Scholars Question Cheney's Role in 9/11
Thanks to our friends over at http://georgewashington.blogspot.com for sending in this:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb357922.htm
Experts conclude Vice President possessed foreknowledge and suggest Moussaoui trial a "distraction".
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) March 13, 2006 -- A society of experts and scholars contends that the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui -- for willfully concealing advance knowledge of the events of 9/11 -- has the status of a Soviet-style "show trial" and functions as a diversion from the real culprits. The nonpartisan group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, asserts that the evidence implicating Vice President Dick Cheney of that very offense is more obvious and compelling. If they are even remotely correct, then the alleged terrorists appear to have been cast in the role of "patsies."
The experts base their conclusion on testimony presented to the 9/11 Commission by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta on May 23, 2003, which was omitted from its final report, and on related events at the Pentagon. Members of the society will present their findings during a press conference to be held at 1 PM on Tuesday at the United States Courthouse in Alexandria, VA, the location of a trial to determine whether Moussaoui, who is called "the 20th hijacker", should serve a life term or receive the death sentence.
"Mineta's testimony is devastating," observed James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota. Fetzer is the founder and co-chair of the scholars' society, which recently joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of documents, films and videos, and physical evidence withheld from the public by the administration. "It pulls the plug on the Commission's contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit."
According to Secretary Mineta's testimony, which is in the public domain, when he (Mineta) arrived at an underground bunker at the White House (known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center), the Vice President was in charge. "During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon", he stated, "there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane is 50 miles out.' 'The plane is 30 miles out.'
"And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,'" Mineta continued, "the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'" One way to construe these remarks could be that the orders were to shoot down the plane.
The scholars suggest that that is an implausible interpretation. The Pentagon, they observe, may be the most heavily defended building in the world. If the orders had been to "shoot it down," then no doubt it would have been shot down. Moreover, there would have been no apparent reason for the young man to have expressed concern over whether or not "the orders still stand." Shooting it down, under the circumstances, would have been the thing to do.
...
Philip J. Berg, Esq., Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and a past candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, and U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, who is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, added, "Those who made it happen were obviously in the position to know that it was going to happen and therefore could have sounded a warning alarm. The case against Cheney is more powerful than the case against Moussaoui. No one is more culpable than the perpetrators. If Moussaoui deserves the death penalty, what does our Vice President deserve?"
...
Documentary support for the conclusions reported here may be found at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth web site at www.st911.org.
- Login to post comments
More fuel for the fire.
More fuel for the fire.
Phil Berg finally on it
Phil Berg finally on it again? It was, besides an meeting last autumn in ireland, http://www.911truth.ie/conf.html
a long time very quiet about his case. He emailed me that they delay the trial with tricky behaviour, e.g. transfering it to State of NY.
Wonder when he joined the scolars?
Here's a question for those
Here's a question for those that don't believe a plane hit the pentagon...
What do you make of this Mineta testimony?
"Wonder when he joined the
"Wonder when he joined the scholars?"
Just recently.
Here's the Yahoo News version:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060313/bs_prweb/prweb357922_1
"Here's a question for those
"Here's a question for those that don't believe a plane hit the pentagon...
What do you make of this Mineta testimony?"
The "young man" was tracking a missile... A MISSILE I SAY!
"It pulls the plug on the
"It pulls the plug on the Commission's contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit."
It does a lot more than that Professor Fetzer... his testimony puts Dick Cheney at the PEOC by 9:10 and NOT 9:58 like the 9/11 Report states. A 48 minute difference is a LONG time where A LOT of things can happen...
What can you do in 48 minutes?
Jon, the Scholars group is
Jon, the Scholars group is still debating amongst ourselves what hit the Pentagon, and we haven't reached a consensus.
For my information, what do you think is the best article/website which lays out the case for a missile?
One of the best things about
One of the best things about the Mineta Testimony, if you watch it... Lee Hamilton keeps trying and trying to get Mineta to state emphatically that it was a "shoot-down" order that he heard, but Mineta never admits to it. He says he found out later that it was a "shoot-down" order... but on the day of, he didn't know what kind of order it was.
"Jon, the Scholars group is
"Jon, the Scholars group is still debating amongst ourselves what hit the Pentagon, and we haven't reached a consensus.
For my information, what do you think is the best article/website which lays out the case for a missile?"
I'm the wrong person to ask for that. I think it was Flight 77.
Norman Mineta Is Key "During
Norman Mineta Is Key
"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
How can Dick Cheney be monitoring Flight 77 for 50 miles from the PEOC? The 9/11 Report says he didn't get there until 9:58am. The Pentagon was hit at 9:37 according to the 9/11 Report.
Now you know why Norman Mineta's testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Report, and hidden within the archives of the 9/11 Commission's website.
They re-wrote history to suit their needs.
The best accounts have Cheney at the PEOC by 9:10am.
On 9/13/2001, during Richard B. Myers confirmation hearings for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he stated that the order to scramble took place "after the Pentagon was struck." So obviously the order Dick Cheney was referring to was not a scramble order, but a stand down order. The reason it took an hour and 45 minutes to scramble a plane, and the reason why the "young man" kept running in and out. Would he need to run in and out if the order was to shoot down the plane? No, he would have received that order, and awaited confirmation of the shoot down to report back to Cheney.
Dr. Griffin and I don't
Dr. Griffin and I don't agree about the importance of "CJCSI 3610.01A"...
Someone From Scholars
Someone From Scholars Group...
When I said, "The "young man" was tracking a missile... A MISSILE I SAY!" I was being sarcastic... those who know me, know I was...
I think it was Flight 77 that hit...
Yahoo News is reporting
Yahoo News is reporting it...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060313/bs_prweb/prweb357922_1
What is your disagreement
What is your disagreement with David over CJCSI 3610.01A?
"What is your disagreement
"What is your disagreement with David over CJCSI 3610.01A?"
Dr. Griffin doesn't think CJCSI 3610.01A had an impact on whether the planes were stood down or not. The little tidbit I just posted, "Norman Mineta Is Key" used to be followed by...
"Keep in mind, on 9/11/2001, the responsibility for scrambling planes fell under the secretary of Defense.
CJCSI 3610.01A
Actual Document
Click Here
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.
Fry issued CJCSI 3610.01A for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
However, I didn't post that because of what Dr. Griffin told me...
I don't have Dr. Griffin's
I don't have Dr. Griffin's exact quote while I'm at work... but I could post it later, or (whom I think is Professor Fetzer), you can ask him...
These are the issues that
These are the issues that ALL OF US should be pushing, instead of infighting about what hit what and if anything was really there, etc...
Those are distractions and ALL OF US lose credibility. Just think about what a passer-by just visiting the site would think by reading some of the arguments.
DHS... I agree, and always
DHS... I agree, and always have... there are ways to present arguments that bring credibility, and there are ways to present arguments that bring a lack of credibility...
Personally, I still stand by what I said earlier... the 9/11 Report itself, is the best piece of evidence we have to show complicity. For a multitude of reasons.
Just give us the chance to
Just give us the chance to explain why...
Dr. Griffin pointed out most
Dr. Griffin pointed out most of those reasons in his 2nd book.
It probably wasn't a missile
It probably wasn't a missile that hit the Pentagon, but a small aircraft (i.e., smaller than a Boeing 757).
Below is one article on the subject:
"The Missing Wings," Prof. Alexander Keewatin Dewdney, mathematician and scientist, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario and the University of Waterloo, and Gerald W. Longspaugh, aerospace engineer, December 19, 2004:
http://physics911.net/missingwings.htm
http://www.physics911.ca/Dewdney:_The_Missing_Wings
Jon I signed up mid February
Jon I signed up mid February like one of the first to do so and I have never received any emails.
Thanks. Dewdney is a member
Thanks. Dewdney is a member of our group -- I didn't realize he'd written anything on the Pentagon.
I'll take a look.
Someone from Scholars For
Someone from Scholars For 9/11...
Are you trying to make the argument that a missile hit the Pentagon, or are you just looking for every piece of information regarding Flight 77 and the Pentagon so you can come to your own conclusions?
Until a whistleblower comes out that says a missile hit the Pentagon, or a video comes out that shows a missile hitting the Pentagon, I think it would be virtually impossible to state as fact one way or the other, what hit the Pentagon...
You're welcome, Someone from
You're welcome, Someone from Scholars for 9/11.
I think it's better to focus
I think it's better to focus on things like the Mineta Testimony, the confiscated videos, the anti-aircraft batteries not firing, the impossible manuever of Hani Hanjour, Andrews Air Force Base not sending up any planes, etc... rather than what "might" have hit the Pentagon. The truth is, we don't know.
I think when a video is on the "verge" of being released, it's dangerous for the movement to state, as fact, something other than Flight 77 hitting it.
People associate the 9/11 Truth Movement with a missile hitting the Pentagon. If a video is released to show differently, or Flight 77, then that 9/11 Truth Movement will take a tremendous blow against our credibility...
Then the 9/11 Truth
Then the 9/11 Truth Movement...
And inside, I'm not telling
And inside, I'm not telling whomever this is what they should do. I'm giving advice based on personal experience.
Someone from Scholars For
Someone from Scholars For 9/11...
Chris Emery from the Oklahoma City Bombing truth movement sent this site to me yesterday. It's actually very good. And they don't theorize about what hit the Pentagon... they just have a lot of facts regarding the Pentagon...
www.pentagonresearch.com
This FTW article nails down
This FTW article nails down the case against the Maestro of 911 pretty good, "Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney"
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml
As to the pentagon, I'm partial to the notion of a smaller military jet painted in AA colors, remote control flown into the pentagon.
But I believe the pentagon achilles heel Truthers can unite on is, why doesn't FBI-Co release all the confiscated video proving decisively what hit the pentagon?
We do agree that it was not
We do agree that it was not a "big ole jet airliner, don't take me too far away, oh oh oh big ole jet airliner, cause its here that I want to stay" that hit the pentagram.
We're all going to go nuts if we don't synthesize some sort of strategy like Move On.
All, I have no idea what hit
All, I have no idea what hit the Pentagon (757, 737, missile, etc.), and have consistently argued that the Scholars group shouldn't address the issue publicly unless we are SURE.
My role within the group is to make sure that this issue is debated vigorously within the group, and that all evidence is considered and logically analyzed.
Mr or Ms. Someone From
Mr or Ms. Someone From Scholars for 9/11...
It would be really cool if we knew who you are. :)
My name is Jon Gold, and you are?
GeorgeWashington.
GeorgeWashington.
Professor Jones?
Professor Jones?
http://i-newswire.com/pr58815
http://i-newswire.com/pr58815.html
I assumed by the fact that
I assumed by the fact that you referred to Dr. Griffin as "David", that you were one of two people I've corresponded with... Professor Jones, or Jim Fetzer... I have been known to be wrong in the past... very few times though... ;)
Nope.
Nope.
Strike two.
Strike two.
Ouch... You could be
Ouch...
You could be ANYBODY...
I think somebigguy knows who
I think somebigguy knows who I am (ssssh, don't tell)
Incidentally, here's what
Incidentally, here's what Dr. Griffin said to me after I sent him the Norman Mineta blurb...
"Jonathan,
I have written most of this, although not so succinctly, in my essay on "Flights 11, 175, ....", which is posted at 911Truth.org.
I don't have the part about Rumsfeld being the only one who can order intercepts due to 3610, because I don't believe it---as I said in my 2nd
book and also in the Afterword to the 2nd edition of my first book.
DG"
Ok... let's play 20
Ok... let's play 20 questions... good? Let's make 3 questions...
And yes, I did read Dr.
And yes, I did read Dr. Griffin's books... for those who were curious... do you people know how much I've read?!?!? Everytime I read something new, something else gets pushed out... it's sad really.
Someone from Scholars for
Someone from Scholars for 9/11...
1st question...
Do I know you?
2nd question...
Have you written a book, or been sourced in a book?
3rd question...
Are you a Full Member, Associate Member, or Student Member...
Also keep in mind that
Also keep in mind that Danielle O'Brien, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft on radar that struck the Pentagon, said "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane." ("'Get These Planes on the Ground'--Air Traffic Controllers Recall Sept. 11," ABC News, October 24, 2001.)
Besides the physical evidence that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, and all the tapes recording the Pentagon that the U.S. government refuses to release due to "National Security," as well as the period wherein the air traffic controllers lost radar contact with it, another reason why the possibility that the U.S. government used drone aircraft during their staged 9/11 PsyOp must be taken very seriously is because a very similar plan was detailed by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962. This was a Pentagon plan to murder innocent civilians and murder U.S. Navy members as part of a "terror campaign" to be blamed on the Cuban government as a pretext to invade Cuba, code-named Operation Northwoods (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ). This plan had the written approval of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer, and every other member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
On pages 10-11 of the document (listed as pages 13-14 within the PDF viewer):
""
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
""
("Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 13, 1962 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf .)
The above document by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff presents another possibility not covered in the article "The Missing Wings" by Prof. Alexander K. Dewdney and Gerald W. Longspaugh as to what became of the flight passengers. Given the abnormally low occupancy on these flights, most of the passengers, maybe even all of them, could have been CIA "front" identities; hence lessening or negating the need to dispose of extra bodies (not that disposing of bodies would be at all hard for the U.S. government). Far fetched? Not according to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (see the above excerpt)--and if anyone in the world should know whether they have the means to pull off such a feat it's these guys.
Its not particularly
Its not particularly important who I am. I write GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com, and I've played a key role at Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
More important than that, I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, just like y'all. For that purpose, I pop in on alot of different boards to see what people are saying.
Oh... hey George... yea, I
Oh... hey George... yea, I post your stuff a lot. Keep up the good work.
who cares who you are
who cares who you are coward.
That's uncalled for. If he
That's uncalled for. If he wants to remain anonymous, that's his prerogative...
His work speaks for itself.
His work speaks for itself.
i think people get a
i think people get a vigilante complex remaining anonymous, like anyone of any authority can't find out anyway.
DHS... isn't that a bit
DHS... isn't that a bit hypocritcal... DHS?
also: What ever happened to
also:
What ever happened to the proposed "Blogger Brigade", and why do we spend much time here infighting when we should be sending out the basic message on news sites, blogs, etc...
think about the effect we'd have if we hit those places daily, the main stream media sites, conservative/liberal blogs, etc...
just my 2
The Blogger Brigade is up
The Blogger Brigade is up and running. I've been sending out news every couple of days... and so have other people.
Well, you can think what you
Well, you can think what you want. I sometimes use my name publicly, and sometimes not.
Upcoming GeorgeWashington articles:
One slamming democrats on 9/11 (to balance the one slamming republicans)
One on the truth about global warming (I'll bet you $10 that EVERYONE learns at least one fact they didn't know).
Upcoming Scholars' news: signed up a former congressman today to the group. Look for his name in about 2 days on our website.
Bye for now.
http://lists.riseup.net/www/i
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/bloggerbrigade
See ya George. Again, keep
See ya George. Again, keep up the good work.
Email me at
Email me at Gold9472@comcast.net and I'll find out why.
For information on the
For information on the globalist elite's "global warming" scam, see the below:
"Why Politicized Science is Dangerous," Michael Crichton:
http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/
"The global warming scam," Derek Kelly, Ph.D., Asia Times, February 25, 2005:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html
Below is the petition statement which over 7,800 scientists have been independently verified as having signed:
""
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
""
Global Warming Petition Project:
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
In regard to Cheney's
In regard to Cheney's wherabouts on 911:
Richard Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, has Cheney being moved to the PEOC by Security Service personnel just after 9.00 am. (This was as reported to Clarke by White House photographer David Bohrer).
Later media reports, eg CNN, have Vice President Cheney removed by Security Staff at 9.30 am, but these appear to be creative White House rewrites designed to deflect questions about why VP Cheney was secured when President Bush was left standing around in an unsecured location for an extra half hour. Bohrer was a direct witness at 9.00am.
Richard Clarke also reports that both Rumsfeld and Myers were in a White House directed videoconference beginning at approximately 9.12am.
Clarke quotes a Deputy Director of the Situation Room in the White House saying, when Clarke arrives at approximately 9.10, that a "Threat Conference Call" was underway with both Rumsfeld and Myers present. The 911 Commission has the "Threat Conference" starting at 9.37 or 9.39.
Clearly, Cheney was in the PEOC from about 9:10am at the latest, allowing ample time to monitor flight 77 (or the skyhawk, as you please).
You would have thought that with the nation under attack that Cheney would have contacted Rumsfeld about 9:10 onwards. Yet, allegedly, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is first contacted only 40 minutes later. WhatÂ’s going on here? Why wouldnÂ’t Rumsfeld have been contacted immediately?
Cheney was in the PEOC from about 9:10am; Clarke says Rumsfeld and Myers were in a White House directed videoconference beginning at approximately 9.12am.
This is all EARLY, EARLY, EARLY.
(We can ignore the 911 Commission account - it's total fiction].
Thanks for the briefing
Thanks for the briefing damien... ;)
Visibility 9-11 3-12-06 This
Visibility 9-11 3-12-06
This broadcast takes a close look at the attack on the Pentagon, including a critical review of the film 9-11 In Plane Site.
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_3-12-06.mp3
Thanks road66... I just
Thanks road66... I just posted that up above... Michael's a good guy.