1) Multiple prior warnings and intelligence
On August 6th 2001, GW Bush received an intelligence briefing in the Oval Office warning of an imminent major terrorist attack on American soil involving hijacking commercial airliners and using them as "flying bombs". See 1.
They tried to warn us.
Known Foreign Intelligence warnings in the months leading up to the attacks.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/foreignwarnings.html
Other countries warning of this imminent terrorist attack include :-
the UK
Germany
Jordan
Russia
Israel
Egypt
France
On top of these warnings from foreign countries, the CIA and FBI also had extensive intelligence of their own of an imminent major terrorist attack.
Why was no action taken to beef up basic airport security in the face of so much intelligence?
Why was no action taken to beef up the "over 70 lines of FBI enquiry"?
Why were FBI investigations prior to 9/11 called off?
How could anyone NOT step up airport security in the face of so many warnings and SO MUCH intel?
This was why the CIA guys were apoplectic and wanted a transfer out of the Counter Terrorism branch as per this NYT article
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
2. Buildings do not collapse at free fall speed of their own accord
The twin towers collapsed at free fall speed (as near as makes no difference).
This is evidenced by detailed video footage and seismic data.
Buildings cannot collapse at free fall speed without some kind of controlled demolition.
Why was the fact that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed excluded from the contents of the 9/11 commission report?
How were the controlled demolition charges placed on the steel beams in the twin towers?
We know there was "maintenance" work in the weeks prior to 9/11 which allowed access to the steel beams.
Who set off the charges for the controlled demolition?
Building 7 was ordered to be pulled down by Rudy Giuliani.
This building also fell at free fall speed from a controlled demolition.
The controlled demolition charges were in place before 9/11 (there was not enough time to place them in the building on 9/11 itself).
The BBC reported on Live TV, that Building 7 had collapsed while the building was still standing (you can see building 7 still standing behind the reporter).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
How did the BBC know that building 7 was going to be pulled before it happened?
We know that there were explosions immediately prior to the buildings collapse; and several injuries from those explosions; in the basements of the twin towers.
Why was this evidence not included in the 9/11 commission report?
Why were the eye witnesses to these explosions not called to testify?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhGcBxONSvc
3. Why were the steel beams from the twin towers smuggled out of the country within 2 weeks of 911?
Never before in history has a skyscraper collapsed just from fire.
The buildings were designed to withstand the impact from up to 6 aircraft simultaneously, only 1 aircraft hit each tower.
Jet fuel only burns at about 700 degrees C.
Temperatures of 1200 degrees C are required to weaken steel.
You would of thought that the American government would be anxious to know why the buildings collapsed when they had been designed to withstand the impact from multiple aircraft.
Why were samples of the steel beams not sent to every major research facility, of major universities, in the US to understand what had gone wrong and to prevent such a disaster from ever happening again?
Why were the steel beams smuggled out of the country very quickly to prevent this from being done?
4. 7 out of 10 of the 9/11 commissioners now disagree with the contents of the official 9/11 report.
The report's author is particularly scathing
The Attorney General (John Farmer) who drafted the 9/11 report for the 9/11 commission now says that the report is based on government lies and is almost entirely untrue.
(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.
Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php
5. The 270 degree turn and rapid descent of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon.
Experienced pilots have testified that they could not of made such a manoevre.
How could a very inexperienced pilot with only very limited flight training have accomplished it?
The official account of the attack on the Pentagon has many flaws, the above is just one of them.
The attack on the Pentagon needs to be re-investigated.
6. Condoleezza Rice's statement that no one could of expected terrorists to hijack aircraft and use them as weapons is an obvious and blatant lie
See 1 above of the numerous foreign intelligence and diplomatic warnings that this was exactly what was being planned and the American government knew it, prior to 9/11.
See Project Bojinka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot
December 24th 1994 - terrorists plan to fly a hijacked plane into the Eiffel Tower - the plot was foiled.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a112496ethiopiaair
NORAD was conducting a "training exercise" on the morning of 9/11 to simulate a terrorist attack involving multiple hijacked aircraft.
The Air Traffic controllers could not tell which were the real hijacked planes from the simulations (part of the "training exercise") on their radar screens.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html
Why were fighter aircraft not sent to intercept the hijacked planes?
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-26/why-planes-were-not-intercepted-911-wall-street-lawyer-and-special-ops-hijack-coordinator
7. Flight 93
The debris from Flight 93 indicates a mid air explosion - not a crash landing.
The debris is scattered over too wide an area for a crash landing.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html
Flight 93 was the plane where the passengers attempted to over power the hijackers.
Was Flight 93 intercepted and shot down?
Flight 93 was in the air after the other planes had crashed.
Flight 93 needs further investigation.
8. Saudi Royal Family and Saudi government involvement in 9/11
Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Read more:-
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/Saudi-Sized Cracks in the 9/11 Wall of Silence
Two Congressmen, a Democrat and a Republican, are asking Obama to declassify the congressional report on 9/11, which the Bush administration heavily redacted.
The two members of the House of Representatives have read the blacked-out portions, including 28 totally blank pages that deal largely with Saudi government ties to the alleged 9/11 hijackers.
This is apparently major connect-the-dots stuff—much more significant than what one may remember from Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 911, about Saudi royals and other Saudis studying and living in the US, who were allowed to go home without being interviewed in the aftermath of the attacks. This is about actual financial and logistical support of terrorism against the United States—by its ally, the Saudi government.
As a Hoover Institution media scholar wrote in the New York Post (normally no bastion of deep investigative inquiry):
The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
Congressmen “absolutely shocked”
The two outspoken Representatives, Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass) would be violating federal law if they offered any specifics about what they know, or even named any countries mentioned—but did say they were “absolutely shocked” by revelations of foreign state involvement in the attacks. Now, they want a resolution requesting Obama declassify the entire document.
If the media were to do its job and create the kind of wall-to-wall coverage it bestows upon, say, inter-spousal murder trials, Obama might feel he had to release the full 9/11 report. He’d have to concede there is a public right to know, or at least explain in detail why he doesn’t think so. Either way, there would be major fireworks. But we’re not betting on either the president or the media doing the right thing.
Read more:-
Contrary to the official narrative, 9/11 was state-sponsored terror. The only question is which state(s) sponsored it.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/fbi-report-implicates-saudis-in-911.html
9. What happened to the SEC investigation into the airline and insurance company put options that lead back to Deutsche Bank subsidiary ABS?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html
http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/bin-laden-the-911-illusion-part-ii-deutsche-bank-blackstone/
Was Saudi money involved?
Wide reports -- including a 9/28/01 story in the Asian Wall Street Journal and a 10/1/01 story in The Guardian -- indicate that investigators are checking Deutschebank s alleged links to Saudi "private banking," terrorist bank accounts, and $2.5 million in unclaimed United Airlines (UAL) put options profits; however, no government acknowledgement had ever been given of CIA s alleged use of PROMIS software prior to the attacks.
http://www.rense.com/general17/wtcmon.htm
10. What was on the laptop of Zacarias Moussaoui?
This laptop containing details of the planned 9/11 attacks was in the possession of the American authorities prior to 9/11.
The American authorities refused to share the contents of this laptop with French investigators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui
11. The Pakistan Connection, the ISI, Mohammed Atta and $100,000
General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11
12. We know that Bush/Cheney tried to cover the true facts about 9/11
They only agreed to the 9/11 Commission Report after pressure was applied by the families of victims and even the 9/11 Commissioners in charge of producing the report now say that it was a pack of lies.
13. The events that led up to 9/11
The short timeline
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2012/10/list-of-us-accomplishments-since-1992.html
The long timeline
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=600
14. Further information on 9/11
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2012/09/italian-supreme-court-head-calls-for.html
Conclusions
The events leading up to and the events on the actual day of 9/11 need to be properly investigated.
The official account is a complete cover up and a pack of lies.
Charges need to be brought against those responsible for the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11.
The easiest way of moving this forward is to bring civil charges against members of the Bush/Cheney regime for Gross Negligence on behalf of one or more of the foreign families that were a victim of 9/11.
There are plenty of countries to choose from, e.g. Brazil
Sue for gross negligence by members of the Bush regime for doing nothing to stop the attacks succeeding, in the face of overwhelming diplomatic and intelligence warnings of an impending terrorist attack using aircraft/airliners.
The burden of proof is lower in a civil court.
If members of the Bush regime chose not to appear and defend themselves the jury is entitled to draw their own conclusions from that in a civil court (in most countries).
There are plenty of countries to choose from to launch an initial case on behalf of the family of at least one of the foreign nationals killed on 9/11.
More countries could then follow suit.
There are plenty of countries to choose from to launch this initial case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks
Upon completion of successful civil suits, further criminal charges can be brought - up to and including murder for those who were behind the 9/11 attacks.
N.B. aiding and abetting murder is the same as murder in the eyes of the Law.
References
1. The August 6th Intelligence briefing to GW Bush
http://whereistheoutrage.net/al-qaeda/911-august-6-presidential-daily-briefing/
Further Reading
Ex LA PD detective Michael C. Ruppert and From the Wilderness
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index.shtml
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/
0 comments:
Post a Comment