Friday, September 28, 2007

Big Cruise Missile hit the WTC?

Teledyne Ryan ZBQM-111A Model 258 Firebrand target.
What hit the WTC?

I went though a few of these videos showing the second impact and took note of the voices and what they said. From the ones that I consider authentic I heard:
  • It was a big plane.
  • xyz said it was a rocket
  • it was a missile, f..king fast
and I remember the idiot-Howard Stern "on the air" eyewitness, -- listen minute 150 to minute 154 -- who said: "decent sized plane" "50 60 people" ... maybe an MD80 ... and the BBC forum entry: “I saw a plane coming, it had two engines on either side of the tail”. and some eyewitness said: IT WAS A MISSILE and another: IT HAD NO WINDOWS and a BLUE LOGO.

For those that actually saw a 767, there WAS a real passenger jet did a FLY BY!!
(check.. plane circling [minute 153]
.. and David Thom pictures).

I pondered for a while and asked myself: Why not? It may have been a big missile!
911 was planned and executed by the US military. No-one else has the capabilities to
  • fool (covert op planning)
  • organise (command the machinery)
  • cover-up (rule over people)
Why not load up a heavy, winged missile with aeroplane parts and a mechanism that creates the 767 wing-shaped impact holes?

The shape of the "flying object"

Big, i.e. fat and long just like the images showing a long dark object with winglets..

[Image]The stealthed object we will call a Whatzit travels across the face of the building. Notice there is no plane visable in any frame, just a cloud of smoke with a cigar shaped shadow, and "dust pimples." 1st impact (webfairy)

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. Peter Strid (killtown, also see "amputee planes)


There must be a selection of platforms to retrofit with GPS (superb accuracy)

[Image]For example the Snark from 1960.

Northrop SSM-A-3/B-62/SM-62 Snark

The Snark was the only intercontinental surface-to-surface cruise missile ever deployed by the U.S. Air Force, but was operational for only a very short time because it was already made obsolete by the new ICBMs.

In early 1959, the USAF activated its first (and eventually only) Snark missile wing, and the first SM-62A production missiles, fitted with a W-39 thermonuclear warhead (4 MT), were delivered in May that year. The first SM-62A launch occurred in November 1959, and in February 1961, the unit was declared fully operational with 30 deployed missiles.


Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate!

Data for XSSM-A-3, SM-62A:

Length 20.93 m (68 ft 8 in)
Wingspan 12.86 m (42 ft 2.4 in)
Height 4.52 m (14 ft 10 in)
Weight (w/o booster) 22500 kg (49600 lb); booster: 5150 kg (11365 lb)
Speed Mach 0.94
Ceiling 18300 m (60000 ft)
Range 9650 km (6000 miles)
Propulsion Pratt & Whitney J57-P-17 turbojet; 51.1 kN (11500 lb)
Booster: 2x Allegany Ballistics solid-fueled rocket; 580 kN (130000 lb) for 4 s each
Warhead W-39 thermonuclear (4 MT)

Maybe something like this:

Everyone would have heard a 767 for a mile or so. It was eriely quiet otherwise!!

A 767 at full throttle at 600 feet is a spectacular event that NOBODY in a wider vicinity can miss or be unclear about. These big turbofan engines make a very characteristic sound: a deafening roar, a deep droning sound. And they are LOUD when the throttle is on full. Very loud.

People described a high-pitch whistle sound, there is even a recording of it... (sept clues)

If a real, noisy 767 had impacted = there would be more footage of it, there would be lots of photos that show the plane half-in, tail still out. People would have had enough time to find the big thing and press the shutter.

With a missile -- or whatever sneaky thing they used -- people did not have time to click. There was no incredible roar. Nothing big to point at.

There are no photos that convince me. All look like inserts.

I would really like to see these thousands of eyewitnesses be asked this question:

Did you REALLY see a 767 with your own eyes or is it POSSIBLE that you saw "something" and the TV-coverage made you think it was 767 boeings?

Did you see the video where the noplaners call one of these eyewitnesses and show his statement in a documentary... and then he tell them on the phone that he was in his flat at the time, and maybe heard others say it?


There are quite a few.

I'ts time for someone to make a list of YouTube videos that shows eyewitnesses for both options:


I have a feeling that the NOPLANE evidence will be more convincing.

The sound on the videos is nearly all faked. See September clues for goddess sake.
Although jet noise is the loudest when it has just passed overhead, you can hear a low flying jet coming. You don't have much time, but it's enough for people with a readied camera.

The Navy has some big cruise missiles, right?

Somehow the Tomahawk seems to be too thin


Too old, too short:

Martin MGM-1 Matador
Matador cruise missile launch.

AGM-48 Skybolt (a B-52 Stratofortress in background)
AGM-48 Skybolt (a B-52 Stratofortress in background)


But this one:

Teledyne Ryan ZBQM-111A Model 258 Firebrand target.

BQM-111A - Model 258 Firebrand - DIAMETER 71 cm (28 in)

Target Drones:
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 10:48 PM 1 comments

Sunday, September 23, 2007

war is illegal - Chomksy

Q&A: War in the Name of Peace

Interview with Jean Bricmont, author of 'Humanitarian Imperialism'

BRUSSELS, Sep 20 (IPS) - International law is seen by many to have been
shunted aside by Western powers when launching their most significant
military operations in the past decade.
In 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation lacked any mandate from
the United Nations when it attacked Serbia. In Afghanistan, the U.S.
continued bombing in 2002, even when the government that replaced the
Taliban asked it to stop (lest the civilian death toll rise).
And the United States asserted a highly disputed entitlement to launch a
pre-emptive strike against Iraq a year later, citing bogus claims that the
country had weapons of mass destruction and had played a role in the Sep
11, 2001 attacks.
In his new book 'Humanitarian Imperialism', the pacifist intellectual Jean
Bricmont exposes how human rights have been used to justify military
exploits that he regards as legally dubious and morally odious.
A 55-year-old professor of theoretical physics in Belgium's University of
Louvain, Bricmont is also editor of 'Chomsky', a new collection of
articles on the linguist and trenchant political analyst Noam Chomsky.
Bricmont spoke to IPS Brussels correspondent David Cronin.

IPS: You have suggested that NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999 was a
turning point for a new form of imperialism. Why do you think so?

JB: There were several reasons against that war but there was so little
reaction from people on the left. If you exclude a very small number of
individuals who knew better, everyone was convinced the war was necessary
and the U.S. should intervene for humanitarian reasons, irrespective of
the particularities of the case.

I don't agree that it was a good thing to destroy international law. I
don't agree that the situation in Kosovo was so dire, that it was
necessary to bomb (Serbia). And I don't agree that the removal of (then
Serbian president Slobodan) Milosevic was a good thing, irrespective of
everything else.

Milosevic was elected. Maybe his election was not pure. But there is no
pure democracy in the world. In France, you needed six times as many votes
to elect a communist in urban areas as you do to elect a (right-leaning)
Gaullist in rural areas. But nobody says France is not a democracy.

IPS: Much of 'Humanitarian Imperialism' deals with Iraq. Why do you reject
the widely held view that the oil industry should be blamed for the war

JB: Of course, oil had a role to play in a trivial sense. The U.S. doesn't
want Iraq's oil under the feet of Iran, Saudi Arabia or even the present
Iraqi government.

But the naïve view of the peace movement that the U.S. went there to rob
oil doesn't seem defensible. I don't know of any evidence that the oil
industry lobbied for war.

Every war needs war propaganda. And the oil industry -- to my knowledge --
have not done any war propaganda at all.

The Zionist lobby, on the other hand, have always done war propaganda. If
you open an American newspaper, you will find columns that are written by
people who are Zionist and pro-Israel, even if they are not all Jews. It
is fair to call (President George W.) Bush and (Vice-President Dick)
Cheney Zionists, even if they are not Jewish. Especially Cheney.

IPS: The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was preceded by huge protests
across Europe. Why has the peace movement lost that momentum?

JB: I'm not a sociologist but if I can resort to conjecture: many people
went out in the streets because they thought the war would turn ugly. Of
course, it did turn ugly but not in the way that was thought. There were
no weapons of mass destruction. And don't forget that (then British prime
minister) Tony Blair was talking about missiles being launched within 45

The people in the peace movement were either genuinely anti-war or
genuinely concerned about the interests of their own countries.

There are different situations in different countries. In Britain the
anti-war movement faced a problem of deciding who to vote for. The
Conservatives are as gung-ho as Labour. And with the Liberal Democrats,
the system is biased against them.

IPS: Given your criticism of Israel's tactics in the Palestinian
territories, do you think there is a case for boycotting Israeli goods?

JB: Yes, there should be a campaign for a boycott. That is one way that
citizens have to show they are angry.

Some people say: why not boycott the U.S.? I think we should boycott the
U.S. but I don't see how this could be done practically.

In Britain and the U.S., a large part of the population does not agree
with the government. In Israel, there is much more homogeneity. Even the
moderates in the genuine peace camp are very marginal.

IPS: Reviewers have pointed out that your book doesn't examine the
situation in Darfur. What should the West do about the killings there?

JB: My book is not against intervention within the framework of the UN. In
principle, maybe something could be negotiated there. A peacekeeping force
can be sent when there is a peacekeeping agreement to prevent rogue
elements from destroying the peace. But when you send a peacekeeping force
before you have a peacekeeping agreement, that is war.

It also seems to me that some people are using Darfur to change the
subject away from Iraq. Iraq may be the worst humanitarian crisis in the
world. You have three-four million refugees and maybe one million dead.

IPS: You are quite critical of human rights organisations for being
selective in deciding what rights they focus on. Why is that?

JB: Human Rights Watch says it will not discuss whether a war is
legitimate or not. All it wants is for war parties to respect the Geneva
Convention. The Geneva Convention is not respected in any war.

IPS: You've also written that the left in Europe is only moderately less
in favour of unfettered capitalism than the right. Can you explain what
you mean by that?

JB: It is amazing how after the fall of communism, democracy became the
new cause. The left adopted this and turned it into a pro-Western,
anti-Third World discussion.

Look at the way the left complains about China. When the Chinese said
recently that they want to improve the rights of workers in Chinese
factories, big Western corporations said: 'If you do that, we will move
abroad, we will move to Vietnam.' This is not something the left is
concerned about. It just blames the Chinese leaders for everything.

IPS: Can I ask you about the European Union and the current efforts by its
leaders to introduce a reform treaty that is largely the same as the
constitution rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005. I
understand you were pleased by the 'No' vote in France?

JB: I wasn't entirely happy. I was happy that at least the media was

But I have no illusion about why people voted 'No'. They voted because of
nationalism. Fifty-five percent of people voted 'No' and of that 35
percent were from the left and 20 percent were from the right.

There is nothing telling me that that the reason why people on the left
voted 'No' was all for social reasons and not for reasons of nationalism.
With the victory of (centre-right candidate Nicolas) Sarkozy (in a
presidential election earlier this year), a lot of people who voted for
him had voted 'No'. People over 65 who voted overwhelmingly for Sarkozy
had voted 'No'.

The failure I see in Belgium at the moment (where Dutch and
French-speaking parties have not yet formed a coalition government several
months after a general election) could anticipate the future of Europe.
Why should the Finns, Portuguese, Irish and Greeks be feeling closer to
each other, more than Flemish and Walloons feeling closer to each other?

Without a common feeling, how do you build a country with bureaucracy and
free markets? There is an enormous amount of delusion (about European

IPS: Finally, I've been told that you are the man who effectively
introduced Noam Chomsky to francophone Europe. Is that true?

JB: I first met Chomsky when I went to listen to him in Princeton (the
U.S. university) in the early 1980s. After the first Gulf War, I invited
him to Belgium to speak at the Flemish university VUB.

In France it has been an uphill battle to put him on the map. (Journalist)
Philippe Val attacked him recently because (Osama) bin Laden mentioned him
in his recent video.

He is still being demonised and misrepresented. (END/2007)


N-deal will spell doom for NPT: Chomsky

NEW DELHI: Noam Chomsky, the world's foremost linguist better known for
his trenchant criticism of the US foreign policy, has once again flayed
the Bush administration ? this time for the India-US civil nuclear

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor, who has been
named in several opinion polls as the most important public intellectual
alive, has issued a statement, titled ?Why we oppose the Indo-US military
ties?, which is also signed by seven noted Left-leaning intellectuals.

Terming the India-US nuclear co-operation agreement as "capstone" of the
new bilateral strategic alliance, the statement doing rounds on blogs this
week says they oppose the deal for three related reasons:

First, "The deal is another attempt by the Bush administration to weaken
the framework of international law." They note, "India refused to sign the
(Nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 because, it claimed, the
NPT put into place a hierarchy between nuclear weapons states and
non-nuclear weapons states. Now, the US government is playing kingmaker,
pretending that it is in a lawful position to welcome India into the
nuclear weapons club."

Second, "The deal will intensify the instability of the South Asian
subcontinent." Noting the confidence-building measures undertaken by India
and Pakistan in recent years, Mr Chomsky and others say: "One of the means
to build confidence in the region was the creation of a natural gas
pipeline from Iran through Pakistan into India. The ?peace pipeline? would
have tied the region together and raised the stakes for negotiations over
belligerence. They are unhappy with the nuclear deal because "the peace
pipeline is a casualty of this agreement". Moreover, "the nuclear deal
does nothing to hamper the Indian nuclear weapons sector, whose growth
will fuel an arms race with Islamabad and Beijing".

Third, "The deal is intended as a part of the Bush administration's wish
to isolate Iran. It is by now clear that the US ?coerced? India's votes at
the International Atomic Energy Agency meetings of September 2005 and
February 2006."

They point out that the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress in 2006
"specifically demanded that the US government ?secure India's full and
active participation in US efforts to dissuade, isolate and, if necessary,
sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass
destruction?". Mr Chomsky, along with Naomi Klein, Howard Zinn, Medea
Benjamin, Judith LeBlanc, Mike Davis, John Bellamy Foster and Vijay
Prashad, has urged "the US population to reject this agreement".

This is not the first time Mr Chomsky, in his large number of interviews,
talks, articles and blog entries, has opposed the growing bonhomie between
Washington and New Delhi.

In an interview in April on India-Pakistan relations, he had noted: "The
agreement with India was in serious violation of US law, the export law
from the early 1970s that was passed after the Indian test (of 1974). It
was also in violation of the rules of the two major international
organisations, one that controls, or tries to control, nuclear material
exports, the other that tries to control missile technology exports."

Referring to the IAEA and the NSG, he said: ?It's a sharp blow against two
of the elements of the international system that's trying to prevent
proliferation of nuclear technology, weapons technology, and missile
technology. It was predictable that as soon as the US broke it, someone
else would break it, too. And shortly after, China approached Pakistan
with sort of a similar agreement... Russia will probably do the same and
others will do the same," he said in the interview conducted as part of a
symposium on the centenary of Mahatma Gandhi's Satyagraha movement.

In a talk delivered in Beirut in May, reproduced as ?Imminent Crises:
Threats and Opportunities? in the June issue of Monthly Review, Mr Chomsky
said that ?Bush's recent trip to India and his authorisation of India's
nuclear weapons programme are part of the jockeying over how ... major
global forces will crystallise? in planning for their energy needs.,prtpage-1.cms

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 12:32 AM 0 comments

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Barksdale Atomic Bombs - Chinese Chip Paranoia

Saturday, September 22nd, 2007

How Chinese Military Hackers Took Over A Nuclear-Armed B52

By William Thomas

The story sounded like a sequel to “Dr. Strangelove”. Leaked by the Pentagon’s news service, Military Affairs to quell scuttlebutt racing through the ranks-and perhaps warn the world-a U.S. Air Force B-52 strategic bomber “mistakenly” loaded with six nuclear cruise missiles took off from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota on August 30, 2007 and flew for more than three hours over at least five states, before landing at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

The mistake was so egregious, the National Command Authority comprising President George BU.S.h and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were quickly informed. The SecDef has since been assured that nuclear weapons “were part of a routine transfer between the two bases… at no time was the public in danger.”

Both statements are false.

In fact, nuclear weapons like these are carefully crated for shipment between bases, and placed inside the bomb bays or cargo compartments of transporting aircraft. In stunning contrast, this reporter has learned from two independent and highly placed sources that the six Advanced Cruise Missiles dangling from the B-52’s fatigued and flexible wings were fully armed and ready to fire-except for a single fail/safe switch under the Command Pilot’s control.

The quickly blacked out episode has prompted an Air Force investigation. Gates, whose official defense computer was hacked last June, necessitating the shutdown of the entire SecDef network, has ordered daily briefings on the Air Force inquiry. The Minot base commander, who might turn out to be the hero in this frightening affair, was relieved of his command.

As far as anyone knows, no U.S. aircraft has ever been armed with a full wartime loadout of six nuclear weapons. “Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible,” declared Representative Markey, co-chair of the House Task Force on Nonproliferation. [AP Sept 5/07; Seattle Times Sept 5/07]

Hans Kristensen, an expert on U.S. nuclear forces, says he knows of no other publicly acknowledged case of live nuclear weapons being flown on bombers since the late 1960s.

Director Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” was released in 1964
Each of the six ACMs carried a “dialable” 150-kiloton W80-1 warhead–for a combined total of 60-times the destructive power of the bomb that melted the city and inhabitants of Hiroshima–over the unsuspecting residents of five states. Depending on the route flown, a half-dozen armed nuclear weapons wafted for three-and-a-half hours over North Dakota and either South Dakota or Minnesota, Nebraska or Missouri, Oklahoma or Arkansas, and Louisiana.

It’s no secret that Dick Cheney and his presidential surrogate intend to bomb Iran into the Kingdom to Come. [BBC News Aug 29/07]

But New Orleans?
“What does the government have against Louisiana?” asked a blogger named Lobster Martini. []

The “mistake” was supposedly discovered when the B-52 landed at Barskdale, where the plane should have been secured by an armed security detail. Instead, it simply parked on the flight line, where ground crew noticed the words “nuclear armed” stenciled on the sides of the missiles. [ ]

Three officers confirmed the warheads were, in Bush’s argot, “nucular.”
But the mission could have ended in a “broken arrow” nuclear calamity if the bomber had crashed, or inadvertently dropped its ordnance. Munitions, and even entire engines-such as the No. 1 turbine that fell off an American Airlines DC 10 after taking off from Chicago’s O’Hare airport in May, 1979, killing two people on the ground and all 271 people onboard-occasionally drop from underwing pylons in flight. [Chicago Tribune May 26-30/79; National Transportation Safety Board Aircraft Accident Report NSTB-AAR-79-17]

A few other examples: — A B-36 ferrying a nuclear weapon from Biggs Air Force Base, Texas to Kirtland accidentally drops a bomb in the New Mexico desert.

[] – A fighter pilot accidentally dropped a BDU-33 dummy bomb into a house, narrowly missing a family of three. [ ]

– A 500-pound bomb fell from an FA-18 plane during a routine training exercise and exploded on the edge of a U.S. base 100 miles north of Sarajevo. [
AP July 17/02]

– A National Guard F-16 fighter jet on a nighttime training mission strafed an elementary school in New Jersey with 25 rounds of depleted uranium ammunition.
[AP Nov 4/04]

– Another U.S. Air Force practice bomb accidentally on the Yorkshire countryside in England. [
BBC Jan 12/04]

– Electromagnetic interference from military transmitters may have caused an F-16 jet to accidentally drop a 500 pound bomb on rural West Georgia.
[Montreal Gazette May 12/89]
A crash, mid-air explosion or structural breakup-not uncommon occurrences with heavily-laden B-52s-could have ignited the high explosives used to implode the warheads. The ultimate dirty bomber’s fantasy could have seen plutonium–the deadliest substance ever conjured by humans-raining down over what would become a statewide “national sacrifice zone”, off-limits to all life-forms for more than 4 billion years.

Barksdale AFB is no stranger to nuclear accidents. On July 6, 1959, a C-124 “Flying Boxcar” crashed on takeoff, completely destroying the aircraft and the nuclear weapon it was carrying. []

[See: “Broken Arrows” ]

The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down for September 14, 2007 to “review procedures.” Though they actually responded flawlessly to apparently authentic orders, the highly trained specialists who carried out the nuclear loadout have been temporarily “decertified” from handling nukes. Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the mishandling of arms capable of destroying cities “deeply disturbing. There is no more serious issue than the security and proper handling of nuclear weapons.”

[AP Sept 5/07]

The crewdogs who flew their assigned mission without mishap have been ordered not to mention that all pilots are required to perform a “walk around” inspection of their airplanes and calculate elaborate “weight-and-balance” graphs before attempting to aviate. Failure to notice or be informed of the much heavier nuclear casings on the missiles they were carrying would have jeopardized flight safety.
According to a well-informed and extremely thorough U.S. military source I call “Hank” (with whom I have broken major stories over the past 15 years), someone “must have adjusted the bomber’s balance. It had to have been done.”

In addition to knowing what is externally attached to their airplane, the amount of paperwork, signatures, and discrete passwords involved in releasing a nuclear weapon from its storage bunker and loading it onto an airframe are more formidable than flak.

And there were six of them.
The coded message to upload and launch the B-52 from Minot with six live nuclear weapons carried the signature of the
“football” containing the day’s nuclear launch codes that is carried close to the president at all times by a specially detailed aide. After checking and counter-checking their coded orders, as few as a dozen people in uniform were actually involved in the subsequent secret nuclear mission.
According to Hank, at least three high-ranking officers were escorted into Minot AFB’s nuclear arms bunker after passing through multiple doors secured by pass codes, whose complete sequences were supplied each officer, who only knew part of each code. One hiccup, a fumbled code sequence, or “the wrong wrench” would have cancelled the loadout instantly.

Because the base had stood down for Labor Day, the timing was ideal for security. In his standing orders for August 30, 2007, 5th Bomb Wing commander Colonel Bruce Emig encouraged his troops to “Enjoy a safe Labor Day weekend.

“Warbirds, It’s hard to believe that Labor Day weekend is already here!” the colonel wrote. “Though cooler temperatures are right around the corner, the weather forecasters tell me that we should have a warm, summer-like weekend. Since Air Combat Command and Air Force Space Command have declared Friday a Family Day, many of you should be able to enjoy a nice, 4-day break as we transition from summer to fall. I wish all of you a relaxing and enjoyable time off, and urge you all once again to please keep safety in mind in all you do!” []

Under a bomber’s nuclear umbrella in a discrete corner of the sprawling airbase, air, ground and ordnance crews did not converse with each other. Or anyone else. Everyone involved knew better than to ask questions
that could abruptly end their careers by inadvertently tipping people who did not need to know.


Within hours, an airplane with a wingspan longer than the Wright Brothers’ first flight was safely loaded with avgas, sandwiches, and six nuclear weapons. Uploaded to the bomber using an accordion cradle on each missile trolley, each Advanced Cruise Missile was fueled once it was secured to a hard point under the aircraft’s wings. Because the ACMs were not inside a bomb bay, where they could be armed in flight, each underslung missile had to be fully armed before takeoff. “Wing walker” is not a B-52 job description. The plates connecting the firing circuits of each warhead to the cockpit were then activated, and the safeties were pulled from each clearly marked “nuclear weapon”-rendering it “live”. For the Explosive Ordnance Disposal detail who performed the loadout, there could be no doubt they were activating six nuclear weapons.

Alarms on the flight line should have sounded as soon as they sniffed hot ions leaking from the pulled pile rods in six slowly fissioning warheads. But the alarms remain silenced. That order, Hank insisted, could only have come under the properly coded signature of the National Command Authority-Commander-in-Chief G.W. Bush or Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.

The ensuing takeoff was an event branded on the central nervous system of every creature in auditory range as eight jet engines at maximum takeoff thrust levitated six missiles, up to 46,000 gallons of fuel, and an airplane the length of a 150-foot ship into a blue yonder that had just become much wilder. Everyone within miles knew that a B-52 had come into Minot and taken off again. But only God and the devil knew where it was going. []

And they weren’t saying.

In the silence left by this momentous departure, if there were questions, nobody voiced them. Perhaps there were a few quietly delivered high-fives instead. Despite the high stress that runs counter to every human instinct, everyone involved had carried out their assigned duties with complete attention to the details required to launch a half-dozen live nuclear weapons “safely”. The professionally conducted operation was carried off in complete secrecy, without a hitch, only after the loadout and launch order had been digitally confirmed as coming from the NCA. There was only one problem regarding the originators of those orders, Hank emailed me:

Let us quickly review. My earlier exclusive on my former website,, disclosed how in October 2006, North Korea’s leaders asked China to take out Japan’s shiny new recon satellite before it could be tasked by American officers to monitor Pyongyang’s first atomic test. Blowing up someone’s satellite is an act of war. But overriding its “Made In China” microchips with a remote command from the ground could never be proven. Even if no solar flares were recorded at the time. This first Chinese demo got the Pentagon’s attention. After all, their stated goal of “Full Spectrum Dominance” over Earth’s land, seas, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum depends on America’s successful weaponization of space. But as the Joint Chiefs are only now discovering, many of the supposedly secure chips in America’s civilian infrastructure-as well as all military communications, surveillance and weapons systems-have been “Wal-Marted” by U.S. corporations to low-bid Chinese suppliers-who rigged them for failure or takeover by “command override” in the event of war.

[See: “Faulty Microchips Threaten U.S. Attack On Iran” ]

The second demonstration of China’s newfound capabilities to manipulate microchips came in late February 2007, when Dick Cheney’s 757, flying home from Australia where the Vice President had not been well received by the locals, was forced to divert to Singapore. In a story intriguingly tagged, “U.S. Denies Cheney Forced To Land,” Agence France-Presse reported that the White House admitted the Vice-President’s “specially secured” Boeing 757 had “suffered electrical problems” before landing in Singapore. But Cheney spinner Lea Anne McBride insisted, “This was the preplanned, scheduled refueling stop. We were not diverted. The vice president did not get off the plane during his refueling stop.” [AFP Feb 26/07]

Wrong again.
According to U.S. military personnel present on the tarmac at Paya Lebar Air Base-who according to Hank said were “trying to yak with the locals: ‘Can you get us this part? Do you have a Radio Shack?’”-a small Chinese delegation met with Cheney outside his electronically-challenged aircraft. Wandering in and out of the brief conversation, Hank’s sources described the brief encounter, which occurred shortly after 1400 hours Singapore time.

Disembarking Air Force One, Cheney said something like, “Gosh, we got this kind of interesting problem…”

“No, you don’t understand sir,” a Chinese official interrupted. “This is how we brought you here. And this is why.”

Cheney’s visitors itemized the separately wired galley stoves, reading lights, in-flight video, and power outlets onboard the Vice President’s aircraft that had all conked out in flight. They knew this, they said, because the electronic signals that had disabled the microchips controlling these various devices had been directed by their government. In an impressive feat, the Chinese military had located and selectively targeted a stealthy aircraft painted with radar-absorbent materials flying at nearly 500 knots at 35,000 feet without a public itinerary.

According to Hank’s boots-on-the-tarmac sources, the mostly one-way conversation in Singapore concerned “Gulf of Tonkin possibilities.”

“They reached out and touched someone,” Hank related. “They had a message they wanted to get across: ‘You’ve got ships out there in the Gulf. If this thing cooks off, all bets are off because some of the things that are put out there, we are really now wanting people to talk about.’”

The Chinese were referring to their control of most of the microchips on this planet.

A very thoughtful Dick Cheney departed two hours later.

The next Chinese digital demo came last June. In what came to be called “the most successful cyber attack ever mounted on the U.S. defence department,” Chinese military hacked into a Pentagon computer network serving the defense secretary’s personal office. Like their American counterparts, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) regularly probes U.S. military networks. But American officials said these latest cyber attack caused grave concern when China demonstrated it “could disrupt U.S. defenses systems at critical times.”

“The PLA has demonstrated the ability to conduct attacks that disable our system… and the ability in a conflict situation to re-enter and disrupt on a very large scale,” revealed a former official, adding that the PLA has also penetrated the networks of U.S. arms corporations and war-launching think-tanks. [Financial Times Sept 3/07]

A Chinese official named Jiang repeated his government’s denial that it had penetrated other government and military computer networks. But British and German newspapers cited intelligence and other officials saying that government and military networks in Germany, the United States and Britain had been broken into by Chinese army hackers this summer.
According to the Associated Press: “China’s military has openly discussed using cyber attacks as a means of harrying or defeating a more powerful conventional military. In a 1999 paper on unconventional strategies titled ‘Unlimited Warfare’ two top Chinese military figures wrote that a hacker could have more power than a nuclear bomb.”

In a report this year, security software maker Symantec Corp. listed China as having the second most malicious computer activity in the world-after the United States. [AP Sept 6/07]

Speaking as a soldier, Hank commented, “The June hack showed an enormous hole in our ability to protect and communicate our information.

The next hack came almost immediately, when Russian computers controlling the International Space Station’s orientation and supplies of oxygen and water inexplicably failed while the station’s three crewmembers were hosting seven visiting shuttle astronauts.

Among the station’s network of six Russian computers, only two remained functioning. A system-wide re-boot usually resolved smaller hitches, But this time, the system was unable to re-boot.

“A failure of this type has not occurred before,” the BBC reported. [BBC June 14/07]

“This is serious,” stated James Oberg, a retired rocket scientist turned author and consultant. “These computers run their life support, so if they can’t be restored, the space station could become uninhabitable.” Oberg added, “Statistically, this is not random. There is some new environmental factor that must identified and isolated, and neither step is trivial.” [TechNewsWorld June 14/07]

Russian flight controllers and onboard engineers traced the problem to “odd readings” in electrical power cables feeding the Russian computers through a corroded junction box labeled BOK 3. [ July 16/07]

The gremlins returned to the Russian machines on February 5, when another ISS computer system crashed in the Zvezda Service Module that routes data between orientation sensors and four positioning gyroscopes. The space station’s solar power stopped supplying power, and communications were cut with Earth.

Though power and comms were restored three hours later, New Scientist reports, “The cause of the computer crash remains a mystery. NASA has so far not identified the cause of the crash.” [New Scientist Feb 5/02]

But Hank was on it. “They had limited oxygen, a limited time frame,” he observed. The astronauts onboard the space station didn’t know if the next computer malfunction “would open an airlock.” But like an airliner in flight, the station should have smoothly shifted over to backup systems.

It didn’t.

“The word ‘redundancy’ never got into the story,” Hank pointed out. Instead, all three backup circuit boards wired into three isolated circuits, “had to blow out in the same way at the exact same time. The fault that occurred in the first board, the second board, and the third board all had to be the same damn thing at the same damn time.”

“Impossible,” he declared. Especially, since each of the simultaneously faulty microchips had been “stress tested to hell and back. Except for internal stressors.”

Except for “Made In China” microchip mischief.

While it is not yet confirmed that the February 5 microchip malfunction was related to the June 14 space station hack, according to Hank’s sources, on that earlier date the Chinese pulled the equivalent of Cheney’s Singapore diversion–in space. “Nobody got busted for it,” he adds. “You always hear about the company at fault.”

Not this time.
While White House fundamentalists remained mesmerized by the firepower ostensibly under their command, Beijing kept trying to send a very different message. Their next installment came in early September 2007, when U.S. Air Force officers passed through multiple levels of security and entered the inner computer sanctum of America’s Air and Space Command deep under Cheyenne Mountain. This digital repository stores regularly updates archives needed to execute “clean reinstalls” in case air force computer systems crash or are otherwise compromised.

Entering the quietly humming room, the air force officers were shocked to see monitors aglow with light. The displays were supposed to be off. As they watched in shock and awe, randomly typed letters scrolled across a screen. The words were gibberish. But the message was heart-stoppingly clear: “We Can Play With Your Toys!”

The sender “left breadcrumbs,” Hank related. The deliberately attached ISP (Internet Service Provider) pointed to China.

This was bad enough. But what really freaked out the officers was the realization that none of these “stand alone” machines was online. None of them contained a modem!

The only way to access these machines, Hank revealed, is to “use the sneaker net to walk up to it and tap on the keyboard. And yet they were interacting, and they were doing it in real time. They fussed with our stuff. These guys were able to go into what was a stand alone system and take control of it.”

How did the PLA hack supposedly secure air force computers lacking network modems? Just like as select power companies can now pipe the Internet to home computers through electrical power lines, the Chinese were able to play on SAC’s supposedly secure computers through the AC power cables connecting them to the national power… “grid”.

But how did they break supposedly “unbreakable” military encryption?

And how were they able to transmit signals to override specific chips buried under a mountain of granite halfway around the globe? According to Hank, the International Space Station was not in line-of-sight with China when it’s onboard computers and back-up systems simultaneously went down.

When it comes to dialing up a bomber to drop nuclear weapons on another country, “It’s kind of like hiring a hit man,” Hank explained. You meet him in the parking lot with the assignment, a weapon, and cash. Later, you confirm that you haven’t changed your mind. Then the mission proceeds, and either the target or the hit man is taken out.

In the case of the mission out of Minot, the First Phase began with an initiation order authorizing weapons release to arm a B-52 specially flown in for this operation. Proper codes and paperwork provided the Pilot in Command with an initial heading to fly, and initial waypoints or nav points to punch into the plane’s GPS. No destination was provided. The pilots were just supposed to get in and drive.

They did.

Once the B-52 was airborne, it flew into an electronic black hole. No electromagnetic emissions came from the bomber. There were no radio calls to home base asking, “Are you guys sure you really want to do this?” Even more startling, no coded IFF squawks identified the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker) as friendly to prowling post-9/11 fighters. And no transponder beeps identified the airplane and its mission.

This is not the normal procedure for transporting weapons, or flying a B-52 through heavily-trafficked air corridors over the Continental United States. Every aircraft flying at high altitudes over CONUS, (or through Controlled Airspace around airports at lower attitudes) must transmit their identity on an assigned transponder frequency.

Commercial planes squawk in their own dialect. “When you’re talking a government vehicle, like a C-130 [military transport], that’s another level up,” Hank noted. “It’s a different kind of squawk. ATC knows how to treat that kind of traffic differently. A B-52 is another level up. Controllers don’t see that every day. A C-5 [flying down from Colorado to dust a hurricane, for example]-they really don’t see that every day.”

The transponder code of the B-52 out of Minot would have prioritized it to civilian Air Traffic Control, and they would have cleared a corridor for its exclusive track-much like a presidential motorcade.

If this Bad Boy had been transferring six advanced nuclear cruise missiles to Barksdale, as official spin insisted, its transponder would have squawked: “Hey, guess what? We’ve got nukes onboard! Make sure no one runs into us. And if this signal stops scramble recovery people wearing proper attire.”

Or code to that effect.

But this did not happen.

“The Situation Room in the White House was not stood up, but they still have people there,? Hank continued. ?One of their jobs is to track nuclear weapons. Somebody in that head shed should have seen a transponder code matched up with nuclear weapons loaded onto that aircraft. That should have been something that went up on the board. They would have known that a B-52 was getting a full loadout, and that all procedures had been followed. And someone else would have said, ‘Mmm, six nukes. We’ll keep an eye on it.”

And given an order for radar operators to push a button to highlight that particular blip.

Instead, the blacked-out BUFF flew on.

High in the stratosphere, where the nitrous oxide exhaust from eight fuel-hungry turbines attacked this planet’s shredding ozone layer, boosting global warming another notch toward a catastrophic methane meltdown, wings never designed to carry heavy ordnance flexed up and down like a bird in flight. The crew must have considered the long roster of crashed Stratofortress with ?broken arrows? onboard. Not for a second could they forget that the six live nuclear weapons strapped to their wings were as close to detonation as a gremlin’s wet dream.

Or the fail-safe switch under the Plane Commander’s gloves.

An hour or two out of Minot, a bell chimed in the cockpit and a secure printer spat out a coded paper message. Even if they betrayed no emotion, the pilots must have felt a chill. Because the mission’s next critical Fail-Safe had been passed. “We’ve thought about it, and the mission is still a go,” the message essentially read. If these new orders had not been received, or had been issued incorrectly, the plane would have immediately turned back to the nearest base capable of handling its special needs.

But their orders were in order. Positively authenticated by both pilots as coming from the NCA, the new message received onboard the bomber issued the radio frequencies, call signs and rendezvous coordinates for “hitting” one of three aerial refueling planes constantly orbiting over the Gulf of Mexico. Their new “Go Code” also identified their target region. After topping off their tanks, they were to take up a heading for another Gulf, half a world away.

Wouldn’t the base commander, or the other officers involved in sending live nuclear weapons toward Iran have second thoughts about a strike that could trigger an even bigger political-military chain reaction?

Not necessarily, Hank explained. Military leaders usually favor intimidation in place of bloodshed. If the Iranians could be dissuaded from acquiring a nuclear deterrent of their own, or decide to stop supplying their Shiite brothers next door with sophisticated shaped-charge rockets capable of penetrating the depleted uranium hides of M-1 Abrams tanks-terrific! Everyone involved in the mission must have hoped that in this high-stakes brinksmanship, when Iranian sensors picked up the radioactive signature of an inbound American nuclear bomber strike, the mullahs in Teheran would burn their Korans and turn to Jesus.

On the other hand, how do you say “pissed off” in Persian? The mullahs might panic and start pushing buttons of their own. Especially when the Israeli Air Force was notified of the strike, and launched “supporting” fighter-bombers of their own.

In any case, it was out of the hands of the base commander and his immediate superiors. Since any one of these key staff officers could conceivably be kidnapped or impersonated during a nuclear strike, none had the authority to issue a recall order. Even if someone in the chain of command issued an RTB (Return To Base), SAC bomber crews en route to the final IP coordinates to commence their attack are trained to ignore all such entreaties.

In fact, a frantic “Come home for lunch,” or “Call your wife” command would confirm for the crew that something really was amiss, and they were at war.

In this way, a series of rote military assumptions can make an ash out of you and me.

Meanwhile, the man under whose digitally coded authority this strike was being carried out, remained completely unaware that six nuclear cruise missiles with his name on them were headed toward Iran.

Phase Three would have issued coded authorization to take out their assigned targets. One target confirmed by two highly placed, independent sources was a nuclear power plant hard against the mountains of Iran. “But the bomber would still have five missiles left. And it would not leave the area empty,” Hank insisted. “If they go loaded for bear, they’re not going to leave with a rabbit.”

After all, he added, a pre-BDA [Bomb Damage Assessment] would have been done before launching the bomber “to determine how many it would take. And they needed six?”

Despite all the Hollywood hype, cruise missiles are notoriously inaccurate. Just ask the folks ducking strays in Kuwait or Iran. Still, a cruise missile striking within 30 miles would have taken out that Iranian power plant. But if the nuclear-tipped ACM had detonated over its pile?

“Bad. Bad. Very bad,” as Hank would say. Because the resulting electromagnetic pulses from such a synergistic chain reaction would have–among other things–fried every unhardened Chinese microchip aboard every American ship, plane and vehicle in the Persian Gulf.

“You don’t have to sink the CAG, just turn it off,” Hank said, referring to the formidable–yet completely microchip dependent–Carrier Air Group steaming off the coast of Iran. “Once they realized that these ships were just bobbing around out there,” the bad guys would have “launched 10,000 rowboats” from surrounding shorelines to go play pirates.

Was this why several Chinese Aegis destroyers were steaming in from the east about 250 nautical miles from the Straits of Hormuz? Was this why two or three Chinese submarines had been deployed to the area of the transiting destroyers the week before?

Or were the two Chinese anti-aircraft destroyers part of an elaborate fail-safe in case the demonstration glitched and the bomber could not be recalled? Even if their anti-aircraft missiles could not reach the distant plane (easily tracked through its rigged Chinese chips), specific signals sent from the ship could have turned the plane around. Or its fuel off.

What were the Chinese thinking?

Ever since Katrina, and the subsequent standing wave put up off the south coast of Africa by HAARP to deflect hurricanes from the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Beijing has felt under siege as earthquakes and wild, shipping-interrupting storms continue to be conducted “all the way to China” by the powerful Gakona, Alaskan transmitter. [See “Where Have All The Hurricanes Gone”-upcoming on]

Three times, the Chinese have attempted to override HAARP. And failed. Elaborate demonstrations of their electronic warfare capabilities–including fizzing circuits in space, and a face-to-face with the U.S. Vice-President in Singapore–had not persuaded American leaders to A: Refrain from hoisting a false flag over a Persian Gulf of Tonkin, and B: Turn HAARP off.

Surely, Beijing must have reasoned, ordering a United State Air Force strategic bomber loaded out with six armed nuclear weapons to fly over the United States and then on towards Iran would conclusively demonstrate who was now in charge.

“This op would not have ‘Made In China’ stamped all over it,” Hank pointed out. “Instead, American bombs, American bombers and American systems were used.” No matter how the mission had proceeded, if Washington had been forced to tell the world, “It wasn’t us. We lost control of our bomber carrying six atomic warheads”–how would that have looked to a global audience already angry over America’s misuse of its military might?

Whatever Beijing’s intentions, Hank was not the only person in the U.S. military to have his head rearranged by this latest Chinese demonstration. “They might have wanted to go all the way. Of they might have wanted to put pieces in play and see how far they could go,” he surmised. “Maybe the Chinese started, and stopped it.”

Either way, the unauthorized Minot mission has bluntly shown the White House and the Pentagon: “If you start something, we can stop it. You no longer know how much control you have over your own weapons systems because we can play with them at will. No matter where you are, no matter what you’re doing, if you’re using our chips you are vulnerable. And you can’t know if our Trojan chips are in your systems unless you tear apart every circuits in every surveillance, communications, weapons system, pipelines, telecom and power grid in your entire military and civilian inventory and look. And then dismantle every network they are connected to.”

“And one more thing,” Beijing inferred, “If you take offense and pop off a missile, remember, we might make it do a loop-de-loop and come right back down on its originating silo.”

Hank and others in America’s command hierarchy remain alarmed and puzzled-which makes them even more uneasy. Would China’s leadership have precipitated a cloud of radioactive fallout downwind over their own population? Emphatically, yes. The country’s generals have long counted an expendable population and land mass as key factors in “winning” a nuclear war.

Best case scenario, this recent flight of fancy was a warning for Washington to chill the bomb Iran rhetoric, and dial down HAARP.

“Maybe the Chinese got it right and they were just messin’ with us,” Hank mused. “Or they got it wrong, and something very bad almost happened. But why only one plane? Why stop there? It’s a limited use of a system that is now exposed.”

But what can we do about it?

And what a message it sent!

[See “Cyber War”]

Phase Three of the mission would have sent coded target grid coordinates and time(s) of weapon(s) release, as well as updates on weather over the area, enemy defense status and friendly escorts. Those orders never came.

Instead, Phase Four was initiated. When the cockpit teleprinter spat out paper tape again, it read, in so many words: “Forget the whole thing. Abort the mission. Turn back.” The only people capable of issuing a nuclear strike recall order would be the President, the Secretary of Defense, a specific designate of the SecDef authorized by special code. Or a Chinese military hacker.

As Hank notes, “The plane had to be diverted to a base that could handle nuclear weapons.” That would be Barksdale. But…

“Live hot nukes would have tripped alarms on the tarmac when it touched down. Either they were nonfunctional on both ends [Minot and Barksdale], which is scary beyond belief considering what we’re talking about.” Or the Joint Chiefs or the NCA could have ordered the radiation sensors silenced to keep the mission-and the hijacked mission-under wraps. Or the Chinese could have turned them off. If the system is digital, Beijing probably controls it.

Bottom line: if the incoming bomber had crashed approach, no one responding would have known they were dealing with a quiver-full of “broken arrows”.

Thought the missiles were never launched, they still remain in play. As Hank worried, “Six nukes are now forward deployed to the air force base that handles Middle East ops.”

A former counter-terrorism expert with the CIA and the State Department shares his concern. Larry Johnson does not buy the official story that six nuclear weapons were “mistakenly” flown over the USA-not after a retired B-52 pilot reminded him. “The only time you put such weapons on a plane is when they are on alert, or if the crew has been tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.” Besides running nuclear war exercises like the Global Guardian drill it ran on the morning of 9/11, Barksdale AFB deploys “heavies” to the Middle East.

Like Hank, Johnson wants to know, “Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?” His pilot pal believes that an insider leaker tried to send up a bright red flag. Johnson asks, “Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran?” []

But Hank points out another problem. Cruise missiles-which are essentially autonomous, unpiloted drones-have special needs. Since six cruise missiles showing up at Barksdale were an oddity, can they be adequately stored and maintained there? The Gulf Coast is “a very different environment” than Nebraska, Hank emphasizes. How long is Barksdale going to hold onto them? In the hurricane season?

“Are we going to see some of them floating out on the tide?” Hank wants to know. Americans need a big confirm that these weapons have been sent back north to a better home.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 6:19 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

9-11, Six Years Later - Bush for Life

September 10, 2007

9-11, Six Years Later

By Paul Craig Roberts

On Sept. 7, National Public Radio reported that Muslims in the Middle East were beginning to believe that the 9-11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were false flag operations committed by some part of the U.S. and/ or Israeli government.

It was beyond the imagination of the NPR reporter and producer that there could be any substance to these beliefs, which were attributed to the influence of books by U.S. and European authors sold in bookstores in Egypt.

NPR's concern was that books by Western authors questioning the origin of the 9-11 attack have the undesirable result of removing guilt from Muslims' shoulders.

The NPR reporter, Ursula Lindsey, said that "here in the U.S., most people have little doubt about what happened during the 2001 attacks."

NPR's assumption that the official 9-11 story is the final word is uninformed. Polls show that 36 percent of Americans and more than 50 percent of New Yorkers lack confidence in the 9-11 commission report. Many 9-11 families who lost relatives in the attacks are unsatisfied with the official story.

Why are the U.S. media untroubled that there has been no independent investigation of 9-11?

Why are the media unconcerned that the rules governing preservation of forensic evidence were not followed by federal authorities?

Why do the media brand skeptics of the official line "conspiracy theorists" and "kooks"?

What is wrong with debate and listening to both sides of the defining issue of our time? If the official line is so correct and defensible, what does it have to fear from skeptics?

Obviously, a great deal considering the iron curtain that has been erected to protect the official line from independent examination.

Some may think that the 9-11 commission report was an independent investigation, and others will protest that we have the National Institute of Standards and Technology analysis, which explains the collapse of the Twin Towers as a result of airliner impact and fire.

The 9-11 commission was a political commission run by Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the head of which is a member of President Bush's Cabinet.

Zelikow was a member of President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a neoconservative stronghold. In February 2005, Zelikow was appointed counselor of the U.S. Department of State. Obviously, there was zero possibility that the 9-11 commission would hold any part of the Bush administration accountable for the numerous failures of U.S. government agencies on Sept. 11, much less would the commission investigate for any complicity.

If one looks at the credentials of skeptics compared to the credentials of defenders of the official line, it is impossible to dismiss skeptics as kooks. There are many people with strong imaginations on the Internet, but serious skeptics stick to known facts, known violations of standard procedures and the laws of physics. The vast majority of the people who call skeptics "kooks" are themselves ignorant of physics and have little comprehension of the improbability that such an attack could succeed without either the complicity or complete failure of government agencies.

Over the past six years, the ranks of distinguished skeptics of the 9-11 storyline have grown enormously. The ranks include distinguished scientists, engineers and architects, intelligence officers, air traffic controllers, military officers and generals, including the former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, former presidential appointees and members of the White House staff in Republican administrations, Top Gun fighter pilots and career airline pilots who say that the flying attributed to the 9-11 hijackers is beyond the skills of America's best pilots, and foreign dignitaries.

Dr. Andreas von Buelow, former West German minister of research and technology and former state secretary of the federal ministry of defense, said: "The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four airliners within a few minutes and within one hour to drive them into their targets with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry."

Gen. Leonid Ivashov, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, said: "Only secret services and their current chiefs -- or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations -- have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. ... Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the Sept. 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders."

Americans might concede that it is unusual that U.S. airport security would fail four times within a few minutes, that U.S. air defenses would fail across the board to intercept the hijacked airliners and that hijackers lacking in flight skills could conduct the exotic flight maneuvers that top gun fighter pilots say are beyond their own skills. Still, there is some possibility, however remote, that Allah could have blessed the hijackers with unbelievable luck.

But when we come to the explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the official story lacks even a remote possibility of being true. Architects, engineers and physicists know that powerfully constructed steel buildings do not suddenly collapse at free-fall or near-free-fall speed simply because they were impacted by airliners and experienced short-lived, low intensity and limited fires.

Physicists also know that there was not enough gravitational energy to pulverize massive concrete into fine dust, to cut massive steel beams into appropriate lengths to be loaded and removed on trucks, and to eject dust and steel beams hundreds of yards horizontally. Physicists know that if intense fire were present throughout the towers sufficient to cause steel to weaken and suddenly collapse, such fires would not have left unburned and unscorched hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper, which floated all over lower Manhattan.

Physicists have raised unanswered questions about the official explanation's neglect of the known laws of physics. Recently, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: "Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous volumes of study."

Some of NIST's own scientists are questioning its reports. Dr. James Quintiere, former chief of the fire science division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, recently said that "the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable" and called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the WTC towers.

Quintiere has called attention to many problems with NIST's investigation and reports: the absence of a timeline, failure to explain the collapse of WTC 7, the spoliation of the evidence of a fire scene, reliance on questionable computer models, the absence of any evidence for the existence of temperatures NIST predicts as necessary for failure of the steel and a Commerce Department legal structure that instead of trying to find the facts "did the opposite and blocked everything."

On Aug. 27, 2007, a prominent member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science, Dr. Lynn Margulis, dismissed the official account of 9-11 as a "fraud" and called for a new, thorough and impartial investigation.

On Sept. 5, 2007, U.S. Navy Top Gun fighter pilot and veteran airline pilot Ralph Kolstad said that the flight maneuvers attributed to the 9-11 hijackers are beyond his flight skills. "Something stinks to high heaven," declared Kolstad.

When faced with disturbing events, the Romans asked a question, "Cui bono?" Who benefits? This question was conspicuously absent from the official investigation.

Who are the beneficiaries of 9-11? The answer is: the military-security complex, which has accumulated tens of billions of dollars in profits; U.S. oil companies, which hope to get their hands on Iraqi and perhaps Iranian oil; the Republican Party, which saved a vulnerable newly elected president, George W. Bush, viewed by many as illegitimately elected by one vote of the Supreme Court, by wrapping him in the flag as "war president"; the Republican Federalist Society, which used 9-11 to achieve its goal of concentrating power in the executive; Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives, who used the "new Pearl Harbor" to implement their "Project for a New American Century" and extend American hegemony over the Middle East; and right-wing Israeli Zionists, who have successfully used American blood and treasure to eliminate obstacles to Israeli territorial expansion.

In addition to American troops and Iraqi and Afghan civilian casualties, a casualty of the neoconservative "war on terror" is the civil liberties that protect Americans from tyranny. President Bush and his corrupt Department of Justice (sic) have declared our constitutional protections to be null and void at the whim of the executive.

The greatest benefactors of 9-11 are the authoritarian personalities that John Dean says have taken over the Republican Party.


Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Read this or George W. Bush will be president the rest of your life

by William Blum

The world is very weary of all this and wants to laugh again

Okay, Bush ain't gonna get out of Iraq no matter what anyone says or does short of a)impeachment, b)a lobotomy, or c)one of his daughters setting herself afire in the Oval Office as a war protest. A few days ago, upon arriving in Australia, "in a chipper mood", he was asked by the Deputy Prime Minister about his stopover in Iraq. "We're kicking ass," replied the idiot king.[1] Another epigram for his tombstone.

And the Democrats ain't gonna end the war. Ninety-nine percent of the American people protesting on the same day ain't gonna do it either, in this democracy. (No, I'm sorry to say that I don't think the Vietnam protesters ended the war. There were nine years of protest — 1964 to 1973 — before the US military left Vietnam. It's a stretch to ascribe a cause and effect to that. The United States, after all, had to leave sometime.)

Only those fighting the war can end it. By laying down their arms and refusing to kill anymore, including themselves. Some American soldiers in Iraq have already refused to go on very dangerous combat missions. Iraq Veterans Against the War, last month at their annual meeting, in St. Louis, voted to launch a campaign encouraging American troops to refuse to fight. "Iraq Veterans Against the War decided to make support of war resisters a major part of what we do," said Garrett Rappenhagen, a former U.S. Army sniper who served in Iraq from February 2004 to February 2005.

The veterans group has begun organizing among active duty soldiers on military bases. Veterans have toured the country in busses holding barbeques outside the base gates. They also plan to step up efforts to undermine military recruiting efforts.
Of course it's a very long shot to get large numbers of soldiers into an angry, protesting frame of mind. But consider the period following the end of World War Two. Late 1945 and early 1946 saw what is likely the greatest troop revolt that has ever occurred in a victorious army. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American soldiers protested all over the world because they were not being sent home even though the war was over. The GIs didn't realize it at first, but many soon came to understand that the reason they were being transferred from Europe and elsewhere to various places in the Pacific area, instead of being sent back home, was that the United States was concerned about uprisings against colonialism, which, in the minds of Washington foreign-policy officials, was equated with communism and other nasty un-American things. The uprisings were occurring in British colonies, in Dutch colonies, in French colonies, as well as in the American colony of the Philippines. Yes, hard to believe, but the United States was acting like an imperialist power.

In the Philippines there were repeated mass demonstrations by GIs who were not eager to be used against the left-wing Huk guerrillas. The New York Times reported in January 1946 about one of these demonstrations: "'The Philippines are capable of handling their own internal problems,' was the slogan voiced by several speakers. Many extended the same point of view to China."[2]

American marines were sent to China to support the Nationalist government of Chang Kai-shek against the Communists of Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai. They were sent to the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia) to be of service to the Dutch in their suppression of native nationalists. And American troop ships were used to transport the French military to France's former colony in Vietnam. These and other actions of Washington led to numerous large GI protests in Japan, Guam, Saipan, Korea, India, Germany, England, France, and Andrews Field, Maryland, all concerned with the major slowdown in demobilization and the uses for which the soldiers were being employed. There were hunger strikes and mass mailings to Congress from the soldiers and their huge body of support in the States. In January 1946, Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado declared "It is distressing and humiliating to all Americans to read in every newspaper in the land accounts of near mutiny in the Army."[3]

On January 13, 1946, 500 GIs in Paris adopted a set of demands called "The Enlisted Man's Magna Charta", calling for radical reforms of the master-slave relationship between officers and enlisted men; also demanding the removal of Secretary of War Robert Patterson. In the Philippines, soldier sentiment against the reduced demobilization crystalized in a meeting of GIs that voted unanimously to ask Secretary Patterson and certain Senators: "What is the Army's position in the Philippines, especially in relation to the reestablishment of the Eighty-sixth Infantry Division on a combat basis?"[4]

By the summer of 1946 there had been a huge demobilization of the armed forces, although there's no way of knowing with any exactness how much of that was due to the GIs' protests.[5]

If this is how American soldiers could be inspired and organized in the wake of "The Good War", imagine what can be done today in the midst of "The God-awful War".

Iraq Veterans Against the War could use your help.

A pullet surprise for "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner

In 1971 the New York Times published its edition of the Pentagon Papers, based on the government documents concerning Vietnam policy which had been borrowed by Daniel Ellsberg. In its preface to the book, the Times commented about certain omissions and distortions in the government's view of political and historical realities as reflected in the papers: "Clandestine warfare against North Vietnam, for example, is not seen... as violating the Geneva Accords of 1954, which ended the French Indochina War, or as conflicting with the public policy pronouncements of the various administrations. Clandestine warfare, because it is covert, does not exist as far as treaties and public posture are concerned. Further, secret commitments to other nations are not sensed as infringing on the treaty-making powers of the Senate, because they are not publicly acknowledged."[6]

In his new book, "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA", New York Times reporter Tim Weiner also relies heavily on government documents in deciding what events to include and what not to, and the result is often equally questionable. "This book," Weiner writes, "is on the record — no anonymous sources, no blind quotations, no hearsay. It is the first history of the CIA compiled entirely from firsthand reporting and primary documents."(p.xvii)

Thus, if US government officials did not put something in writing or if someone did not report their firsthand experience concerning a particular event, to Tim Weiner the event doesn't exist, or at least is not worth recounting. British journalist Stewart Steven has written: "If we believe that contemporary history must be told on the basis of documentary evidence before it becomes credible, then we must also accept that everything will either be written with the government's seal of approval or not be written at all."

As to firsthand reporting, for Weiner it apparently has to be from someone "reputable". Former CIA officer Philip Agee wrote a 1974 book, "Inside the Company: CIA Diary", that provides more detail about CIA covert operations in Latin America than any book ever written. And it was certainly firsthand. But Agee and his revelations are not mentioned at all in Weiner's book. Could it be because Agee, in the process of becoming the Agency's leading dissident, also became a socialist radical and close ally of Cuba?

Former CIA officer John Stockwell also penned a memoir ("In Search of Enemies", 1978), revealing lots of CIA dirty laundry in Africa. He later also became a serious Agency dissident, and the Weiner book ignores him as well.

Also ignored: Joseph Burkholder Smith, another Agency officer, not quite a left-wing dissident like Agee or Stockwell but a heavy critic nonetheless, entitled his memoir "Portrait of a Cold Warrior" (1976), in which he revealed numerous instances of CIA illegality and immorality in the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia.

There's also Cambodian leader Prince Sihanouk, who provided his firsthand account in "My War With The CIA" (1974). Sihanouk is also a non-person in the pages of "Legacy of Ashes".

Even worse, Weiner ignores a veritable mountain of impressive "circumstantial" and other evidence of CIA misdeeds which doesn't meet his stated criteria, which any thorough researcher/writer on the Agency should give serious attention to, certainly at least mention for the record. Among the many CIA transgressions and crimes left out of "Legacy of Ashes", or very significantly played down, are:

* The extensive CIA role in the 1950s provocation and sabotage activities in East Berlin/East Germany which contributed considerably to the communists' decision to build the Berlin Wall is not mentioned, although the wall is discussed.

* The US role in instigating and supporting the coup that overthrew Sihanouk in 1970, which led directly to the rising up of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, and the infamous Cambodian "killing fields". Weiner, without providing any source, writes: "The coup shocked the CIA and the rest of the American government."(p.304) [7] Neither does the book make any mention of the deliberate Washington policy to support Pol Pot in his subsequent war with Vietnam. Pol Pot's name does not appear in the book.

* The criminal actions carried out by Operation Gladio, created by the CIA, NATO, and several European intelligence services beginning in 1949. The operation was responsible for numerous acts of terrorism in Europe, foremost of which was the bombing of the Bologna railway station in 1980, claiming 86 lives. The purpose of the terrorism was to place the blame for these atrocities on the left and thus heighten public concern about a Soviet invasion and keep the left from electoral victory in Italy, France and elsewhere. In Weiner's book this is all down the Orwellian memory hole.

* A discussion of the alleged 1993 assassination attempt against former president George H.W. Bush in Kuwait presents laughable evidence, yet states: "But the CIA eventually concluded that Saddam Hussein had tried to kill President Bush."(p.444) Weiner repeats this, apparently, solely because it appears in a CIA memorandum. That qualifies it as a "primary document". But what does this have to do with, y'know, the actual facts?

* Moreover, the book scarcely scratches the surface concerning the dozens of foreign elections the CIA has seriously interfered in; the large number of assassination attempts, successful or unsuccessful, against foreign political leaders; the widespread planting of phoney stories in the international media, stories that were at times picked up in the American press as a result; manipulation and corruption of foreign labor movements; extensive book and magazine publishing fronts; drug trafficking; and a virtual world atlas of overthrown governments, or attempts at same.

"A Legacy of Ashes" is generally a good read even for someone familiar with the world of the CIA, but it's actually often rather superficial, albeit 700 pages long. Why has so much of importance and interest been omitted from a book which has the subtitle: "The History of the CIA"; not, it must be noted, "A History of the CIA"?

Whatever jaundiced eye Weiner focuses on the CIA, he still implicitly accepts the two basic beliefs of the Cold

War: 1)There existed out there something called The International Communist Conspiracy, fueled by implacable Soviet expansionism; 2)United States foreign policy meant well. It may have frequently been bumbling and ineffective, but its intentions were noble. And still are.

Some sundry shooting from the lip

Football star Michael Vick has been condemned for allegedly helping to execute dogs.

But is killing a dog morally worse than killing a chicken, cow, pig, lamb, or fish which is done every hour of every day to enable non-vegans to enjoy the kind of diet they've become accustomed to? The fact that a dog is much more likely to be someone's pet doesn't answer the question; it only explains why that someone is upset over canineicide but cares much less about the liquidation of the other animals.

Home run king Barry Bonds is vilified for reputedly using steroids to build up his strength. He may have an asterisk put next to his record because this, presumably, gave him an unfair advantage over other baseball players who are "clean". But of all the things that athletes put into their bodies to improve their health, fitness and performance, why are steroids singled out? Doesn't taking vitamin and mineral supplements give an athlete an unfair advantage over athletes who don't take them? Should these supplements be banned from sport competition? Vitamin and mineral supplements are not necessarily any more "natural" than steroids, which in fact are very important in our body chemistry; among the steroids are the male and female sex hormones. Why not punish those who follow a "healthy diet" because of the advantage this may give them?

"Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?" was the question posed to presidential candidate Bill Richardson by singer Melissa Etheridge. "It's a choice," replied the New Mexico governor at the August 9 forum for Democratic candidates. Etheridge then said to Richardson, "Maybe you didn't understand the question," and she rephrased it. Richardson again said he thought it was a choice.[8]

The next time you hear someone say that homosexuality is a choice, ask them how old they were when they chose to be heterosexual. When they admit that they never made such a conscious choice, thus implying that people don't choose to be heterosexual, the next question to the person should be: "So only homosexuals choose to be homosexual? But what comes first, being homosexual so you can make the choice, or making the choice and thus becoming homosexual?"

Why is the Bush administration so unenthusiastic about preventing global warming? Perhaps this news report provides a clue.

"The Arctic sea ice will retreat hundreds of miles farther from the coast of Alaska in the summer, the scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded. That will open up vast waters for fishermen and give easier access to new areas for oil and gas exploration."[9]

We can say that the United States runs the world like the Taliban ran Afghanistan before the US ousted them from power in 2001. Destabilizing actions are taken against Venezuela like punishing a woman caught outside not wearing her burkha. Harsh sanctions are imposed on Iran in the manner of banning music, dancing, and kite-flying in Kabul. Cuba is subverted and hurt in dozens of ways like the religious police whipping a man whose beard is not the right length.


[1] Sydney Morning Herald, September 6, 2007
[2] New York Times, January 8, 1946, p.3
[3] New York Times, January 11, 1946, p.1
[4] Ibid., p.4
[5] For more information about the soldiers' protests, see: Mary-Alice Waters, "G.I.'s and the Fight
Against War" (New York, 1967), a pamphlet published by "Young Socialist" magazine.
[6] "The Pentagon Papers" (NY Times Edition), p. xii-xiii
[7] See William Blum, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II", p.137-8
[9] Washington Post, September 7, 2007, p.6


After losing two friends and over a dozen comrades, I have this to say:

Do not wage war unless it is absolutely, positively the last ditch effort for survival,? wrote Spc. Alex Horton, 22, of the 3rd Stryker Brigade in Army of Dude. ?In the future, I want my children to grow up with the belief that what I did here was wrong, in a society that doesn?t deem that idea unpatriotic,?

AP via Marine Corp Times:
Troop blogs show increasing criticism of war

By Robert Weller
The Associated Press
Sunday Sep 9, 2007 13:03:28 EDT

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 7:26 PM 0 comments