Jonathan Rees, who blogs here, has an excellent article on Eugene V. Debs' Canton speech.
If you're interested in reading a little thing I wrote on early forestry in the United States, you can find it here. A longer and more complete version of this will be coming out in Forest History Today sometime next year.
What's on your mind?
[Update] Here's a great article on Palin and the history of the American Frontier by Katherine Roberts in NYT. Hat tip.
Labels: Jeremy Young
The United States government version of 9/11 the facts are moving, the Office of the President George W. Bush has just changed the facts of the 9/11 mystery again.
On 7th Anniversary Of Attacks, White House Claims Bin Laden Was Not The ‘Mastermind’ of Sept. 11
Tomorrow marks the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In a press conference today, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the administration’s ongoing efforts to find Osama bin Laden, calling him the “mastermind” of 9/11. Perino interrupted the reporter, claiming bin Laden was not the true “mastermind” of the attacks:
Q But Osama bin Laden is the one that — you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 –
PERINO: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he’s sitting in jail right now.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/...y-white-house/
Jesse, I don't take that to be changing the official facts, but rather choosing to stress one part of those facts over another.
Basically, they're haggling over what "mastermind" means. Khalid Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11 in that he came up with the original plan. But of course the reporter was trying to get Perino to talk about where Bin Laden is, which she doesn't want to because the administration isn't doing anything to find him.
Setting aside whether one accepts the official story -- I do, you don't, that's fine -- I don't think this is a deviation from the official story.
My Executive summary on 9/11
By: Jesse Hemingway
The unraveling of the 9/11 operation is very complex I would have to say an extremely complex operation. Here is my take on the scope of what happened. 9/11 was the crescendo moment stemming back to 1952(when the oil industry hand picked Eisenhower?s cabinet). We have all had time to evaluate, re-evaluate, and evaluate the facts and disinformation surrounding the spectacle of 9/11. I have no hesitation to state that 9/11 was the catalyst to gain control of the remaining enormous untapped oil reserves of Iraq and Iran as evidence is coming in day by day. Saudi Arabia had knowingly misrepresented their oil reserves during both the Bush and Clintons presidencies from 1988 ? 2001 and the reality is coming home to roost NOW. I personally view 9/11 and the events prior to September 11, 2001 and ongoing as three concentric circles; each of the circles represent the following elements of the operation. Each of the elements would have their own internal motives for participation never to be unearthed though.
1.. The oil industrial complex, bush administration, and PNAC
2..Elements within Israel; as means to ensure long term stability in that region and a source of long term finical gains
3.. Sunni faction of Islam (Saudi Arabia the Royal Family) to ensure their
on going wealth while destroying the Shiite faction that sits on the
remaining untapped oil reserves
The oil industry needed to gain control of the oil flow in that region
similar to the method Enron employed by manipulating energy prices in the United States. This was necessary to recapture wealth from China and India as their economies were expanding after 9/11 they became forced to pay triple the price for their oil. Israel would have been reduced to do the dirty work in the operation they had no resources to bring to the operation but willing to become part of it via elements within PNAC. Israel would gain a stake in the operation by wiring the World Trade Centers also the leverage of the knowledge of the scope of the operation (Mukasey and AIPAC) . The Sunnis wealth is dwindling as their oil reserves are rapidly decreasing; while facing the reality that the Shiites would increase in power in the region with their oil reserves. This would cause a serious change in the balance of power in that region while both Islamic sects considering each other as heretical doctrine and natural enemies for thousands of years. The United States would destroy the Sunnis natural enemy for them that's why they are presently stuck on the 70/30 split of the oil.
1.. The oil industrial complex, bush administration, and PNAC
"The IEA, employing a team of 25 analysts, is trying to shed light on some of the industry's best-kept secrets by assessing the health of major fields scattered from Venezuela and Mexico to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. The fields supply over two-thirds of daily world production."
"The findings won't be definitive. Big producers including Venezuela, Iran and China aren't cooperating, and others like Saudi Arabia typically treat the detailed production data of individual fields as closely guarded state secrets, so it's not clear how specific their contributions will be."
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121139527250011387-lMyQjAxMDI4MTIxMjMyOTI1Wj.html
In the chart titled in the above article ?Major Output? as of 2007 the total number of barrels of oil in reserves of the top 10 oil fields is 400 billon barrels. Of the 400 billion of the total reserves in the Saudi Arabia oil fields represent 216 billion barrels or 54%. During the 1990?s when oil was in the price range of $20.00 - $25.00 a barrel Saudi Arabia may have over stated their reserves to borrow against their oil reserves. If in fact this occurred for every 10% over stated by Saudi Arabia represents 5% of all major reserves or 5.4 billion barrels. I would also surmise that minimum over estimates would be in the minimum range of 30% do to the accuracy of the nature of oil a liquid underground would have a significant margin of error or deviation. At $25.00 a barrel that would yield a $405 billon over estimate in oil reserves by Saudi Arabia using a conservative figure of 30%.
After 9/11 and at the onset of the Iraq invasion by the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. Using strictly a business decision model these figures would make the invasion of Iraq a low risk venture. (That is excluding all loss of human life and human injuries) Since the total and complete mismanagement of this scheme the cost of oil has a direct relationship to the cost of the war. If in fact this was a real war on terror then the analogous cost of the oil and war would not have a correlated effect. This also has a strong indication that oil reserves have been inaccurate long before 9/11
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html
More fuel:Further Evidence of Saudi Arabia's Oil Production Decline
Posted by Khebab on April 10, 2007 - 11:30am
Saudi Arabia's Decline means that the World's Production will not supply the Forecast Demand
The forecast in Figure 1 assumes that old small fields such as Khursaniyah (AFK), Khurais and Manifa can deliver huge increases in production. Figure 5 shows these forecasts to be overoptimistic (Matt Simmons would probably agree).
It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia will ever produce more than 8.5 million bpd (Crude Oil and Lease Condensate). This means that if any supply disruption or sudden demand increase occurs, do not assume that Saudi Arabia can be ?called? upon to supply extra oil. Assume that oil price shocks are likely to occur starting the middle of this year as shown below.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2429
Saudi Arabian oil declines 8% in 2006
Posted by Stuart Staniford on March 2, 2007
The second and more natural interpretation is even more disturbing: the mighty Ghawar oil field is already in decline, and the Saudis don't want anyone to know.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325/
Ex-British Army Chief Confirms Peak Oil Motive for War; Praises Fraudulent Reconstruction Programs
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Brigadier-General James Ellery CBE, the Foreign Office?s Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad since 2003, confirmed the critical role of Iraqi oil reserves in potentially alleviating a ?world shortage? of conventional oil. The Iraq War has helped to head off what Brigadier Ellery described as ?the tide of Easternisation? ? a shift in global political and economic power toward China and India, to whom goes ?two thirds of the Middle East?s oil.?
After the 2004 transfer of authority to an interim Iraqi civilian administration, Brigadier Ellery set up and ran the 700-strong security framework operation in support of the US-funded Reconstruction of Iraq. His remarks were made as part of a presentation at the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London, sponsored by the Iraqi Youth Foundation, on 22nd April.
World Oil Shortage
?The reason that oil reached $117 a barrel last week?, he said, ?was less to do with security of supply? than World shortage.? He went on to emphasize the strategic significance of Iraqi petroleum fields in relation to the danger of production peaks being breached in major oil reserves around the world. ?Russia?s production has peaked at 10 million barrels per day; Africa has proved slow to yield affordable extra supplies ? from Sudan and Angola for example. Thus the only near-term potential increase will be from Iraq,? he said. Whether Iraq began ?favoring East or West? could therefore be ?de-stabilizing? not only ?within the region but to nations far beyond which have an interest.?
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/text/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4117
If you follow this network back all three of the concentric circles had made dramatic inroads during the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia was matching dollar for dollar that the United States was covertly funding the Mujaheddin (Only a fool would believe that Osama Bin Laden flipped from his position as the director and conduit for the Saudi Arabia capital venture of matching dollar for dollar with the United States investment during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan operation. To become a born again Islamic fundamentalist nut Osama Bin Laden would have been killed by the real Islamic fundamentalists) {think about it please}. These entire funds were transferred through Israel to purchase the weapons for the Mujaheddin. The network existed they just need a plan to pull off any future heists. This means that the Mujaheddin had been infiltrated by Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia from day one. This would mean that the Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia are really Al-Qaeda.
Information I needed to come to My Executive summary on 9/11.
Recent Factual Data from the Saudi Arabia oil reserves to establish a clear motive for igniting such a horrendous act on the American people on 9/11/2001. We can now understand what the message was at Vice President Richard Cheney?s secret energy meetings ?Saudi Arabia is nearly out of their oil reserves? Iran and Iraq oil reserves have been manipulated since 1954 by United States intervention and have been kept off the market. So lets Getter done.
Abdullah Azzam was the real leader of the movement Osama Bin Laden was the front man for Mossad. CIA, and Saudi Arabia. Abdullah Azzam knew Osama Bin Laden worked for Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia this is why he was executed on November 24, 1989 because Abdullah Azzam could bring down the Osama Bin Laden front. The new and improved version of Al-Qaeda sponsored by Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia came to fruition. That is why attorney general Michael Mukasey (Mossad agent) prosecuted the first WTC bombers because he knew they were set up. Now Mukasey is his position to protect his true interests and make sure George W. Bush does not screw up the scheme
From 9/11 Commission Chapter 2.3
footnote: Abdullah Azzam was the real leader "Though Azzam had been considered number one in the MAK, by August 1988 Bin Ladin was clearly the leader (emir) of al Qaeda."
A decade of conflict in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989, gave Islamist extremists a rallying point and training field. A Communist government in Afghanistan gained power in 1978 but was unable to establish enduring control. At the end of 1979, the Soviet government sent in military units to ensure that the country would remain securely under Moscow's influence. The response was an Afghan national resistance movement that defeated Soviet forces.19
Young Muslims from around the world flocked to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in what was seen as a "holy war"-jihad-against an invader. The largest numbers came from the Middle East. Some were Saudis, and among them was Usama Bin Ladin.
Twenty-three when he arrived in Afghanistan in 1980, Bin Ladin was the seventeenth of 57 children of a Saudi construction magnate. Six feet five and thin, Bin Ladin appeared to be ungainly but was in fact quite athletic, skilled as a horseman, runner, climber, and soccer player. He had attended Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia. By some accounts, he had been interested there in religious studies, inspired by tape recordings of fiery sermons by Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian and a disciple of Qutb. Bin Ladin was conspicuous among the volunteers not because he showed evidence of religious learning but because he had access to some of his family's huge fortune. Though he took part in at least one actual battle, he became known chiefly as a person who generously helped fund the anti-Soviet jihad.20
April 1988 brought victory for the Afghan jihad. Moscow declared it would pull its military forces out of Afghanistan within the next nine months. As the Soviets began their withdrawal, the jihad's leaders debated what to do next.
Bin Laden and Azzam agreed that the organization successfully created for Afghanistan should not be allowed to dissolve. They established what they called a base or foundation (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad.24 Though Azzam had been considered number one in the MAK, by August 1988 Bin Laden was clearly the leader (emir) of al Qaeda. This organization's structure included as its operating arms an intelligence component, a military committee, a financial committee, a political committee, and a committee in charge of media affairs and propaganda. It also had an Advisory Council (Shura) made up of Bin Laden's inner circle.25
Bin Laden's assumption of the helm of al Qaeda was evidence of his growing self-confidence and ambition. He soon made clear his desire for unchallenged control and for preparing the mujahideen to fight anywhere in the world. Azzam, by contrast, favored continuing to fight in Afghanistan until it had a true Islamist government. And, as a Palestinian, he saw Israel as the top priority for the next stage.26
Whether the dispute was about power, personal differences, or strategy, it ended on November 24, 1989, when a remotely controlled car bomb killed Azzam and both of his sons. The killers were assumed to be rival Egyptians. The outcome left Bin Laden indisputably in charge of what remained of the MAK and al Qaeda.27
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
The Shooting gallery: Compare and contrast U.S. government version
Compare the 9/11 Commissions explanation of Sheikh Abdullah Azzam assassination above and this article. It?s obvious someone is with holding information or planting disinformation you will to have thread the needle of the syllogism by yourself. The 9/11 commission relayed profoundly on information gathered through water boarding their witnesses.
"Bin Laden?s mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam is killed by a car bomb in Afghanistan. The killing is never solved. Azzam has no shortage of enemies. Suspects include the Mossad, CIA, Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the ISI, and bin Laden. The reason bin Laden is suspected is because he and Azzam were increasingly at odds over what approach to take since the Soviet Union had been driven from Afghanistan earlier in the year ."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a112489azzamkilled#a112489azzamkilled
This link makes the United States government version of the "Official" 9/11 commission report look like child's work.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline
I would call this story below collaborating with terrorist
IDF choppers in service of drug cartel
Published on Sunday, April 27, 2008.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6379
Source: YNetNews
American officials demand Israel provide explanations for how U.S.-made choppers sold to Israel ended up in service of Columbian drug cartel. Incident may cloud relations between countriesa
Another diplomatic incident threatens to taint U.S.-Israeli relations: The American government has recently demanded Israel clarify how five U.S.-made helicopters sold to Israel in the mid-70s found their way into the hands of a Columbian drug cartel.
An U.S. embassy official met with an Israeli foreign ministry official in Jerusalem several days ago, where he informed him that the American Foreign Ministry has requested the embassy to launch an investigation into the matter.
According to American sources, the military copters currently serve the drug mafia in the South American country.
Top diplomatic sources fear that this incident will once again heat-up tensions between Israel and the U.S. and cloud the strategic dialogue between the two countries, which is scheduled to renew in November, after talks were suspended for more than a year-and-a-half.
Kosher deal went sour
The dubious affair, which was already investigated by the Israeli Defense Ministry, and later turned over to the hands of the police, was uncovered about two years ago.
Investigators revealed that the Defense Ministry signed a deal with an Israeli company three years ago, contracting it to negotiate the sale of five IAF helicopters for a sum of USD 100,000 per aircraft.
The ministry permitted the choppers, of a MD 500 Defender model, be sold either to the Mexican federal police, or to the Spain firefighters department. However, contrary to the terms of the license, the copters ended up in Columbia, by way of Canadian mediators.
This article below makes me think it also gives the crtical question who wired the WTC this front company would be perfect for that aspect of the operation; did this company Urban Moving Systems have access to any of the three World Trade Center buildings prior to there collapse on 9/11/2001. Urban Moving Systems would be an ideal front company to go into the World Trade Center buildings and wire them with high explosives using the moving company as cover for the operation.
I thought any type of building Maintenance Company would make an excellent cover for a covert operation of wiring the buildings with explosives. The moving company would make a great cover also just the fact that there must have been moving companies in those buildings all the time, creating a perfect cover. In covert operations the better you blend into the daily traffic of the target environment the better chance you are never to be noticed and go undetected.
With the moving company as the front, the infiltration possibilities into any building is mind boggling even with security escorts, at best case they would be unable to manage the security compromise. You could employee unsuspected laborers to move the crates not knowing what is in them while the agents are within the crates or the high explosives the laborers would not have a clue just moving heavy crates. The ability to work from the moving company front within the World Trade Centers gives the opportunity to work from an unmolested access. You would have all the time in the world to set charges place radio activated detonation devices.
Urban Moving Systems: the US-Israeli 9/11 Financial Nexus
Thursday, June 19, 2008 by Maasanova
With the global awakening of what really happened on 9/11 surging ahead at full steam, many people are now aware of facts such as prior government knowledge of the attacks, the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, all of the military and terror drills going on at the same time of the attacks, and the possibility that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, and not by fire.
What is not known by the majority of these people, but is as equally important as WTC 7, is the story of Urban Moving Systems. It is no surprise that the hidden history of Urban Moving Systems remains unknown to of the majority of the American population and even within the 9/11 truth community, since it's story was never included in the official 9/11 Commission Report, and has been absent from all of the popular 9/11 "truth movies."
Please watch this seven minute video for more details:
So what exactly was Urban Moving Systems and how does it tie into 9/11?
"Dominick Suter, owner of the company Urban Moving Systems, flees the country to Israel. The FBI later tells ABC News, ?Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.? Suter has been tied to the five Israeli agents caught filming the WTC attack. The FBI had questioned Suter around September 12, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. However, when the FBI returns a few days later, he is gone." [source: ABC News 6/21/2002]
http://undertheradarmedia.blogspot.com/2008/06/urban-moving-systems-us-israel-911.html
Here is additional information on that connection link below:
The Israeli Shipping Company that moved out of the WTC one week prior to 9/11
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/7305
My observation those two helicopters in the video below that enter the same area of the north and south tower nearly the same approach and timeframe prior to the collapses; again my observation the helicopters could have initiated a radio activated detonation device.
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=911+Eyewitness+-+VO+ST+FR
What is extremely troubling in my observation of this video is that just a couple of seconds prior to each of World Trade Center towers collapse a helicopter comes in very close to the tops WTC towers. When you watch the video pay attention, just seconds prior to the beginning of the free fall, a helicopter comes in very close then the buildings fall. Both of the helicopters enter almost the exact same position of both the towers just seconds before the?The helicopters would have never known that the collapse were going to take place another 9/11 anomaly.
Saudi OIL on the big decline
On June 14, 2008 Saudi Arabia stated they would increase production by about 500,000 barrels a day yet once you read the article it is only 300,000 barrels a day. Then on June 22, 2008 after the oil summit they decreased their week old production headline notice to only 200,000 barrels a day. Surprise Surprise, they can not get that 500,000 barrels increase out of their oil fields. My calculations with their over stated oil inventory should have been able to get that 500,000 barrel a day increase. The facts are obvious their oil inventory is considerable less then I suspected and the oil fields are starting to dramatically decrease.
Now do you understand why 9/11 happened?
Plan Would Lift Saudi Oil Output
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: June 14, 2008
Saudi Arabia, the world?s biggest oil exporter, is planning to increase its output next month by about a half-million barrels a day, according to analysts and oil traders who have been briefed by Saudi officials.
The increase could bring Saudi output to a production level of 10 million barrels a day, which, if sustained, would be the kingdom?s highest ever. The move was seen as a sign that the Saudis are becoming increasingly nervous about both the political and economic effect of high oil prices. In recent weeks, soaring fuel costs have incited demonstrations and protests from Italy to Indonesia.
Saudi Arabia is currently pumping 9.45 million barrels a day, which is an increase of about 300,000 barrels from last month.
While they are reaping record profits, the Saudis are concerned that today?s record prices might eventually damp economic growth and lead to lower oil demand, as is already happening in the United States and other developed countries. The current prices are also making alternative fuels more viable, threatening the long-term prospects of the oil-based economy.
President Bush visited Saudi Arabia twice this year, pleading with King Abdullah to step up production. While the Saudis resisted the calls then, arguing that the markets were well supplied, they seem to have since concluded that they needed to disrupt the momentum that has been building in commodity markets, sending prices higher.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/06/14/saudis-to-turn-on-the-pump/
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia 6/22/08 ? A hastily convened global energy summit meeting led by Saudi Arabia ended largely in disagreement on Sunday, with only a modest pledge of increased production by the Saudis and no resolution on what other practical steps should be taken to ease the crisis over soaring oil prices.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the energy summit meeting in Jidda.
The Saudis, who considered the meeting a success because of the high attendance, announced a production increase of 200,000 barrels a day and an expansion of their output capacity if needed in coming years.
But news of the immediate production increase had already been absorbed by the world market for oil. Some experts had anticipated that the Saudis might announce a bigger increase.
Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil exporter, is the only country with the ability to significantly increase production quickly.
By Monday morning in Singapore, the first oil market to react to the Saudi news, oil cost $135.72 a barrel, up slightly from $135.47 in New York on Friday.
Rather than finding areas of agreement, participants in the one-day meeting in this coastal city on the Red Sea illustrated the sharply diverging views on what has caused oil prices to double in the past year to the $130 to $140 per barrel range.
Consumer nations, led by the United States, Britain and Japan, see more supply as the answer to higher prices. But most producing nations are either reluctant to or unable to pump more oil, and they say a big reason for the price inflation is speculation. Everyone agreed that surging demand in the developing world was a major factor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/world/middleeast/23saudi.html?em&ex=1214280000&en=d4ad76fff28aa319&ei=5087%0A
I have been doing a little math and you might want check this out.
Use this as your base line: Mar 13, 1986
Estimated proven reserves, in billions of barrels, as of Jan. 1, 1986
Saudi Arabia. . . 168.8 Kuwait . . . 89.8 Iran . . . 47.9 Iraq . . . 44.1 United Arab Emirates . . . 32.9 Venezuela . . . 25.6 Libya . . . 21.3 Nigeria . . . 16.6 Algeria . . . 8.8 Indonesia . . . 8.5
In 2006 let?s look at these same countries oil reserves:
Saudi Arabia..267 billion bbl Kuwait..104 (some sources say 48 billion - the difference is 5% of world reserves) Iran..132 Iraq..115 UAE.. 98 Venezuela.. 79 Libya.. 39 Nigeria.. 36 Algeria..12 Indonesia.. 4
Reference:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Estimated Oil reserves increases up from March 13, 1986 - 2006 by %
Saudi Arabia..37% Kuwait..15% Iran..63% Iraq..62% UAE..66% Venezuela..68%
Libya..47% Nigeria..55% Algeria..33%
Indonesia is the only country that has decreased in their estimated oil reserves by <50%>
Report by: Robert L. Hirsch Titled ?The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production?
According to this report it totally contradicts the pervious information there is absolutely no evidence of the dramatic oil reserves increase from 1986 ? 2006. It indicates the complete opposite.
Page 1 ?last super giant fields were found in the 1960?s? on page 4 of this report there is a 60 year bar graph from 1940 - 2000 that breaks down annual oil consumption versus new oil field discovers. Link below:
http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf
This link below states the obvious that there have never been any controls built into the oil industry it is strictly run by estimation. The fact I do know is that the Bush Administration has bet at least 3 trillion dollars and untold human loss to take over Iraq's oil fields. If all the present information concerning the oil industry statistics is legitimate then the need to invade Iraq would be totally unnecessary.
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Simmons_02-1.pdf
MUST READ STORY!!!
The Mistake Department: One Example of Why American Foreign Policy is a Disaster
By J. Michael Springmann
The Public Record
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
After airplanes flew into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, The Los Angeles Times reported that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers got their U.S. visas from the American Consulate General at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a consulate where I had served as chief of the Visa Section.
What The Los Angeles Times did not report was what I had told their Washington, D.C. bureau after reading the story: (1) that the Jeddah onsulate was not a State Department post but an intelligence services operation; (2) that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) routinely demanded (and got) visas for sleazy characters with no ties to either their home country or Saudi Arabia; (3) that these vile people were terrorists recruited by U.S. intelligence officers along with Osama bin Laden, then a CIA asset.
With the help of non-State Department officials, i.e., Consul General, Jay Philip Freres (retired and living in Clearwater, Fla.), the head of the Political/Economic Section, Eric L. Qualkenbush (retired and living in Findlay, Ohio), the Political Officer, Henry Ensher (currently assigned to D.C. and living in McLean, Va.), a "Commercial Officer", Paul Arvid Tveit (retired and also living in McLean, Va.), the Chief of the Consular Section, Justice (given name) Stevens (whereabouts unknown), and a "part-time" Consular officer, Andy Weber (last seen on the PBS program "Bio-Terror"), they were sent to America for training in blowing things up and shooting things down. Afterwards, they were sent on to Afghanistan to murder Soviet soldiers.
It seems pretty clear that they and people that they had trained are now pursuing their own goals (and most likely U.S. foreign policy interests) in helping destabilize Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their next target may be Iran.
http://www.pubrecord.org/component/content/201.html?task=view
This section below is from the 9/11 commission report they forgot to disclose who was running U.S. offices for visas in Jeddah yet everyone knew where to go. I would have to say that looking at the above article and the 9/11 commission report combined with all the other security and management breeches within the United States official version of 9/11this report was a complete disinformation operation. Jeddah was the United States visas office of choice by the terrorist, the Jeddah office was operated by the CIA and had long standing track record of corruption.
By the time operatives for the planes operation were picked in mid-2000, some of them had been training in Afghanistan for months, others were just arriving for the first time, and still others may have been returning after prior visits to the camps. According to KSM, Bin Ladin would travel to the camps to deliver lectures and meet the trainees personally. If Bin Ladin believed a trainee held promise for a special operation, that trainee would be invited to the al Qaeda leader's compound at Tarnak Farms for further meetings.103
KSM claims that Bin Ladin could assess new trainees very quickly, in about ten minutes, and that many of the 9/11 hijackers were selected in this manner. Bin Ladin, assisted by Atef, personally chose all the future muscle hijackers for the planes operation, primarily between the summer of 2000 and April 2001. Upon choosing a trainee, Bin Ladin would ask him to swear loyalty for a suicide operation. After the selection and oath-swearing, the operative would be sent to KSM for training and the filming of a martyrdom video, a function KSM supervised as head of al Qaeda's media committee.104
KSM sent the muscle hijacker recruits on to Saudi Arabia to obtain U.S. visas. He gave them money (about $2,000 each) and instructed them to return to Afghanistan for more training after obtaining the visas. At this early stage, the operatives were not told details about the operation. The majority of the Saudi muscle hijackers obtained U.S. visas in Jeddah or Riyadh between September and November of 2000.105
KSM told potential hijackers to acquire new "clean" passports in their home countries before applying for a U.S. visa. This was to avoid raising suspicion about previous travel to countries where al Qaeda operated. Fourteen of the 19 hijackers, including nine Saudi muscle hijackers, obtained new passports. Some of these passports were then likely doctored by the al Qaeda passport division in Kandahar, which would add or erase entry and exit stamps to create "false trails" in the passports.106
From chapter 7 section103 in the link below
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
The foundation for your 9/11 investigation was built on frozen water at best. The idea that the oil industries would not be involved in 9/11 is an insult to all Americans intelligence. Franklin D Roosevelt cut the initial deal with Saudi Arabia http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_04-05.pdf .
The Eisenhower administration ran the numbers on oil and understood the importance of oil and that brings to the present. Members of the Eisenhower administration and their protégés have had a strangle hold on all American actives ever since, the oil industry is the United States government.
Taped Destroyed by FAA
While most of the incidental evidence, such as recordings of communications with pilots of the doomed aircraft, remains in the category of missing, with no one held to account for it, some such evidence is now known to be destroyed. A report issued on May 6, 2004 at the request of Senator John McCain concluded that an audiotape recording of communications with commandeered planes on 9/11/01 was destroyed by FAA managers. 1
The tape contained a one-hour interview, taken on the day of the attack, with six controllers who tracked two of the planes on 9/11/01. The controllers gave detailed accounts of what events they recalled just hours earlier. An FAA official described in the report as a quality assurance manager crushed the cassette, then cut up the tape and dropped pieces into multiple trash cans. 2
Destruction of the Aircraft and Passengers
Most of the direct physical evidence from the four flights, such as pieces of the aircraft, and corpses and effects of the passengers, was destroyed or degraded beyond recognition by the attack itself. FEMA documented a few pieces of Flights 11 and 175 that exited the towers, but it appears that none of this evidence was examined or saved for study, in contrast to normal practice in air disaster investigations.
There appears to be no public information on the fate or status of the bulk of the aircraft remains, which remained trapped in the towers. Given the thoroughness of the destruction of the towers, those remains were probably shredded and distributed throughout the rubble of Ground Zero.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...destroyed.html
9/11 COMMISSION SAYS U.S. AGENCIES SLOW ITS INQUIRY
PHILIP SHENON
Published: July 9, 2003
The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.
The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission's chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to ''intimidation'' of the witnesses.
In what they acknowledged was an effort to bring public pressure on the White House to meet the panel's demands for classified information, the commission's Republican chairman and Democratic vice chairman released a statement, declaring that they had received only a small part of the millions of sensitive government documents they have requested from the executive branch.
While praising President Bush and top aides for their personal commitment to the panel's work, the commission's leaders -- the chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Lee H. Hamilton, the former Democratic member of the House from Indiana -- said that federal agencies under Mr. Bush's control were not cooperating quickly or fully.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63
http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...radeCenter.pdf
9/11 Commission Primer
July 20, 2004
After months of research and testimony, this week the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) will release its final report on the events surrounding 9/11 and recommendations for protecting our country from future attacks. This is a moment the Bush administration sought to prevent. The 9/11 Commission Primer by the Center for American Progress reminds its readers of the administration's attempts to obstruct and discredit the work of the Commission, and abdicate responsibility for protecting our country.
• Obstructing the Investigation
• Stonewalling the Commission
• Attacking the Commission and Its Members
• Abdicating Responsibility
While President Bush hailed the work of the Commission as "important for future administrations," his administration did everything it could to block and impede and the Commission from conducting its vital work. Not only did the White House oppose formation of the Commission, but resisted providing the Commission with the time and resources it needed to carry out its work.
White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks. Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.
Bush's Hand-Picked Co-Chairman Steps Down: On November 27, 2002, President Bush appointed Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission. At the time, the NYT opined the White House had chosen him "to contain an investigation it has long opposed." Less than a month later, Kissinger resigned from the post over conflicts of interest.
White House Resisted Fully Funding: Time Magazine reported last year that the White House "brushed off" a request by Commission Chairman Tom Kean to boost the investigation's budget by $11 million, even though the Commission stated it could not complete the investigation without the funds.
White House Opposed Time Extension for Finishing Commission's Work: In January 2004, President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) opposed granting a two-month extension, even though Commission members said the extra time was necessary to finish their work. Two weeks later, after public outcry, the White House capitulated and announced on February 4, 2004, that it would allow the Commission to have the extra 60 days it needed.
President's Chief Counsel Tried to Influence Panel: Top White House counsel Alberto Gonzales tried to manipulate the 9/11 Commission, calling Republican commissioners Fred F. Fielding and James R. Thompson just before they gathered on March 24, 2004, to hear the testimony of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke. After the calls, "Fielding and Thompson presented evidence questioning the former official's credibility," leading critics to denounce the impropriety of Gonzales' phone calls.
The Bush administration also sought to withhold key information from the Commission during the investigation. The White House dragged its feet in allowing National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify, and fought hard to limit the president's appearance before the Commission. The White House also denied Commission members access to critical information, in particular the president's daily intelligence updates.
White House Refused to Allow National Security Advisor to Testify: On March 28, 2004, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tried to justify her resistance to testifying in front of the Commission, arguing, "it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress." The White House soon faced the reality that former top White House officials Lloyd Cutler, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Berger and John Podesta appeared before congressional committees while serving as advisers to presidents, and that Adm. William Leahy, chief of staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, appeared before the special congressional panel investigating the Pearl Harbor attacks. On March 30, 2004, the White House finally bowed to pressure and announced that Rice would testify in public under oath before the Commission.
White House Demanded Panel Not Seek Additional Testimony: In exchange for Rice's testimony, the White House specifically demanded that "the panel agree not to seek testimony from other White House aides," even if that testimony were to become critical to the Commission's mandate.
White House Tried to Limit Bush's Testimony to One Hour: On February 25, 2004, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney announced "strict limits" surrounding their private interviews with the 9/11 Commission, saying Bush would submit to only a single hour of questioning. On March 2, 2004, the Commission rejected the hour deadline as unacceptable. A week later, on March 10, 2004, White House spokesman Scott McClellan backtracked on the demand, saying, "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock."
White House Demanded Joint Bush/Cheney Testimony: The White House also demanded that President Bush and Vice President Cheney not be forced to testify under oath and be allowed to testify together, facilitating the potential coordination of their testimony. Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, members of the Commission, indicated that they would prefer them to testify separately.
White House Denied Request for Presidential Daily Briefs: The Commission struggled with the White House for access to the "Presidential Daily Brief" (PDB), a document presented to the President each morning containing that day's intelligence. After months of negotiations, the White House limited access to the PDBs to only four commissioners, who then would brief the full ten-member panel. However, although the four-member team "asked to look at 360 PDBs dating back to [1998,] White House counsel Alberto Gonzales permitted them to see just 24."
White House Denied Access to Panel's Own Notes: After limiting the number of commissioners who could view the PDBs, the White House refused to give the panel access to notes commissioners with access had taken on them. On March 14, 2004, 15 months after the creation of the Commission, the White House finally agreed to provide the Commission with a 17-page summary of the PDBs from the Bush and Clinton administrations related to al Qaeda.
White House Held Back Additional Documents: On April 1, 2004, it was discovered that the Bush White House had not turned over about 75 percent of the almost 11,000 pages of Clinton records "that document custodians had determined should be released to the Commission investigating the terrorist attacks," even though the records were vital to the panel's mission. Clinton "had given authorization to the National Archives to gather evidence from Mr. Clinton's files that was sought by the independent Commission... But the Bush administration... had final authority to decide what would be turned over."
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...7/b124722.html
9/11 inquiry alleges witness intimidationJulian Borger in Washington The Guardian, Thursday July 10 2003
A US panel investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks yesterday accused the Pentagon and the justice department of obstructing the inquiry and said witnesses were being intimidated.
The federal commission of inquiry was appointed eight months ago by the White House, which was under intense congressional pressure to look into allegations that the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon could have done more to prevent the 2001 al-Qaida attacks.
Among a string of apparent intelligence failures, the commission will be asking why the FBI failed to heed warnings from some of its agents that al-Qaida could be planning to hit targets with hijacked airliners.
The investigation has been hampered by the withdrawal of its original chairman, Henry Kissinger, on grounds of conflict of interest, and funding difficulties. The bipartisan panel now says its work has been blocked by the bureaucracy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003...eptember11.usa
Key 9/11 Commission Staffer Held Secret Meetings With Rove, Scaled Back Criticisms of White House»
A forthcoming book by NYT reporter Philip Shenon — “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation” — asserts that former 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow interfered with the 9/11 report.
According to the book, Zelikow had failed to inform the commission at the time he was hired that he was instrumental in helping Condoleezza Rice set up Bush’s National Security Council in 2001. Some panel staffers believe Zelikow stopped them from submitting a report depicting Rice’s performance prior to 9/11 as “amount[ing] to incompetence.”
Relying on the accounts of Max Holland, an author and blogger who has obtained a copy of the forthcoming book, ABC reports that Zelikow was holding private discussions with White House political adviser Karl Rove during the course of the 9/11 investigation:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/
Bush Covered up Musharraf Ties with Qaeda, Khan
Analysis by Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (IPS) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's resignation Monday brings to an end an extraordinarily close relationship between Musharraf and the George W. Bush administration, in which Musharraf was lavished with political and economic benefits from the United States despite policies that were in sharp conflict with U.S. security interests.
It is well known that Bush repeatedly praised Musharraf as the most loyal ally of the United States against terrorism, even though the Pakistani military was deeply compromised by its relationship with the Taliban and Pakistani Islamic militants.
What has not been reported is that the Bush administration covered up the Musharraf regime's involvement in the activities of the A. Q. Khan nuclear technology export programme and its deals with al Qaeda's Pakistani tribal allies.
The problem faced by the Bush administration when it came into office was that the Pakistani military, over which Musharraf presided, was the real terrorist nexus with the Taliban and al Qaeda. As Bruce Riedel, National Security Council (NSC) senior director for South Asia in the Bill Clinton administration, who stayed on the NSC staff under the Bush administration, observed in an interview with this writer last September, al Qaeda "was a creation of the jihadist culture of the Pakistani army".
If there was a state sponsor of al Qaeda, Riedel said, it was the Pakistani military, acting through its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.
Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservative-dominated Bush Pentagon were aware of the intimate relationship between Musharraf's regime and both the Taliban and al Qaeda. But al Qaeda was not a high priority for the Bush administration. After 9/11, the White House created the political myth that Musharraf, faced with a clear choice, had "joined the free world in fighting the terrorists". But as Asia expert Selig S. Harrison has pointed out, on Sep. 19, 2001, just six days after he had supposedly agreed to U.S. demands for cooperation against the Taliban regime and al Qaeda, Musharraf gave a televised speech in Urdu in which he declared, "We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and the Taliban."
In his memoirs, published in 2006, Musharraf revealed the seven specific demands he had been given and claimed that he had refused both "blanket overflight and landing rights" and the use of Pakistan's naval ports and air bases to conduct anti-terrorism operations.
Musharraf also famously wrote that, immediately after 9/11, Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage had threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" if Musharraf didn't side with the United States against bin Laden and his Afghan hosts. But Armitage categorically denied to this writer, through his assistant, Kara Bue, that he had made any threat whatsoever, let alone a threat to retaliate militarily against Pakistan.
For the next few years, Musharraf played a complicated game. The CIA was allowed to operate in Pakistan's border provinces to pursue al Qaeda operatives, but only as long as they had ISI units accompanying them. That restricted their ability to gather intelligence in the northwest frontier. At the same time, ISI was allowing Taliban and al Qaeda leaders to operate freely in the tribal areas and even in Karachi.
The Bush administration also gave Musharraf and the military regime a free ride on the A. Q. Khan network's selling of nuclear technology to Libya and Iran, even though there was plenty of evidence that the generals had been fully aware of and supported Khan's activities.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43605
Ahistoricality on 9/16/2008 11:53 AM:
Jesse,
Just a quick comment: Nobody is going to read a comment, much less three of them, extending for pages and pages without a very good and clear reason. If you've got a point, make it, and link to supporting evidence.
Moreover, it's impossible to tell the difference between your comments and material you've pasted in, which is sloppy and a further barrier to making sense or changing minds.
It is very easy to fully comprehend the 9/11 grand scheme this incident was totally unrelated to the events of 9/11 yet it indicates the total corruption of 9/11. If 9/11 was in fact the greatest national security failure of American history why has the extent of the corruption surrounding the response of such magnitude never seen before?
This example clearly represents the fact that our current government was involved with some aspect of 9/11. It also indicates the collaboration efforts of the media and the government to conceal the magnitude of the corruption and to continue the fraud called 9/11.
The incident was this event; 9 billion dollars of cash went missing in Iraq right out of the gate in 2003 with no investigation other then whoops.
First 9 billion dollars of freshly minted 100 dollar bills all in sequential serial numbers placed on an airplane flown to Iraq. Federal Reserve written policy of transporting cash requires a log of all serial numbers and a chain of custody procedures. Then all you believers of the United States government version of 9/11 tell me then how can 90,000,000 sequential serial numbered 100 bills go missing with out the cooperation of the Federal Reserve. Impossible the Federal Reserve could make every single one of the freshly minted 100 bills worthless as their written policy requires.
So all you true believers about 9/11 this fact indicates a purely criminal motive and it is not mutually exclusive you need 9/11 to make it all work. The list of other 9/11 anomalies are endless. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe the Untied Government version of what happened that day.
Unknown on 9/16/2008 11:54 PM:
Mark, I'd disagree with your characterization of Jesse's comments as "abusive." I agree that nobody is going to read them in their entirety, but that's the choice Jesse makes when he posts them in the open thread -- and I see no problem with his exercising his right to do so. While I disagree with Jesse on more things than I can count, he deserves credit for scrupulously following site rules and for being generally courteous to diarists and commenters with whom he disagrees. I can't say the same for other commenters of his persuasion.
On 12/12/2000 we entered a new age when the United States Supreme Court picked George W. Bush after crossing that threshold; We the People were reduced to our collective vigilance for survival. –Jesse Hemingway
"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
"Voting is no substitute for the eternal vigilance that every friend of freedom must demonstrate towards government. If our freedom is to survive, Americans must become far better informed of the dangers from Washington -- regardless of who wins the Presidency." -James Bovard
Thomas Jefferson:
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"History, in general, only informs us what bad government is."
“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” -- John F. Kennedy, 1963
"One man with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson, 1832
“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” -- Edmund Burke
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur
One man (PERSON) with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson, 1832
BURLINGTON, Vt.—A woman running for Vermont attorney general says she'll prosecute President Bush for murder if elected.
Charlotte Dennett, a 61-year-old attorney and investigative journalist from Cambridge, says Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq.
In a news conference Thursday in Burlington, she was joined by former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who has written a book entitled "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." She plans to name him special prosecutor if she's elected Nov. 4.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2008/09/18/vermont_candidate_plans_bush_prosecution/
If any person fails to grasp the reality that George W. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court of the United States by one vote; that in its self is a violation of the United States Constitution. Then it NOW rest on We The People to over compensate on our Vigilances to reestablish some type of integrity to the United States Constitution and the United States Government.
The most patriotic thing that any United States American citizen can do is make all their elected representatives prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt that their actions and words are true.
On 12/12/2000 we entered a new age when the United States Supreme Court picked George W. Bush after crossing that threshold; We the People were reduced to our collective vigilance for survival. –Jesse Hemingway
"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
"Voting is no substitute for the eternal vigilance that every friend of freedom must demonstrate towards government. If our freedom is to survive, Americans must become far better informed of the dangers from Washington -- regardless of who wins the Presidency." -James Bovard
Thomas Jefferson:
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"History, in general, only informs us what bad government is."
“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” -- John F. Kennedy, 1963
"One man with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson, 1832
“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” -- Edmund Burke
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur
I'm seriously considering getting back into political blogging a bit, just so I can express some of the frustration and anxiety I'm feeling about this election in a somewhat productive manner.
On the other hand, I'm swamped, and less political blog-reading would be good for me.
'tis a puzzlement.