9/11 - Key Issue of our Time
Why Did the World's Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?
by Mark H. Gaffney
Journal of 9/11 Studies
On September 11 2001, as the eyes of the nation were focused on the gruesome events at the World Trade Center, the networks interrupted their television coverage in New York with a breaking story from Washington. A large plane had just been sighted over the White House. Exactly when it first appeared is not certain, but the reports aired at about the time of the Pentagon strike, or soon after. Witnesses who saw the plane say it circled over Washington. CNN’s Senior White House correspondent John King observed it while standing in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House. King reported live that “about 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.”
Kate Snow, another CNN correspondent, was standing two blocks from the Capitol when she saw the plane. Snow mentioned the mysterious plane onair, adding that a security guard told her it was responsible for the decision to evacuate the seat of government.ii In his book Against All Enemies, Counter-terrorism Czar Richard A. Clark states that the decision to evacuate the White House was made after a warning from the Secret Service about the approach of an unidentified aircraft.iii Was this the plane?
Congressman Peter DeFazio:
"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right."
Paul Joseph Watson
President Bush's post-terror attack martial law plan is so shocking that even sitting members of Congress and Homeland Security officials are barred from viewing it, another example of executive über alles and a chilling portent of what is to come as constant reminders of the inevitability of terror attacks reverberate.
Congressman Peter DeFazio (D - OR) was asked by his constituents to see what was contained within the classified portion of the White House's plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
Since DeFazio also sits on the Homeland Security Committee and has clearance to view classified material, the request would have appeared to be routine, but the Congressman was unceremoniously denied all access to view the documents, and the White House wouldn't even give an excuse as to why he was barred.
"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio told the Oregonian on Friday.
"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."
"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio concluded.
The article also quotes Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who told the paper he "cannot think of one good reason" to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.
"I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House," Ornstein said.
The only plausible reason DeFazio was barred access to the documents is that the plans for a post-terror attack continuity of government scenario are so abhorrent that to reveal their true nature would cause a public outcry and lead to a major repeal of what is contained in the documents.
Congressman Peter DeFazio (D - OR)
What we already know about Bush's recent spate of executive orders, and in particular PDD 51, is bad enough - the provisions outline preparations for the implementation of open martial law in the event of a declared national emergency.
New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.
It is important to understand that, although these powers have been on the books for previous presidents, Bush is the first to openly brag of the fact that he will utilize them and officially become the supreme emperor of the United States in the aftermath of a catastrophe that the government itself has said will happen on innumerable occasions.
According to columnist and author Jerome Corsi, the power grab assures that "The president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over."
Also in May, it was reported that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named "The Day After," which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.
Last year we also exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.
The documents that Congressman DeFazio was blocked from seeing likely interlock with both these programs and detail the overarching agenda to effectively nullify what's left of the U.S. Constitution and firmly ensconce George W. Bush as a supreme dictator.
Only by putting enough pressure on the media and in turn the White House to be transparent about what the secret martial law provisions are can we lead an effort to repeal them before the next terror attack, whether real or manufactured, takes place.
A Wake-up Call By Paul Craig Roberts
About Paul Craig Roberts:
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan. "Father of Reaganomics." Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.
- Essay: "We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to 'pancake' at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/...
- Essay: "There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations." http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006....
- Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts
07/19/07 "ICH" -- -- This is a wake-up call that we are about to have another 9/11-WMD experience.
The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally seventy-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government’s protection.
Intelligent observers are puzzled that President Bush is persisting in a futile and unpopular war at the obvious expense of his party’s electoral chances in 2008.
In the July 18 Los Angeles Times (“Bush the Albatross”), Ronald Brownstein reminds us that Bush’s behavior is disastrous for his political party. Unpopular presidents “have consistently undercut their party in the next election.” Brownstein reports that “88% of voters who disapproved of the retiring president’s job performance voted against his party’s nominee in past elections. . . . On average, 80% of voters who disapproved of a president’s performance have voted against his party’s candidates even in House races since 1986.”
Brownstein notes that with Bush’s dismal approval rating, this implies a total wipeout of the Republicans in 2008.
A number of pundits have concluded that the reason the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush’s follies is that they expect Bush’s unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory next year.
There is a problem with this reasoning. It assumes that Cheney, Rove,and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts or are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his warmonger-police state fling. “After me, the deluge.”
Isn’t it more likely that Cheney and Rove have in mind events that will, once again, rally the people behind President Bush and the Republican Party that is fighting the “war on terror” that the Democrats “want to lose”?
Such events could take a number of forms. As even diehard Republican Patrick J. Buchanan observed on July 17, with three US aircraft carrier battle groups in congested waters off Iran, another Tonkin Gulf incident could easily be engineered to set us at war with Iran. If Bush’s intentions were merely to bomb a nuclear reactor, he would not need three carrier strike forces.
Lately, the administration has switched to blaming Iran for the war in Iraq. The US Senate has already lined up behind the latest lie with a 97-0 vote to condemn Iran.
Alternatively, false flag “terrorist” strikes could be orchestrated in the US. The Bush administration has already infiltrated some dissident groups and encouraged them to participate in terrorist talk, for which they were arrested. It is possible that the administration could provoke some groups to actual acts of violence.
Many Americans dismiss suspicion of their government as treasonous, and most believe conspiracy to be impossible “because someone would talk.”
There is no basis in any known fact for this opinion.
According to polls, 36% of the American people disbelieve the 9/11 Commission Report. Despite this lack of confidence, and despite the numerous omissions and errors in the report, it has proven impossible to have an independent investigation of 9/11 or to examine the official explanation in public debate. Even experts and people with a lifetime of distinguished public service are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” “kooks,” and “traitors” if they question the official explanation of 9/11. This despite the fact that war in the Middle East, a long-planned goal of Bush’s neoconservative administration, could not have been initiated without a “new Pearl Harbor.”
That powerfully constructed steel buildings could suddenly turn to dust because they were struck by two flimsy aluminum airliners and experienced small fires on a few floors that burned for a short time appears unexceptionable to a majority of Americans.
Moreover, people have talked. Hundreds of them. Firefighters, police, janitors, and others report hearing and experiencing a series of explosions in upper floors and massive explosions in the underground basements. This eyewitness testimony was kept under wraps for three or more years until the official explanation had taken root. The oral histories were finally forced loose by freedom of information act suits. The eyewitness reports of explosion after explosion had no effect.
Larry Silverstein, who received billions of dollars in insurance payments for the destroyed buildings, talked. He said on public television that the order was given “to pull” building 7. His stunning admission had no effect.
The Bush administration is preparing us for more terrorist attacks. The latest intelligence report says that Al Qaeda has regrouped, rebuilt, and has the ability to come after us again. “Al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here,” says the report.
Security operatives, such as Michael Chertoff, and various instruments of administration propaganda have warned that we will be attacked before next year’s election. Chertoff is not a person who wants to be known as Chicken Little for telling us that the sky is falling.
Bush has the Republican Party in such a mess that it cannot survive without another 9/11. Whether authentic or orchestrated, an attack will activate Bush’s new executive orders, which create a dictatorial police state in event of “national emergency.”
The UK government is hand-in-glove with the Bush administration and will provide cover or verification for whatever claim the Bush administration advances. So will the right-wing governments in Canada and Australia. That takes care of the English-speaking world from which contrary explanations might reach the American people.
It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario. If so, then my prediction prior to the invasion that the US invasion of Iraq will destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement will be proven true. The Democrats’ strategy of doing nothing except making sure Bush gets his way will produce the landslide that they expect.
However, this assumes that Cheney, Rove, and their neoconservative allies have lost their cunning and their manipulative skills. It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous assumption for Democrats and the American people to make.
Once the US experiences new attacks, Bush will be vindicated. His voice will be confident as he speaks to the nation: “My administration knew that there would be more attacks from these terrorists who hate us and our way of life and are determined to destroy every one of us. If only more of you had believed me and supported my war on terror these new attacks would not have happened. Our security efforts were impaired by the Democrats’ determined attempts to surrender to the terrorists by forcing our withdrawal from Iraq and by civil libertarian assaults on our necessary security measures. If only more Americans had trusted their government, this would not have happened.” And so on. Anyone should be able to write the script.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
9/11 Truth In Perth (Western Australia)
A Report on 11th July 2007 Street Action
We had a hugely successful day today!
After last months lone mission this was simply awesome. Six of us met at the pub for introductions and light refreshments before heading in to the Murray St Mall near Forrest Place. (the heart of the city).
We picked the busiest possible area and set about erecting our banner and signs. Within minutes we had hundreds of curious people staring at us, not quite knowing what to expect. One happy fellow raced up and introduced himself before saying that he thought he was the only person in WA who had a problem believing the 9/11 fairytale. We had many knowledgable people rock up and share their 9/11 concerns and DVD burning experiences with us. It seems there are many potential new truthers around Perth. Everyone received a Deception Dollar and one of the many flyers we'd all taken along. Some received a DVD as well.
After exposing our banner to approx 3000 passers-by within 45 minutes we were asked to move on by a couple of "City of Perth" security staff who advised that we required a permit in order to do this. They had no doubt spotted us on one of the many CCTV camera's protruding from every orrifice around the City Centre. Unfortunately we hadn't taken any photos while we were here. We obligingly packed up our kit and moved location to a far quieter walkway between the Art Gallery and the Alexander library. We were still within range of the city camera's but they didn't bother us again.
The magic moment of the day was when a policeman strolled up to us and asked if he could have one of our flyers. He said that he'd "heard that the buildings were brought down with explosives". We loaded him up with one of everything and he thanked us kindly before wandering off into the distance. Absolutely Magic!
It was an incredibly successful couple of hours and really enjoyable for all that attended. We gave out 110 DVD's, along with hundreds of deception dollars and flyers. I can't thank my fellow truthers enough, this group of total strangers have come together today and planted some quality seeds for the future growth of 9/11 Truth in Perth.
Photos here: http://picasaweb.google.com/911tap/July2007TruthAction
On a personal note, the 9/11 Wake Up call has caused me great anguish and frustration over many months. That inner dispair has been completely pulverised today (like the WTC) by getting out and taking Action.
When enough people know ...
A Letter From Dr. David Leifer
(Senior Lecturer in Architecture, University of Sydney)
On Friday 29th June John Bursill spoke by phone with a several staff members of the Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney. The purpose of John's call was to share information and ask for opinions from appropriately qualified professionals about the compelling evidence which shows that the three sky scraper collapses in New York which occurred on the 11th September 2001 were deliberate demolitions rather than merely the unfortunate consequence of the impact of fuel-laden jet airliners.
Among those John spoke with is Dr. David Leifer, Senior Lecturer and Coordinator of the Facilities Management Program. Dr. Leifer expressed his agreement with one of the central claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement, namely that the manner in which the WTC towers collapsed, does not accord with the official explanation endorsed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of a purely gravity driven collapse initiated by structural failure.
Dr. Leifer later confirmed his views in an email to John, which we present below:
The frequently repeated TV images of the aircraft slamming into the World Trade Centre overwhelmed any thoughtful response. Naturally, the collapse of the buildings was attributable to this traumatic event.
It was only later when pictures emerged showing the inappropriate damage to the Pentagon – reported to have been caused by a large aircraft crashing through several layers of external wall – that professional doubt was aroused in my mind. Thereafter, The fall of the World Trade Center video showed the side of one tower ‘unzipping’ along one side of a damaged floor. My knowledge of structure and dynamics told me that unless the other sides simultaneously ‘unzipped’ there was no way that the tower would have ‘pancaked’ onto it’s own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible.
Hence I am anxious to learn what really happened.
You may add this to your web page if you think it suitable.
Dr. Leifer is a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.