Nafeez Ahmed: Interrogating 9/11

Interrogating 9/11

by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed

Five Years On, Being a Sceptic Doesn’t Automatically Mean You’re A Lunatic… Although It Might Do

Five years after the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania that shook the world, scepticism about the Bush administration account of what happened, as well as of the “War on Terror” in general, has increased exponentially. This has accompanied the emergence of all kinds of pet theories about what happened, some of them truly bizarre, others intriguing but vacuous, and perhaps a few based on compelling facts.

For someone not familiar with these theories, it’s difficult to know where, and why, to start. And particular variants of 9/11 “truth”, such as the “no planes” theory that the whole event was merely an audiovisual technicolor chimera concocted on our TV screens, don’t help.

But is it all just a pile of lunacy? If only it was, I could sleep much better at night. Unfortunately, beneath the mountain of theories and speculations, there remain disturbing and persistent anomalies that have yet to be resolved. In this respect, the mainstream media’s approach to criticism of the 9/11 official narrative has been wanting in the extreme, focusing largely on bizarre pet theories and fringe speculations, suggesting that anybody who has doubts about the official story must be delusional, dumb, or both.

If only life were so simple. Five years after 9/11, the official narrative is riddled with inconsistencies that every official investigative process has been at great pains to ignore. For those familiar with the oddities and absurdities of the 7/7 official narrative here in the UK, this should not come as a great surprise. But it does indicate that the Western government narrative of international terrorism is profoundly flawed.

Among those sceptical of the government’s account of the 9/11 attacks, for instance, are the bereaved families of the 9/11 victims. “We hoped that our thousands of unanswered questions would be addressed and answered” said Lauri van Auken, whose husband Kenneth died in the attacks, in her opening address at an all-day Congressional hearing on 22nd July 2005 sponsored by Hon. Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Hon. Rep. Raul Grijalva, where I had the honour of testifying alongside a host of former intelligence officials, scholars and journalists. “Yet, incredibly, we have found that the Commission’s definitive final report has actually yielded more questions than answers,” continued van Auken on behalf of the 9/11 Families Steering Committee. She indicted the 9/11 Commission Report as just “some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people, violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us one day soon.”

Her characterisation of the Commission Report was the most damning condemnation that the 9/11 Families Steering Committee had ever made about the official inquiry process. Yet it was met with resounding silence from the American media, which refused to report the hearing in general, and ignored von Auken’s heart-rending testimony on behalf of the 9/11 families.

Collusion with the Enemy

In fact, overwhelming evidence confirms that al-Qaeda networks in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Asia-Pacific, have been penetrated and manipulated by Western intelligence services. Conspiraloonery? If only it was. As I argue in my 3rd book, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (2005), the evidence for this is extremely well-documented, deriving from innumerable, credible intelligence sources. But why? Largely to destabilize regional environments to pave the way for new “security” policies that serve to protect not people, but foreign investors taking over regional markets -- especially markets with significant oil and gas deposits.

Although it is widely acknowledged that our governments used al-Qaeda to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, after the Cold War our geostrategic connections with al-Qaeda did not end. Actually, they proliferated in surprising and disturbing ways. Indeed, one CIA analyst described the covert strategy in plain words to Swiss television journalist Richard Labeviere, currently chief editor at Radio France International: “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvellously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.”

Areas where Western power continues to intersect, both directly and indirectly, with al-Qaeda networks around the world include Algeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Phillipines, Kosovo and Macedonia. So we’re talking about the regions of North Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific and the Balkans. These are just a few examples from the public record, and documentary evidence is available in great detail in The War on Truth.

Al-Qaeda operatives as senior as Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s own right-hand man, have been recruited by the CIA. According to Yousef Bodansky, former Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism, reporting in Defense & Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy, the al-Qaeda deputy leader was approached by a CIA emissary in November 1997, who offered him $50 million to protect US interests in the Balkans, a deal he apparently accepted. Ayman and his brother, Muhammed, personally oversaw the establishment of al-Qaeda training camps in Kosovo and Macedonia after this point according to Bosnia, Albanian, Yugoslav, Macedonian, American and European intelligence sources, to train the same people -- the KLA (now operating as the NLA) – receiving advanced weapons and military training from the CIA and NATO.

The implication is dire, but it is one supported by other academics such as University of Ottawa professor Michel Chossudovsky and University of California (Berkeley) professor Peter Dale Scott: that al-Qaeda in many ways has continued to function throughout the post-Cold War period as an instrument of Western statecraft, a covert operations tool. The geostrategic arc of this policy across Central Asia, the Balkans and North Africa is charted more specifically in the latter one-third of my latest book, The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (2006), which draws on some of my War on Truth research and expands on it directions more relevant for understanding the context of 7/7.

The thesis that Western power continues to connect with al-Qaeda in the pursuit of strategic and economic interests in the key regions mentioned, flies in the face of everything we are force-fed by the official narrative sponsored by governments and mass media. But consider the fact that my research in The War on Truth has been endorsed by people like Robert D. Steele, a retired Marine Corps infantry and intelligence veteran who worked as an operations officer in all four CIA Directorates. Apart from that, Steele was responsible for founding and setting-up the newest US intelligence facility, the Marine Corps Intelligence Center. He described The War on Truth as

“… consistent with both my years of experience as a clandestine case officer, and my extensive reading on national security misadventures. ... I find the author’s speculation that the US, the UK, and France, among others, have been actively using terrorists, nurturing terrorists, as part of a geopolitical and economic strategy… to be completely credible.”

Who Dunnit? “Er, Ahem, Don’t Ask, We’re Still Not Sure…”

So what about 9/11 specifically? Five years on, even core elements of the official narrative taken for granted by the 9/11 Commission Report, remain absurdly unresolved. To this day, for example, the real identities of most of the alleged hijackers are unknown. In this year’s volume of the peer-reviewed journal Research in Political Economy, edited by economics professor Paul Zarembka of New York State University, Jay Kolar reviews credible reports from the BBC, CNN, and other mainstream sources around the world, confirming that “at least ten of those named on the FBI’s second and final list of 19 have turned up and been verified to be alive, with proof positive that at least one other ‘hijacker’, Ziad Jarrah, had his identity doubled, and therefore fabricated”. Kolar argues that since many of the alleged hijackers are now alive, they must have had ‘doubles’ using their identities as aliases.

So who were these people? According to Daniel Hopsicker, a former PBS producer and NBC investigative reporter, US military sources confirm that the alleged hijackers had trained in US military installations in the 1990s, and even had connections to the CIA and DEA. Dozens of eyewitnesses told local American newspapers that they recognized some of these individuals from their FBI photos -- they had displayed patently non-Islamic behaviour in the form of drinking alcohol, snorting cocaine, and frolicking with women at lap-dancing clubs and illicit parties, incommensurate with that of normal practising Muslims, let alone Islamist al-Qaeda fanatics about to conduct the most spectacular martyrdom operation in history.

So again: Who were these people who, simultaneously, seemingly associated with the senior echelons of al-Qaeda, trained with the US military, were recruited by the CIA, and indulged in all sorts of illicit delights forbidden by Islamic norms? It's a question that the 9/11 Commission never asked.

And How Did They Do It? “Er, Ahem, No Comment…”

Worse still, in yet another bizarre anomaly that the 9/11 Commissioners simply ignored, most of these individuals were notoriously incapable of flying properly according to their own flight instructors. Mohammed Atta, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Marwan al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour, were all described by their trainers as utterly incompetent. Hanjour’s instructor told the New York Times incredulously: “His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

But Hanjour’s flight into the Pentagon, as is well-known, was described by pilots as one of the most sophisticated flying operations they had ever seen. “For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible -- there is not one chance in a thousand,” said former US Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg.

Indeed, with four hijacked aircraft flying around the most restricted airspace in the US for about one and a half hours, why did the FAA and NORAD fail to respond immediately? As Lt. Col. (ret.) Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars programmes under Presidents Ford and Carter, has said, standard operating procedures were systematically violated. Many military and intelligence experts across continents -- such as Stan Goff, US Army Special Forces Master-Sergeant (ret.); Andreas von Bulow, former State-Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defence (1976-1980) and Minister for Research and Technology (1980-1982); Gen. Anatoli Kornukov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force; among others -- remain perplexed on this point, and dissatisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report’s inadequate explanations of this monumental failure, the damning implications of which were flagged up by John Pilger in the New Statesman.

There are related issues here of public safety. For instance, technologies were in place to remotely direct the hijacked aircraft to avoid the terrible scenario unfolding. “Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground,” Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New Scientist one day after 9/11. Why were these technologies not used to save the aircraft? Why did the 9/11 Commission not bother to ask the same question?

The WTC Collapse Anomaly

Even the official account of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is being increasingly disputed by some American scientists. In a peer-reviewed contribution to the new book 9/11 and the American Empire (Olive Branch, New York), Steve Jones, professor of physics at Brigham Young University (BYU), points out the widely reported discoveries of molten metal in the basements of the two WTC towers, which were hit by planes, as well as in the third building, WTC 7 -- a building which symmetrically collapsed despite not being hit by a plane. In all cases, the official account blames intense fires, made hotter due to jet (or in WTC 7’s case diesel) fuel.

But all scientific investigations by NIST, FEMA and independent experts establish that the fires burned well below 2800˚ Fahrenheit, the melting point of steel. In other words, it is agreed by all that the fires never burned hot enough to melt the steel columns. Whether or not the steel was hot enough to buckle, the official account fails to explain the deposits of molten metal found after the collapses. If not the fires, what could have caused the steel to melt? Jones argues that the findings constitute “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.” Perhaps there are other explanations, perhaps not. But the data itself represents a problem for the official account.

Shocking and absurd conspiraloonery? Not really. That's the easy way out. The scientific validity of Jones’ line of inquiry has been supported by several other experts, such as Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University; and Charles N. Pegelow, a 30-year veteran structural engineer. Indeed, long before this emerging scientific dissent -- only 3 months after 9/11 -- the inadequacy of the official account had been flagged up by fire protection engineering experts. Editor Bill Manning wrote in Fire Engineering that:

“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official Investigation’ blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure… Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers….”

Professor Jones didn’t write his paper to support a prior ideological-conspiratorial agenda -- he wrote it to point out that to date, conventional scientific explanations of the WTC collapses remain flawed and inadequate. The molten deposits found at Ground Zero, and the failure of the official narrative to account for them, represent an anomaly that should be investigated impartially, not dismissed for reasons of political convenience -- or arbitrary standards of the boundaries of sanity.

Five years on, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we still don’t know what really happened on 9/11. And this dismal, pathetic state of affairs should not continue. The 9/11 families, and with them the wider public, have an elementary right to full answers to these basic questions. And I’m not about to offer you, the reader, an alternative all-explanatory theory, or a nice ready-made answer on a plate. I don’t have one. I just offer you the raw data to start a healthy process of cognitive dissonance, with which you can do as you please.

But I will say that there is one thing we do know: that much of the official narrative is untenable, in surprising and disturbing ways. As our leaders continue to push the Middle East toward the brink of nuclear war, while crushing civil liberties and criminalizing dissent at home, the case for a truly independent public inquiry into the phenomenon of terror could not be clearer.

Gee, an article that doesn't

Gee, an article that doesn't focus solely on hard-to-prove physical evidence which can be disputed ad nauseum by shills and gatekeepers. What a concept?


Yeah, you're on the mark, this is the way to go. Point to the big interests, the deep historical ties between the CIA and the jihadis and people will certainly come around to realizing something's fishy. Add on just a few of the smoking guns and no one in their right mind can resist.

Oliver Stone hints at darker 9/11 film in future

Moscow -- U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, who surprised many with the patriotic flavour of his new film World Trade Center, hinted in Moscow yesterday that he is considering a more controversial follow-up investigating the "conspiracy" around 9/11.

"There is a great story in a movie, a conspiracy by a group of people in the American administration who have an agenda and who used 9/11 to further that agenda," he told journalists in Russia.

There could be a "fascinating project [on] what happened after Sept. 11," the director said at his packed press conference on the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Stone accused U.S. President George W. Bush of mishandling the fight against Osama bin Laden's militants and using the crisis to stoke fear and bolster his own power at home in a way that was "right out of George Orwell." AFP

This the debate from Loose

This the debate from Loose Change Crew and Popular Mechanics!!!! It is very disturbing the way those paid suit up guys try to mislead people with things that really don't make sense!! Their claim that the landing gear caused the hole in the ring E onf the pentagon is outrageous!! The main gear of a plane is dense but most of the time brakes upon impact, and it wouldn't penetrate several steel re-enforced walls and leave a perfect round whole!!

Loose Change is flawed

Sorry guys, but the NO PLANES theory in flawed. Most other arguments in Loose Change are fine though (WTC, WTC7, war games, Northwoods)

Pop Mech dealt with the issues that could be debunked and debunked them successfully. Jim Hoffman has been saying for a while that the Pentagon theory doesn't add up. WHY DO WE FALL FOR THESE TRAPS SO EASILY. They only played clips that could be debunked. WTF? We need to be smarter about our debates.

For the pentagon, I would push:

- Anti Aircraft defences of Pentagon + Mineta testimony
- Dubious flying skills on Hani Hanjour
- Most reinforced area hit
- CVR not recovered, FDR ok!
- Withholding of evidence

For Flight 93, I would push:

- Seismic records indicate crash at 10:06 they say 10:03 (hiding 3 minutes of CVR recordings
- Ed Felt smoke (shootdown)
- Debris scattered (shootdown)
- Rumsfeld admission (shootdown)


You forgot Pentagon withheld videos...

If AA77 struck the Pentagon, why do they refuse to release the videos? Why does the only video ever released look like something other than a commercial airliner (A3 SkyWarrior)???

Pentagon truth

"it wouldn't penetrate several steel re-enforced walls and leave a perfect round whole!!"

The EXTERIOR FACADE of the Pentagon was the only steel reinforced wall. And the punch-out hole was NOT a perfect circle.

You and others who use that incorrect statement about the steel reinforcement make it sound like the wall(s) of the Pentagon were competely lined with thick solid steel plates.

I bet that you don't even know what the steel reinforcement was or looked like.

Search for that answer and see that the steel reinforcement of the exterior facade of the Pentagon wasn't even that much of a reinforcement. Especially since it wasn't meant to stop an airplane attack. It was meant to help deflect a ground based attack from an explosive laden vehicle being driven into -- or exploded near -- the outer facade of the Pentagon.

This is one of the main reasons that I hate Loose Change. Because so many people incessantly repeat the nonsense propagated about the Pentagon.


The final hole, on the inside of the C-ring (I believe) is conspicuously round. That it would be the result of a cataclysmic encounter between plane and building which left the plane completely shredded is counter-intuitive. I don't know if it was the correct size to suggest an exit point for one of the engines, but in the public photographic record, there is no shot of an engine there. Just sayin'.

Spoken like a true shill...

- Ø®£Z - since you're so particular about the Pentagon, why don't you tell us how they IDed the passengers there & at Shanksville? No airliner, no seats, no luggage, but they obtained everyone's DNA (organic material)? How???

Who ever though they'd crash a plane into the Pentagon?

"Especially since it wasn't meant to stop an airplane attack." Yeah sure, a ground attack against the Pentagon in D.C., but not an airplane attack on it? Who are you, Condi Rice? Do you think we are fools?





This Fraud "hates" loose change because of Pentagon

"This is one of the main reasons that I hate Loose Change."

Yeah, but you are a fraud & a fool, so who cares what you hate? LOL

This Fraud "hates" loose change because of Pentagon

"This is one of the main reasons that I hate Loose Change."

Yeah, but you are a fraud & a fool, so who cares what you hate? LOL

"Mhm", Mr./Ms. Anonymous

"Mhm", Mr./Ms. Anonymous poster.

And if you take the time to read what I wrote "This is one of the main reasons that I hate Loose Change." you'll notice that that is only one reason why. Unlike what your comment title says.

thats a pathetic excuse

'This is one of the main reasons that I hate Loose Change. Because so many people incessantly repeat the nonsense propagated about the Pentagon.'

What nonsense? The anomalies: that the hole made was about 12 feet, that the eyewitnesses confusing accounts (one had the plane cartwheeling into the pentagon! See Gerard Holmgrens analysis of eyewitnesses), that the US govt refuses to release two video tapes of cameras pointing at the pentagon hole....

Your rejection of Loose Change is sour fact the Loose Change crew is spot on in their evidence based accusations .

As researchers. we know that

As researchers. we know that everything has been a lie. so why not the planes? just because they showed them over and over again to embedded them in our brains, doesnt make them real. the evidence of photo tampering is there. Look how the pictures have been tampered with over and over.
Was at the national press club yesterday in DC. it was great..
Dave kicked ass!
Questions on the planes. do you know what kind of technology they have that has been hidden? no we don't
are the witnesses reliable? no they are not.
asking questions and researching everything is what this community is all about.
to tell people who have looked closely at the pixels and slide by slide that they are not tampered with is not what researchers do. They have been tampered with. YOU ALL KNOW IT. just because you don't like personalities in this movement is not a reason to discredit evidence that has been looked at and many have not nor to many have the expertise in looking at photo evidence.
I see people her maginializing people that bring forth differnt ideas . that is the same tactic as the ruling class uses.
researchers pay attention to crushing effect of the so called planes? it is not there. all the steel is cut. look at it. does it look like a plane hit steel?
As some one said last night take a volks wagon to a semi, and see who wins!
Where is the evidence to support the planes besides the doctored film?
the psyops of the planes are still embedded in our brains. please get over it and research it properly and have a discussion not a flame war!

Fatal Flaw of No-Planers


1. ALL members of the 9/11 Truth movement believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy
2. ALL members of the 9/11 Truth movement believe the government brought down the twin towers, and wants us to believe that it was the impact and subsequent damage from aircraft that was the cause
3. ALL members of the 9/11 Truth movement believe that regardless of what hit or did not hit the towers, THAT THEIRE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO OTHER CAUSES
4. THE ACTUAL CAUSE of the collapse was engineered by the government with no expense spared - for example, controlled demolition from the top down uses up much more explosive material than the traditional bottoms up. However, in order to make it appear that the planes caused the collapse, the cost of the extra explosive material was no object.
5. It is clear that the span of time before the 1st plane hit the WTC and the second was deliberate, in order to ensure that the "whole world was watching" by the time of the second attack, but could not be so long as to further bring into question to inaction of our defenses.
6. Since the use of actual planes to hit the WTC was not intrinsic to the collapse, the basic question is this:


Based upon this logic, it is clear that the NPT is one of the most counter-productive arguments to use with the general public, and those who push it at every opportunity are either delusional, driven by petty spite at other researchers, or actually disinformation agents.


Now there's someone who's taken the effort to teach themselves how to think clearly. Like a bright and sure beacon in the mist ;-) Let's hope reason can win out against spite and delusion!

PLease stop using the word 'believe'

'ALL members of the 9/11 Truth movement believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy'

Who the devil are u? Are a zionist creep?
Please dont use that word 'believe'..the object is to examine the evidence of 9-11 and determine the ause and actors.

Also, that word 'ALL' does not belong in a movement so diverse...

Finally, whats with this 'no-planers???? You mean no 757...

Your fatwa shows a slipshod talent for rash generalisations, devious sleight of hand (no-plane for no-757 hit pentgon), use of reason to crate confusion

So piss off....

You've been duped sonny.

You've been duped sonny. "No Planes" is a goofy meme planted by disinfo shills. You can't expect people to welcome you with open arms when you're running around arguing such a fantastically ridiculous theory. Go study some videography. I recommend Salter's page. If the PM interview proved anything, it's that we should be concentrating less on the theories based on physical evidence and more on unaissable facts like the war games. There are exceptions, like Jones' thermite research and WTC7, but by and large this theorizing gets us nowhere. No planes is even worse in that it's just a laughable piece of disinfo designed to discredit the movement.

While I iwas nitially willing to give no-planers the benefit of the doubt -- that they were just idiots and not agents -- the attacks on Professor Jones coinciding with the attacks by the University are clear indicators that "no-planers" are disinfo.


I'm not so sure about Prof. Jones. Of course, the only ones given nuggets to disprove Jones are "no-planers" or other wack-jobs. I believe it was designed this way.

Shills/ disinfo agents'

Just becasue we want the real evidence of what really happened?. we must look at everything. that is what we are supposed to do. any you people who are driving a wedge into the community calling people names is disgusting. I am sick of it.

You mean names like;

"Plane Hugger"


I agree.

Just say no

>>If the PM interview proved anything, it's that we should be concentrating less on the theories based on physical evidence and more on unaissable facts like the war games.


The Pentagon and the WTC physical evidence claims are night and day.

WTC has massive and redundant photographic and video evidence of virrtually every moment. Now Jones has dust evidence he's analyzing. We have scientists on board. The features of demolition are overwhelming. You can measure, you can do numbers, you can analyze.

The Pentagon has some long-distance shots of a building facade taken through smoke and foam spray after the fact that NO ONE can agree upon. The theory of no plane there is blatantly contradicted by the testimony of dozens and dozens of real eyewitnesses to the scene. It's a swamp.

That is a huge difference. Stay away from Pentagon no-plane stuff. Keep WTC7 and towers demolition physical evidence. The LC boys think that single incidents are the way to describe why there were explosives at the WTC -- this is not how science or law works. Single case examples of someone on a stairwell seeing something are virtually USELESS.

If we have 50 people on stairwells that report the same thing, we have something. LC boys don't understand this basic basic concept about evidence and science. They need to go get a science degree if they're going to BLOCK the real researchers from defending the science points and act as filmmaker stand-ins who can't defend the evidence properly.


- WTC7
- Standdown, not just Mineta, but get the TIMELINE out there to show how long the fighters had to reach their targets, which most people don't know about
- FEATURES of demolition at the WTC which we all saw - extreme pulverization of debris, symmetry, speed of collapse, explosive eruption of debris for massive distances, etc.
- Jones WTC dust / thermite evidence - read his latest slide show presentation for exact findings
- Insider trading
- War Games

NEVER no-Boeings, fake phone calls, fake hijackers, etc.

Just say no to weak and bogus 'evidence'.


'While I iwas nitially willing to give no-planers the benefit of the doubt -- that they were just idiots and not agents -- the attacks on Professor Jones coinciding with the attacks by the University are clear indicators that "no-planers" are disinfo. '

no liar, you never were. And its NOT no-planers its no-757
Jones is not under attack because of the 'no-planers', hes under attack for investigating 9-11..

Because no planes @ WTC is unnecessary sci-fi...

Because no planes @ WTC is unnecessary science fiction & unwarranted speculation, that's why!

You could go on for ever and they would still be in denial!

All those sceptics out there who are constantly trashing "conspiracy theories" will ALWAYS have an answer ready!

They are still feeling the effects of conditioning from the "free press".

If they want to live in the real world and not one that is plagued with lies, deceit and criminial cover-ups, then welcome!! Otherwise, come back when you have grown some common sense!