*************************************************************************
QUOTE
Cheney shooting: A multi-layered, staged managed distraction
Steve Watson | February 21 2006
The Dick Cheney shooting "accident" is now well into its second week of news domination - its time to ask the question, WHY?
As we have exposed over the past week, the official line on the incident is obviously flawed and multiple mysteries and discrepancies still surround the event. This, In addition to the underlying stupidity of it that continues to provide a hotbed of golden material for satirists, has ensured that the story has stuck around the front pages.
The multiple delays in releasing certain information to the media, and the too-obvious inconsistencies and easily visible cover ups within the entire tale smack of a staged managed government propaganda operation.
This op is multi-layered. On one level it distracts the satirical crowd (John Stewart et al) and the American public who still pay any attention to the news.
On another level it has distracted the mainstream media, that now seems to be fascinated with the fact that they are being openly manipulated and controlled into reporting what the Straussian usurpers in Government want them to report, whilst playing directly into their hands and completely ignoring the reality of the Cheney shooting, the smoking gun if you'll pardon the pun.
And on a third level the incident has also distracted the alternative media who have become embroiled in a struggle to reveal the blatant inconsistencies of the whole thing. Whenever something like this happens we tend to go to autopilot and search for the truth because we now know that 99% of what the government tells us about current events is pure pap.
So over the past week we have relentlessly exposed the blatant lies behind this latest incident, and rightly so. After all someone has to.
But let's take a look at some of the things that have more or less washed over us recently. Once we do it quickly becomes clear that if ever the government needed a pointless distraction, it has been over the past ten days.
FAKE TERROR PLOT
The major story just as the Cheney shooting broke was the fact that the latest NeoCon war on terror justification evidence was being declared as total lies by expert after expert.
Bush had announced that four Southeast Asians who met with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in October 2001 were foiled in their attempts to use shoe bombs to blow open a cockpit door and steer a plane into the Library Tower in LA. Fox news immediately began to air footage of the same building being blown up by aliens in the film Independence Day.
The mainstream media was picking up on this (after everyone else as per usual) and running with it. Suddenly CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
ARMY BEATING UP IRAQI CHILDREN
On the same day as the shooting story broke, Details emerged of a shocking video revealed scores of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The video dated back to 2004 and documented how the children had been throwing stones at the soldiers and were then chased down by scores of British troops, rounded up and beaten to a pulp. Outrage ensued and the front pages were uniform in their cries for action on the matter. Suddenly CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
UN REPORT CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE CLOSURE OF GITMO
On the 13th, a United Nations inquiry called for the immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and the prosecution of officers and politicians "up to the highest level" who are accused of torturing detainees.
The report demanded that the Bush administration ensure that all allegations of torture are investigated by US criminal courts, and that "all perpetrators up to the highest level of military and political command are brought to justice".
This was kept off the front pages as CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
MORE ABU GHRAIB TORTURE PHOTOS LEAKED
On the 15th of Feb, an Australian network broadcast about 60 previously unpublished photographs that the US Government had been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union.
A leaked report from the US army's internal investigation into the scandal quickly followed and revealed the full extent of the horrific torture policies in place there. It said the material, gathered by the army's criminal investigation division, included 1,325 photographs and 93 video clips of suspected abuse of detainees, 546 photographs of suspected dead Iraqi detainees, as well as 660 images of adult pornography, and 29 pictures of US troops engaged in simulated sex acts.
This was kept off the front pages due to the fact that CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
PATRIOT ACT HEADED FOR PERMANENT RENEWAL
"The outcome here is absolutely predetermined," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said late Wednesday. "It's going to pass with overwhelming support."
The USA Patriot Act is headed toward renewal with most of its onerous individual rights violations intact and broad Senate support for a White House-brokered compromise that adds a few token new civil liberties protections to the terror-fighting law. Wrote Capitol Hill Blue.
The police state control grid is being put in place and everyone is more concerned with the fact that CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
$8.8 MILLION OF IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION FUNDS "MISSING"
Perhaps the most telling story we have been distracted from is this one. ON THE VERY SAME DAY as the Cheney shot Whittington story, CBS's 60 Minutes aired a report in which US expert Steward Bowen, who is auditing funds financing Iraq reconstruction programs announced that around $8.8 million had simply vanished.
Wide spread war profiteering is going on, the main culprit being Halliburton who have have collected half of all the money awarded to contractors in Iraq, and, according to Department of Defense auditors, have over-billed taxpayers more than a billion dollars.
In 2003, the Pentagon set up the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to govern Iraq under Ambassador Paul Bremer, who hired private companies to secure and rebuild the country. No bid contracts.
Frank Willis, who was the No. 2 man at the Coalition Provisional Authority’s Ministry of Transportation was quoted in the CBS report:
"I think that what they were doing was of the nature of what I understand war-profiteering to be about — which is to get into a chaotic situation and milk every penny out of it you can, as fast as you can, before the opportunity goes away,"
Of course, we know that Dick Cheney is deeply involved with Halliburton, once the CEO and still profiting from their "success" with over $40 million in stocks. So wasn't it a coincidence that on the eve of this major report he SHOT A MAN IN THE FACE.
Are these things not vitally more important to focus on than the fact that Dick Cheney got drunk and peppered an elderly man with pellets?
Clearly the perpetuation of the story and the slow leak of information to the press is being staged managed at the highest levels.
link
**************************************************************************
Steve Watson | February 21 2006
The Dick Cheney shooting "accident" is now well into its second week of news domination - its time to ask the question, WHY?
As we have exposed over the past week, the official line on the incident is obviously flawed and multiple mysteries and discrepancies still surround the event. This, In addition to the underlying stupidity of it that continues to provide a hotbed of golden material for satirists, has ensured that the story has stuck around the front pages.
The multiple delays in releasing certain information to the media, and the too-obvious inconsistencies and easily visible cover ups within the entire tale smack of a staged managed government propaganda operation.
This op is multi-layered. On one level it distracts the satirical crowd (John Stewart et al) and the American public who still pay any attention to the news.
On another level it has distracted the mainstream media, that now seems to be fascinated with the fact that they are being openly manipulated and controlled into reporting what the Straussian usurpers in Government want them to report, whilst playing directly into their hands and completely ignoring the reality of the Cheney shooting, the smoking gun if you'll pardon the pun.
And on a third level the incident has also distracted the alternative media who have become embroiled in a struggle to reveal the blatant inconsistencies of the whole thing. Whenever something like this happens we tend to go to autopilot and search for the truth because we now know that 99% of what the government tells us about current events is pure pap.
So over the past week we have relentlessly exposed the blatant lies behind this latest incident, and rightly so. After all someone has to.
But let's take a look at some of the things that have more or less washed over us recently. Once we do it quickly becomes clear that if ever the government needed a pointless distraction, it has been over the past ten days.
FAKE TERROR PLOT
The major story just as the Cheney shooting broke was the fact that the latest NeoCon war on terror justification evidence was being declared as total lies by expert after expert.
Bush had announced that four Southeast Asians who met with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in October 2001 were foiled in their attempts to use shoe bombs to blow open a cockpit door and steer a plane into the Library Tower in LA. Fox news immediately began to air footage of the same building being blown up by aliens in the film Independence Day.
The mainstream media was picking up on this (after everyone else as per usual) and running with it. Suddenly CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
ARMY BEATING UP IRAQI CHILDREN
On the same day as the shooting story broke, Details emerged of a shocking video revealed scores of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The video dated back to 2004 and documented how the children had been throwing stones at the soldiers and were then chased down by scores of British troops, rounded up and beaten to a pulp. Outrage ensued and the front pages were uniform in their cries for action on the matter. Suddenly CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
UN REPORT CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE CLOSURE OF GITMO
On the 13th, a United Nations inquiry called for the immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and the prosecution of officers and politicians "up to the highest level" who are accused of torturing detainees.
The report demanded that the Bush administration ensure that all allegations of torture are investigated by US criminal courts, and that "all perpetrators up to the highest level of military and political command are brought to justice".
This was kept off the front pages as CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
MORE ABU GHRAIB TORTURE PHOTOS LEAKED
On the 15th of Feb, an Australian network broadcast about 60 previously unpublished photographs that the US Government had been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union.
A leaked report from the US army's internal investigation into the scandal quickly followed and revealed the full extent of the horrific torture policies in place there. It said the material, gathered by the army's criminal investigation division, included 1,325 photographs and 93 video clips of suspected abuse of detainees, 546 photographs of suspected dead Iraqi detainees, as well as 660 images of adult pornography, and 29 pictures of US troops engaged in simulated sex acts.
This was kept off the front pages due to the fact that CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
PATRIOT ACT HEADED FOR PERMANENT RENEWAL
"The outcome here is absolutely predetermined," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said late Wednesday. "It's going to pass with overwhelming support."
The USA Patriot Act is headed toward renewal with most of its onerous individual rights violations intact and broad Senate support for a White House-brokered compromise that adds a few token new civil liberties protections to the terror-fighting law. Wrote Capitol Hill Blue.
The police state control grid is being put in place and everyone is more concerned with the fact that CHENEY SHOOTS MAN IN FACE.
$8.8 MILLION OF IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION FUNDS "MISSING"
Perhaps the most telling story we have been distracted from is this one. ON THE VERY SAME DAY as the Cheney shot Whittington story, CBS's 60 Minutes aired a report in which US expert Steward Bowen, who is auditing funds financing Iraq reconstruction programs announced that around $8.8 million had simply vanished.
Wide spread war profiteering is going on, the main culprit being Halliburton who have have collected half of all the money awarded to contractors in Iraq, and, according to Department of Defense auditors, have over-billed taxpayers more than a billion dollars.
In 2003, the Pentagon set up the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to govern Iraq under Ambassador Paul Bremer, who hired private companies to secure and rebuild the country. No bid contracts.
Frank Willis, who was the No. 2 man at the Coalition Provisional Authority’s Ministry of Transportation was quoted in the CBS report:
"I think that what they were doing was of the nature of what I understand war-profiteering to be about — which is to get into a chaotic situation and milk every penny out of it you can, as fast as you can, before the opportunity goes away,"
Of course, we know that Dick Cheney is deeply involved with Halliburton, once the CEO and still profiting from their "success" with over $40 million in stocks. So wasn't it a coincidence that on the eve of this major report he SHOT A MAN IN THE FACE.
Are these things not vitally more important to focus on than the fact that Dick Cheney got drunk and peppered an elderly man with pellets?
Clearly the perpetuation of the story and the slow leak of information to the press is being staged managed at the highest levels.
link
**************************************************************************
QUOTE
**************************************************************************
Sweet energy deals
Fri Feb 17, 6:59 AM ET
Legal heist. The land at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico belongs to the public. So when energy companies extract oil and gas, they pay a share of the proceeds, or royalty, to the government.
At least that's how the system is supposed to work.
This week came the disclosure, first in The New York Times, that energy companies won't have to pay a nickel for an estimated $66 billion worth of oil and gas to be taken from government-owned sites in the Gulf over the next five years.
That's right: Certain companies, currently enjoying record profits, will earn at least $7 billion more by not having to pay the usual royalty of 12% to 16% for pumping oil and gas from public property.
Thanks to a generous investment in Washington's pliant politicians, this heist is perfectly legal.
A decade ago, when oil prices were relatively low and exploration was slack, the industry got royalty relief written into law. With bipartisan support, Congress voted to waive royalties for a time as an incentive to spur potentially costly deep-water drilling in the Gulf. It seemed to many like a good idea.
Some of the leases issued under the program supposedly have caps requiring royalties when oil prices are high, as they are today. But the Clinton administration was so eager to offer incentives to the industry that, in 1998 and 1999, leases were issued with all royalties waived. Now, several oil companies are claiming that the royalty caps on other leases are not valid and that they're entitled to an open-ended raid on this public resource. The cost to the Treasury could be $35 billion or more, almost enough to pay for the federal government's law enforcement activities this year.
From 1989 to 1996, the oil and gas industry showered nearly $75 million in campaign contributions on candidates for the White House and Congress. That sounds like a lot of money, but $35 billion, or even $7 billion, is a whopping return on its investment.
Now, embarrassed politicians are scrambling to undo the deal. Congress can't do much about the giveaways in contracts already signed, so the public is stuck giving away its wealth while the Treasury runs dry.
With oil selling for nearly $60 a barrel - and as much as $70 in recent months - there's ample incentive for companies to invest in exploration. Of course, until Congress radically changes its ways, investing in politics may pay more.
Coddled fuel.
Speaking of dubious energy policies, consider the current fuss over ethanol. President Bush touted the corn-derived fuel in his State of the Union address as a partial answer to the nation's oil addiction. General Motors Corp. and Ford are jumping on the station wagon as well, promising to build more cars that can burn it and support more stations that sell it.
Like the generous oil and gas leases, the preferential treatment ethanol receives illustrates an immutable truth: When politicians talk of the need for a broad energy strategy for the good of everyone, they deliver narrow policies that benefit special interests. In this case, the winners are corn farmers and ethanol producers such as the Archer Daniels Midland Co.
To be sure, ethanol does have merits. It burns cleanly and is made in the USA. But by some estimates, more petroleum products go into producing ethanol than it replaces. And it becomes attractive to consumers only with gargantuan subsidies and other generous policies.
Each gallon a wholesaler sells generates a 51-cent tax credit, which costs the federal government about $2 billion annually. On top of that, Washington offers a credit of up to $30,000 to each station that installs equipment to sell an 85% ethanol blend, known as E85. Numerous states have added subsidies of their own.
But wait. There's more. Cars capable of running on E85 receive favorable treatment under federal mileage standards, regardless of what kind of fuel goes into them. That has prompted Detroit to make 5 million of these cars. By doing so, automakers can offer the sport-utility vehicles buyers want. Those buyers, in turn, tank up with - gasoline.
Despite all this generosity, E85 still costs considerably more than gas does when its poor mileage is factored in. Meanwhile, only an estimated 500 stations, principally in small towns in the Midwest, offer it.
This coddling of ethanol is hardly the answer to the nation's dependence on oil. The best answer, however, is not the one that either politicians or consumers want to hear. Any country that is serious about cutting down on petroleum would invest in research for the long run but also greatly increase fuel taxes in the short term.
The higher-tax approach would allow the market to decide which alternative fuels are best and how they match up against conservation. But this approach is hardly likely to win votes in key Midwestern states. So be prepared to hear more paeans to ethanol.
link
************************************************************************
Sweet energy deals
Fri Feb 17, 6:59 AM ET
Legal heist. The land at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico belongs to the public. So when energy companies extract oil and gas, they pay a share of the proceeds, or royalty, to the government.
At least that's how the system is supposed to work.
This week came the disclosure, first in The New York Times, that energy companies won't have to pay a nickel for an estimated $66 billion worth of oil and gas to be taken from government-owned sites in the Gulf over the next five years.
That's right: Certain companies, currently enjoying record profits, will earn at least $7 billion more by not having to pay the usual royalty of 12% to 16% for pumping oil and gas from public property.
Thanks to a generous investment in Washington's pliant politicians, this heist is perfectly legal.
A decade ago, when oil prices were relatively low and exploration was slack, the industry got royalty relief written into law. With bipartisan support, Congress voted to waive royalties for a time as an incentive to spur potentially costly deep-water drilling in the Gulf. It seemed to many like a good idea.
Some of the leases issued under the program supposedly have caps requiring royalties when oil prices are high, as they are today. But the Clinton administration was so eager to offer incentives to the industry that, in 1998 and 1999, leases were issued with all royalties waived. Now, several oil companies are claiming that the royalty caps on other leases are not valid and that they're entitled to an open-ended raid on this public resource. The cost to the Treasury could be $35 billion or more, almost enough to pay for the federal government's law enforcement activities this year.
From 1989 to 1996, the oil and gas industry showered nearly $75 million in campaign contributions on candidates for the White House and Congress. That sounds like a lot of money, but $35 billion, or even $7 billion, is a whopping return on its investment.
Now, embarrassed politicians are scrambling to undo the deal. Congress can't do much about the giveaways in contracts already signed, so the public is stuck giving away its wealth while the Treasury runs dry.
With oil selling for nearly $60 a barrel - and as much as $70 in recent months - there's ample incentive for companies to invest in exploration. Of course, until Congress radically changes its ways, investing in politics may pay more.
Coddled fuel.
Speaking of dubious energy policies, consider the current fuss over ethanol. President Bush touted the corn-derived fuel in his State of the Union address as a partial answer to the nation's oil addiction. General Motors Corp. and Ford are jumping on the station wagon as well, promising to build more cars that can burn it and support more stations that sell it.
Like the generous oil and gas leases, the preferential treatment ethanol receives illustrates an immutable truth: When politicians talk of the need for a broad energy strategy for the good of everyone, they deliver narrow policies that benefit special interests. In this case, the winners are corn farmers and ethanol producers such as the Archer Daniels Midland Co.
To be sure, ethanol does have merits. It burns cleanly and is made in the USA. But by some estimates, more petroleum products go into producing ethanol than it replaces. And it becomes attractive to consumers only with gargantuan subsidies and other generous policies.
Each gallon a wholesaler sells generates a 51-cent tax credit, which costs the federal government about $2 billion annually. On top of that, Washington offers a credit of up to $30,000 to each station that installs equipment to sell an 85% ethanol blend, known as E85. Numerous states have added subsidies of their own.
But wait. There's more. Cars capable of running on E85 receive favorable treatment under federal mileage standards, regardless of what kind of fuel goes into them. That has prompted Detroit to make 5 million of these cars. By doing so, automakers can offer the sport-utility vehicles buyers want. Those buyers, in turn, tank up with - gasoline.
Despite all this generosity, E85 still costs considerably more than gas does when its poor mileage is factored in. Meanwhile, only an estimated 500 stations, principally in small towns in the Midwest, offer it.
This coddling of ethanol is hardly the answer to the nation's dependence on oil. The best answer, however, is not the one that either politicians or consumers want to hear. Any country that is serious about cutting down on petroleum would invest in research for the long run but also greatly increase fuel taxes in the short term.
The higher-tax approach would allow the market to decide which alternative fuels are best and how they match up against conservation. But this approach is hardly likely to win votes in key Midwestern states. So be prepared to hear more paeans to ethanol.
link
************************************************************************
QUOTE
************************************************************************
White House Has Ties to Dubai Firm
By Michael McAuliff
The New York Daily News
Tuesday 21 February 2006
Washington - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.
"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.
Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.
"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.
link
*************************************************************************
White House Has Ties to Dubai Firm
By Michael McAuliff
The New York Daily News
Tuesday 21 February 2006
Washington - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.
"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.
Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.
"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.
link
*************************************************************************
QUOTE
*************************************************************************
9/11 – US Complicity: Implausible, or Very Probable?
Questions for the People Who Believe the Official Conspiracy Theory
TvNewsLIES.org - June 30, 2005
It is time for the people who support the official conspiracy theory to stop calling names and to start answering some questions.
The simple question of “who benefited” from the events of 9/11 can in many cases be answered by saying “the people who were supposed to prevent 9/11”. Doesn’t that make you just a little bit curious? It should.
So you think it ludicrous to suggest that a rogue group within our government was involved in the events of September 11th, 2001? You don’t even think it is worth your time to examine the overwhelming physical evidence that is available for your viewing, which at the very least disproves the official “conspiracy theory” put forth by the government and their mouthpieces in the corporate media?
Let me ask you folks some questions. Help me out here. If I am to ignore all the physical evidence that indicates government complicity I need you to explain to me why I should ignore the unprecedented actions by the Bush administration preceding the events, that seem to have no other purpose other than to prevent an event like 9/11 from being stopped and to prepare to set in motion their pre-planned agenda that would only be accepted after an event like 9/11.
QUESTIONS:
We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?
Reference: USA Today - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
QUESTION: Why do you believe that we had no idea anyone would fly a plane into the WTC when and FBI agent warned of the very thing only to have his warnings dismissed?
REFERENCE: F.B.I. Agent Cited Trade Center Attack Ahead of Sept. 11
There is a great deal of information indicating the fact that one of the first directives of the Bush administration upon taking office was to have the intelligence community back off of all investigations into Osama Bin Laden and his family.
Question: Why was the Bush administration protecting Bin Laden? Why do you ignore the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?
REFERENCE: The Bush/Bin Laden Connection.
Are you aware that Dov S. Zakheim, a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products, was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense?
Question: Did you know that remote controlled flight was possible and that someone who was very involved with this technology was a member of the Bush administration?
REFERENCE: Command Transmitter System - The Mastermind Behind 911?
During June 2001 the US was planning military action against Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Why was the US planning on military action against Afghanistan before the events of 9/11 took place? Why would Congress permit this? 9/11 was the official reason for the military action against Afghanistan.
REFERENCE: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban - US 'planned attack on Taleban' BBC
Question: Doesn’t common sense suggest to you that it might just be possible that the administration was in search of a legal and publicly acceptable excuse to attack Afghanistan and install a US friendly government with a former UNOCAL Oil company consultant, with ties to the Bush family business, as it’s new leader?
REFERENCE: Agreement On US 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed
Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11 due to threats.
Question: Why did he stop flying commercial aircrafts? What did he know?
Reference: Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
All of a sudden. prior to 9/11/2001, the procedures for military response to hijacked aircrafts were changed where military response had to be approved by Donald Rumseld. Donald Rumsfled is a member of the PNAC organization that publicly professed that a “New Pearl Harbor” would benefit their agenda.
QUESTION: Why were procedures specifically involving hijackings changed? Were the old procedures problematic? Why was a person who could benefit from an event like a hijacking given the responsibility of handling them?
REFERENCE: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities
Osama Bin Laden undergoes medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates where he is met by a local CIA chief.
QUESTION: If Bin Laden was our enemy, why was the CIA meeting with him just before the events of 9/11? Is it possible that the CIA or rogue members of the CIA were arranging the events of 9/11? Is it at least possible?
REFERENCE: CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July
A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Question: Why in the world was this rule changed at this particular point in history?
Reference: FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks
August 25, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a FedEx Boeing 727, without any pilots, six times at Holloman AFB, N.M. using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control take control a hijacked airplane and force land it.
Question: Do you still think that unskilled pilots who were supposedly flying without the assistance of air traffic control were the only possible people who could have flown jets into buildings?
REFERENCE: The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot
flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using
the JPALS ground station. - Also: Sept. 6, 2001 Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force demonstrate new technology aircraft precision approach and landing system
September 7, 2001 - Jeb Bush signs a two year Florida executive emergency order four days before 9/11 "WHEREAS, the Florida National Guard has the statutory responsibility to provide support to law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters;"
QUESTION: Why would he do this? He was governor for years, why do it days before 9/11? No other governor ever did anything like this before.
REFERENCE: EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER
September 10, 2001 - A group of top Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns.
QUESTION: Do you still think they did not know anything was up?
REFERENCE: Top Pentagon Officials Cancel Flights On September 10, 2001
September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending. - September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warns of Iraq's pursuit of WMD's hours before US and British planes bomb Iraqi missile sites.
QUESTION: Why is one of the people who wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan for years, suddenly bringing up Iraq? Do you find the timing of this the least bit suspicious? Did you ever find out what happened to the missing $2.3 TRILLION?
REFERENCE: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted. - Iraq improving weapons systems, warns US
September 10, 2001 - U.S. OK’d plan to topple the Taliban and expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.
QUESTION: How would they be allowed to do this without the events of 9/11? How can they prepare for a war before the reason for the war occurs?
REFERENCE: U.S. OK’d plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11
Although there are dozens, if not hundreds of questions I can add to this list I will ask only one more series of questions:
QUESTION: Do you know anything about the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and about Operation Northwoods? Why not? PNAC runs this government. They had motives for permitting or conducting the events of 9/11. Operation Northwoods proves that our nation would indeed harm it’s own people and blame it on another nation in order to gain support for military operations. For those of you who think FOX News is fair and balanced do research and you will find out that the chairman of PNAC is a regular face on FOX News. He is represented as an impartial journalist when in fact he is the chairman of the group that has written and implemented our foreign policy under Bush. I’ll let you do some research about this. It’s about time you finally started looking for some facts on your own.
REFERENCE: PNAC - The PNAC members of the Bush administration. - Operation Northwoods.
The question of whether or not these actions took place is not up for debate. Research the issues. Nobody involved denies that they took place. What is in question is why they took place and if they indicate the anticipation of an event such as 9/11.
Many of you are going to post this article on forums. Some people will respond with the following comments: Conspiracy theory, get out the tinfoil hats, the site is not credible (whatever that means), left wing nuts, etc. The people who respond like this will never have a single bit of information to dispute the facts or answer the questions listed in this article. Some may find fault with one or two items within this article and immediately dismiss the rest of the items. This is illogical. Send corrections to me and I will alter the article accordingly. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of information out there and there are many questions that have not been answered and the people who support the official conspiracy theory are not able to support their beliefs.
If you can not find a reasonable explanation for these actions then you have no choice other than to reconsider the simple possibility that some people within our government and intelligence apparatus may have been anticipating an event like 9/11 and this would require you as a responsible patriotic citizen, to research the issues surrounding 9/11.
I have a few questions for you people of blind faith…did you ever think about the fact that you never seem to dispute the facts presented to you by the independent 9/11 research community; you only call the fact presenters names. I see you out there on all those forums and news groups. You lose every argument. All you are left with is your toolkit of mantras and names. You know what they are, and you also know that you never back up your position with facts.
POINT: MOTIVE HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED: Please keep in mind that motive for Bush administration complicity in the events of 9/11 has been clearly established. If you do not yet know what the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is it is high time you became aware of this organization. This is the group of people who planned for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan prior to 9/11. They planned for a policy of preemptive military action prior to 9/11. 10 members from this organization comprised the Bush administration on 9/11 including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. This organization published their agenda publicly and acknowledged within their documentation that their agenda would not be accepted by the public unless there was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". These people were responsible for preventing such an event and they were in positions to orchestrate or inhibit the prevention of just such an event. This motivation combined with the strategic positioning within our government, would in itself be enough to bring a lawsuit to several members of the Bush administration and it should be enough to raise your suspicions, but you do not seem to know the facts and you don’t seem to want to see them when they are presented to you. You seem to want to remain in denial yet your arguments backing up your position remain empty.
If you are going to deny the findings of the independent 9/11 research community then it is incumbent upon you to provide a detailed and verifiable counter argument. If you can not do this you are basically living in denial and even worse you might be supporting the very people who committed or permitted the atrocities of September 11th 2001. Don’t you think you owe it to yourself, to the victims of the event and to your nation to start taking a closer look at the events of 9/11 and at the people responsible for preventing it?
For those of you who can not imagine anything other than the official conspiracy theory, as you take into account all the recorded hijacking messages from the FAA and from the passengers on the planes, here is something to think about. On the morning of September 11th 2001, there were several NORAD, FAA & FEMA drills taking place in the north eastern United States. Some of the drills involved hijackings where live fly simulations as well as electronic, video game like drills were taking place. Perhaps the people making the calls thought they were taking part in a drill? Maybe the members of the airlines asked for volunteers to make these calls in order to test the response team. Perhaps even the hijackers thought they were taking part in drills; after all several of the listed hijackers were known to have been trained in CIA facilities and lived among the intelligence community in Florida.
Am I saying I know what took place on September 11th 2001. No. What I am saying is that virtually every aspect of the official conspiracy theory put forth by our government has been debunked. The Bush administration saw to it that the evidence was destroyed and that the only investigation that would take place was conducted by a group of people who each had a conflict of interest when it came to uncovering the truth.
Whistle blowers were not permitted to testify to the Kean Commission and the investigate body never asked for people with inside information to come forward or to testify. Many whistle blowers were denied access to the commission. The Kean Commission was in fact created in order to do document the official conspiracy theory; they were not tasked with finding out what really happened.
On the other hand, the independent research community has taken it upon themselves to explore the facts and ask the real questions. Shouldn’t you do the same? At the very least shouldn’t you at least listen with an open mind when someone who has done the research has some information to share?
You know, there is a huge difference between a conspiracy theory and reasonable suspicion. The closer you look the more you will realize that it is the official story of 9/11 that adheres to the definition of a conspiracy theory, while some of the conclusions made by the independent research community are not only reasonable but they are quite plausible and very probable.
It is time for the people who support the official conspiracy theory to stop calling names and to start answering some questions.
TvNewsLIES Challenges Believers of the Official Version of 9/11: - Where the Hell is YOUR proof?
They Are Not “Conspiracy Theories” - They Are, in Fact, “Discoveries”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Deny this if you must but it is a clear fact that there are Americans, both civilian and in our government, for whom the events of 9/11/2001 were the greatest thing that ever happened. Defense industry owners and investors became wealthy with a newly guaranteed income stream flowing from the pockets of frightened Americans into their own pockets. Members of the Bush administration received virtually unlimited power to proceed with their agenda, which without the events of 9/11 would have been viewed as insane, radical and in most cases unconstitutional. The events of 9/11 were virtually the only chance the members of PNAC would have ever had to proceed with their radical and un-American agenda. The truth is that these folks (PNAC) needed 9/11 to happen (which they clearly stated in their documentation) and they were in the position to make sure that it did. That is a fact. If that does not make you suspicious I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!
link
**********************************************************************
9/11 – US Complicity: Implausible, or Very Probable?
Questions for the People Who Believe the Official Conspiracy Theory
TvNewsLIES.org - June 30, 2005
It is time for the people who support the official conspiracy theory to stop calling names and to start answering some questions.
The simple question of “who benefited” from the events of 9/11 can in many cases be answered by saying “the people who were supposed to prevent 9/11”. Doesn’t that make you just a little bit curious? It should.
So you think it ludicrous to suggest that a rogue group within our government was involved in the events of September 11th, 2001? You don’t even think it is worth your time to examine the overwhelming physical evidence that is available for your viewing, which at the very least disproves the official “conspiracy theory” put forth by the government and their mouthpieces in the corporate media?
Let me ask you folks some questions. Help me out here. If I am to ignore all the physical evidence that indicates government complicity I need you to explain to me why I should ignore the unprecedented actions by the Bush administration preceding the events, that seem to have no other purpose other than to prevent an event like 9/11 from being stopped and to prepare to set in motion their pre-planned agenda that would only be accepted after an event like 9/11.
QUESTIONS:
We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?
Reference: USA Today - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
QUESTION: Why do you believe that we had no idea anyone would fly a plane into the WTC when and FBI agent warned of the very thing only to have his warnings dismissed?
REFERENCE: F.B.I. Agent Cited Trade Center Attack Ahead of Sept. 11
There is a great deal of information indicating the fact that one of the first directives of the Bush administration upon taking office was to have the intelligence community back off of all investigations into Osama Bin Laden and his family.
Question: Why was the Bush administration protecting Bin Laden? Why do you ignore the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?
REFERENCE: The Bush/Bin Laden Connection.
Are you aware that Dov S. Zakheim, a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products, was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense?
Question: Did you know that remote controlled flight was possible and that someone who was very involved with this technology was a member of the Bush administration?
REFERENCE: Command Transmitter System - The Mastermind Behind 911?
During June 2001 the US was planning military action against Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Why was the US planning on military action against Afghanistan before the events of 9/11 took place? Why would Congress permit this? 9/11 was the official reason for the military action against Afghanistan.
REFERENCE: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban - US 'planned attack on Taleban' BBC
Question: Doesn’t common sense suggest to you that it might just be possible that the administration was in search of a legal and publicly acceptable excuse to attack Afghanistan and install a US friendly government with a former UNOCAL Oil company consultant, with ties to the Bush family business, as it’s new leader?
REFERENCE: Agreement On US 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed
Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11 due to threats.
Question: Why did he stop flying commercial aircrafts? What did he know?
Reference: Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
All of a sudden. prior to 9/11/2001, the procedures for military response to hijacked aircrafts were changed where military response had to be approved by Donald Rumseld. Donald Rumsfled is a member of the PNAC organization that publicly professed that a “New Pearl Harbor” would benefit their agenda.
QUESTION: Why were procedures specifically involving hijackings changed? Were the old procedures problematic? Why was a person who could benefit from an event like a hijacking given the responsibility of handling them?
REFERENCE: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities
Osama Bin Laden undergoes medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates where he is met by a local CIA chief.
QUESTION: If Bin Laden was our enemy, why was the CIA meeting with him just before the events of 9/11? Is it possible that the CIA or rogue members of the CIA were arranging the events of 9/11? Is it at least possible?
REFERENCE: CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July
A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Question: Why in the world was this rule changed at this particular point in history?
Reference: FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks
August 25, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a FedEx Boeing 727, without any pilots, six times at Holloman AFB, N.M. using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control take control a hijacked airplane and force land it.
Question: Do you still think that unskilled pilots who were supposedly flying without the assistance of air traffic control were the only possible people who could have flown jets into buildings?
REFERENCE: The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot
flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using
the JPALS ground station. - Also: Sept. 6, 2001 Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force demonstrate new technology aircraft precision approach and landing system
September 7, 2001 - Jeb Bush signs a two year Florida executive emergency order four days before 9/11 "WHEREAS, the Florida National Guard has the statutory responsibility to provide support to law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters;"
QUESTION: Why would he do this? He was governor for years, why do it days before 9/11? No other governor ever did anything like this before.
REFERENCE: EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER
September 10, 2001 - A group of top Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns.
QUESTION: Do you still think they did not know anything was up?
REFERENCE: Top Pentagon Officials Cancel Flights On September 10, 2001
September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending. - September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warns of Iraq's pursuit of WMD's hours before US and British planes bomb Iraqi missile sites.
QUESTION: Why is one of the people who wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan for years, suddenly bringing up Iraq? Do you find the timing of this the least bit suspicious? Did you ever find out what happened to the missing $2.3 TRILLION?
REFERENCE: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted. - Iraq improving weapons systems, warns US
September 10, 2001 - U.S. OK’d plan to topple the Taliban and expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.
QUESTION: How would they be allowed to do this without the events of 9/11? How can they prepare for a war before the reason for the war occurs?
REFERENCE: U.S. OK’d plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11
Although there are dozens, if not hundreds of questions I can add to this list I will ask only one more series of questions:
QUESTION: Do you know anything about the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and about Operation Northwoods? Why not? PNAC runs this government. They had motives for permitting or conducting the events of 9/11. Operation Northwoods proves that our nation would indeed harm it’s own people and blame it on another nation in order to gain support for military operations. For those of you who think FOX News is fair and balanced do research and you will find out that the chairman of PNAC is a regular face on FOX News. He is represented as an impartial journalist when in fact he is the chairman of the group that has written and implemented our foreign policy under Bush. I’ll let you do some research about this. It’s about time you finally started looking for some facts on your own.
REFERENCE: PNAC - The PNAC members of the Bush administration. - Operation Northwoods.
The question of whether or not these actions took place is not up for debate. Research the issues. Nobody involved denies that they took place. What is in question is why they took place and if they indicate the anticipation of an event such as 9/11.
Many of you are going to post this article on forums. Some people will respond with the following comments: Conspiracy theory, get out the tinfoil hats, the site is not credible (whatever that means), left wing nuts, etc. The people who respond like this will never have a single bit of information to dispute the facts or answer the questions listed in this article. Some may find fault with one or two items within this article and immediately dismiss the rest of the items. This is illogical. Send corrections to me and I will alter the article accordingly. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of information out there and there are many questions that have not been answered and the people who support the official conspiracy theory are not able to support their beliefs.
If you can not find a reasonable explanation for these actions then you have no choice other than to reconsider the simple possibility that some people within our government and intelligence apparatus may have been anticipating an event like 9/11 and this would require you as a responsible patriotic citizen, to research the issues surrounding 9/11.
I have a few questions for you people of blind faith…did you ever think about the fact that you never seem to dispute the facts presented to you by the independent 9/11 research community; you only call the fact presenters names. I see you out there on all those forums and news groups. You lose every argument. All you are left with is your toolkit of mantras and names. You know what they are, and you also know that you never back up your position with facts.
POINT: MOTIVE HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED: Please keep in mind that motive for Bush administration complicity in the events of 9/11 has been clearly established. If you do not yet know what the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is it is high time you became aware of this organization. This is the group of people who planned for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan prior to 9/11. They planned for a policy of preemptive military action prior to 9/11. 10 members from this organization comprised the Bush administration on 9/11 including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. This organization published their agenda publicly and acknowledged within their documentation that their agenda would not be accepted by the public unless there was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". These people were responsible for preventing such an event and they were in positions to orchestrate or inhibit the prevention of just such an event. This motivation combined with the strategic positioning within our government, would in itself be enough to bring a lawsuit to several members of the Bush administration and it should be enough to raise your suspicions, but you do not seem to know the facts and you don’t seem to want to see them when they are presented to you. You seem to want to remain in denial yet your arguments backing up your position remain empty.
If you are going to deny the findings of the independent 9/11 research community then it is incumbent upon you to provide a detailed and verifiable counter argument. If you can not do this you are basically living in denial and even worse you might be supporting the very people who committed or permitted the atrocities of September 11th 2001. Don’t you think you owe it to yourself, to the victims of the event and to your nation to start taking a closer look at the events of 9/11 and at the people responsible for preventing it?
For those of you who can not imagine anything other than the official conspiracy theory, as you take into account all the recorded hijacking messages from the FAA and from the passengers on the planes, here is something to think about. On the morning of September 11th 2001, there were several NORAD, FAA & FEMA drills taking place in the north eastern United States. Some of the drills involved hijackings where live fly simulations as well as electronic, video game like drills were taking place. Perhaps the people making the calls thought they were taking part in a drill? Maybe the members of the airlines asked for volunteers to make these calls in order to test the response team. Perhaps even the hijackers thought they were taking part in drills; after all several of the listed hijackers were known to have been trained in CIA facilities and lived among the intelligence community in Florida.
Am I saying I know what took place on September 11th 2001. No. What I am saying is that virtually every aspect of the official conspiracy theory put forth by our government has been debunked. The Bush administration saw to it that the evidence was destroyed and that the only investigation that would take place was conducted by a group of people who each had a conflict of interest when it came to uncovering the truth.
Whistle blowers were not permitted to testify to the Kean Commission and the investigate body never asked for people with inside information to come forward or to testify. Many whistle blowers were denied access to the commission. The Kean Commission was in fact created in order to do document the official conspiracy theory; they were not tasked with finding out what really happened.
On the other hand, the independent research community has taken it upon themselves to explore the facts and ask the real questions. Shouldn’t you do the same? At the very least shouldn’t you at least listen with an open mind when someone who has done the research has some information to share?
You know, there is a huge difference between a conspiracy theory and reasonable suspicion. The closer you look the more you will realize that it is the official story of 9/11 that adheres to the definition of a conspiracy theory, while some of the conclusions made by the independent research community are not only reasonable but they are quite plausible and very probable.
It is time for the people who support the official conspiracy theory to stop calling names and to start answering some questions.
TvNewsLIES Challenges Believers of the Official Version of 9/11: - Where the Hell is YOUR proof?
They Are Not “Conspiracy Theories” - They Are, in Fact, “Discoveries”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Deny this if you must but it is a clear fact that there are Americans, both civilian and in our government, for whom the events of 9/11/2001 were the greatest thing that ever happened. Defense industry owners and investors became wealthy with a newly guaranteed income stream flowing from the pockets of frightened Americans into their own pockets. Members of the Bush administration received virtually unlimited power to proceed with their agenda, which without the events of 9/11 would have been viewed as insane, radical and in most cases unconstitutional. The events of 9/11 were virtually the only chance the members of PNAC would have ever had to proceed with their radical and un-American agenda. The truth is that these folks (PNAC) needed 9/11 to happen (which they clearly stated in their documentation) and they were in the position to make sure that it did. That is a fact. If that does not make you suspicious I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!
link
**********************************************************************