Good News Vancouver Sun
webcast news
contribute an article | administration | This is an OPEN PUBLISHING newswire
email this story | download as PDF | print article
9-11: George W. Bush had nothing to do with it ... did he? (english)
by Vancouver Sun 6:39pm Mon Feb 25 '02 (Modified on 5:54pm Sat Apr 6 '02)
"say what?"
The truth is out there ... right?
At first, it all seemed so obvious. It was those Islamic terrorists. Osama
bin Laden. Mullah Omar. George W. Bush had nothing to do with it ... did he?
============================================================================
Ian Mulgrew
Vancouver Sun
Saturday, February 23, 2002
AP Files / President George W. Bush continued speaking to kids after the
attack ... hmm.
Reuter Files / The World Trade Center towers explode and burn after being
hit by planes Sept. 11.
"The right wing benefited so much from September 11 that, if I were still a
conspiratorialist, I would believe they'd done it."
Norman Mailer
When the paladin of Camelot joined the fray, I knew 9/11 had become the
Kennedy Assassination of the 21st century -- a real-life X-Files episode
occurring before my eyes. Like those X-Files accounts of aliens living in
oil deposits, this was a story with such staggering implications the
mainstream media are loath to go near it. The question isn't who killed the
president -- it's who piloted the airplanes that slammed into the World
Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and the Pennsylvanian countryside.
Just as there remains lingering doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald fired a burst
of fatally accurate shots from the Texas Book Depository, so there is
skepticism that cells of Islamic terrorists secretly coordinated and
simultaneously commandeered four commercial jetliners.
The culprit responsible for the Sept. 11 attack is now rumoured to be the
same one who lurked behind the grassy knoll: the oil-dependent U.S.
military-industrial complex.
Not everyone is ready to accept this -- a substitute teacher in North
Vancouver's Sherwood Park elementary school has been called on the mat for
suggesting to Grade 5 students the Central Intelligence Agency might have
been involved in 9/11.
And at last count, there were a dozen U.S. Congressional Committees
investigating the tragedies and how such an intelligence and security
breakdown was allowed to occur.
But President George W. Bush and his right-hand man, Vice President Dick
Cheney, have taken the unprecedented step of trying to restrict those
investigations, pouring fuel on the simmering conspiracy theories being
propagated in alternative publications, on wingnut Web sites and among some
serious media outlets.
In Germany, a former minister of technology, Andreas von Buelow, made
headlines when in an interview he dismissed the U.S. government's
explanation that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network is responsible for the
attacks. His own explanation implicated the White House.
"I wonder why many questions are not asked," von Buelow said. "For 60
decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter
planes stay on the ground; 48 hours later, however, the FBI presented a list
of suicide attackers. Within 10 days, it emerged that seven of them were
still alive."
In Britain, a flight engineer has published a detailed paper asserting the
U.S. took the joysticks out of the pilots' hands using a method of remote
control developed by the American military in the 1970s.
In the U.S. and Canada, independent publisher and editor Mike Ruppert (a
former LAPD cop who hates the CIA) has drawn huge crowds to his two-hour
lecture in which he states baldly that the U.S. government was complicit in
the attacks and had foreknowledge. He opens his documentary presentation
with an offer of $1,000 US to anyone who can prove any of his sources were
misrepresented or inauthentic.
A former U.S. government agent also has given interviews claiming the CIA
has been dealing with Osama bin Laden since 1987.
According to those who do not believe in The Lone Gunman, the truth is as
plain as the nose on your face: Sept. 11's terrorist acts were planned and
paid for by the CIA to enable the Bush Administration to "legitimately" bomb
Afghanistan into submission on behalf of the oil industry.
After all, everyone knows the Bush family has strong and long acknowledged
ties to the oil industry, as do other senior members of the administration.
Cheney until recently was president of a company servicing the oil patch.
National Security adviser Condoleeza Rice was a manager for Chevron.
Commerce and Energy Secretaries Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham worked for
Tom Brown, another oil giant.
Follow the money, as they say, and you'll find the smoking gun.
Under this scenario, conspiracy theorists say a pliant Afghan regime was
essential because of plans to pipe central Asian oil across Afghanistan. And
there is a harvest of coincidence and contradiction to feed such imaginings.
Consider first that the intelligence breakdown that led to 9/11 appears to
have been a consequence of the Bush Administration telling the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to back off on its investigation of Middle Eastern
terrorism. A senior FBI investigator resigned from the agency, noisily
claiming its main obstacle in the investigation was Big Oil's political
influence. In an ironic twist of fate, the agent died in the World Trade
Center.
(Fox Mulder, was that you? Is that why they cancelled the series?)
There also are recurring reports the CIA station chief in Dubai met with bin
Laden only seven weeks before 9/11 while he was laid up for surgery. (The
CIA denies this, but of course you can't believe anything it says.)
Now think about this for a second: The Independent in London questions how
Bush could claim in two public appearances to have seen the first plane hit
the first tower long before any such TV footage was broadcast. The paper
also asks why Dubya continued sitting with elementary school students after
the second tower was hit and he'd been told, "America is under attack."
Very mysterious, when standard procedure for such a situation is to whisk
the president away to safety. Unless -- and here is the nub -- unless he
knew something more than we did that morning. As the Independent asked,
"What television station was HE watching?"
This is rich stuff for those who see Them under the bed, especially since
the financial miasma melds nicely with the already swirling rumour and
insinuation.
In the days before the attacks, there was unusually heavy trading in airline
and related stocks using a market tactic called a "put option" that
essentially bets that a stock will decline in value. If you were Osama,
buying puts would be a great way to boost the value of your investment
portfolio.
And sure enough, unusually high numbers of put options were purchased in
early September for the stocks of AMR Corp. and UAL Corp., the parents of
American and United -- each of which had two planes hijacked. The U.S.
government is now investigating suspicious trading in 38 companies directly
affected by the events of Sept. 11.
The initial survey of beneficiaries, however, turns out not to include one
tall, dark-haired, olive-skinned, Allah-loving, Saudi-born sheik. Mainly the
profiteers were blue-chip, establishment, red-white-and-blue Americans, some
of whom were tenants in the collapsed twin towers, such as Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter, Lehman Brothers and the Bank of America, major airlines, cruise
companies, General Motors Corp., Raytheon and others. Several insurance
companies are also on the 38-name list U.S. and Canadian financial firms
were asked to review and compare with their records for any unusual patterns.
(Which may say more about who plays the market than anything else, but why
quibble with the quixotic?)
Cynics are also questioning the incredible speed with which evidence in the
WTC collapse is being destroyed. Never in the history of fire
investigations, they say, has evidence been destroyed before exhaustive
investigations are complete.
(Say what? Two skyscrapers' worth of debris should be warehoused?)
And then there were the curious developments swirling around the anthrax
public health hysteria triggered shortly after 9/11. Even dullards can
appreciate that anthrax sent to a top Democrat and to the U.S. media helped
unify the nation behind the war effort while literally shutting down
Congress -- a remarkably useful outcome for Dubya and his gang.
Indeed, specialists in biological warfare say the anthrax appears to be a
U.S. military strain and the culprit a disgruntled American scientist who
possesses a rare combination of laboratory skills that make him (they
believe it's a man) relatively easy to identify. Hmmm.
And who didn't smell a bad odour two weeks ago when Tennessee driver's
licence examiner Katherine Smith died in Memphis under "most unusual and
suspicious" circumstances. One day before her arraignment on charges she
conspired to provide phoney licences to five Arabs tied by the FBI to the
9/11 attacks, her car crashed into a utility pole. The car was only slightly
damaged, the gas tank was full and intact, but the vehicle was immediately
engulfed in flames.
As one report pointed out, Smith and the car interior apparently were doused
with gasoline, which would certainly qualify in my book as at least
"suspicious."
And Memphis ... Memphis? Wasn't that the same place a noted Harvard
bio-warfare expert "fell" off a bridge in December?
Scully!
The truth is out there. I know it. You too can help find it.
If you would like an activist kit to get involved in urging a full public
investigation of 9/11 and its aftermath, reply to findtruth 40@hotmail.com
with "Send kit."
But be warned.
The Pentagon has just established a new Office of Strategic Influence that
calls for the planting of false stories in the foreign press, phoney e-mails
from disguised addresses and other covert activities to manipulate public
opinion.
This could be one of them.
Ian Mulgrew claims to be a Vancouver Sun reporter.
© Copyright 2002 Vancouver Sun
www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/st...
============================
add your own comments
Bush didn't do it. (english)
by Lefty 6:49pm Mon Feb 25 '02
I don't buy it.
OK, Bush needed a "reason" to invade Afghanistan. Trillions in oil, gas that
he wants so he had to have something happen to get the American people
behind him.
But - it was totally unnecessary for something as major as the WTC attack.
The "murder" of some prominent citizen by Afghan people, rebels, soldiers,
whatever, would probably have worked.
The "discovery" of a nuclear weapon in NY, DC, whatever that the feds could
"trace back" to Bin Laden, that was heroically removed and dismantled would
scare the living hell out of the American people and provide the support he
had to have.
Any of a number of things would have worked what with the American people
being so damned gullible...
Nah, why would he destroy buildings that were home of big corporations? Or
damage the already sick economy in the US?
I don't buy it.
BTW, I am not defending him. I fear Bush as much as the next liberal.
I just don't buy it.
=====================
I DO buy it (english)
by Realist 7:43pm Mon Feb 25 '02
It had to be spectacular enough to totally stun people so that the rest of
the agenda could go forward.......haven't you noticed what else happened,
like WHERE DID YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES GO? How else would Congress pass such
outrageous legislation WITHOUT EVEN HAVING READ IT. Britain and Canada
followed suit with hardly the blinking of an eye. You don't get that kind of
thing happening without prior planning.... it takes time to write new laws.
Then we have the fact that a Naval Intelligence officer in jail in Toronto
and fighting extradition, wrote down the scenario and possible targets in
August and gave the sealed envelope to his jailers. He's been in jail since
2000.
The Bushes have run so many scams that they are overconfident. It's time to
bring the dopedealing, assasinating, bankbusting, genocidal crew down.
===========================
May I ? (english)
by zorro 7:44pm Mon Feb 25 '02
Bush maybe didn't do it but he certainly took it well (on camera that is)
when he was told about the first collision, without mentioning how he
took the second one.
my opinion ? the average terrorist as a chance of being a better person
than Bush.
--------------------
Tanks for finding this article! (english)
by Bingo 7:46pm Mon Feb 25 '02
bingoc142C@hushmail.com
Thanks for the excellent article!
wow, props to Vancouver Sun (english)
by cog dissonance 8:04pm Mon Feb 25 '02
Whatever the "truth" is, there are way too many questions and weird
circumstances surrounding the events of 9/11. The fact that Bush jr. wants
the investigation to be limited does add fuel to the fire. Why the hell
would he want a limited investigation into the most devastating attack on
U.S. soil ever? I mean, c'mon.
Also, look at what the Bush admin. has gotten from this attack, and remember
who makes up the adminstration. The USA Patriot Act, huge increases in
Defense spending (and huge contracts to Lockheed Martin and Boeing), a
stifling of what was becoming a bigger and bigger and more disruptive
international "anti-globalization" movement, huge increase in approval
ratings, and not to mention a "stable" regime (i.e. puppet gov't) in
Afghanistan and their hands on Caspian Sea oil. Hamid Karzai, former Unocal
employee? How ridiculous is that? And not a peep from the media!
doesn't look good for the US govt (english)
by open mind 12:14am Tue Feb 26 '02
======================
Friendly Fire
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War
With CubaBy David Ruppe
N E W Y O R K, May 1 — In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders
reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of
terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible
assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high
seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating
violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the
international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new
leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military
casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and
blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful
wave of national indignation."
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new
book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's
largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were
not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in
March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and
have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held
secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because
they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public
will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick
the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for
what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government,"
writes Bamford.
The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John
Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false
pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.
Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to
provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all
Cuba [sic]."
The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders
to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist
leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.
The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been
a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide
firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.
"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and
international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently
neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops
deployed to drive out Castro.
Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military —
not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.
"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The
only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were
doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically
what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."
'Over the Edge'
The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen.
Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to
McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the
military.
Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is
not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly
there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba,
Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as
chairman and transferred to another job.
The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military
leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy
administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on
communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American
society about their military overstepping its bounds.
There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates
to vote conservative during the election.
And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing
military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on
right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the
"education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been
uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between
Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods,
says Bamford.
"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes,
"Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."
Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan
"pretext" operations at least through 1963.
One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country
so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the
Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an
act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to
fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot
down as a pretext for a war.
"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and
they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he
says.
After 40 Years
Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of
the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a
conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.
As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release,
Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government
records related to the assassination.
The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.
Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint
Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But
somehow, these remained.
"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says
Bamford.
============================
dont buy it its given to you (english)
by chrisp 9:03pm Fri Apr 5 '02
roundtableof9@cs.com
If you dont buy it then they've succeeded in sitting back in their Italian
leather chairs with their 100 dollar cigars laughing cause they can shake
off any fleas that may be on their tail. Their biggest ally is the fact that
people would not believe that "they" would go THAT far. They have to present
the unpresentable. Shock therapy so to speak. Is there anything that could
top the trade centers? Trillions in oil and now Bush has a route out.
Period. People want to put the 9-11 mess behind them and "not let them get
us down". If they only knew.
The brotherhood of satan is impressive and well armed. If youre not for them
your against them. And if youre one of them then your dirty all the way. The
ebst revenge is living well though. This is all scripted and in the end Bush
and his cronies like kissinger and tony blair and the like will be shuffled
thru the doors of hell.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and
thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
I'd give anything if this weren't true. (english)
by Al Smith 10:05am Sat Apr 6 '02
Info@MajorityVoice.com
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been
sold gradually to the masses over generations,
the truth will seem utterly preposterous
and its speaker a raving lunatic."
--Dresden James
I'd give literally anything to believe that our governments are simply
benevolent managers of our affairs ~ only catering to the true will and
needs of "The People." But, sadly, it just isn't true. Government will never
solve our problems. In fact, government defends our problems from threats of
solution because they thrive on them! Solutions are impossible from within
the system, because "their" system is the problem. Our representatives
represent literally everyone but Us.
Most Americans are ignorant of the fact that, to the Federal Government, "We
The People" are not "Citizens," not "citizens" and not even human beings. We
have been legally demoted to the status of "persons," defined by Federal
legalese as "FICTITIOUS CORPORATE ENTITIES WITH NO VOLITIONAL MINDS."
Americans have the status of persons serving in the military. Only the
Constitution no longer protects the average American. We only have the
rights granted to us by Congress.
Tyranny and the sociopathic tyrants who create and maintain it through their
perverted politicial systems are our true enemies. "The People" of the
entire world have been skillfully divided, conquered and silenced by the
self-appointed ruling classes over many generations. We're not apathetic.
We're simply powerless to affect meaningful change as disenfranchised,
alienated individuals.
The key which will unlock our rightful power over our governments has always
been (and still is) our unity. All we have ever needed to do to control
"them" is to unite behind one single issue, because we outnumber "them" by a
million to one. Now for the first time in history, through the Internet,
mankind has the technology to facilitate our unity and true democracy. Short
of devine intervention, real democracy is our only hope.
Unless we unite to define and proclaim our true will, for all to know,
Government will continue to suck more of our wealth from civilization and
more freedom, meaning and opportunity from our lives. Baring our unity,
nothing will change.
Our plan to enable "Us" to control our governments is at
www.MajorityVoice.com. We now have a real choice: Real Democracy or more
demockery.
www.MajorityVoice.com
================================
Zoom of Pentagon Crash Security Camera. (english)
by David Bosankoe 5:54pm Sat Apr 6 '02
The zoom can be found at:
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif
This shows a small plane and not a B 757 crashing into the Pentagon.
For a comparison, I have modelled the fusilage of a B 757 onto the first
frame over the small jet.
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/boeingcam.jpg
My homepage is available in french :-
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/indexfrance.htm
www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/
|