efforts to impeach the vice president.

The Ohio Democrat said his resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment now has eight co-sponsors. Kucinich appeared with Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Wednesday at a press conference announcing the stepped-up efforts.

Kucinich announced the impeachment resolution a month ago on Capitol Hill and gathered reporters at the same spot Wednesday.

"Now since we gathered over a month ago, the Vice President has continued along the path of conduct that led me to file the articles of Impeachment," Kucinich said, according to a transcript of his remarks.
Fifteen state Democratic parties and 11 state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for President Bush or Cheney to be impeached, according to pro-impeachment Web site AfterDowningStreet.org.

Waters addition as co-sponsor of Kucinich's measure comes after she voiced support for Cheney's removal last month. Waters has advocated impeachment for Bush and Cheney since at least summer 2005, AfterDowningStreet notes.

Other co-sponsors of Kucinich's impeachment resolution are California Democrats Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, who co-chair the House progressive caucus, along withand Al Wynn, D-Md.; Yvette Clark, D-N.Y.; Jan Schakowsky, D-Il.; and William Lacy Clay, D-Mo.

"I believe this is another milestone," Kucinich said. "With the support of the leaders of the Progressive Caucus and the leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus we will see more and more Members of Congress signing on in this effort to save our Constitution and protect the very values that bind us as a nation."


CIA Leak Trial Judge Received Threats


MATT APUZZO | June 14, 2007 11:45 AM EST

WASHINGTON — The federal judge who oversaw I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's CIA leak trial said Thursday that he received threatening letters and phone calls after sentencing the former White House aide to prison.

"I received a number of angry, harassing mean-spirited phone calls and letters," U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said. "Some of those were wishing bad things on me and my family."
Walton made the remarks as he opened a hearing into whether to delay Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence. He said he was holding the letters in case something happened but said they would have no effect on Thursday's decision.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, argues that he shouldn't have to report to prison until his appeals have run out.

Walton has said he's not inclined to grant that request. But even if he rules that way, it is unlikely Libby would be taken away in handcuffs. Rather, it would lead to more maneuvering in Libby's legal fight.

Libby's newly formed appellate team _ Lawrence S. Robbins and Mark Stancil _ are standing by. If Libby loses Thursday, his lawyers have said they will ask an appeals court for an emergency order delaying the sentence. Because one of the issues in the appeal is whether Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had the authority to charge Libby, defense lawyers also could ask the Supreme Court to step in.

Then there is the pardon question.

Libby's supporters have called for President Bush wipe away Libby's convictions. Bush publicly has sidestepped pardon questions, saying he wants to let the legal case play out.

If Bush were to decide to issue a pardon, a delay would give him more flexibility to pick a time that makes the most political sense.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Americans Get a Small Taste Occupation and War

British could quit Iraq sooner than expected

Thomas Harding
London Telegraph
Wednesday June 13, 2007

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, hinted yesterday that there could be an accelerated withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

He said the Armed Forces were in danger of being significantly "damaged" if they continued to fight in the same numbers abroad.

After returning from a trip accompanying Gordon Brown to Iraq, Mr Browne appeared to pave the way for further substantial reductions of troops in Basra.

It has been suggested that a significant withdrawal from southern Iraq in the next year would be politically advantageous in a forthcoming election campaign.

The Delinquent Congress

by Ernest Partridge
OpEdNews
June 13, 2007 at 08:23:59

The Administration of George Bush has, in effect, suspended the Constitution of the United States. At Guantánamo in Cuba, in military prisons in the United States, and in secret detention facilities abroad, American citizens and non-citizens are being held without charge, without counsel, without prospect of a jury trial, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights. These rights apply to all persons under United States jurisdiction. The word "citizen" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights.

The same Administration has conducted warrantless surveillance of American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and despite an explicit order of the Supreme Court to cease and desist.

And the Administration, in violation of ratified treaties which have the force of law (Article Six of the Constitution), is engaged in an undeclared war against a non-threatening nation, and is torturing prisoners. The treaties are, respectively, the Nuremberg Accords and the Geneva Conventions.

The President, upon signing Congressional legislation, issues "signing statements" which state, in effect, that he can, at his discretion, ignore the legislation above his signature. And he has issued a "directive" that, in event of some unspecified "emergency" so designated by himself, he can assume dictatorial powers.

Nor is this the end of it. As most readers are well aware, there have been numerous additional illegal acts by the Bush Administration, including the "outing" of a covert intelligence officer, obstruction of justice, and lying to the Congress and the American people.

The institution best situated to put an end to these crimes and to hold the criminals accountable to the rule of law is the Congress of the United States, each member of which has taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Five months into its new term, the Congress now in control of the Democratic party has done essentially nothing to restore the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. The initial decisive act leading to that end might be as simple as the passage of this two sentence resolution:

"The Congress of the United States hereby affirms that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. Accordingly, any and all legislation and executive orders in violation of the Constitution are null and void."
The word "affirms" is crucial, for it states that at no time was the Constitution legally "in suspension," and thus any legislation or acts by the Bush administration in violation thereof were at all times illegal and invalid. Accordingly, the word "restoration" must be avoided in such a resolution.

The Democrats should bring this resolution to a vote, and dare the Republicans to vote against it. The GOP would doubtless resist by calling it a "meaningless political stunt," and would struggle to prevent an open vote. But if it were to be brought to a vote, who would dare go on record with a denial that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

And if such a resolution were to pass both houses of Congress, it should be immediately followed by other resolutions specifying the implications of that first resolution. Namely,

** It is affirmed that all US citizens and other individuals under US jurisdiction enjoy the protection of Habeas Corpus, as specified in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

**Therefore, all persons in custody at Guantánamo and other prisons must either be charged with a crime and given a fair trial, or released. Following that, the Guantánamo facility must be closed and all "renditions" of prisoners to other countries cease.

**All torture of so-called "enemy combatants" must cease immediately.

**All provisions of the Patriot Act and the Military Provisions Act in violation of the protections of the Constitution must be declared null and void.

**Acts of Congress signed by the President have the status of law, and signing statements have no legal status whatever.