Regarding Criminal Mastermind, Donald Rumsfeld

Revised May 30, 2007

By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a

"A bomb? I had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01).

Well, that's a pretty tall tale by any standard. The New York Times reported that by 8:13am, the FAA was aware of the first hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did not occur until approximately 9:37am, nearly an hour and a half later, this after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York City.

It was reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of Defense."

Al Gore Doesn't Accept the 9/11 Cover Up, So Why Do You?

Crimes of the State Blog

Recent remarks by elected president Albert Gore reveal a serious distrust of the official 9/11 story. I wouldn't go so far as to call Gore a "truther," as he is a politician after all, but I will say that Gore is still looking for the truth.

See these comments:

"Most Americans have tended to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack. Hindsight casts a harsh light on mistakes that should have been visible at the time they were made. But now, years later, with the benefit of investigations that have been made public, it is no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people."[1]

What is he saying?

editor@spectator.org

Weak Propaganda on American Spectator

In this American Spectator article: The Loony Left's 9/11, a quite lightweight attempt is made to equate distrust of the official 9/11 story with "leftists," and then to dismiss it all as "nuts."

The author, Peter Hannaford, who we learn is "a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger," has no intention of investigating any of Dr. Griffin's claims for their veracity. This is simply a rehash of the same smear that has gone around since 2002, and really since Bush's speech to the UN in November 2001 where we are ordered to "never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the eleventh."

The Guardian/UK
A Drive For Global Domination Has Put Us In Greater Danger
Moral Authority, Which Is Our Greatest Source of Strength, Has Been Recklessly Put at Risk by This Wilful President
by Al Gore

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/24/1432/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2086737,00.html

"Most Americans have tended to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack. Hindsight casts a harsh light on mistakes that should have been visible at the time they were made. But now, years later, with the benefit of investigations that have been made public, it is no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people. It is useful and important to examine the warnings the administration ignored - not to point the finger of blame, but to better determine how our country can avoid such mistakes in the future. When leaders are not held accountable for serious mistakes, they and their successors are more likely to repeat those mistakes."

In the interest of clarity (and since certain others here have been unwilling to make the case), here is an exceptionally well done presentation by Ralph Schoenman about the problems with the official hijacker story. The title is misleading, as it's not about the "underlying politics" but more about the underlying operation.

PART 1

PART 2

I would double check the information before quoting it, and find multiple sources for corroboration.

Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
(Revised 5/22/07)

Many people don't understand or choose not to believe that evidence exists of multiple wire transfers in excess of $100,000 to alleged "lead hijacker" Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11, and that these wire transfers are linked to the then head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI). This has blatantly been covered up by the Bush regime, by the Congressrional Joint Inquiry, and by the 9/11 Commission, which this article will clearly show.

This is a complex area, and is clearly the subject of a vigorous disinformation campaign. Many aliases have appeared in US newspapers which don't correlate to the names given in previous reports regarding: just who IS this "Al Qaeda paymaster?" [1]

Mr. St. Clair,

I commend you for openly disagreeing with your co-editor. As global temperature does change all by itself without human intervention -- and I have never seen an accurate accounting to date of the natural vs. manmade contributions to temperature, I'm not 100% convinced that Cockburn is wrong about the reasons for climate change.

I am 100% sure that he's wrong about September 11th. Your own website has supported the allegations of Sibel Edmonds and several others who spoke of protected drug smuggling which has financed terrorism, and probably still does today.

If I could prove that there were indeed laws broken intentionally, to the benefit of the 9/11 terrorists -- would it matter over at Counterpunch? Cockburn doesn't seem willing to look at any evidence, no matter the source, no matter the damning implications.

I can prove criminal behavior by US government operatives easily in a dozen ways. I'll cite two incontrovertible cases.

Al Mindhar and Al Hazmi

info@gravel2008.us
alex@gravel2008.us
elliott@gravel2008.us

Dear Senator Gravel,

Do you want to win?

You are one word away from turning US politics on its head. There is one powerful, earth shaking word that can stop this madness in its tracks and press "reset" on the entire imperial project.

That word is "Treason."

In particular, the treason that transpired on September 11th 2001. There is no other issue, and no other combination of words that will put you in the White Hosue except for this issue, and this word: Treason.

Treason is knowingly allowing the attacks on our nation and not doing anything whatsoever to stop them. That happened. Everyone knows it, yet no one puts it on national television.

Treason is being told "America is under attack," yet sitting there, stalling for time, and reading a children's book.

Treason is when the Vice President of the United States illegally assumes control of our armed forces and orders a stand down of force protection at the Pentagon, as witnessed in Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony under oath to the 9/11 Commission.

It popped into my head that someone was doing something (around here) with a bunny costume. And it hit me:

Trtuh Santa -- tape a candy cane to dvds and pass them out to everyone (Christmas season).

You can co-opt other characters from the dominant culture like Uncle Sam on the fourth of July, etc.

It's for the brave and the weird.

I was inspired by the contest winner videos just posted. They are going the extra mile. People should put banners on overpasses and send the photos into a central web site to make a collection. They can compete for the best messages and banner concepts.

MUST-HEAR RADIO (MP3)

070320 A Study in Disinformation: The Fake Confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Taking Aim
by Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone

RE: Silverstein World Trade Center Claim

Dear Allianz,

Please consider that the World Trade Center "collapse" was a deliberate demolition, and not a fire collapse. Highly knowledgeable experts in the USA are challenging the story told by the government.

You could study this issue and prepare for a court battle against Silverstein, even countersue to retun money that has been paid out.

See the work of Professor Steven Jones of BYU Universtity:

http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones

And Kevin Ryan, former manager at UL Laboratories
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/search?q=ryan%2Bgarcia

Structural Engineering Professor William Rice at the Vermont Technical Institute:
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

More than 100 eyewitnesses saw and heard the bombs inside the 3 buildings including firemen, police, emt workers and employees at the Twin Towers. Much publicity is coming out now, and many eyewitness testimonies can be found in the news reports of that day.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7094370627958457222&hl=en

Crimes of the State

CounterPunch, infamous for its attacks on the very idea of 9/11 government complicity, has published an article detailing some old news about Israeli spying in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The Christopher Ketcham article "What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?" is from its title onward, a confined and limited interpretation of the available information. It's limited to a debate about foreknowledge of 9/11, therefore Israeli participation in the attacks is strictly off-limits.

This is in part because it was written for mainstream publication, with the corollary that one must accept the official story of 9/11 in its broad strokes, and selectively edit the data to conform to that narrative.

MUST READ:
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html

Correcting the aspect ratio of the video, from NTSC (480 lines vertical) to PAL (576 lines vertical) stretches the image 17% taller. It looks more like bin Laden. See for yourself.

9/11 Truth Has Already Won the Debate

Why "criminal negligence" is enough.

Crimes of the State

This is a very simple concept, elegant and straightforward:

We never had to prove what truly happened on September 11th 2001. No. All we had to do was prove that the US federal government had covered it up.

On that point, I would like to thank George Monbiot of the UK Guardian for his hysterical meltdown of late. George Monbiot has conceded the argument when he said:

"I believe that they [the Bush administration] were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida..." --George Monbiot, "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns", UK Guardian

BBC Scripted Coverage of WTC-7, The Motive

The following quotes can easily be found in the documentary September 11th Revisited *, which has an excellent compliation of news reports from 9/11.

47 seconds in:

"It looks like one of those scenes of an old building being, you know, purposely dynamited and blown up."
--Dan Rather, broadcast live on CBS News

1:14s

"If you wish to bring uh -- anybody's who's ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the, at the under-infrastructure of a building and bring it down." --Ted Koppel, broadcast live on ABC News

14:27s

"It's reminiscent of those picture we've all seen toom much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down." --Dan Rather /CBS

WHY IS RICHARD PORTER ALLOWED TO CONTINUE COVERING UP THIS WTC7 DEBACLE?

We are demanding the OMBUDSMAN investigate this. Mr. Porter's responses are deliberately vague, hostile and untrrustworthy. No attempt has been made to get the documented evidence which was the source of the broadcast announcement.

Instead, we are to believe that because CNN said somethinhg SIMILAR, though not the same thing at all, that it is okay, and that we should just trust Mr. Porter.

CNN said that the building may have collapsed, and qualified the statement. BBC did not qualify the statement, instead repeating it multiple times as an authoritative statement of fact.

If CNN did it is an excuse, then why do we need a BBC at all? Is CNN the source for all of your reportage?

"Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this." -Richard Porter

BBC World wrote:

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an article published online.

The notion, as suggested on such websites, that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards
BBC World Customer Relations

=========================================

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/index.html#email

http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/ContactUsDepartments.aspx

BBC:

Your response is ludicrous.

1. The "collapse" of the building in question exhibits 11 characteristics of controlled demolition. Not least of which, it ended up in its own footprint in a neat pile. Other collapses are not so neat and precise.

Contact BBC World here:
http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/ContactUsDepartments.aspx

Dear BBC,

The head of your division, Richard Porter has just given the world a disgraceful response to a matter of enormous importance and seriousness.

The fact that your New York reporter said that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) had collapsed a full 20 minutes before it had, with accompanying graphic, should be cause for a thorough investigation of how that information came to be in the heads of your personnel. This investigation does not appear to be in evidence. No serious effort, apart from allegedly asking the reporter to recall, seems to have taken place.

Next, in the realm of absurdity beyond belief, your department head claims that the BBC has LOST the tapes of September 11th coverage!

katherine@ commondreams.org, editor@commondreams.org

Commondreams has devolved into yellow journalism. You guys don't care much for honest debate or real demonstrable facts.

Even Monbiot has the gall to admit: "I believe that they were criminally negligent..."

When more than one person is involved in a crime that is conspiracy by definition. Even Monbiot, even Commondreams admits in black and white there was a conspiracy involved by the US government on 9/11. Then we are supposed to accept your pig ignorant excuses for why it's not important!!!

Here are the facts of 9/11, and there are plenty more. So far your magazine has shown no interest in them.

Full article: No George Monbiot, These Are The Facts of September 11th 2001

Response to The UK Guardian Hit Piece...

(Link to article)

Response to The UK Guardian Hit Piece

Crimes of the State

Mr. Monbiot has taken the standard media attack approach: conflate the internet film "Loose Change" with the subject of September 11th US government complicity. How brave to redo the same smear that has gone around for several years now focusing on the easily challenged claims, and ignoring the full breadth (and breathtaking amount) of evidence.

DISTURBING FACTS ABOUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS

1. The president of the United States, when informed that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, continued to read about a pet goat.

Crimes of the State

Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness."

It's pretty damned near impossible to get to the bottom of the September 11th lies we have been told by the United States federal government. This is not an easy task, and conflicting stories abound. Given that, there remain some serious deficiencies within the self-proclaimed "9/11 Truth Movement," as I will explain.

This article should be saved. It contains more than the headline suggests. Not only did Tenet inform Rice, who denied being informed of imminent attacks on US soil. It goes on:

"Despite this, [State Department Spokesman] McCormack said, Rice asked that Tenet provide the same briefing to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-US Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. The two men received it by July 17, he said."

Can you say prima facie evidence of high treason?

Ashcroft ALSO denied that it ever happened.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/03/tenet_t...

Tenet told 9/11 panel that he warned Rice of Al Qaeda Former CIA head said she took threat seriously

By Dan Eggen and Robin Wright, Washington Post | October 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had warned of an imminent threat from Al Qaeda in a July 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, adding that he believed Rice took the warning seriously, according to a transcript of the interview and the recollection of a commissioner who was there.

I wish to promote this article because it's the first article I have seen that puts forth the following idea: Musharaf and ISI didn't know about the 9-11 wire transfers until AFTER the attacks of 9-11. Omar Saeed Sheikh implicated Pakistan on behalf of British MI6, for whom he was working...

http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/40040

Operation 9/11 and General Musharraf's counter-blackmailing
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Saturday January 20 2007)

However, by telling the whole truth about all that Musharraf knows about the ways in which ISI and its assets were used to facilitate frame-ups for 9/11, will not only be a great favour to Pakistan but will also save the rest of the humanity from the scourge of totalitarians in Washington who are out to physically re-colonize the Muslim world in particular under the pretext of war on terrorism.