johndoraemi's blog

More on Rumsfeld's Role

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."

1 for the gatekeepers

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?

Weak Propaganda on American Spectator

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."

Al Gore for 9/11 Truth???

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."

Hijackers as Patsies

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.

Updated: ISI and The Wire Transfers of 9/11

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]

Open Letter to Jeffrey St. Clair of Counterpunch

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

Open Letter to Presidential Candidate Senator Mike Gravel

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.

Easter Bunnies for Truth?

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.

Dear Allianz,

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

The Limits of Christopher Ketcham's / Counterpunch's Israeli Hangout

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.

IMPORTANT: Muckraker Report Bin Laden Confession Tape

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

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

MOTIVE: BBC SCRIPTING

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