Area 51 - Alive, Well, And Said Expanding By Norio Hayakawa From Wes Thomas
There is no truth whatsoever to the ridiculous rumor that AREA 51 and its operations were abandoned and were relocated elsewhere, such as to Utah.
Basically, this rumor had originated from a disinformative article written by Jim Wilson that first appeared in the June, 1997 issue of POPULAR MECHANICS. The unexpected article no doubt was greatly “appreciated” by Nellis AFB and particularly by those at the “remote operating base” at Groom Lake. The folks at Nellis AFB probably rolled on the floor laughing over the article on AREA 51, which was for the most part filled with factual errors much to their absolute delight! The June, 1997, POPULAR MECHANICS piece also must have brought much delight to the then Secretary of the Air Force, Sheila Widnall.
It is my hope that this type of misinformed article did not serve to curtail the general public’s interest in and rightful scrutiny of AREA 51 (Groom Lake Complexes), particularly in regards to those issues relative to the alleged infractions of environmental statutes at the site. The article, written by Jim Wilson, science editor of POPULAR MECHANICS, inferred that “the Air Force had abandoned top-secret testing at its once most secret test site”. Then Wilson came to the hasty conclusion and stated that “we know why and we know where they moved to (i.e., Utah)”. Nothing is farther from the truth than this overly generalized inference. Jim Wilson, despite his probable sincerity and good intentions, obviously missed the whole picture.
To begin with, he clearly took a wrong turn on “Groom Lake dirt road” and went to the wrong location. It was obvious from the photo that what he did was go south on the “Mail Box dirt road” from Hwy 375, crossed the “Groom Lake dirt road” and went further south all the way till he encountered an old, poorly maintained wind fence, believing that he had arrived at the back gate of AREA 51, when in reality he had arrived at the northeastern boundary of Range 61. There he decided that nothing was happening at AREA 51, and made a hasty statement, saying “the ‘cammo dudes’ are no longer patrolling the perimeter of AREA 51” and further rashly stated that “what we found was a securely locked wind fence that appears to have been undisturbed for months”.
He further commented that even though he had arrived at the back door to AREA 51, there was “no guard post”. Brilliant! (There never was any.....ever at that location!). He also stated in the article that the “warning signs flanking the gate aren’t very threatening either”. (The reason for that is because there never existed any “threatening” warning signs there except the sign that says NO TRESPASSING......Nellis Bombing Range). It is because that location is not AREA 51.......it is merely the northeastern boundary of Range 61. Wilson then came to the naive conclusion that “AREA 51 has shut down!!”. Again, a brilliant conclusion!! I suggest next time that he go to the right location.......towards the real Guard Shack area.... (west all the way on Groom Lake Road).......where he may really encounter the “cammo dudes”, white Jeep Cherokees and perhaps a military chopper or two to welcome him, if he dare go to the Guard Shack area. He would also see some real “threatening” warning signs along the dirt road that clearly say LETHAL FORCE WILL BE USED.
>From what I understand from several reliable sources, Groom Lake has not had a major lessening of activity whatsoever. In fact, there may be more going on at Groom Lake now than before.
In October of 1997, I observed the Groom Lake facility from high atop Tickaboo Peak and verified with my own eyes that the facility is not only there but even thought that there may be slightly more structures out there than before. A couple of new water tanks seem to have been added recently behind the big hangar. Also, deducing from a fairly recent, highly-detailed panoramic photo that I acquired (allegedly taken several months after the closure of both the Freedom Ridge and White Sides) I have no doubt that there are some new constructions going on, particularly along the southwest slope next to Groom Lake. (I had observed the Groom Lake facility a number of times before from both the White Sides hill and the Freedom Ridge before those hills became off-limits to the public). The night prior to the day that I climbed the Tickaboo Peak in October of 1997, we were standing at the exact spot where Jim Wilson had stood.......at around 7:30 p.m., at the northeastern boundary of Range 61. As we were looking towards the direction of Groom Lake, we were surprised by a sudden illlumination of the sky just over the direction of Groom Lake and witnessed around 3 or 4 reddish “balls” of lights that appeared over the direction of Groom Lake and then disappeared momentarily, after which the sky over that area returned to total darkness. I could not speculate what those reddish “balls” of lights were.......but this went on intermittently for about three times during the next 20 minutes or so. There was no doubt that there was activity of some kind that night at Groom Lake.
This was in stark contrast to the allegation by Jim Wilson that nothing is going on at AREA 51 and that nothing was going on when he was standing at the northeastern boundary of Range 61, looking towards the Groom Mountains. Probably nothing major was going on that was visible on that particular day or evening when he was there. Moreover, we must bear in mind that most sensitive programs are thought to be conducted below ground level, to begin with.
Primarily because of the misinformative article from the June, 1997, POPULAR MECHANICS, the whole world now seems to be under the impression that there is nothing going on at AREA 51, and that everything had moved to the Green River Missile Launch “complex” in Utah. One of the erroneous facts that Jim Wilson mentioned in the June, 1997 POPULAR MECHANICS article was that there was an “officially named AREA 6413” in Utah. There is no “officially named AREA 6413” in Utah. What he meant to say was Restricted Air Space 6413 in Utah. However, even to this date, anyone can easily get right next to the Green River Missile Launch “complex”. There is nothing top-secret going on over there. Rather than the Green River Missile Launch “complex” (which Jim Wilson seemed to have inferred as the possible site of the new AREA 51), we should keep a closer eye on the new “non-lethal” weapons programs as well as the new “bacteriological warfare programs” going on at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah. It is, by far, more interesting there than the Green River area!!
All in all, the June, 1997 POPULAR MECHANICS article was in such a drastic contrast to the more well-researched article that coincidentally appeared one month prior, in the May, 1997 issue of POPULAR SCIENCE in which Groom Lake was mentioned several times, with an inference that there was still plenty going on at Groom Lake.
Some of the ongoing programs at AREA 51, according to reports from the Monitoring Times and other publications, seem to include a new series of B-2 follow-on by Northrop/Grumman at S-2, possible series of newer Darkstar (Tier 3 - UAV) by Lockheed at S-4 and Tier 2+ and Tier 3+ UAVs at S-9 by such as Teledyne Ryan Aero.
In June of 1997, after the article appeared on POPULAR MECHANICS, I was informed that some new components of new, small-scale VTOL produced by Lockheed had just been transferred to Groom from Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.
There is no doubt that there are new generations of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (remotely controlled surveillance platforms, etc.) being tested at Groom Lake. New testing of “skins” for outer coating for a new generation of stealth program is going on as well, as inferred by the May, 1997 issue of POPULAR SCIENCE.
A new generation of “electro chromic panels” are probably continuing to be tested at the facility. A move towards “daytime” stealth capability (such as through the use of special sensors for transmission of image reflections of the background environment on the lower as well as upper bodies of the aircraft) may be in the works at AREA 51.
I would not be surprised at all if they were working on such as limited tri-dimensional holographic image maximization that could be integrated with the “electro chromic panels” used to reflect background environment on the aircraft to bring about “transparency effect” as well as distorted image size of the aircraft. All this, in addition to several new black, triangular aircraft (such as TR-3A Black Manta) that they may be working on.
Anyway, the point is that there may indeed be some new programs going on in Utah and elsewhere, but to infer that AREA 51 “moved” to Utah is totally unfounded.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.; Pres. of Human-Alien Contact Agenda said this is a "positive" step in the "right" direction.
2013-01-22 13:40:45 EST
Poopular Mechanics is a government controlled propaganda rag!
Their article intended to debunk the truth about the 9/11 INSIDE JOB CONSPIRACY is the laughing stock of all that can think for themsleves.
2013-01-23 01:21:36 EST
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org says... > > Poopular Mechanics is a government controlled propaganda rag! > > Their article intended to debunk the truth about the 9/11 INSIDE JOB > CONSPIRACY is the laughing stock of all that can think for themsleves.
Popular Mecahinics exposes Troofery for the nonsense it is. You troofers, like members of any religion/cult, can't accept criticism of your Sacred Writings. Non-believers are hated, of course.
-- BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster. Friend to all kOOkbashers.
Sir Gilligan Horry
2013-01-23 05:55:01 EST
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:21:36 -0500, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org says... >> >> Poopular Mechanics is a government controlled propaganda rag! >> >> Their article intended to debunk the truth about the 9/11 INSIDE JOB >> CONSPIRACY is the laughing stock of all that can think for themsleves. > >Popular Mecahinics exposes Troofery for the nonsense it is. You >troofers, like members of any religion/cult, can't accept criticism of >your Sacred Writings.
"HubbleSite - Out of the ordinary...out of this world. http://HubbleSite.org News center, gallery, discoveries, sci-tech, fun and games, and reference desk."
>Non-believers are hated, of course.
________ Disclaimer: I'm Last in Space.
Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard. (i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg) ... here... http://goo.gl/A7l9U
One Million U.F.O Researchers Project... http://MillionUFOs.blogspot.com
Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence... http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com
On 1/23/2013 5:55 AM, Sir Gilligan Horry wrote: > > >> Non-believers are hated, of course. > > NOT TRUE.
Ah! So those who do not believe are welcome?
Sure doesn't seem like it.
-- "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮 http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg
Sir Gilligan Horry
2013-01-23 08:52:37 EST
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:44:47 -0500, HVAC <email@example.com> wrote:
>On 1/23/2013 5:55 AM, Sir Gilligan Horry wrote: >> >> >>> Non-believers are hated, of course. >> >> NOT TRUE. > > >Ah! So those who do not believe are welcome? > >Sure doesn't seem like it.
2:57am, I'm going to bed for 4 hours to dream of Freddy Krueger, Mr HVAC, A Haunted House, Texas Chainsaw 3D, Warm Bodies, The Cabin in the Woods, Evil Dead, The Shining, The Ring, The Woman in Black, Chernobyl Diaries, and all the other Horror Movies you talk about in our UFO Research Live Chat Room ALL DAY EVERY DAY.
I watched real horror tonight too...
Watch Ross Kemp Extreme World: Congo Prison Hell Video.
Those prisoners in that jail used to cut womens hands off with an axe, and then rape the woman, and then stick buring plastic up her vagina.
WELCOME TO PLANET EARTH LADIES & GENTLEMEN.
________ Disclaimer: My last post !!!
Until I wake up again in 4 hours.
Hi Dr Steven M. Greer (all aliens are lovely) !!! ?
Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard. (i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg) ... here... http://goo.gl/A7l9U
One Million U.F.O Researchers Project... http://MillionUFOs.blogspot.com
Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence... http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:50:42 AM UTC-5, Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote: > Area 51 - Alive, Well, And Said Expanding > > By Norio Hayakawa From Wes Thomas > > > > There is no truth whatsoever to the ridiculous rumor that AREA 51 and > > its operations were abandoned and were relocated elsewhere, such as to > > Utah. > > > > Basically, this rumor had originated from a disinformative article > > written by Jim Wilson that first appeared in the June, 1997 issue of > > POPULAR MECHANICS. The unexpected article no doubt was greatly > > “appreciated” by Nellis AFB and particularly by those at the “remote > > operating base” at Groom Lake. The folks at Nellis AFB probably rolled > > on the floor laughing over the article on AREA 51, which was for the > > most part filled with factual errors much to their absolute delight! > > The June, 1997, POPULAR MECHANICS piece also must have brought much > > delight to the then Secretary of the Air Force, Sheila Widnall. > > > > It is my hope that this type of misinformed article did not serve to > > curtail the general public’s interest in and rightful scrutiny of AREA > > 51 (Groom Lake Complexes), particularly in regards to those issues > > relative to the alleged infractions of environmental statutes at the > > site. The article, written by Jim Wilson, science editor of POPULAR > > MECHANICS, inferred that “the Air Force had abandoned top-secret > > testing at its once most secret test site”. Then Wilson came to the > > hasty conclusion and stated that “we know why and we know where they > > moved to (i.e., Utah)”. Nothing is farther from the truth than this > > overly generalized inference. Jim Wilson, despite his probable > > sincerity and good intentions, obviously missed the whole picture. > > > > To begin with, he clearly took a wrong turn on “Groom Lake dirt road” > > and went to the wrong location. It was obvious from the photo that > > what he did was go south on the “Mail Box dirt road” from Hwy 375, > > crossed the “Groom Lake dirt road” and went further south all the way > > till he encountered an old, poorly maintained wind fence, believing > > that he had arrived at the back gate of AREA 51, when in reality he > > had arrived at the northeastern boundary of Range 61. There he decided > > that nothing was happening at AREA 51, and made a hasty statement, > > saying “the ‘cammo dudes’ are no longer patrolling the perimeter of > > AREA 51” and further rashly stated that “what we found was a securely > > locked wind fence that appears to have been undisturbed for months”. > > > > He further commented that even though he had arrived at the back door > > to AREA 51, there was “no guard post”. Brilliant! (There never was > > any.....ever at that location!). He also stated in the article that > > the “warning signs flanking the gate aren’t very threatening either”. > > (The reason for that is because there never existed any “threatening” > > warning signs there except the sign that says NO > > TRESPASSING......Nellis Bombing Range). It is because that location is > > not AREA 51.......it is merely the northeastern boundary of Range 61. > > Wilson then came to the naive conclusion that “AREA 51 has shut > > down!!”. Again, a brilliant conclusion!! I suggest next time that he > > go to the right location.......towards the real Guard Shack area.... > > (west all the way on Groom Lake Road).......where he may really > > encounter the “cammo dudes”, white Jeep Cherokees and perhaps a > > military chopper or two to welcome him, if he dare go to the Guard > > Shack area. He would also see some real “threatening” warning signs > > along the dirt road that clearly say LETHAL FORCE WILL BE USED. > > > > From what I understand from several reliable sources, Groom Lake has > > not had a major lessening of activity whatsoever. In fact, there may > > be more going on at Groom Lake now than before. > > > > In October of 1997, I observed the Groom Lake facility from high atop > > Tickaboo Peak and verified with my own eyes that the facility is not > > only there but even thought that there may be slightly more structures > > out there than before. A couple of new water tanks seem to have been > > added recently behind the big hangar. Also, deducing from a fairly > > recent, highly-detailed panoramic photo that I acquired (allegedly > > taken several months after the closure of both the Freedom Ridge and > > White Sides) I have no doubt that there are some new constructions > > going on, particularly along the southwest slope next to Groom Lake. > > (I had observed the Groom Lake facility a number of times before from > > both the White Sides hill and the Freedom Ridge before those hills > > became off-limits to the public). > > The night prior to the day that I climbed the Tickaboo Peak in October > > of 1997, we were standing at the exact spot where Jim Wilson had > > stood.......at around 7:30 p.m., at the northeastern boundary of Range > > 61. As we were looking towards the direction of Groom Lake, we were > > surprised by a sudden illlumination of the sky just over the direction > > of Groom Lake and witnessed around 3 or 4 reddish “balls” of lights > > that appeared over the direction of Groom Lake and then disappeared > > momentarily, after which the sky over that area returned to total > > darkness. I could not speculate what those reddish “balls” of lights > > were.......but this went on intermittently for about three times > > during the next 20 minutes or so. There was no doubt that there was > > activity of some kind that night at Groom Lake. > > > > This was in stark contrast to the allegation by Jim Wilson that > > nothing is going on at AREA 51 and that nothing was going on when he > > was standing at the northeastern boundary of Range 61, looking towards > > the Groom Mountains. Probably nothing major was going on that was > > visible on that particular day or evening when he was there. Moreover, > > we must bear in mind that most sensitive programs are thought to be > > conducted below ground level, to begin with. > > > > Primarily because of the misinformative article from the June, 1997, > > POPULAR MECHANICS, the whole world now seems to be under the > > impression that there is nothing going on at AREA 51, and that > > everything had moved to the Green River Missile Launch “complex” in > > Utah. > > One of the erroneous facts that Jim Wilson mentioned in the June, 1997 > > POPULAR MECHANICS article was that there was an “officially named AREA > > 6413” in Utah. There is no “officially named AREA 6413” in Utah. What > > he meant to say was Restricted Air Space 6413 in Utah. However, even > > to this date, anyone can easily get right next to the Green River > > Missile Launch “complex”. There is nothing top-secret going on over > > there. Rather than the Green River Missile Launch “complex” (which > > Jim Wilson seemed to have inferred as the possible site of the new > > AREA 51), we should keep a closer eye on the new “non-lethal” weapons > > programs as well as the new “bacteriological warfare programs” going > > on at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah. It is, by far, more interesting > > there than the Green River area!! > > > > All in all, the June, 1997 POPULAR MECHANICS article was in such a > > drastic contrast to the more well-researched article that > > coincidentally appeared one month prior, in the May, 1997 issue of > > POPULAR SCIENCE in which Groom Lake was mentioned several times, with > > an inference that there was still plenty going on at Groom Lake. > > > > Some of the ongoing programs at AREA 51, according to reports from the > > Monitoring Times and other publications, seem to include a new series > > of B-2 follow-on by Northrop/Grumman at S-2, possible series of newer > > Darkstar (Tier 3 - UAV) by Lockheed at S-4 and Tier 2+ and Tier 3+ > > UAVs at S-9 by such as Teledyne Ryan Aero. > > > > In June of 1997, after the article appeared on POPULAR MECHANICS, I > > was informed that some new components of new, small-scale VTOL > > produced by Lockheed had just been transferred to Groom from Air Force > > Plant 42 in Palmdale, California. > > > > There is no doubt that there are new generations of Unmanned Aerial > > Vehicles (remotely controlled surveillance platforms, etc.) being > > tested at Groom Lake. New testing of “skins” for outer coating for a > > new generation of stealth program is going on as well, as inferred by > > the May, 1997 issue of POPULAR SCIENCE. > > > > A new generation of “electro chromic panels” are probably continuing > > to be tested at the facility. A move towards “daytime” stealth > > capability (such as through the use of special sensors for > > transmission of image reflections of the background environment on the > > lower as well as upper bodies of the aircraft) may be in the works at > > AREA 51. > > > > I would not be surprised at all if they were working on such as > > limited tri-dimensional holographic image maximization that could be > > integrated with the “electro chromic panels” used to reflect > > background environment on the aircraft to bring about “transparency > > effect” as well as distorted image size of the aircraft. All this, in > > addition to several new black, triangular aircraft (such as TR-3A > > Black Manta) that they may be working on. > > > > Anyway, the point is that there may indeed be some new programs going > > on in Utah and elsewhere, but to infer that AREA 51 “moved” to Utah is > > totally unfounded. > > > > Norio Hayakawa > > http://www.eagle-net.org/groomwatch > > > > Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.; Pres. of Human-Alien Contact > > Agenda said this is a "positive" step in the "right" direction.
Area 51 is the most famous military base in the World, thus it is not a secret. There was a time when area 51 was a secret base, this time is long over, at present area 51's primary use. is to be a dummy secret base for people like you to drool over. Do you know where area 51-b is, name it what you choose, but that is the real secret base, and it is not on television or in a new movie every day....Why, because it is classified, unlike area 51.
Sorry to break the news to you.
2013-01-24 08:39:18 EST
On 1/23/2013 8:52 AM, Sir Gilligan Horry wrote: > >> Ah! So those who do not believe are welcome? >> >> Sure doesn't seem like it. > > 2:57am, I'm going to bed for 4 hours to dream of > Freddy Krueger, Mr HVAC, A Haunted House, Texas Chainsaw 3D, > Warm Bodies, The Cabin in the Woods, Evil Dead, The Shining
Those are some good movies. I loved Cabin In The Woods.
-- "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮 http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg
2013-01-24 13:41:11 EST
"Sir Gilligan Horny" <GM@ga7rm5er.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:21:36 -0500, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> > wrote: > >>In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org says... >>> >>> Poopular Mechanics is a government controlled propaganda rag! >>> >>> Their article intended to debunk the truth about the 9/11 INSIDE JOB >>> CONSPIRACY is the laughing stock of all that can think for themsleves. >> >>Popular Mecahinics exposes Troofery for the nonsense it is. You >>troofers, like members of any religion/cult, can't accept criticism of >>your Sacred Writings.
Only the TRUTH is sacred - take some time to learn it, if you can open your mind just enough to do so:
The 9/11 "ATTACK" - ELEVEN YEARS, STILL NO JUSTICE!
The crime of the century that mass-murdered 3000 innocent Americans on September 11, 2001 remains unsolved. Many know this with certainty and some suspect it, but some Americans still believe the coverup lies and propaganda fed them through the government-manipulated corporate mass-media. To understand why, and know the truth, read on - -
To understand the point I wish to make, let's assume that an obviously alien creature was walking peacefully down the street, and observe peoples' reactions to it.
Some would simply not see it! Their brains would reject as IMPOSSIBLE what their eyes tell them, and block out their awareness of the unearthly creature.
Some might stare, perhaps be shocked or frightened, but then go on, rationalizing that they only saw someone in costume, or that they had indulged too heavily at last night's party and were seeing things. They would tell no one what they saw for fear of being thought crazy. They would even, in defense of their own rationalization, label other people that reported such a sighting as crazy. This is the psychological phenomenon of DENIAL.
Perhaps in fear for their own sanity, deniers condemn as crazy others that claim aliens or whatever to be real. Such assertions are frightening because they violate their sense of reality - "only KOOKS believe in aliens!" Thus people tend to reject as unreal what is not comfortable for them to accept, and likewise embrace beliefs that do not hold up to scientific scrutiny but do provide them comfort. You don't believe what you DON'T WANT to believe; denial thus serves to protect the mind from what would be mentally traumatic if accepted.
Some things are simply too horrific, too abominably appalling, too greatly in violation of what we WANT to think or believe, to accept as actual reality - even when they ARE real! "Look; the Emperor wears no clothes," said the child too na\ufffdve to know that such facts are not to be spoken of, nor even acknowledged to oneself.
PSYOPS - definition paraphrased from Wikipedia: Psychological Operations. Techniques used to influence a target audience's value systems, beliefs, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. PSYOPS are used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or false flag tactics. The phrase is commonly used by governments who wish to avoid the terms propaganda and brainwashing in reference to their own work because those terms have negative connotations. The use of such euphemisms for what is in effect mind control is in itself an example of psychological operations, i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade a large number of people to support something they wouldn't normally support or to unquestioningly accept lies.
Obviously, to permit or commit an atrocity on the scale of the 9/11 attacks, and/or to exploit the horror, shock, and fear thus created to influence public opinion and actions, is clearly a PSYOP. The exploitation of the psychological phenomenon of DENIAL is also clearly a PSYOP. Who would want to believe that traitors in our own government would permit, or even perpetrate, such an atrocity on their own people? How much easier it would be to accept the existence of aliens - or fanatical Jihadists!
"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.
Now that we understand what PSYOPS are, and the psychological phenomenon of DENIAL, we are in a better position to rationally investigate the true nature and possible sources of the 9/11 attacks.
The UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of an INSIDE JOB:
BLOWN TO BITS:
The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have remained standing.
Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster. Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible morning? I don't think so!
There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such distances.
So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?
The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. NORAD is the world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies that make it extremely reliable and effective. NORAD routinely intercepts off course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds, especially near such security-sensitive areas as New York City and the Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial jets were out of communication and flying towards known terrorist targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of these planes was intercepted by NORAD! We were told that NORAD only looks for aircraft coming from outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given the history of NORAD's routine interceptions!
The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade Center building collapses:
SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World TradeCenter (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained standing.
In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."
We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale that's "beyond the pale!"
Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian assertions?
The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed facts
* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steelcore columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do, even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
How Gravity Acts:
Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force ofgravity at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet persecond for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so on.
Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object isfalling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen 16 feet.
Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found inany high-school physics book
* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T) And * Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =1/2 x G x T x T)
So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds
Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
Checking Our Work:
We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,using conservation of energy.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energyin a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy isconverted into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy [molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to shatter or even pulverize concrete.
In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whateveris holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
The equation for potential energy is * Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G xH)
The equation for kinetic energy is * Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object hasa mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32x144 = 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 seconds is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared =1/2 x 9216 = 4608
So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance
The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way inorder for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in overcoming frictional resistance.
This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with theair creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the accelerationupward, they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity ismaintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows theperson attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
A Quick Recap:
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by airresistance it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to fall a given distance.
Free-fall From WTC Building Heights
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an objectto free-fall from the towers' height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time,T:
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T) Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G) Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G)) Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the height of the WTC towers.
Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is justover 200 mph.
But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the ground.
Observations from 9/11:
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could not lie about this.
But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2 seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than 10 seconds!
What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be physically impossible!
Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word. Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass, eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear. The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have done all these things at once.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met
* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse. * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy. * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic. * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than gravity. * On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth of 9/11.
The Bottom Line
The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that theWTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.
The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day, similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission made no attempt to explain it.
Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
--------- FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation Also see: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
SO - WHO DONE IT??
Any good detective will tell you that the way to find criminals is to investigate those that benefitted, or stood to benefit, from the crime. Surely those that were quickly blamed for this mass-murderous crime of the century - Bin Laden, etc., had evil intentions against America, but could not have done it single-handedly. Just after 9/11 Iraq and Saddam Hussein were implied as guilty in a PSYOP to justify the invasion of Iraq, when in fact they were blameless for 9/11.
Here are some that, under the criteria of the good detective above, must be considered suspects:
Bush, Cheney, and their fellow Republican/neo-conservatives then in power. Then NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani. WTC owner/leaseholder Larry Silverstein. The theocratic nation of Israel.
DEMAND that congress reopen the investigation and bring the real MASS-MURDERERS to justice!
NINE ELEVEN - NEVER AGAIN!
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2013-01-24 15:44:49 EST
Was 9/11 an Inside Job? By Mark H. Gaffney
The following is an excerpt from Mark H. Gaffney's book, THE 911 MYSTERY PLANE AND THE VANISHING OF AMERICA.
Regrettably, there is considerable evidence that elements of the Bush administration were complicit in the 9/11 attack, and may even have helped stage it. Let us now examine some of what I regard as the most compelling evidence. However, the following discussion makes no claim to be comprehensive.
We know that within minutes of the “worst terrorist attack” in US history, even before the collapse of WTC-2 at 9:59 am, US officials knew the names of several of the alleged hijackers. CBS reported that a flight attendant on AA Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office and reveal the seat numbers of the hijackers who had seized the plane. FBI Director Robert Mueller later said, “This was the first piece of hard evidence.” In his memoirs CIA Director George Tenet emphasizes the importance of the passenger manifests, as does counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke. All of which is very strange because the manifests later released by the airlines do not include the names of any of the alleged hijackers. Nor has this discrepancy ever been explained.
According to MSNBC, the plan to invade Afghanistan and “remove Al Qaeda from the face of he earth” was already sitting on G.W. Bush’s desk on the morning of 9/11 awaiting his signature. The plan, in the form of a presidential directive, had been developed by the CIA and according to Richard Clarke called for “arming the Northern Alliance...to go on the offensive against the Taliban [and] pressing the CIA to...go after bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership.”
A former Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, tells virtually the same story. During a BBC interview, three days after 9/11, Niak claimed that senior American officials had informed him in mid-July 2001 that the US would attack the Taliban “before the snows start falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” Niak said he received this information in Berlin at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan. He also predicted, correctly, that the US attack would be launched from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. But how could US officials know in mid-July that American forces would invade Afghanistan in October unless they had foreknowledge of the attack?
Foreknowledge probably also explains why General Richard Myers, the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on 9/11, announced at the first post-9/11 meeting of Bush’s National Security Council, held on video- conference the afternoon of the attack, that “there are forty-two major Taliban bombing targets.” But how did Myers come to have such detailed information about military targets in Afghanistan, so soon after the 9/11 attack?
This important detail belies oft-repeated claims that the US military was not prepared to attack Afghanistan, and points to extensive war planning before 9/11. Journalist Steve Coll arrived at a similar conclusion while researching his 2004 book, Ghost Wars, an excellent history of the period leading up to the 9/11 attack. Coll interviewed two Clinton administration officials who informed him that ”the Pentagon had been studying possible targets in the same spring [i.e., 1998] that the CIA had been drawing up its secret plan to raid Tarnack Farm,” located near Kandahar, Afghanistan, where bin Laden had taken up quarters at the invitation of Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
According to Clarke, at the same meeting on the afternoon of 9/11, CIA Director George Tenet informed the president that “Al Qaeda had committed these atrocities.” But, again, how did Tenet know this so soon after the attack, especially given that “security failures” had occurred, unless he had foreknowledge?
No Hard Evidence - On September 20, 2001, the Bush administration officially declared that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Three days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced on Meet the Press that the government would soon release “a white paper” detailing the evidence against bin Laden. Later the same day, Bush faced questions from the press about Powell’s remark and backed away from releasing any additional information. Bush explained that the government had a lot of evidence but that most of it was classified and could not be made public. Bush emphasized, however, that the evidence “leads to one person, as well as one global terrorist organization.” National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made a similar statement during an interview on FOX News. Said Rice: “We have very good evidence of links between Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda operatives, and what happened on September 11.” Rice refused to release any particulars, however, and, like Bush, claimed that the evidence was “classified.”
As we know, the US government never got around to releasing the promised white paper. Why not? Was it because the evidence against bin Laden was too weak to hold up in court? Such was the view of journalist Seymour Hersh, who cited CIA and Justice Department sources to this effect in his regular column in the New Yorker magazine.
Foreign intelligence agencies were also busily investigating the case, but fared no better. For instance, Germany’s Chief Federal Prosecutor, Kay Nehm, admitted that there was no hard evidence linking bin Laden with the crime. The lack of evidence prompted former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to speak out against President Bush’s decision to invoke Article V of the NATO Treaty, mobilizing NATO’s involvement in the war on terrorism. In Schmidt’s own words: “Proof had to be delivered that the September 11 terror attack came from abroad. [Yet,] that proof still has not been provided.”
Osama did not cooperate by acknowledging his role in the attack; on the contrary. In a statement on September 16, 2001 carried by Al- Jazeera, bin Laden categorically denied any involvement. Days later, he repeated this denial during an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummaut. On November 3, 2001 Al-Jazeera released a third statement, in which bin Laden not only denied involvement but also accused the Bush administration of waging a “crusader war” against the Muslim world. To the best of my knowledge, none of these denials were reported in the US media. Why not?
On October 1, 2001 British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that the case against bin Laden was proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Said Blair: "I have seen absolutely powerful and incontrovertible evidence of his [Osama Bin Laden’s] link to the events of the 11th of September.” Several days later (on October 4), Blair’s government went public with the evidence to which Blair had alluded: a “Bin Laden Dossier.” But the evidence turned out to be short of “incontrovertible,” and in fact was shockingly thin. The Independent described it as “little more than conjecture,” and an editorial in the Guardian concluded that the dossier was “almost worthless from a legal point of view.” The (London) Times agreed, observing that “There is no evidence presented [in the dossier] that directly links bin Laden to September 11.”
The Bin Laden Video and the personification of evil - Confronted with US demands to hand over bin Laden unconditionally, the Taliban was initially defiant, and refused. However, in early October 2001 two Pakistani Islamic parties persuaded the Taliban leadership to extradite bin Laden to Peshawar, Pakistan, where he would be held under house arrest and tried by an international tribunal. The deal even included the extradition of bin Laden to the US in the event of a conviction. However, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf vetoed the arrangement, no doubt, under heavy pressure from the Bush administration. But why would the US turn down an opportunity to bring the arch villain of 9/11 to justice for the crime of the century? Was it because, as I have already suggested, the US had insufficient evidence to convict and faced the embarrassing likelihood of an acquittal?
In fact, the only evidence the US government released linking bin Laden to 9/11 was a video-tape which supposedly turned up by chance in Afghanistan. According to the State Department, US military forces found the hour-long video in Jalalabad on December 9, 2001, shortly after the US invasion. It purportedly shows bin Laden and several of his al Qaeda comrades ghoulishly celebrating their successful attack upon America. The US government released the tape on December 13, 2001 along with an English translation and a Department of Defense (DoD) press release. The latter included the following statement by Rumsfeld: "There was no doubt of bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered." The US media made much of this confessional tape, as did political luminaries like New York City Mayor (and presidential hopeful) Rudy Giuliani, who told CNN that the tape confirmed that the US military campaign against bin Laden was “more than justified.” Giuliani added: "Obviously, this man [i.e., bin Laden] is the personification of evil. He seems delighted at having killed more people than he anticipated, which leaves you wondering just how deep his evil heart and soul really is."
In the video bin Laden brags about al Qaeda’s role in staging the attack. But is the footage bona fide? Anyone who has seen the film knows that the main character bears only the most superficial resemblance to bin Laden, judging from well-known photos. In addition, there are major discrepancies. For example, the video shows bin Laden writing with his right hand when according to the FBI he is a southpaw. 
Two independent translators and a third expert on oriental studies also took issue with the English translation of the Arabic released by the DoD. During the program "Monitor,” which aired on the German TV channel “Das Erste,” the three experts stated that "at the most important places where it [i.e, the video] is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it [i.e., the translation] is not identical with the Arabic." The experts also disputed the US claim that the tape proved foreknowledge. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the University of Hamburg, stated that "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it." While this does not necessarily exonerate bin Laden, it does raise questions. If, as Bush claimed, the US had solid evidence of bin Laden’s guilt, then why make false claims?
Evidently, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agrees with the skeptics. The FBI’s on-line web listing of “Most Wanted Terrorists” includes a page devoted to Osama bin Laden. According to this official post, which may be viewed by anyone with access to cyberspace, bin Laden is wanted by the FBI for the August 1998 attacks upon US Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, which killed over 200 people. However, the page makes no reference to the events of September 11, 2001. Nor is there any mention of the video discussed above. In June 2006, when blogger Ed Haas learned about this, he was understandably puzzled and contacted FBI headquarters by phone seeking an explanation. Haas talked with Rex Tomb, the FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity, who informed him that “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Haas was dumbfounded, and said: “But how is this possible?” Tomb replied that “bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection with 9/11.” He then explained why not:
“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” [my emphasis]
This admission by the FBI is astonishing and raises fundamental questions about the war on terrorism, as well as the role of the US media. Was Osama bin Laden convicted for the cold-blooded murder of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans in the US court of public opinion by means of a media circus? Did the US government and the corporate media collude to deceive the American people? If so, then a colossal miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Consider also the strange statement made by President Bush at a press conference on March 13, 2002. When asked about the progress being made to catch bin Laden, Bush replied that “we haven’t heard much from him. [i.e., bin Laden] And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I, I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”  [my emphasis] But why this almost lackadaisical attitude about the arch- villain whom Bush had promised to track down to the ends of the earth? What had become of the president’s laser-like determination? Bush explained that bin Laden had ceased to be a terrorist threat due to the US occupation of Afghanistan. Yet, by at least one account, the US forces at Tora Bora displayed almost unbelievable incompetence during the pursuit of bin Laden, as a result of which the accused and most of his entourage escaped. Was this the plan, all along?
A no less strange remark made a few weeks later (April 6, 2002) by General Richard Myers, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, suggests that bin Laden’s getaway had been approved at the highest level. Myers told CNN that “the goal has never been to get bin Laden.” I personally found his statement incomprehensible, since at the time Osama was public enemy number one. Did the US allow bin Laden to escape because the Bush administration judged he was more valuable at- large? We can’t be certain, because by this time there were also numerous reports that bin Laden was dead.
Did President Bush know when he made the above statement that bin Laden was already deceased? This would explain Bush’s casual demeanor. Yet, either way, from the standpoint of propaganda it hardly mattered whether bin Laden was dead or alive. His larger-than-life reputation could be sustained simply by neglecting to confirm his death, and the legend is what counted. His persona could also be “spun” in various ways and made to serve political expedience. Indeed, by this logic bin Laden was even more valuable dead because a living breathing bin Laden might at some point be apprehended, in which case the Bush administration faced the unwelcome prospect of a very public trial at which the terrorist would have an opportunity to tell his side of the story to a listening world. And this, of course, had to be avoided.
If we can believe the 9/11 Commission Report, the case against bin Laden was greatly bolstered by the capture and subsequent confession in 2003 of the alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). The problem, of course, is that the official story about the plot against America is wholly based on secret CIA interrogations that have never been independently confirmed, and must therefore be viewed as suspect. But even if we accept the testimony of KSM in 2003, this does not explain the rush to war in 2001. Nor does it explain President Bush’s decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein, a decision reportedly made in July 2002.
Previous cases of terrorism had already demonstrated the wisdom of proceeding with caution, since knee-jerk responses can (and do) misfire. For example, after the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, US investigators at first suspected a Mideast connection. But this was proved false, and similar errors were made after the 1988 downing of Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Although initial evidence pointed to Syria or Iran, a thorough forensic investigation ruled these out and eventually implicated Libya. The 9/11 Commission Report itself describes the latter case as “a cautionary tale about rushing to judgment in attributing responsibility for a terrorist act.” So, why the rush to war after the September 11 attack? If the Bush administration had conclusive evidence that al Qaeda was responsible, why not release it? Was the Bush White House tight-lipped because the actual evidence would have exposed the complicity of the US military and intelligence community? A stunning story that broke in the US press in 2005 points to such a conclusion.
Able Danger - As it happened, a legitimate US military counter- terrorist operation known as Able Danger was tracking Mohamed Atta and his cohorts as early as January-February 2000. The operation, based at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, was small but extremely high-tech, as it employed advanced computers to sweep the internet, a methodology known as as data-mining. In May 2000, however, when Able Danger’s success became known throughout the Defense Department, the officers who ran it were ordered to shut it down and destroy their data. One officer reportedly was threatened with prison if he refused. Later, the Pentagon attempted to block Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Able Danger, and in 2005, when this failed, the Pentagon refused Able Danger staffers permission to testify before the committee.
One intelligence officer who later testified anyway, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, was targeted for harassment. The question is why? Of course, the standard explanation is that the military bureaucracy made gross blunders and later sought to cover up their incompetence. But there is another possibility. Was Able Danger shut down because this honest operation threatened to unmask the covert planning for the September 11 “attack”?
What is clear is that the Pentagon’s self-serving attempts to gag and discredit Lt. Col. Shaffer are not to be believed. In February 2006 Shaffer told the House Armed Services Committee that during the summer of 2000 he and other officers involved in Able Danger attempted on three separate occasions to warn the FBI about the terrorist threat posed by Mohamed Atta. But the meetings never happened. Each time they were canceled at the last minute by high-level Pentagon attorneys. Nor has the Pentagon ever provided a satisfactory explanation as to why.
Some time after the dissolution of Able Danger Shaffer was reassigned to Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan, where in October 2003 he succeeded in bringing the existence of Able Danger to the attention of the 9/11 Commission. This apparently happened due to a chance encounter with Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the commission, and several commission staffers who were then on tour, gathering firsthand information about the US war on terrorism. Lt. Col. Shaffer told the House committee that after he briefed the commission staff about Able Danger’s success in identifying Mohamed Atta and other alleged 9/11 hijackers, Zelikow came up, handed him his card, and asked him to “please contact me upon your return to the states so we can continue this dialogue.” However, three months later when Shaffer did just that he was surprised to discover that Zelikow was no longer interested in Able Danger. But why wouldn’t he be?
Then, all hell broke loose when Shaffer dutifully informed his commanding officer about the contact. From that point on Lt. Col. Shaffer was subjected to the sort of military hazing that is usually reserved for green recruits. His security clearance was cancelled. He lost access to his office computer and all of his classified materials about Able Danger, which, he later learned, were destroyed. Subsequently, the Pentagon dismissed his testimony, claiming it was unsupported by hard evidence, an obvious example of Catch-22. Shaffer also learned that he was under investigation, although no formal charges were ever filed against him. He was told “off the record” that he had “pissed off” one or more high-ranking officers.
Several of Shaffer’s colleagues from Able Danger corroborated his story, but it didn’t matter. His military career was over, destroyed.  Shaffer’s testimony before Congress is riveting and is essential reading for anyone interested in 9/11 truth. In their 2006 book Without Precedent, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, deny that Able Danger had ever identified Mohamed Atta before 9/11. But their assertion, much belated, is just not credible. Their own final report on 9/11 makes no mention of Able Danger. It is abundantly clear that even though Lt. Col. Shaffer notified the panel about this important counter-terrorism operation the commissioners made no attempt to investigate it, and since Kean and Hamilton failed to do so how can they now credibly claim to know? Obviously, their denial is based on information they received, much later, from the Pentagon.
Kean and Hamilton write that their staff “received all of the Department of Defense documents on Able Danger and had found no mention of Atta.” But their claim is not persuasive, since we know that 2.5 terabytes of intelligence data about Able Danger had already been destroyed (in 2000), not to mention the information on Shaffer’s hard drive (in 2004). The question for the co-chairs is simple: What assurance could they possibly have that the documents they received from the DoD about Able Danger tell the full story? Obviously, they do not. More to the point, why would Kean and Hamilton believe the Pentagon over the testimony of Lt. Col. Shaffer? By this time the co- chairs already had good reason to suspect that the Pentagon, not Shaffer, had deceived them in the hearings.
Eavesdropping on bin Laden - The fact that Able Danger was shut down in May 2000, long before Bush entered office, raises disturbing questions. Was covert planning for 9/11 already underway during the Clinton administration? It is curious that in 2002 CIA Director George Tenet told a closed session of a joint House-Senate panel investigating the 9/11 “security failure” that al Qaeda‘s planning of the September 11, 2001 attack started as early as 1998. But how could Tenet know this unless the CIA had been tracking bin Laden, all along? As a matter of fact, we know they were! According to several UPI reports, the National Security Administration (NSA) acknowledged in February 2001 that the use of advanced Echelon software enabled the US intelligence community to eavesdrop on thousands of bin Laden’s cell phone calls over a period of years. US officials disclosed that even after bin Laden began to encrypt certain calls in 1995, his “codes were broken.”
The date 1998 is doubly curious. That same year Tenet informed the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA’s strategy to defeat al Qaeda included the recruiting of al Qaeda operatives. In his memoirs Tenet goes even further with an assertion that is remarkable for its candor. He writes: “the [9/11] commission failed to recognize the sustained comprehensive efforts conducted by the intelligence community prior to 9/11 to penetrate the al Qaeda organization.”  I had to re-read this passage several times just to believe my own eyes. Did the CIA recruit terrorists who were then used as patsies on 9/11?
Bush officials, of course, have steadfastly denied that the US successfully penetrated al Qaeda before 9/11. But their denials are less than persuasive in light of Lt. Col. Shaffer’s testimony about Able Danger, and also because there is no doubt: we know that the monitoring of phone calls continued. After al Qaeda bombed two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998, FBI investigators got lucky and stumbled upon an al Qaeda communications hub in Yemen. According to writer Lawrence Wright, this proved to be “one of the most important pieces of evidence the FBI would ever discover, allowing investigators to map the links of the al Qaeda network all across the globe.” The hub was a private telephone, anything but high tech. The switchboard operator turned out to be the brother-in-law of Khalid al-Midhar, one of the nineteen alleged hijackers. His job in Yemen was simply to relay messages to-and-from various al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden.
>From phone records US investigators confirmed a flurry of calls through the hub before the embassy bombings, and this pattern was repeated before the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. Indeed, it is unclear why US intelligence agencies failed to prevent the attack on the Cole because, by this time, they were listening. The al Qaeda hub was allowed to operate right up until September 11, 2001, and even after. Incredibly, US and Yemeni authorities did not finally move in and close it down until 2002. Based on this evidence, gleaned from open sources in the US media, we must conclude that the US intelligence community was tracking al Qaeda’s nearly every move before 9/11, and had been for years, probably including the entry of the alleged hijackers into the US, their “flight training” and subsequent movements. The phone intercepts certainly continued.
In June 2002 both the Miami Herald and the Dallas Star-Telegram reported that in the summer of 2001 the NSA even monitored phone conversations between alleged 9/11 lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). The papers reported that the NSA “did not recognize the significance of what they had.” Evidently, we are supposed to believe that the NSA did not pass along this important intelligence to the CIA. But this is absurd. After all, the NSA is a part of the US Department of Defense and exists for the purpose of providing intelligence to the CIA and the US military. The story in the Miami Herald even acknowledges this, citing an NSA official who stated under condition of anonymity that it was “simply not true” that the NSA failed to share the information with other intelligence agencies. Of course they shared it. Incidentally, a google search failed to locate the full text of either of these articles, which apparently have long since been scrubbed from the internet. To the best of my knowledge they survive in cyberspace only as thumbnails.
What are we to make of all of this? Did elements of the US intelligence community know about al Qaeda’s multiple hijacking operation, all along? Did they, then, covertly piggy-back their own planning on top of it, thereby insuring the attack’s “success” while also manipulating it for their own ignoble ends? If true, this would easily explain why the Pentagon shut down Able Danger in May 2000. It would explain the Pentagon’s gag order imposed upon the Able Danger staffers, which blunted a Congressional inquiry. It would also explain the carefully orchestrated smear campaign aimed at Lt Col. Shaffer, who did his patriotic duty and was made to pay a terrible price. It would explain why the DoD fed phony or incomplete information about Able Danger to co-chairs Kean and Hamilton, and other members of the commission, to persuade them that the data-mining effort was “insignificant.” It would also explain why, time and again, during the period before 9/11, the CIA withheld critical information from the FBI, information, which, had it become known, would have enabled the FBI to foil the 9/11 attack. The FBI was always just one or two critical pieces of information short of putting together the plot. Nor has the CIA disconnect ever been adequately explained. The standard excuses, bureaucratic bungling and interagency rivalry, are simply not persuasive.
This interpretation would also explain why George Tenet lied during the 9/11 Commission hearings when he denied his meetings with President Bush in August 2001. Indeed, it might even explain why President-elect G.W. Bush retained Tenet, a Clinton appointee, as his CIA chief. The move was one of Bush’s first decisions as president and was most unusual, especially given the neocons’ scarcely concealed scorn for the Clinton administration. However, it makes perfect sense, assuming that when Bush took office elements of the CIA and US military were already deeply involved in the covert planning for the 9/11 attack. Continuity at the CIA would have been essential. As far as I know, writer Ian Henshall was the first to make this connection.  And let us not forget: during the period before 9/11 the CIA Director visited the White House on a daily basis. Tenet personally briefed Bush on intelligence issues, an unusual chore for a CIA Director. But, again, this becomes understandable, assuming that a major covert operation was in the works, one that entailed extreme compartmentalization. Only a very few individuals at the top would have been fully briefed.
bin Laden in Dubai? - A no less shocking story that appeared in the prestigious French paper Le Figaro on October 11, 2001 points to the same conclusion. The story claimed that bin Laden was actually under the protection of US security agencies prior to the 9/11 attack. According to Le Figaro, bin Laden checked in to the American Hospital in Dubai on July 4, 2001, just two months before 9/11, where he received medical treatment over a ten-day period for a serious kidney ailment.
Dubai is one of the Arab Emirates located in the Persian Gulf. The story cannot be based on just rumor or hearsay because it includes many details: Bin Laden was reportedly accompanied by his personal physician, a nurse, four body guards, and at least one of his lieutenants. It also states that the local CIA station chief, evidently a well known figure in the tiny country, was seen entering bin Laden’s hospital suite during his stay, and immediately after the meeting caught a flight back to the US. If the story is accurate, bin Laden held court from his hospital room, welcoming various members of his extended family, as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. It is no secret that bin Laden suffered from kidney disease. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had informed the Clinton administration about bin Laden’s deteriorating health as early as 1998, during a state visit to Washington.
A follow-up report in the Guardian (UK) on November 1, 2001 confirmed the above story and added further details, noting that bin Laden’s Saudi guests included Prince Turki al Faisal, who was then head of Saudi intelligence. The article in the Guardian names French intelligence as the source of the story in Le Figaro. It also claims the information was leaked because the French were “keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.” Given that bin Laden was already wanted at the time for the US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, why did the US not arrange to have local authorities snatch the terrorist in Dubai, in order to bring him to justice? Of course, it goes without saying that bin Laden would never have visited the US hospital in the first place had he not been confident of his protected status. Do we dare to connect these dots? Surely the story in Le Figaro suggests that elements of the US intelligence establishment knew about the coming 9/11 attack and allowed bin Laden to remain free to play his assigned role. As shocking as this sounds, if the story is correct there is no other plausible explanation.
Such a conclusion is further supported by powerful evidence that first came to light on November 6, 2001, when the BBC program Newsnight produced FBI documents on British television proving that soon after G.W. Bush entered office the White House ordered the FBI to “back off” from ongoing investigations of Osama bin Laden and other members of his family, some of whom were living in the US at the time. To the best of my knowledge, none of these stories from European and UK press were ever reported in the US media. Again, why not?
Were elements of the US government and intelligence community complicit in the events of September 11, 2001? Did they allow the attack to happen, or even help to stage it, in order to generate the pretext for a much more aggressive US foreign policy which the American people would not otherwise support? Either way, the implications are shocking, indeed, so shocking that many of our fellow countrymen (and women) cannot bring themselves to think such thoughts. Yet, it is a matter of record that the neoconservatives openly advocated an imperial shift in US foreign policy before the November 2000 election. Moreover, Clinton was already moving in this direction.
These are grave questions for our nation and we must not fail to address them. If there is any truth in them we face a Constitutional crisis unlike anything in our history.