Monthly Archives: September 2008

More 9/11 Strangeness – Scorpions & Other Synchronicities

http://www.youtubeflashplayer.com/youtubeflashplayer.swf?vurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI6P6G6QnrA&sn=http://www.cantontruth.com/cantontruth%20tv/canton%20truth%20tv%20setup.png&logo=http://www.cantontruth.com/cantontruth%20tv/canton%20truth%20tv.png&showlogo=true&showcontrol=true&autohide=false&delaytime=&autoplay=false&loopplay=false&

By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
9-9-8

Author’s note: This article has no copyright. It is intended for duplication and re-distribution, so long as no alterations are made to the contents herein, including the author’s byline, all images, and cited URLs.
Less than 2 weeks ago, I posted a video on YouTube entitled, “911 ‘Coincidences’ or Synchronicities?” (Link at the bottom of this piece). This presentation enumerated around a dozen prescient pop culture connections to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. I don’t believe that any of these connections can reasonably be described as a “stretch” or “wishful thinking” (although of course not everyone will agree on their ultimate significance.) A brief overview now might be helpful:
In the 1999 film The Matrix, the expiration date of the passport of Keanu Reeve’s character Neo is September 11, 2001.
In the 1998 film Enemy of the State, Jon Voight’s character — a malicious NSA official intent on pushing legislation that will make it easier to spy on Americans — was born on September 11th.
In the 2001 pilot of the TV program The Lone Gunmen, the story centers on a Pentagon plot to fly a plane into the WTC for the purpose of triggering a war.
In the opening sequence of the 1998 film The Big Lebowski, Jeff Bridges’ character writes a check dated September 11. We then hear George Bush Sr.’s voice discussing the ensuing (1991) invasion of Iraq, and his famous line of “This aggression will not stand” — a recurring line in the film.
In the opening scene of the 2000 film Traffic, a drug truck is apprehended, and on close inspection we see that all of the drug boxes are stamped with the number 911. Next to each number is the symbol of a scorpion. This particular symbol has always struck me as curious, and in a moment I shall try to explore its significance further.
In 2001, the rap group The Coup created an album cover featuring its members detonating the World Trade Center south towers. They later released their album with a different cover.
In the 1982 Richard Bachman (Stephen King) book The Running Man, the story concluded with the protagonist hijacking a plane and flying it into the tallest building in downtown NY.
And beyond the popular culture, on the first anniversary of September 11th, the winning numbers in the evening NY lotto were 911 (5,632 people chose the winning sequence, and each won a paltry $500).
These are only a few of the more striking 9/11 pop culture “coincidences” that predated September 11, 2001. I’ve not come close to including all the instances that have been documented on countless dozens of websites. These also include the 2000 film The Patriot — Mel Gibson’s character weighs a chair he’s constructed, and announces “Nine pounds, eleven ounces. That’s perfect.” He then sits on the chair, and it collapses under his weight.
A Google search of the words – 9/11 coincidences in comics (unquoted) – reveals over 76,000 hits. A video presentation on some of these connections (link at bottom of paragraph) features some interesting items, including an image from the Marvel Two in One #100 from June 1983. (Note: I have not seen this before, and do not personally own any comics, so I cannot verify its authenticity. I’m presenting it here as an item of potential interest). According to descriptions of this issue, the Thing is captured by the Red Skull, who has set up headquarters in a bombed out WTC. Notice the chilling images and captions below:

Let’s look a bit closer now at the aforementioned “coincidences” in the 2000 film “Traffic.” What is the significance, if any, of the scorpion image next to each 911 symbol? As I mentioned in my YouTube video, in 2007, author David Hagberg published a novel entitled “Allah’s Scorpion” — the code name of a massive terrorist plot by al-Quaida in the book. I limited myself to this particular reference in part due to time limitations, but also because I wanted to explore the scorpion motif a bit more before presenting anything publicly.

Remember that this symbol was placed next to the numbers 911 a full year prior to September 11th, 2001. A Google search of the words (unquoted) – scorpion taliban bin laden afghanistan – reveals over 400,000 hits. Indeed, the term scorpion seems to be used almost casually in reference to both Bin Laden and Afghanistan (not terribly surprising since scorpions are common to middle eastern regions). In addition to the Hagberg novel, in 2007 the David Macdonald book was published entitled “Drugs in Afghanistan: Opium, Outlaws and Scorpion Tales.”
More than one post-911 military operation has included the term “Scorpion.” The following excerpt comes from the website of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe:
After more than eight months of training, 86 “Scorpion” members of the 603rd Air Control Squadron deployed Jan. 9 to Kandahar Air Base, Afghanistan….
“For our deployment preparation, we had Scorpion Strike in October, which was set up and tailored to look as close to a real deployment as possible,” said Lt. Col. Troy Jackson, 603rd ACS commander.
In 2003, there was a major U.S. operation in Iraq called “Operation Desert Scorpion.” This was also the name of an unperformed military operation in response to the UN/Iraq crisis of 1998.
Operation Desert Scorpion is also the name of an online gaming file in which players seek to capture Osama bin Laden. A fictional briefing in the game reads:
General,
Intelligence reports believe we have cornered Osama Bin Laden and his Generals (P3) in a remote region of southwestern Pakistan. We have strict orders that Bin Laden and his Generals should be captured alive, the rest of his forces should be eliminated with deadly force.
A search of the defenselink.mil site for the term “scorpion” reveals 82 hits. The very first is entitled “Afghan National Police Training…” It discusses the training of Afghan police officers at “Forward Operating Base Scorpion.”
These are just some cursory results I’ve stumbled across after performing some rudimentary Google searches — and I’m still interested to know what a more in-depth search might discover. (Might scorpion have been a codename for bin Laden or other al-Quaida officials within intelligence circles prior to or after 9/11?) Perhaps one could argue that the scorpion motif in “Traffic” is not terribly anomalous, since the scorpion has long been a symbol of danger or evil. But the appearance of the symbol directly alongside the 911 numbers becomes even more powerful when one considers the striking PATTERN of pop culture “coincidences” prior to September 11th.
Since I personally have no conceptual reservations when it comes to human precognition and other extrasensory abilities — that is to say, I don’t dismiss evidence of these phenomena on an a priori basis simply because institutional science has yet to recognize their reality — I want now to dig deeper and try to find the meaning in these “coincidences,” if any exists.
Some Internet authors speculate that the 9/11 perpetrators may have “leaked” their plans to key media players — hence all the anomalous pop culture “coincidences” — but I simply can’t agree with that assessment. Does anyone really believe that all of the writers, musicians, artists, and Hollywood producers and directors cited above somehow became privy to a forthcoming terrorist attack (including the precise date on which it would occur), and rather than explicitly alerting the public to the danger, chose instead to insert subtle or not so subtle warnings of the attack into their art? It’s startling to me that some purported “alternative media” websites express contempt for so-called “paranormal” investigations, while promoting the belief that conspiracy is the most powerful, overarching force in the Universe.
With that said, I think it’s certainly worth noting that a common thread seems to run through all of the movies, books, TV shows, and pop music mentioned above, and it has nothing to do with terrorists and Islamic Jihad. If one were to ask me which pre9/11 movies featured the most dire warnings of impending Government intrusion in citizens’ lives (an obviously widespread concern in light of our Government’s declared “War on Terror”), I would not have hesitated to say, “The Matrix” and “Enemy of the State.” I suspect anyone who has seen these movies would agree, and both of these films feature particularly striking 9/11 “coincidences.” Likewise, the Lone Gunmen episode in which the Pentagon plans to fly an airplane into the WTC for the purpose of triggering a war. If these “coincidences” were telling us anything, it was, “Things are not what they appear. Don’t believe everything you’re told.”
Here is a reasonable challenge for the skeptical-minded. If you think that the types of “coincidences” cited above can be randomly pulled from movies, books, or other mediums, try focusing a search on a specific date and number sequence — say (from the top of my head)…October 6th (or 10/6, or 106). I wonder how many movies in the coming years will feature explicit references to October 6, or 106, and more importantly, how many will feature obvious connections to any historical events that have happened or will happen on October 6? The odds of any three digit number coming up 106 are 1 in 1000. The odds of a random date for any particular year appearing as October 6th are 1 in 365. (Remember also that The Matrix film featured a reference not only to September 11th, but the precise year in which 9/11 happened — 2001).
It’s not my position to assert what the ultimate meaning is in all of this, except to warn of the inherent dangers in DENYING that any meaning exists. I’ve no patience with cynical individuals who dismiss evidence for psychic phenomena, for no clear reason other than they think it’s “silly.” If real, a collective human consciousness is enormously important to the future of our species. But for new clarity to be gained, scientific researchers must not live in fear of ridicule and professional ruination — the pathetic outcome for many brave investigators into the psychic frontier.
Stephen King writes, “…stories are found things, like fossils in the ground….Stories are relics, part of an undiscovered preexisting world. The writer’s job is to use the tools to get as much of each one out of the ground intact as possible.” Perhaps many of our culture’s best writers, artists, and filmmakers were doing their best, at least unconsciously, to uncover a treasure of extraordinary significance. The most haunting aspect of the 9/11 “coincidences” is that the collective human consciousness seemed to issue a frantic warning, like a wailing siren or tolling bell. The question is, can we ever achieve the psychic maturity to recognize such warnings in advance? This was the challenge offered to the human race by one Colonel Dolan M. McKelvy, author of the 1988 USAF report, “Psychic Warfare: Exploring the Mind Frontier.” McKelvy writes:
“Man’s greatest potential remains a prisoner of man. Vast untapped mental capabilities create an entirely new battlefield dimension which, if ignored, pose a threat to self and country more serious than nuclear weapons. This threat starts from within. Our fears and cynical attitudes towards psychic capabilities make us our own worst enemies….Exploring the mind frontier is essential and the key to successful exploration is a greater psychic awareness. The mind is rich in unfathomed resources ripe for exploration, a limitless source of treasures for advancing all mankind, and a serious threat to those who ignore its potential. We must overcome our psych inhibitions, stop denying the existence of paranormal events, and start trying instead to understand the nature of these phenomena. We must shed the super secret cloaks and educate our leaders at all levels on the real psi military potentials and threats so we can adequately focus and prioritize national resources.”

Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls? On 9/11/01


pilotsfor911truth.org

An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones

David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo

Prefatory Note: When we, in this jointly authored article, need to refer to only one of us, the appropriate initials—DRG or RB–are used.

06/26/07 – Did American Airlines 77—the flight that, according to the official conspiracy theory about 9/11, struck the Pentagon—have onboard phones? This question is relevant to the possible truth of the official theory, because Ted Olson, who was then the US Solicitor General, claimed that his wife, Barbara Olson, called him twice from this flight using an onboard phone.

He did, to be sure, waver on this point. CNN, which mentioned in a story posted just before midnight on 9/11 that Barbara Olson had used a cell phone to call her husband, reported in a more extensive treatment, posted at 2:06 AM (EDT) on September 12, that Ted Olson had told it that his wife “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77.”1 But on September 14, Olson said on Hannity & Colmes (Fox News) that she had called collect and therefore must have been using the “airplane phone”—because, he surmised, “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”2 On CNN’s Larry King Show later that same day, however, Olson returned to his first version. After saying that the second call from her suddenly went dead, he surmised that this was perhaps “because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”3 On that same day, moreover, Tony Mauro, the Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Media, published an account saying that Barbara Olson “was calling on her cell phone from aboard the jet.”4 Two months later, however, Ted Olson returned to the second version of his story. In the “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture” delivered to the Federalist Society, he said that she used “a telephone in the airplane to [make] those two telephone [calls].”5 This second version was repeated in March 2002. “[C]alling collect,” he told the London Daily Telegraph, his wife “us[ed] the phone in the passengers’ seats.” She called collect, he again surmised, because “she didn’t have her purse” and hence her credit card.6

This revised version of his story has evidently gone virtually unnoticed in the American press. A year after 9/11, for example, CNN was still reporting that Barbara Olson used a cell phone.7 Nevertheless, Ted Olson’s statement to the Federalist Society and the Telegraph—that she called collect using a passenger-seat phone—was apparently his final word on the matter.

The claim that she must have called collect because she did not have her credit card, however, does not make any sense, because a credit card is needed in order to activate a passenger-seat phone.8 If she did not have a credit card, therefore, she could not have used a passenger-seat phone, whether to call collect or otherwise.9

By settling on this version of his story, nevertheless, Olson at least appeared to make defensible his claim that the calls occurred. We say this because of the extremely strong evidence that her reported calls could not have been made on a cell phone, given the cell phone technology in 2001. Cell phone calls from an airliner were, as DRG has argued extensively elsewhere, generally possible only if it was flying slowly and low,10 but Barbara Olson’s first call, according to the 9/11 Commission, occurred “[a]t some point between 9:16 and 9:26,”11 when the plane was flying too fast and too high for cell phone calls to have been possible. According to the Flight Data Recorder information released by the National Transportation Safety Board, the plane at 9:16 would have been over 25,000 feet, which is far too high (as well as too fast: 281 knots [324 mph]), while at 9:26 the plane would have been flying at 324 knots (370 mph), which is much too fast (as well as still too high: almost 14,000 feet).12 By settling on the claim that his wife used an onboard phone instead of a cell phone, Ted Olson avoided this problem.

But was a call from an onboard phone even possible? In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, having asked American Airlines whether their “757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use,” received this reply from an AA spokesperson: “American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.” To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they then asked, “[A]re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew?” The response was: “AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.”13

Henshall and Morgan then found this information corroborated on the AA website, which, while informing travelers that telephone calls are possible on AA’s Boeing 767 and 777, does not mention its 757.14 On the assumption that the AA spokesperson and this website were talking about AA 757s as they had been for several years, not simply as they were at the time of the query (2004), Henshall and Morgan concluded that, in the words of an essay written by Morgan, “Barbara Olson’s Call from Flight 77 Never Happened.”15

DRG, interpreting the information in the same way, wrote in the first edition of his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “[G]iven the evidence that Barbara Olson could not have called from Flight 77 using either a cell phone or an onboard phone, we have very good evidence that the calls to Ted Olson, like the call to [flight attendant] Renee May’s parents, were fabricated—unless, of course, he simply made up the story.”16

Correcting an “Error”

Later, however, DRG received two items suggesting that, although AA 757s did not have onboard phones in 2004, they probably did in 2001. One item was a 1998 photograph, said to show the inside of an AA 757, revealing that it had seat-back phones. The other was a news report from February 6, 2002, which said: “American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday.”17 This report, DRG realized, did not specifically mention 757s, so this notice did not necessarily imply that AA 757s had had onboard phones up until that date. However, by taking into consideration this article, the photograph, and the realization that the letters from AA in 2004 were couched entirely in the present tense, DRG concluded that the claim that AA 77 had not had onboard phones was probably an error. He published an essay, “Barbara Olson’s Alleged Call from AA 77: A Correction About Onboard Phones,”18 which contained a section entitled “My Error.”

DRG made clear, to be sure, that even if AA 77 did have onboard phones, this did little to make Ted Olson’s story believable, because all the other problems remained. Five such problems were mentioned: (1) The incredible idea that although all the passengers and the crew were herded to the back of the plane, Barbara Olson was the only one to grab a phone from a passenger seat to make a call (an idea that was made even more incredible by the report that flight attendant Renee May was the only person on the flight to make a cell phone call19). (2) The equally incredible idea that three or four short, slight men armed with knives and box-cutters would not have been easily overpowered by these 60-some people—led perhaps by the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, a former Navy pilot whose brother said, “they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane,” and whose sister said, “We want to tell his story so that people who had loved ones on that flight will know that he would have sacrificed himself to save them.”20 (3) Ted Olson’s oscillations on whether his wife had used a cell phone or an onboard phone. (4) Rowland Morgan’s point that, having settled on the claim that the calls were collect calls from a passenger-seat phone, “Ted Olson could . . . shut his critics up by simply producing the Department of Justice’s telephone accounts, showing a couple of hefty reverse-charges entries charged from Flight 77’s Airfone number at around about 9:20 AM on 11th September, 2001.”21 (5) Morgan and Henshall’s point that, if the Department of Justice had actually received these calls, the FBI, which is part of the DOJ, could have easily produced the records, and yet, according to The 9/11 Commission Report, the FBI’s report about this issue, which is entitled “American Airlines Airphone Usage,” makes no mention of any DOJ records.22

DRG concluded, however, that although the idea that the calls occurred was highly implausible, they could not be ruled out as strictly impossible, because the claim that AA 77 did not have onboard phones was erroneous in a twofold sense: not only in the sense of being based on inadequate evidence but also in the sense of simply being wrong, at least probably.

Correcting the Correction

The publication of DRG’s retraction, however, set off a process that has led us to correct this correction, because we discovered three new pieces of evidence supporting the contention that AA 77 did not have onboard phones.

The Chad Kinder Email: One piece of evidence was brought to our attention by a member of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forums who goes by the alias “Kesha.” Using one of these forums, “Kesha” reported that the following email exchange had been posted February 17, 2006, on a German political forum. A person using the alias “the Paradroid” had sent this email to American Airlines:

Hello, on your website . . . there is mentioned that there are no seatback satellite phones on a Boeing 757. Is that info correct? Were there any such seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 before or on September 11, 2001 and if so, when were these phones ripped out?

This was the reply received by “the Paradroid” (except that his real name has been crossed out):

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you.

That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack. However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.

Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you.

Sincerely,
Chad W. Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines

This exchange, if authentic, would provide very strong evidence for the conclusion that Barbara Olson could not have called her husband, as he claimed, from a passenger-seat phone. But was the exchange, which came from a second-hand source, authentic? We received three types of confirmation that it was.

In the first place, DRG, after obtaining from RB the email address of “Kesha,” asked the latter if he could “vouch for the authenticity of the letters” to and from Chad Kinder. In an email of June 2 (2007), “Kesha” replied: “I am able to vouch for the authenticity of the mentioned correspondence; the person who initiated it in February 2006 is reliable. I know ‘Paradroid’ from endless debates in our German 911 forum. His opinions are strictly based on facts.”

In the second place, after locating the correspondence between Kinder and “the Paradroid” on the German forum in question,23 DRG read several other contributions by “the Paradroid,” thereby seeing for himself that he is a serious, well-informed student of 9/11.

In the third place, RB, after some difficulty in discovering whether American Airlines actually had an employee named “Chad Kinder,” was able to contact him by telephone on May 31 (2007). After reading the two letters to Kinder, RB asked if he had indeed written the reply. Kinder answered that he could not specifically recall having written it—he writes so many letters, he explained, and this one would have been written over a year earlier. But, he added: “That sounds like an accurate statement.” Kinder indicated, in other words, that it was a letter he might well have written, because what it said—that AA 757s in 2001 did not have onboard phones, so the passengers on AA 77 had to use cell phones—was, to the best of his present knowledge, accurate.

The 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual: Besides learning about and confirming this letter from Kinder, we also obtained another piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that passengers on AA 77 could not have used onboard phones. One of RB’s colleagues sent him a page from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM) dated January 28, 2001. This page states that the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had (by that date) been deactivated.24 According to the 757 AMM, in other words, the onboard phones had been deactivated at least seven and a half months prior to 9/11.

This information is relevant to the earlier-cited news report from February 6, 2002, which said: “American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31.” As we pointed out earlier, that report did not mention 757s in particular, so it does not necessarily indicate that the 757 fleet had any in-flight phone service to be discontinued; the report may have referred only to other types of AA airplanes. But if American’s 757s did still have passenger-seat phones in September 2001, these phones, according to the information from the 757 AMM, would have been deactivated. If so, one of them could not have been used by Barbara Olson on 9/11 (even if she had a credit card).

A USA Today Report: Henshall and Morgan’s conclusion, to recall, was that although AA 777s and 767s had onboard phones in September of 2001, AA 757s did not. That conclusion is given some support by a 2004 USA Today story that stated: “Several years ago, American installed seatback phones, which could be used with a credit card, on many of its planes but ripped them out except in some Boeing 777s and 767s on international routes.”25 This statement by itself would not show that Flight 77 had no onboard phones, because it does not indicate exactly when the phones were ripped out. But it does show that the previously cited photographic evidence, showing that there were seat-back phones in AA 757s in 1998, does not prove that these phones were still present on September 11, 2001.

This report in USA Today appears, moreover, to have influenced the email sent by “the Paradroid” to American Airlines, which, as we saw, asked: “Were there any . . . seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 before or on September 11, 2001 and if so, when were these phones ripped out?” Kinder’s reply did not explicitly respond to the question as to when, if 757s had passenger-seat phones prior to 9/11, they were “ripped out.” Implicitly, however, Kinder’s reply said: With regard, at least, to the 757 that was AA 77, the seatback phones were ripped out prior to September 11, 2001.26

United States v. Ted Olson

In the course of doing research for this article, we learned, to our amazement, that even if, contrary to our evidence, Flight 77 did have functioning onboard phones, the US government has now said, implicitly, that Ted Olson’s claim about receiving two calls from his wife that morning is untrue.

As we mentioned earlier, the FBI report on phone calls from AA planes on 9/11 does not cite records from the DOJ showing that any calls from AA 77 were received that morning. Instead, the FBI report refers merely to four “connected calls to unknown numbers.” The 9/11 Commission, putting the best possible spin on this report, commented: “The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office.”27 That is, it must be said, a very strange conclusion: If Ted Olson reported receiving only two calls, why would the Commission conclude that the DOJ had received four connected calls from his wife?

That conclusion is, in any case, starkly contradicted by evidence about phone calls from Flight 77 presented by the US government at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006.28 Far from attributing all four of the “connected calls to unknown numbers” to Barbara Olson, as the 9/11 Commission suggested, the government’s evidence here attributes none of them to her, saying instead that each of them was from an “unknown caller.” The only call attributed to Barbara Olson, moreover, is an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.” According to the US government in 2006, in other words, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through.29 The government itself has presented evidence in a court of law, therefore, that implies that unless its former solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone calls, he was lying.

It may seem beyond belief that the US government would have failed to support Ted Olson’s claim. We ourselves, as we indicated, were amazed at this development. However, it would not be the first time that the FBI—surely the agency that prepared this report about phone calls from the flights30—had failed to support the official story about 9/11. We refer to the fact that when Rex Tomb, the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why the bureau’s website on “Usama bin Laden” does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted, he replied: “[T]he FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”31

In any case, an interesting question about the government’s claim concerning the four “connected calls” from AA 77 is whether they were supposedly made from cell phones or passenger-seat phones. The government’s Moussaoui-trial evidence does not explicitly say. We can, however, make an inference based on its evidence for phone calls made from United Flight 93.

Although it had been generally believed that there had been approximately ten cell phone calls from UA 93—including the four widely publicized calls reported by Deena Burnett from her husband, Tom Burnett—the government’s document on this flight identifies only two calls as cell phone calls: those made at 9:58 by passenger Edward Felt and flight attendant CeeCee Lyles. One might conclude from this information, to be sure, that the government simply remained neutral on some of the other calls that had been thought to be cell phone calls, such as the Burnett calls, leaving open whether they were from cell or onboard phones. But that is not the case. A reporter at the Moussaoui trial wrote:

In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday.32

The government explicitly said, therefore, that only two of the calls from UA 93—which were identified in the government’s report on this flight as being from Felt and Lyles33—were cell phone calls.

We can infer, therefore, that because these calls from Felt and Lyles are the only two calls from all the flights that are identified as cell phone calls, all the calls from the other flights are now said by the government to have been made from onboard phones.34

The distinctive thing about the calls from Felt and Lyles is that they reportedly occurred at 9:58, after United 93 had descended to about 5,000 feet. By limiting the cell phone calls from all four flights to these two from UA 93, the government is no longer, even implicitly, supporting the view that high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners are possible. The government has thereby implicitly overcome, by conceding the point, one of the 9/11 movement’s main arguments against the government’s conspiracy theory.

This is a rather amazing development. Much of the official story about 9/11 has been based on the assumption that high-altitude cell phone calls were made. The film United 93, for example, portrayed five cell phone conversations. The 9/11 Commission Report, discussing UA 93, said: “Shortly [after 9:32], the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.”35

Four cell phone calls from UA 93 were, as mentioned earlier, supposed to have been made by Tom Burnett.36 His wife, Deena Burnett, repeatedly said Tom used his cell phone. She knew this, she said, because the Caller ID identified his cell phone as the source.37 Her testimony has been repeated countless times in the media. For example, a special segment about her on CBS’s Early Show said: “Tom Burnett made four cell phone calls from Flight 93 to Deena Burnett at home, telling her he and some other passengers were going to ‘do something.’” In a letter published in the National Review, Tom’s father spoke of “Tom’s four cell-phone calls from Flight 93 to his wife, Deena.”38

The government’s evidence presented in 2006 at the Moussaoui trial, however, implies that she was mistaken, even though, given her statement that she saw her husband’s Caller ID number, the government’s new position means that she was either lying or, as we believe, the victim of a faked call using a device that, besides morphing her husband’s voice, faked his Caller ID number.39

However, although the government has undercut much of the basis for the official and popular accounts of 9/11 by denying the occurrence of any high-altitude cell phone calls, it has, by paying this price, protected itself from the 9/11 truth movement’s charge that the official story is falsified by the fact that such calls are impossible.

We come now, in any case, to the implication of the government’s Moussaoui-trial evidence about phone calls for the government’s position on whether AA 77 had onboard phones. According to this evidence, there were five connected calls from AA 77: one from Renee May and four from “unknown callers.” Given what we have learned from the government’s evidence about calls from UA 93—that all calls not identified as cell phone calls are said to have been made from onboard phones—we can conclude that, by virtue of not identifying any of the five “connected calls” from this flight as cell phone calls, the government is implying that this plane did have onboard phones. It does not, therefore, support our view on this issue.

Nevertheless, whether one accepts our evidence, which indicates that there were not any onboard phones on AA 77 from which calls could have been made, or trusts the government’s evidence presented at the Moussaoui trial, the conclusion is the same: The two conversations reported by Ted Olson did not happen.

Final Reflections

The implications of this conclusion for the credibility of the official narrative about 9/11 are enormous. Surely one of the most well-known elements of this narrative is that Barbara Olson, while on the plane that was soon to hit the Pentagon, called her husband. If people learn that this is a lie—whether because Ted Olson was a victim of faked phone calls or because he deliberately told a false story—most of them will probably be led to wonder if the whole official story is not a fabrication.

The strongest reason for considering false Ted Olson’s claim about two passenger-seat phone calls from his wife would be proof that such calls simply could not have occurred. It is important, therefore, for researchers to continue the quest to determine positively whether Boeing 757s in September 2001 had functioning onboard phones. Although we believe our evidence that they did not have such phones is very strong, we cannot yet claim to have proof; evidence to the contrary might still emerge. Finding proof one way or the other, however, should not be impossible, if others join in the task.

If further investigation should reveal that Flight 77 did, after all, have onboard phones, Ted Olson’s story would still be extremely implausible, for many reasons. Five of those reasons, mentioned in DRG’s previous essay, were summarized above. Three more have been added in this article: the absurdity of Ted Olson’s claim that his wife called collect because she did not have a credit card, the US government’s apparent endorsement of the view that high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners are not possible (thereby foreclosing the possibility that Ted Olson could return to the claim that she called from a cell phone), and the US government’s implicit rejection of his claim that the DOJ received two calls from AA Flight 77 that morning.

For those eight reasons alone, we would be justified in concluding, from simply this aspect of the official story, that the entire official story about 9/11 was a fabrication. This conclusion is greatly strengthened, however, by the almost definitive evidence that, besides the fact that Barbara Olson’s alleged calls could not have been made from a cell phone (which the US government now appears implicitly to have acknowledged), they also could not have been made from an onboard phone.40

—————

David Ray Griffin is the author of five books about 9/11, most recently Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, a revised edition of which is appearing in July 2007.

Rob Balsamo is co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (www.pilotsfor911truth.org) and producer of Pandora’s Black Box (a DVD series).

1 “FBI Targets Florida Sites in Terrorist Search,” CNN.com, September 11, 2001, 11:56 PM EDT (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/america.under.attack); Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 12, 2001, 2:06 AM (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).

2 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September14, 2001.

3 Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).

4 Mauro’s statement is quoted in Rowland Morgan, “Barbara Olson’s Call from Flight 77 Never Happened,” Global Echo, December 2, 2004 (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305124.shtml).

5 Theodore B. Olson, “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” November 16, 2001, Federalist Society, 15th Annual National Lawyers Convention (http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp).

6 Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).

7 See “On September 11, Final Words of Love,” CNN, September 10, 2002 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/03/ar911.phone.calls), which says: “Unbeknown to the hijackers, passenger and political commentator Barbara Olson, 45, was able to call her husband—Solicitor General Ted Olson—on her cellular phone.”

8 The American Airlines website entitled “Onboard Technology” says: “Slide your credit card through the side of the phone and then dial 00 + country code + area or city code + number followed by the # key” (http://www.aa.com/content/travelInformation/duringFlight/onboardTechnology.jhtml).

9 Some defenders of the official story have, to be sure, suggested that she reversed the charges because she had borrowed someone else’s credit card. But in that situation, would anyone have been worrying about a few dollars?

10 See David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-91, 292-97.

11 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004) (available online at http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf), 9.

12 See the National Transportation Safety Board’s flight path study for AA Flight 77 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf). This study has been subjected to extensive analysis by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html). Our use of the information from this Flight Data Recorder (FDR) does not imply our acceptance of the NTSB’s claim that it is from AA Flight 77. Our scepticism is made clear in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, 372 n. 217, which quotes an email from RB saying, “The NTSB claims the Flight Data Recorder is from AA77, but it could really be from any type of aircraft.” Our reference to the data from this FDR is simply for the purpose of showing an internal contradiction within the official story.

13 This exchange occurred on December 6, 2004; see Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), 128-29. Although the letters themselves were not printed in that book or in Morgan’s Flight 93 Revealed: What Really Happened on the 9/11 ‘Let’s Roll’ Flight? (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2006), in which they are also mentioned, they were published (with Henshall and Morgan’s permission) in Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, first edition, 267.

14 American Airlines, “Onboard Technology” (https://www.aa.com/content/travelInformation/duringFlight/onboardTechnology.jhtml), quoted in Morgan, “Barbara Olson’s Call from Flight 77 Never Happened.”

15 See note 4.

16 Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, first edition, 267.

17 Sam Ames, “Airline Grounds In-flight Phone Service,” CNET News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1033-831093.html). The photograph is at http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0020665/L. Both items were sent by Elias Davidsson of Iceland.

18 David Ray Griffin, “Barbara Olson’s Alleged Call from AA 77: A Correction About Onboard Phones,” Information Clearing House, May 7, 2007 (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17659.htm).

19 It has been widely accepted that the (alleged) call from Renee May was made on a cell phone, because this is what was stated in a story published in her mother’s home town. See Natalie Patton, “Flight Attendant Made Call on Cell Phone to Mom in Las Vegas,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, September 13, 2001 (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-13-Thu-2001/news/16989631.html). However, the government’s report on calls from this flight, which was presented as evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, did not indicate that the call was a cell phone call (see United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 [http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html]; this information is more readily accessible in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls From September 11th Flights” [http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html#ref1]). However, even if the government is now implying, as we discuss later, that the call from Renee May was from a passenger-seat phone, the idea that only two people availed themselves of these phones would be little more credible than the idea that only one did.

20 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).

21 Morgan, “Barbara Olson’s Call from Flight 77 Never Happened.”

22 This FBI report on phone usage from AA 77 refers merely to four “connected calls to unknown numbers.” The 9/11 Commission commented: “The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office” (The 9/11 Commission Report, 455 n. 57). The fact that the Commission speaks merely about what the FBI and the DOJ “believe” indicates that they produced no records to prove the point.

23 See the submission of February 17, 2006, by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://www.politikforum.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html).

24 This document is available at Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html).

25 “Cell Phones Test Positive on AA Flight,” USA Today, July 16, 2004 (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2004-07-16-jet-phones_x.htm).

26 We believe, incidentally, that the statement by the 757 AMM that the phone system was “deactivated” and the statement by USA Today that the phones were “ripped out” refer to two different processes, so that within AA’s records there would be a work order for the phones to be physically removed from the 757 fleet at some point between the time at which they were deactivated, perhaps late in 2000, and September 11, 2001. Locating such a work order would provide the final confirmation of the claim that Flight 77 had no onboard phones.

27 The 9/11 Commission Report, 455 n. 57.

28 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html). If unable to download this document, see “Detailed Account of Phone Calls From September 11th Flights” (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html#ref1).

29 How the government could have concluded that this call was attempted by Barbara Olson is not clear.

30 It would appear that the FBI report referred to above, “American Airlines Airphone Usage,” is simply one portion of the complete report the FBI presented on telephone calls from all four flights at the Moussaoui trial. Note also, as mentioned in the text below, that it was a member of the FBI who stated at the Moussaoui trial that only two calls from UA 93 were cell phone calls.

31 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm); Ed Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006 (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html).

32 Greg Gordon, “Prosecutors Play Flight 93 Cockpit Recording,” KnoxNews.com, April 12, 2006 (http://www.knoxsingles.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MOUSSAOUI-04-12-06&cat=WW); quoted in Morgan, Flight 93 Revealed, 182, n. 87.

33 For graphics about the phone calls from Felt and Lyles, see “United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui: Prosecution Trial Exhibits,” Exhibit P200055 http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html).

34 For the government’s summary of the phone calls from all four flights, see exhibit P200054 or P200055 (they are identical) under Phase 2 of the Prosecution Trial Exhibits, “United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui” (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html) or “Detailed Account of Phone Calls From September 11th Flights” (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html#ref1).

35 The 9/11 Commission Report, 12. At that time, the plane was reportedly at about 35,000 feet.

36 Surprisingly, however, the film United 93 portrayed Tom Burnett as using a seat-back phone.

37 Greg Gordon, “Widow Tells of Poignant Last Calls,” Sacramento Bee, September 11, 2002 (http://holtz.org/Library/Social%20Science/History/Atomic%20Age/2000s/Sep11/Burnett%20widows%20story.htm). See also Deena L. Burnett (with Anthony F. Giombetti), Fighting Back: Living Beyond Ourselves (Longwood, Florida: Advantage Inspirational Books, 2006), 61.

38 “Two Years Later…,” 10 September 2003 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/09/earlyshow/living/printable572380.shtml); for the National Review letter, which appeared May 20, 2002, see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_54/ai_85410322.

39 As DRG reported in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, 297, there is an ad headed “FoneFaker–Call Recorder and Voice Changer Service with Caller ID Spoofing,” which says: “Record any call you make, fake your Caller ID and change your voice, all with one service you can use from any phone” (“Telephone Voice Changers,” Brickhouse Security [http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/telephone-voice-changers.html]).

40 We wish to thank Matthew Everett, Tod Fletcher, Ian Henshall, Rowland Morgan, Elizabeth Woodworth, and Aldo Marquis along with a couple of people who wish to remain anonymous, for help with this essay.

Joe Biden Not Forthcoming On The Pakistani-ISI Connection

We Are Change.org | September 7, 2008

Sen. Joe Biden– now Obama’s vice-presidential running mate– was less then forthcoming about the role of the Pakistani ISI in regards to financing the 9/11 attacks. If he can’t be honest about players in the background of the 9/11 attacks, how can he be trusted as Vice President?

It has now been declassified in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act that Biden, as well as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the White House administration (among others) met with General Mahmoud Ahmed and a number of other Pakistani diplomats in the week leading up and even on the morning of 9/11.

This is old but never before seen footage, enjoy.

http://www.youtubeflashplayer.com/youtubeflashplayer.swf?vurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLqtwtZWNas&sn=http://www.cantontruth.com/cantontruth%20tv/canton%20truth%20tv%20setup.png&logo=http://www.cantontruth.com/cantontruth%20tv/canton%20truth%20tv.png&showlogo=true&showcontrol=true&autohide=false&delaytime=&autoplay=False&loopplay=False&

Sarah Palin Links Iraq To 9/11

Palin has repeated the long discredited claim that the invasion of Iraq was a necessary response to the September 11th attacks.

John Nichols
The Nation
September 12, 2008

When everyone’s attention was focusing on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s less-than-reassuring interview about foreign policy with ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, the Republican nominee for vice president was off delivering a speech in which she suggested a dramatically greater ignorance of recent history and international affairs than was on display in the interview.

Speaking at Alaska’s Fort Wainwright on Thursday, where she hailed the combat deployment of her son’s Army unit to Iraq as a “righteous cause,” Palin explicitly and repeatedly renewed the discredited claim that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was initiated as a necessary and credible response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

“You’ll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans,” Palin told the departing soldiers.

Palin’s assessment directly contradicts that of President Bush and key members of his national security team.

After his administration got called out for trying to suggest an Iraq-terrorism connection — following an over-the-top appearance by conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Dick Cheney on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” in which the vice president made the false claim that Iraq had been the “geographic base” for the 9/11 attacks — Bush acknowledged on September 17, 2003, that, “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.”

Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld agreed. At a Pentagon briefing on the same day Bush spoke, Rumsfeld was asked if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein or those around him were personally involved in the September 11 attacks. Rumsfeld replied, “I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was serving then as White House National Security Adviser, went even further. In an ABC “Nightline” interview, she insisted that, “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11.”

Of course, that was a stretch, especially considering some of Cheney’s comments.

But there is no question that, a full five years ago, the Bush administration had explicitly rejected any suggestion that it was appropriate to link the Iraq mission to September 11.

Yet, on the seventh anniversary of attacks on New York and Washington that were never legitimately linked to Saddam Hussein or Iraq, Sarah Palin was telling soldiers headed for Iraq that they are part of “the broad conflict that began seven years ago today.”

Palin also told the troops: “America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001.”

Fair enough.

But isn’t Palin creating a “false sense of security” by suggesting that the Iraq fight is an appropriate or meaningful response to 9/11? And isn’t it unsettling that, as the United States prepares to see off a vice president who got in trouble for peddling fantasies regarding Saddam and terrorism, the Republican nominee to replace Dick Cheney sounds an awfully lot like, er, Dick Cheney?

Dick Cheney Scales New Heights Of Hypocrisy

ROBERT FANTINA
Counterpunch
September 15, 2008

While Alaska Governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is getting all the attention, the current vice president, Dick Cheney, was able to pontificate about Russia and Georgia with barely any notice from the media. However, while hardly anyone was watching, Mr. Cheney echoed the hypocrisy of his boss, President George Bush. While traveling in Italy, Mr. Cheney decided to become the moral arbiter of Russia’s foreign policies. His incredible remarks are worth studying.

“Recent occurrences in Georgia, beginning with the military invasion by Russia, have been flatly contrary to some of our most deeply held beliefs. Russian forces crossed an internationally recognized border into a sovereign state; fueled and fomented an internal conflict; conducted acts of war without regard for innocent life, killing civilians and causing the displacement of tens of thousands.”

If anyone doubted the vice president’s disdain for those who elected him and kept him in power, this speech should have been an eye-opener. How he could make that statement with a straight face is beyond comprehension. Was he not a major force in the U.S. military invasion of Iraq? Mr. Bush may not have needed much encouragement to embark on this deadly oil grab, but whatever encouragement he may have needed was gladly provided by the vice president.

Did not U.S. forces cross an internationally recognized border into a sovereign state? At least Russia’s incursion was to a country it bordered; the U.S. sent 130,000 soldiers halfway across the world to invade and occupy sovereign Iraq.

Russia, says Mr. Cheney, ‘fueled and fomented an internal conflict.’ It has been some time since people have been talking about civil war in Iraq, possibly because with the increase of 30,000 soldiers, Iraq may have finally, after five bloody, terrifying years, been cowed into submission. The U.S. overthrew the government with nothing to put in its place, disbanded the police, and turned a once peaceful nation into an inferno of deadly, daily violence.

He goes on to decry the idea that Russia ‘conducted acts of war without regard for innocent life, killing civilians.’ When Mr. Bush’s horrific and unspeakable ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign began, residential areas were targeted. The president said he was invading Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction aimed at the U.S., but since he didn’t know exactly where they were, he would simple practice genocide on the Iraqi people and hope the weapons of mass destruction would turn up eventually (they didn’t). At the time his bombers were dropping death from the air over Baghdad, over half the population of that city was under the age of 15.

As far as conducting acts of war is concerned, could someone point out to Mr. Cheney that the invasion of a sovereign nation is probably the ultimate act of war? Occupying it for years, killing a million of its citizens and terrorizing much of the population for over five years may be business as usual for U.S. foreign policy, but that does not make those actions any less acts of war.

One could also point out that torturing political prisoners, some as young as 15, is an horrific act of war. The torture chamber that the U.S. operates at Guantanamo Bay is only the most famous; the U.S. uses ‘rendition’ sites around the world to torture those it considers dangerous. The supposedly cherished rights, such as due process, that the U.S. is said to stand for are meaningless to those who get in the way of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney’s imperial designs.

The Russian incursion, said Mr. Cheney, caused ‘the displacement of tens of thousands.’ That number pales in comparison to the millions who have been displaced in Iraq due to the U.S. invasion and occupation. At least a million Iraqis are in crowded refugee camps, forgotten by the media and certainly ignored by that master terrorist, Dick Cheney. Perhaps two million more have had to leave their homes, although they remain in Iraq.

“The United States and many in Europe have made clear that Russia’s actions are an affront to civilized standards and are completely unacceptable.” Mr. Cheney did not bother to explain why these behaviors exhibited by Russia are ‘an affront to civilized standards,’ and why they are ‘completely unacceptable,’ but when the exact same acts are perpetrated by the U.S., although on a far larger scale, they are, apparently, just fine.

“For its part, Russia has offered no satisfactory justification for the invasion — nor could it do so.” In over five years since the U.S. invaded Iraq, it has offered ‘no satisfactory justification’ for doing so. All the original lies, including the falsehoods that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was close to developing nuclear weapons, etc., have faded into oblivion, like the blood of millions of Iraqis on the desert sands. Mr. Bush also stated the need for ‘regime change;’ why he and his neocon cohorts felt this was their right has also never been explained.

“Differing views on the status of these two areas, within the sovereign borders of the Georgian democracy, cannot justify a sudden and violent incursion by Russia. This much, at a minimum, should be understood by all people of good will in the year 2008.”

Yet apparently the belief that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S., despite the fact that United Nations weapons inspectors were combing Iraq and finding nothing, could justify a sudden and violent incursion by the U.S. People of good will in the year 2008 understand that that is simply wrong, as they did in 2003.

“This chain of aggressive moves and diplomatic reversals has only intensified the concern that many have about Russia’s larger objectives.” The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, continued threats against Iran and Cuba, and the fact that the U.S. has enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the entire planet several times over have certainly intensified concern about the U.S.’s larger objectives.

Eight long years ago, Mr. Bush promised to bring dignity back to the White House. In his war-mongering mind the fact that President Bill Clinton had had an extra-marital affair was so disgraceful that the reputation of the U.S. was in tatters as a result. Today, following the Iraqi invasion and occupation that most of the world, including most of the U.S.’s allies, opposed from the start, the U.S. is the most hated and feared nation on the planet. With Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney now prancing around the world, criticizing Russia for actions that parallel in action but not in scope, the exact behaviors they have practiced and continue to practice, another mark of hypocrisy has been struck against the U.S.

As the U.S. plods towards the conclusion of its every-four-year election farce, the race for president is said to be too close to call. The Republican presidential candidate, the elderly Arizona Senator John McCain, the man who is so wealthy he does not even know how many houses he owns (or perhaps it is simply senility), calls for change by offering more of the same. This is the model his idol, Mr. Bush, used following the 2006 Congressional elections. After the war-mongering Republicans were thrown out of Congress, replaced by the spineless but equally war-mongering Democrats, Mr. Bush led the country on a ‘new way forward,’ by escalating the war. Mr. McCain has consistently supported Mr. Bush’s worst policies.

Mr. McCain’s Democratic challenger, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, has inspired many with his call for ‘change we can believe in.’ Whether or not we can actually believe in his idea of change, at the very least he offers a glimmer of the hope that U.S. citizens and the world have lived without for eight long years. He selected as his running mate Senator Joe Biden, a distinguished senator with a thorough knowledge of foreign policy, having served for many years on the senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he currently chairs. Mr. McCain selected Mrs. Palin, an (almost) one-term governor of a state with a population of less than 1,000,000. Her previous political experience was as mayor of an Alaskan town with a population of less than 7,000. She opposes every progressive movement known to man, encourages the shooting of wolves from airplanes, and believes that global warming is a natural occurrence, and not a man-made threat.

One wonders how more of the same will help to rebuild the reputation of the U.S. throughout the world, especially when it is ushered in by a cowgirl brandishing a gun and a chastity belt. Yet that is what change means to Mr. McCain.

The world is watching to see if the U.S. voters will make the same disastrous mistake in 2008 that they made in 2004. There was no excuse for it then, and there will be even less so if they do it again. The consequences of those mistakes grow with each one. It will not be long before those consequences are irreversible, to the detriment of the entire world population.

FEMA: The Plan To Kill America

Jim Kirwan
The People’s Voice.org
September 11, 2008


Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastors as Pacifiers in Preparation For
Martial Law.

Since that day our bumbling boy wonder stole the office of president, some have wondered about the ulterior purposes behind this administration and its nefarious doings. They have not been alone in this mini-quest. Part of the dilemma for anyone who truly wants to understand these actions and re-actions is that ‘nothing they do’ within the circles of power and greed seems to make any logical sense.

Ordinary criminal schemes are usually easy to decipher. Money trails can be found, and their telltale tracks followed to whatever may have been the point of such an effort. But this ’super-plan’ for domination includes the complete destruction of most (or all) that matters – and none of it makes sense to the civilized world.

The litanies of the theft of everything constitutional have been well documented. The voracious greed of the warlords, while perhaps less clearly delineated, are finally taking shape: At least as to which countries are now being targeted, even when it remains unclear as to why those countries might find themselves in that position. In addition to the above we also have the destruction of the entire system of social programs, the welfare of the states, the counties and the cities of the United States – as well as the total isolation of all the citizens of this country – inside a massive shroud of secrecy and fear.

In addition to all of this, the Bush Crime Family has targeted the viability of the environment, the supply of clean water, the fertility of the soil, and the quality of the air itself – as though they somehow will not have to suffer the same consequences as the rest of the human race once their policies begin to destroy all possibility for life on this planet.

Where’s the sense – where’s the profit in all the artificial fear, all the hate and all the aggression? Recently they’ve begun to destroy the very instruments of dialogue and discussion. In their haste to attack Iraq, they destroyed the Atlantic Alliance, did major damage to the United Nations, and managed to severely wound the NATO alliance. How can they hope to triumph against such a background of belligerence and destruction? What’s left to crush or threaten once we’ve finished declaring ourselves to be the Supreme Rulers of the World?

It turns out that most of the above has only been a side-show, an ‘introductory video’ of what will happen to the United States and to all its citizens if we should fail to comply with every command on the Bushwhacker’s hit list of rights to be taken, property to be stolen, or dreams to be denied. It seems there is a plan beneath all this after all.

This little nightmare called FEMA – The Federal Emergency Management Agency – was brought to us by Richard Nixon. And over the years each consecutive president has contributed to its continuing health and viability – until we got to ‘41,’ bullyboy’s daddy. GWH Bush saw to it that this weapon against the people was armed and ready – the only thing not in place was a sufficient excuse to implement it.

What exactly is FEMA, in terms of its powers, once it is activated?

“EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President – Congress cannot review the action for six months.”

A complete explanation is here: http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon6.html

Then came the events of 9-11. Here was the beginning of the real possibility to make the transition from a science fiction fantasy to living reality. http://www.rense.com/general36/hoax.htm

To facilitate the onset of civil unrest in the United States, a number of actions by the executive branch of government have been undertaken with the complicity and collusion of both the Congress and the courts under the direction of a loosely defined coalition of the eager that involves both the USA and a faction of extremists within the government of Israel. All of this is being financed by you and me through the monetary choices we have allowed this government to make since the ascension of the Bush Crime Family to their executive posts in Washington D.C.

To understand how this was possible one needs to go back in time to a little known but extremely important occurrence that reshaped our country in 1871. The changes created by the “Act of 1871″ altered the words “The Constitution for the United States of America – to read:

“THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”

This latter form is the corporate constitution, and it operates in an economic capacity that was designed to deceive us into thinking that “it is the same parchment that was meant to govern the Republic. It absolutely is not.” The differences go well beyond the capitalization. Legally, the entire key is to be found in the difference between a United States Constitution that is “for” and the one that is “OF” the United States.

Once the differences are understood between a Corporate Charter and a civil Constitution, it becomes clear that what serves the corporation may often work against the people of the civil society. This action killed the Republic created by our American Revolution and replaced our charter with a corporate democracy – and that is exactly what is playing out in history as it’s being written today.

When one combines the “Act of 1871″ with the ‘rights of personhood’ granted to the Corporations in an 1886 Supreme Court decision (that freed American corporations from individual responsibility for their actions) that act completely revised the intent and purposes behind the original Constitution “for” the people of the United States of America. Taken together, these two major alterations became the basis for our two-tiered system of both law and life. Americans are now trying to cope as second-class supplicants to the corporations that now rule our lives. Add to this the introduction of our defacto dictator, George Walker Bush, crown- prince-in-waiting for the title of Leader-of-the-World – and one can easily see that we are just one hair’s breathe short of complete and outright slavery.

The amazing thing about these facts is how few people are even remotely aware of their existence – not to mention the above historical precedents that have become the bedrock of America as we now know it.

Americans since 9-11 have been traumatized by the shock of unfolding events. As such, we could be said to resemble a patient who has been in a coma for an extended period of time. IF we ever learn what happened to us, we will awake from that coma in a rage of righteous anger. Anger that while we were defenseless – the government has metaphorically ‘been having its way with us.’ Figuratively we’ve been raped and sodomized, used and abused at will by this government to flesh out their fantasies of world domination – at the expense of everything we thought our lives were made of.

The Bush Crime family has been secretly and voraciously devouring the critical funding for everything from schools and medicine to infrastructure and the ‘privatization’ of social security. The willful destruction of social programs, coupled with an economically irresponsible foreign policy of continual and unnecessary wars; plus a ‘reorganization’ of the entire federal government through implementation of the HOMELAND Security Act that has obviously all been created to bring this nation to the brink of economic collapse. This brings us back to the original question – “Why are we doing this?”

The answer is beyond ugly. The goal, it seems, is to get us to relinquish all our rights – to the government – to “protect us from all the evil in the world.” The actual problem is that all the evil resides in the compacts that have been forged between the Cabal in Washington and the thugs in Tel Aviv under the international cover of ‘fighting terror on a global scale.’

Once the next 9-11 happens, the nation will be put on condition RED, and then we’ll have PATRIOT II by executive order. This will unleash FEMA to do what it was designed to do – which is to round us all up, strip us of anything anyone in government might want, and throw the rest of us away. This will be courtesy of that secretive black-ops shadow government known as FEMA – that rising curse that gives shape to all the nightmares that Bush wants each of us to fear. This terrifying new world will exceed all natural bonds, and will even surpass our innate wish to remain a viably free and prosperous society. This will make Orwell’s 1984 look like a fairy tale. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html

Once FEMA has the reins in it’s slavering jaws, there will be no going back, no governmental oversight, no review of events or of transgressions- we will be absorbed into a monolithic morass that serves the corporations (and only the corporation) for only as long as we may be useful to their purposes. All else will be discarded or recycled into something useful to the new powers that will replace what used-to-be the United States in America. Life as we have known it will cease to exist!

The only question now is: “Will we ever awaken from our self-imposed comas?”