Feeds:
Artigos
Comentários

Archive for Setembro, 2011

“Why, of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Read Full Post »

Conspirações? Nã! Operation Northwoods? Nunca ouvi falar. Operation Gladio? Só pode ser o título dum filme de série Z…

Read Full Post »

Mais sobre o assunto aqui ou aqui

Read Full Post »

PROJECT CENSORED
MEDIA DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

Unanswered Questions of 9/11: 911 Prewarnings, Building 7 Collapse, Flight 77 and the Pentagon, Israeli Involvement, United Airlines Put-options, War games, Atta and the $100,000, 9/11 Terrorists Still Alive

By Peter Phillips, Ambrosia Pardue, Jessica Froiland, Brooke Finley, Chris Kyle, Rebekah Cohen, and Bridget Thornton with Project Censored and Guest Writer Jack Massen

For many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11 tragedy to be over. The shock of the day is well remembered and terrorist alerts from Homeland Security serve to maintain lasting tensions and fears. The 9/11 Commission report gave many a sense of partial healing and completion — especially given the corporate media’s high praise of the report. There is a natural resistance to naysayers who continue to question the US government’s version of what happened on September 11, 2001. This resistance is rooted in our tendency toward the inability to conceive of people we know as evil; instead evil ones must be others, very unlike ourselves.
We all remember, as young children, scary locations that created deep fears. We might imagine monsters in the closet, dangers in a nighttime backyard, and creepy people in some abandoned house down the street. As we get older we build up the courage to open the closet, or walk out into the backyard to smell the night air. As adults there are still dark closets in our socio-cultural consciousness that make it difficult to even consider the possibility of certain ideas. These fearful ideas might be described as threshold concepts, in that they may be on the borders of discoverability, yet we deny even the potentiality of implied veracity — something is so evil it is completely unimaginable.
A threshold concept facing Americans is the possibility that the 9/11 Commission Report was on many levels a cover-up for the failure of the US government to prevent the tragedy. Deeper past the threshold is the idea that the report failed to address sources of assistance to the terrorists. Investigations into this area might have led to a conclusion that elements of various governments — including our own — not only knew about the attacks in advance, but may have helped facilitate their implementation. The idea that someone in the Government of the United States may have contributed support to such a horrific attack is inconceivable to many. It is a threshold concept that is so frightening that it brings up a state of mind akin to complete unbelievably.
Philosophy/Religion professor David Ray Griffin has recently published his findings on the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission report. Griffin notes that the 9/11 Commission failed to discuss most of the evidence that seems to contradict the official story about 9/11— for example, the report by Attorney David Schippers that states that some FBI agents who contracted him had information about attacks several weeks prior to 9/11, along with evidence that several of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Griffin’s book brings into question the completeness and authenticity of the 9/11 Commission’s work. Griffin questions why extensive advanced warnings from several countries were not acted upon by the administration, how a major institutional investor knew to buy put-options on American and United Airlines before the attack, and how an inexperienced terrorist pilot could have conducted a complicated decent into an unoccupied section of the Pentagon.
Additionally, Griffin notes questions remain on why the 9/11 Commission failed to address the reports that $100,000 was wired to Mohamed Atta from Saeed Sheikh, an agent for Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), under the direction of the head of ISI General Mahmud Ahmed. General Ahmed resigned his position less than one month later. The Times of India reported that Indian intelligence had given US officials evidence of the money transfer ordered by Ahmad and that he was dismissed after the “US authorities sought his removal.”
Also, the 9/11 Commission report failed to address the reasons for the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 more than six hours after the attack. WTC-7 was a 47-story, steel frame building that had only small fires on a few floors. WTC buildings 5 & 6 had much larger fires and did not collapse. This has led a number of critics to speculate that WTC 7 was a planned demolition.
Overall concerns with the official version of 9/11 have been published and discussed by scholars and politicians around the world including: Jim Marrs, Nafeez Ahmed, Michael Ruppert, Cynthia McKinney, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Thompson, Eric Hufschmid and many others (see: http://www.911forthetruth.com). The response to most has been to label these discussions as “conspiracy theories” unworthy of media coverage or further review. Pursuit of a critical analysis of these questions is undermined by the psychological barrier about 9/11 issues as threshold concepts — too awful to even consider. We may be on the borders of discovery regarding the possibility of a great evil within our own government, and perhaps others outside as well. We must step past the threshold and have the courage to ask the questions, demand answers, and support research into all aspects of this American tragedy. Perhaps the closet isn’t as dark and as fearful as we envision. If we don’t courageously look and search into the deepest regions of our fears how can we assure our children and ourselves a safe and honest future?
In Censored 2003, Project Censored lists the most important unanswered questions about 9/11. Most of those questions remain unanswered today. Since 2001, researchers have expanded the depth of concerns and the reliability of information that continue to encourage the questioning of the official government version of the 9/11 tragedy. The following is Project Censored’s effort to cross the threshold and address the questions that are so difficult to imagine.

911 Pre-Warnings
By Jessica Froiland

Paul Thompson’s Terror Timeline, as well as his updated version of the 9/11 timeline located at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org, was the key reference material used. For further information regarding the information presented, see original articles used in Thompson’s research, mentioned throughout.
In a press conference on April 13, 2004, President Bush stated, “We knew he [Osama bin Laden] had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was nobody in our government, and I don’t think [in] the prior government, that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.” [Guardian, 4/15/04] He also said, “Had I any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country.” [White House, 4/13/04; New York Times, 4/18/04 (C)] This statement is in direct conflict with a May 15, 2002, statement wherein the White House admitted that Bush was warned about bin Laden’s desire to attack the U.S. by hijacking aircraft in August 2001. [New York Times, 5/16/02, Washington Post, 5/16/02, Guardian, 5/19/02]. There is a massive and growing body of evidence that asserts that the United States government was not only aware of the possibility of the specific scenario of a terrorist air strike/suicide attack, but that it had also received dozens of credible warnings from both international and domestic sources.
Many countries warned the US of imminent terrorist attacks: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia. Warnings also came from within the United States. Information from our own communications intercepts regarding particular individuals with foreknowledge, previous similarly attempted attacks, and from our own intelligence agents in charge of the investigations of al-Qaeda.
While many of these warning have been covered in the world media a collective analysis and summary context has been avoided by the US corporate media.
The Actual 9/11 Pre-Warnings
1993: An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon raised the possibility that an airplane could be used to bomb national landmarks. [Washington Post, 10/2/01]
1994: Two attacks took place that involved using hijacked planes to crash into buildings, including one by an Islamic militant group. In a third attack, a lone pilot crashed a plane at the White House. [New York Times, 10/3/01]
1996-1999: The CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from Washington writes, “I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04]
1996-2001: Federal authorities had known that suspected terrorists with ties to bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. An Oklahoma City FBI agent sent a memo warning that “large numbers of Middle Eastern males” were getting flight training and could have been planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02] One convicted terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01]
Dec 1998: A Time magazine cover story entitled “The Hunt for Osama,” reported that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet—a strike on Washington or possibly New York City. [Time, 12/21/98]
February 7, 2001: CIA Director Tenet warned Congress in open testimony that “the threat from terrorism is real, it is immediate, and it is evolving.” He said bin Laden and his global network remained “the most immediate and serious threat” to US interests. “Since 1998 bin Laden has declared that all US citizens are legitimate targets,” he said, adding that bin Laden “is capable of planning multiple attacks with little or no warning.” [Associated Press, 2/7/01; Sunday Herald, 9/23/01]
In June of 2001, German intelligence warned the CIA, Britain’s intelligence agency, and Israel’s Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” A later article quoted unnamed German intelligence sources, stating that the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01; Washington Post, 9/14/01; Fox News, 5/17/02]
June 28, 2001: George Tenet wrote an intelligence summary to Condeleezza Rice stating: “It is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks” [Washington Post, 2/17/02]. This warning was shared with “senior Bush administration officials” in early July. [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/18/02]
July 5, 2001: Richard Clark gave a direct warning to the FAA, to increase their security measures. The FAA refused to take such action. [New Yorker, 1/14/02; http://www.cooperativeresearch.org].
June-July 2001: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and national security aides were given briefs with headlines such as “Bin Laden Threats Are Real” and “Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks.” The exact contents of these briefings remain classified, but according to the 9/11 Commission, they consistently predicted upcoming attacks that would occur “on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil, consisting of possible multiple—but not necessarily simultaneous—attacks.” CIA Director Tenet later recalled that by late July, he felt that President Bush and other officials grasped the urgency of what they were being told. [9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B)] But Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, later stated that he felt a great tension, peaking within these months, between the Bush administration’s apparent misunderstanding of terrorism issues and his sense of great urgency. McLaughlin and others were frustrated when inexperienced Bush officials questioned the validity of certain intelligence findings. Two unnamed, veteran Counter Terrorism Center officers deeply involved in bin Laden issues, were so worried about an impending disaster, that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (C)] Dale Watson, head of counter terrorism at the FBI, wished he had “500 analysts looking at Osama bin Laden threat information instead of two.” [9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B)]

(mais…)

Read Full Post »

by J. McMichael
jmcm5@lycos.com

Some of the sources have departed since this essay was originally published on October 21.
Where I could find substitutes, I have indicated them with the word “or”
and a locally cached copy. This revision is published on November 25, 2001.

I tried to be patriotic.

I tried to believe. I watched those quarter mile high buildings fall through their jaw-dropping catastrophes over and over again. I listened to the announcer and the experts explain what had happened. And I worked at my pitiful lack of faith, pounding my skull with the remote control and staring at the flickering images on the TV screen.

But poor mental peasant that I am, I could not escape the teachings of my forefathers. I fear I am trapped in my time, walled off from further scientific understanding by my inability to abandon the Second Millennium mindset.

But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your ignorance.

Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor, collapsed about 10:29 a.m.
South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor, collapsed about 9:50 a.m.;
(http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/info.html ).

Impact locations estimated by Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:
Geographic information for WTC given at http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog
Comprehensive info on WTC with 3D model of complex at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

First Plane hits North Tower Second Plane Hits South Tower

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor

South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting from the windows.

Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane’s collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen — or both.
( http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2 BE2E04.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html ).

But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.

And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is about 99% iron; for melting points of iron and steel, see http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html ,
http://www.weldtechnology.com/rwintroduction.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/rwintroduction.html )

I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.

And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building — 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics, see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html ).

(……..)

Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith’s forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry that much fuel?

Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ): “Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C — hot enough to melt steel floor supports.”

That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F), (see http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html ), but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).

This might be explained as a reporter’s mistake — 800 to 900 C is the temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, steel, and relevant temperatures discussed at http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm .)

But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold, and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise, “Structural Engineer.” Would this professional individual permit himself to be misquoted in a global publication?

Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston area civil and structural engineers: “I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements — floor trusses and columns — so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse.” Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could melt steel — though he does not venture a specific temperature for the fire ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam ).

I feel it coming on again — that horrible cynicism that causes me to doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. Please just think of this essay as a plea for help, and do NOT let it interfere with your own righteous faith. The collapse of America’s faith in its leaders must not become another casualty on America’s skyline.

In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm , http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm , and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html ).

WTC structure illustration
Images cached from BBC page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ) and HERA report by G. Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf ). Items indicated in Clifton image (right): 13. Exterior columns; 17. Interior columns; 20. Usable office space
BBC News Image (left) is misleading:

A “beam” is always horizontal, “columns” are vertical. The vertical steel supports in the core were columns.
The central columns occupied about 25% of the floor area, not 10% as is shown on the left.
The central columns were not encased in a single block of concrete, but interspersed with elevator shafts

Typical floor plan of WTC tower (from
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm )

The outside shape of the towers was almost square, but the inner core was more rectangular. Pictures from the early phases of construction photos show how the rectangular inner cores were oriented in the finished buildings ( http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi ). Note that the north tower core was aligned east-west, and the south tower core was aligned north-south.
Pat for World Trade Center
This drawing shows the two WTC towers (black) and the paths of the attacking aircraft (red). Within the profile of each tower, the shape of the central core is shown by the green rectangle. WTC buildings 1 through 6 are numbered, WTC 7, north of 6, is not shown.

With the central core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure. This resulting structure was so stable that the top of the towers swayed only three feet in a high wind. The architects called it a “tube-within-a-tube design.”

The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below, and so on like dominos (see http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/harmon ).

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation for that kind of stupidity — particularly if there are casualties.

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I’ve worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength).

According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.

Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1540044w.gif ). Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge — inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems — all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time — and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides — else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cardsin the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

(mais…)

Read Full Post »

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)(Updated Sep. 11, 2009)
An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.

Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

The Statement’s list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Global Exchange’s Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O’Meara.

Page Update 9/9/2009:

The Statement

We Want Real Answers About 9/11

On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and “consciously failed” to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.

In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA’s radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.

As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

(mais…)

Read Full Post »

USA
In television, the vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by nine corporations: News Corporation (the Fox family of channels), The Walt Disney Company (which includes the ABC, ESPN and Disney brands), CBS Corporation, Viacom, Comcast (which includes the NBC brands), Time Warner, Discovery Communications, E. W. Scripps Company, Cablevision, or some combination thereof (examples including the aforementioned The CW as well as A&E Networks, which is a consortium of Comcast and Disney).
Mais aqui

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called “alarmist” for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote “in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media” — controlling almost all of America’s newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market.

In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.
Aqui

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Análisis del informe de la «comisión investigadora» presidencial
115 mentiras sobre los atentados del 11 septiembre

por David Ray Griffin

Sigue sin haber una versión oficial sobre los atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001. No se ha abierto investigación judicial alguna sobre los propios atentados ni la menor investigación parlamentaria. No hay más que una versión gubernamental recogida en un informe presentado por una comisión presidencial. El profesor David Ray Griffin, autor de una obra de referencia en la que estudia ese informe, encontró en ese texto 115 mentiras aquí enumeradas.
Rede Voltaire

Para cada mentira nos referiremos a los análisis que hace el profesor David Ray Griffin en su obra Omisiones y manipulaciones de la Comisión Investigadora. Las cifras que aparecen entre paréntesis se refieren a las páginas de la edición original estadounidense de ese libro.

1. Omisión de la prueba de que por lo menos 6 de los supuestos secuestradores aéreos (entre ellos Waled al-Shehri, acusado por la Comisión de haber apuñaleado a una azafata del vuelo UA11 antes del choque del avión contra la torre norte del World Trade Center) están vivos actualmente (19-20).

2. Omisión de pruebas sobre Mohamed Atta (como su pronunciada inclinación por la bebida, por la carne de puerco y las exhibiciones eróticas privadas o lap dances) que contradicen las afirmaciones de la Comisión de que Atta se había convertido en un fanático religioso (20-21).

3. Confusión voluntariamente creada alrededor de las pruebas que demuestran que Hani Hanjur era tan mal piloto que nunca hubiera sido capaz de lograr estrellar un avión de pasajeros contra el Pentágono (21-22).

4. Omisión del hecho que las listas de pasajeros (flight manifests) que se hicieron públicas no contenían ningún nombre árabe (23).

5. Omisión del hecho que nunca, ni antes ni después del 11 de septiembre, se ha visto que un incendio haya provocado el desplome total de un edificio con estructura de acero (25).

6. Omisión del hecho que los incendios de las Torres Gemelas no fueron ni extremadamente extensos ni especialmente intensos y que ni siquiera duraron mucho tiempo comparados con otros incendios ocurridos en rascacielos (con estructuras) similares sin que estos últimos se desplomaran (25-26).

7. Omisión del hecho que, dada la hipótesis que el incendio provocó los derrumbes, la torre sur, que fue golpeada después que la torre norte y afectada por un incendio de menor intensidad, no debería haber sido la primera en desplomarse (26).

8. Omisión del hecho que el edificio n°7 del World Trade Center (contra el cual no se estrelló ningún avión y que sólo sufrió pequeños incendios muy localizados) también se desplomó, hecho sobre el cual la Agencia Federal para el Manejo de Situaciones de Emergencia (FEMA) confesó que no podía ofrecer ninguna explicación (26).

9. Omisión del hecho que el derrumbe de las Torres Gemelas (y el del edificio n°7) presenta al menos 10 características de haber sido producto de una demolición controlada (26-27).

10. Afirmación según la cual el núcleo de la estructura de cada una de las Torres Gemelas era «un pozo de acero vacío», afirmación que niega la presencia de 47 columnas de acero macizo que eran en realidad el centro de cada torre. Según la teoría del «apilamiento de pisos» (the «pancake theory») que explica los derrumbes, varias decenas de metros de esas columnas de acero macizo debieran haber quedado en pie (27-28).

11. Omisión de la declaración de Larry Silverstein [el propietario del WTC], declaración según la cual el propio Silverstein en coordinación con los bomberos decidió «demoler» –en lenguaje técnico (to «pull»)– el edificio n°7 (28).

12. Omisión del hecho que el acero de los edificios del WTC fue rápidamente recogido del lugar de los hechos y enviado al extranjero por vía marítima ANTES de que pudiera ser analizado en busca de huellas de explosivos (30).

13. Omisión del hecho que el edificio n°7 había sido evacuado antes de su derrumbe, lo implica que la razón que se dio oficialmente para acelerar lo más posible la recogida del acero [en aquel lugar] (porque podía haber sobrevivientes bajo los escombros) no tenía ningún sentido en el caso de este edificio (30).

14. Omisión de la declaración del alcalde R. Giuliani quien dijo que se le advirtió de antemano que el WTC iba a derrumbarse (30-31).

15. Omisión del hecho que Marvin Bush, hermano del presidente estadounidense, y su primo Wirt Walker III eran los directores de la compañía encargada de garantizar la seguridad del WTC (31-32).

16. Omisión del hecho que el ala oeste del Pentágono, [la misma que fue impactada el 11 de septiembre], era precisamente, por diversas razones, la que menos posibilidades tenía de ser blanco de los terroristas de al-Qaeda (33-34).

17. Omisión de toda discusión tendiente a determinar si los daños que sufrió el Pentágono correspondían realmente con los daños que podría haber provocado el impacto de un Boeing 757 desplazándose a varios cientos de kilómetros por hora (34).

18. Omisión del hecho que existen fotos que demuestran que la fachada del ala oeste no se derrumbó hasta 30 minutos después del impacto y que el orificio de entrada es demasiado pequeño para el diámetro de un Boeing 757 (34).

19. Omisión de todo testimonio contradictorio sobre la presencia o la ausencia de pedazos visibles de un Boeing 757, ya sea dentro o fuera del Pentágono (34-36).

20. Ausencia total de discusión tendiente a determinar si el Pentágono disponía de un sistema de defensa antimisiles capaz de derribar un avión de pasajeros, aún cuando la Comisión sugirió que los terroristas de al-Qaeda decidieron no atacar una central nuclear precisamente porque pensaron que esta dispondría de ese tipo de defensa (36).

21. Omisión del hecho que las imágenes provenientes de diferentes cámaras (incluyendo las de la gasolinera que se encuentra frente al Pentágono, confiscadas por el FBI inmediatamente después del impacto) podrían ayudar a determinar qué fue realmente lo que impactó el Pentágono (37-38).

22. Omisión de la alusión del secretario de Defensa D. Rumsfeld a «un misil[ utilizado] para golpear [el Pentágono]» (39).

23. Aprobación aparente de la respuesta, totalmente insatisfactoria, a la pregunta tendiente a saber por qué los agentes del Servicio Secreto permitieron que el presidente Bush permaneciera en la escuela de Sarasota cuando, según la versión oficial, deberían haber pensado que un avión secuestrado podía tener esa misma escuela como blanco (41-44).

24. Fracaso en explicar por qué el Servicio Secreto no pidió una escolta de aviones de caza para [el avión presidencial] Air Force One (43-46).

25. Afirmaciones según las cuales en el momento en que el cortejo presidencial llegó a la escuela [de Sarasota], ninguno de los asistentes sabía que varios aviones habían sido secuestrados (47-48).

26. Omisión del informe según el cual el secretario de Justicia John Ashcroft había recibido una advertencia para que dejara de viajar en líneas aéreas comerciales antes del 11 de septiembre (50).

(mais…)

Read Full Post »

Aqui
aqui
aqui
aqui
aqui
aqui
aqui

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »