Friday, May 19, 2006

[911TruthAction] Digest Number 1295

There are 14 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. THE 9/11 STORY THAT GOT AWAY
From: "Debi Clark" debiclark@sbcglobal.net
2. Strange anomaly
From: "Debi Clark" debiclark@sbcglobal.net
3. Re: Pentagon Strike Video on DOD site
From: "S Miles Lewis" yahoolists@elfis.net
4. NYTimes Disinfo Agent Judith Miller says she was warned of 911 attac
From: "S Miles Lewis" yahoolists@elfis.net
5. Re: Pentagon Strike Video on DOD site
From: "NoRedCoats@aol.com" NoRedCoats@aol.com
6. Latest 9/11 news from TVNL
From: "reggie501" reggie501@optonline.net
7. Fw: NYTimes Reporter Judith Miller was warned of major terrorist att
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
8. A Day in the Life: 5/18/6
From: "President, USA Exile Govt." prez@usa-exile.org
9. Fw: Judicial Watch Is A Fraud -- the purpose of the Judical-Watch-
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
10. Dahr Jamail: Support Our Troops, Anybody? 2,450 DEAD GIs
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
11. Your Support Requested (Support 911 Eyewitness)
From: "Bill Giltner" bill.giltner@gmail.com
12. Fwd: Minutes
From: "Kevin Lee Hammond" exposethenewworldorder@yahoo.com
13. Fw: Pentagon 9/11 Video -- attach from Wakefield Sault -- no virus
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
14. Morgan Reynolds: "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories "
From: "Debi Clark" debiclark@sbcglobal.net

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 1
From: "Debi Clark" debiclark@sbcglobal.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 6:17am(PDT)
Subject: THE 9/11 STORY THAT GOT AWAY



THE 9/11 STORY THAT GOT AWAY

Rory O'Connor, William Scott Malone, AlterNet

http://www.alternet.org/story/36388/

Now, in an exclusive interview, Miller reveals how the attack on the Cole
spurred her reporting on Al Qaida and led her, in July 2001, to a
still-anonymous top-level White House source, who shared top-secret NSA
signals intelligence (SIGINT) concerning an even bigger impending Al Qaida
attack, perhaps to be visited on the continental United States.
Ultimately, Miller never wrote that story either. But two months later -- on
Sept. 11 -- Miller and her editor at the Times, Stephen Engelberg, both
remembered and regretted the story they "didn't do."
Interview with Judith Miller:
"I was working on a special project in 2000-2001 -- trying to do a series on
where Al Qaida was, who Al Qaida was, and what kind of a threat it posed to
the United States. In the beginning I thought it was going to be pretty
straightforward, but it turned out to be anything but. And it took me a long
long time, and a lot of trips to the Middle East, and a lot of dead ends,
before I finally understood how I could tell the story to the American
people. It was a long-term investigative piece, which meant that for the
most part, I didn't write articles on specific individual attacks -- I was
working the story …
"I was fairly persuaded that the attack on the Cole was an Al Qaida operation, based on the sources that I was talking to, because I had no independent information, obviously. The people that I was covering ardently believed that Al Qaida was behind a lot of these attacks on American forces and Americans throughout the Middle East that we were beginning to see. At the time there was still a fair amount of debate and a fair amount of resistance to that thesis within the intelligence community, as it's so-called. But from the get go, I think the instinctive reaction of the people I was covering was that this was an Al Qaoda operation. So I started looking at the attack on the Cole as an example of Al Qaida terrorism. (Follow Link)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 2
From: "Debi Clark" debiclark@sbcglobal.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 7:30am(PDT)
Subject: Strange anomaly


No one has ever responded to my question...as to...why do the cam stills
that were recorded and posted by the Pentagon have the date of Sept 12th on
them?? See below:


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 3
From: "S Miles Lewis" yahoolists@elfis.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 7:47am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Pentagon Strike Video on DOD site

Hi Katt,

No, I see nothing I can definitively recognize in the frames as an
airplane.

I was simply quoting the DOD site in my email.

sMilos

--- In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, "kattmanduu" <kattmann@...>
wrote:
>
> Honestly Miles, did you really see a whole 757 in any of that tape?
I
> didn't. KATT
> --- In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, "S Miles Lewis"
> <yahoolists@> wrote:
> >
> > Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September
11,
> > 2001
> > Video 1 (WMV)
> > <mms://wm.world.mii-streaming.net/media/defense/flight77/fl77-
> > 1_11094135.WMV>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/e5o3o>
> >
> > Video 2 (WMV)
> > <mms://wm.world.mii-streaming.net/media/defense/flight77/fl77-
> > 2_11094237.WMV>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/fytwp>
> >
> > <http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html#911video>
> >
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 4
From: "S Miles Lewis" yahoolists@elfis.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 8:17am(PDT)
Subject: NYTimes Disinfo Agent Judith Miller says she was warned of 911 attac

NYTimes Disinfo Agent Judith Miller says she was warned of 911 attack
in July 01
Former NY Times reporter Judith Miller to assert she was warned of
large scale attack before 9/11
RAW STORY / Published: Thursday May 18, 2006
[img]
http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Story+Image_thumb_051806_story.
jpg[/img]
In AN ALTERNET EXCLUSIVE THURSDAY, former New York Times reporter
Judy Miller tells Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone about the
story she'll regret for the rest of her life -- the fact that an
anonymous White House source told her in July 2001 that an NSA
intelligence report predicted a large al Qaeda attack, possibly on
the continental United States, RAW STORY <http://rawstory.com> has
learned.

"I think everybody knew that an attack was coming -- everyone who
followed this. But you know you can only 'cry wolf' within a
newspaper... before people start saying there he goes -- or there she
goes -- again!" Miller says in an interview.

"I remember the weekend before July 4, 2001 in particular, because
for some reason the people who were worried about Al Qaeda believed
that was the weekend that there was going to be an attack on the US
or on major American target somewhere," Miller recounts. "It was
going to be a large, well-coordinated attack."

Two months later -- on September 11 -- ALTERNET.ORG says Miller and
her editor at the Times, Stephen Engelberg, both remembered and
regretted the story they "didn't do."

"There was always a lot going on at the White House, so to a certain
extent, there was that kind of 'Cry wolf' problem," Miller says. "But
I got the sense that part of the reason that I was being told of what
was going on was that the people in counter terrorism were trying to
get the word to the President or the senior officials through the
press, because they were not able to get listened to themselves."

READ THE FULL ALTERNET STORY BELOW

The 9/11 Story That Got Away
By Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone, AlterNet
<http://www.alternet.org>. Posted May 18, 2006

In 2001, an anonymous White House source leaked top-secret NSA
intelligence to reporter Judith Miller that Al Qaida was planning a
major attack on the United States. But the story never made it into
the paper.
On Oct. 12, 2000, the guided missile destroyer USS Cole pulled into
harbor for refueling in Aden, Yemen. Less than two hours later,
suicide bombers Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa approached
the ship's port side in a small inflatable craft laden with
explosives and blew a 40-by-40-foot gash in it, killing 17 sailors
and injuring 39 others. The attack on the Cole, organized and carried
out by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida terrorist group, was a seminal but
still murky and largely misunderstood event in America's
ongoing "Long War."

Two weeks prior, military analysts associated with an experimental
intelligence program known as ABLE DANGER had warned top officials of
the existence of an active Al Qaida cell in Aden, Yemen. And two days
before the attack, they had conveyed "actionable intelligence" of
possible terrorist activity in and around the port of Aden to Gen.
Pete Schoomaker, then commander in chief of the U.S. Special
Operation Command (SOCOM).
The same information was also conveyed to a top intelligence officer
at the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), headed by the newly appointed
Gen. Tommy Franks. As CENTCOM commander, Franks oversaw all U.S.
armed forces operations in a 25-country region that included Yemen,
as well as the Fifth Fleet, to which the Cole was tasked. It remains
unclear what action, if any, top officials at SOCOM and CENTCOM took
in response to the ABLE DANGER warnings about planned Al Qaida
activities in Aden harbor.
None of the officials involved has ever spoken about the pre-attack
warnings, and a post-attack forensic analysis of the episode remains
highly classified and off-limits within the bowels of the Pentagon.
Subsequent investigations exonerated the Cole's commander, Kirk
Lippold, but Lippold's career has been ruined nonetheless. He remains
in legal and professional limbo, with a recommended promotion and new
command held up for the past four years by political concerns and
maneuvering.

Meanwhile, no disciplinary action was ever taken against any SOCOM or
CENTCOM officials. Schoomaker was later promoted out of retirement to
chief of staff, U.S. Army, and Franks went on to lead the combat
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Enter Judith Miller, the Pulitzer Prize-winning ex-New York Times
reporter at the center of the ongoing perjury and obstruction of
justice case involving former top White House official I. Lewis
(Scooter) Libby. Miller spent 85 days in jail before finally
disclosing that Libby was the anonymous source who confirmed to her
that Valerie Plame was a CIA official, although Miller never wrote a
story about Plame.

Now, in an exclusive interview, Miller reveals how the attack on the
Cole spurred her reporting on Al Qaida and led her, in July 2001, to
a still-anonymous top-level White House source, who shared top-secret
NSA signals intelligence (SIGINT) concerning an even bigger impending
Al Qaida attack, perhaps to be visited on the continental United
States.

Ultimately, Miller never wrote that story either. But two months
later -- on Sept. 11 -- Miller and her editor at the Times, Stephen
Engelberg, both remembered and regretted the story they "didn't do."

Interview with Judith Miller:

"I was working on a special project in 2000-2001 -- trying to do a
series on where Al Qaida was, who Al Qaida was, and what kind of a
threat it posed to the United States. In the beginning I thought it
was going to be pretty straightforward, but it turned out to be
anything but. And it took me a long, long time, and a lot of trips to
the Middle East, and a lot of dead ends, before I finally understood
how I could tell the story to the American people. It was a long-term
investigative piece, which meant that for the most part, I didn't
write articles on specific individual attacks -- I was working the
story …

"I was fairly persuaded that the attack on the Cole was an Al Qaida
operation, based on the sources that I was talking to, because I had
no independent information, obviously. The people that I was covering
ardently believed that Al Qaida was behind a lot of these attacks on
American forces and Americans throughout the Middle East that we were
beginning to see. At the time there was still a fair amount of debate
and a fair amount of resistance to that thesis within the
intelligence community, as it's so-called. But from the get go, I
think the instinctive reaction of the people I was covering was that
this was an Al Qaoda operation. So I started looking at the attack on
the Cole as an example of Al Qaida terrorism.

"I learned that the Al Qaida Cole attack was not exactly a hugely
efficient operation, and I learned later on that there had been an
earlier attempt to take out the Cole or another American ship that
had floundered badly because of poor Al Qaida training. Because of
incidents like that -- you know, overloading a dinghy that was
supposed to go have gone out to the ship and blow it up, so that the
dinghy would sink -- people tended to discount Al Qaida. They
said, 'Oh, they are just a bunch of amateurs." But I'd never thought
that. I never believed that. And the people I was covering didn't
think that …

"I had begun to hear rumors about intensified intercepts and tapping
of telephones. But that was just vaguest kind of rumors in the
street, indicators … I remember the weekend before July 4, 2001, in
particular, because for some reason the people who were worried about
Al Qaida believed that was the weekend that there was going to be an
attack on the United States or on a major American target somewhere.
It was going to be a large, well-coordinated attack. Because of the
July 4 holiday, this was an ideal opportunistic target and date for
Al Qaida.

My sources also told me at that time that there had been a lot of
chatter overheard -- I didn't know specifically what that meant --
but a lot of talk about an impending attack at one time or another.
And the intelligence community seemed to believe that at least a part
of the attack was going to come on July 4. So I remember that, for a
lot of my sources, this was going to be a 'lost' weekend. Everybody
was going to be working; nobody was going to take time off. And that
was bad news for me, because it meant I was also going to be on stand-
by, and I would be working too.
"I was in New York, but I remember coming down to D.C. one day that
weekend, just to be around in case something happened … Misery loves
company, is how I would put it. If it were going to be a stress-
filled weekend, it was better to do it together. It also meant I
wouldn't have trouble tracking people down -- or as much trouble --
because as you know, some of these people can be very elusive.

"The people in the counter-terrorism (CT) office were very worried
about attacks here in the United States, and that was, it struck me,
another debate in the intelligence community. Because a lot of
intelligence people did not believe that Al Qaida had the ability to
strike within the United States. The CT people thought they were
wrong. But I got the sense at that time that the counter-terrorism
people in the White House were viewed as extremist on these views.

"Everyone in Washington was very spun-up in the CT world at that
time. I think everybody knew that an attack was coming -- everyone
who followed this. But you know you can only 'cry wolf' within a
newspaper or, I imagine, within an intelligence agency, so many times
before people start saying there he goes -- or there she goes --
again!

"Even that weekend, there was lot else going on. There was always a
lot going on at the White House, so to a certain extent, there was
that kind of 'cry wolf' problem. But I got the sense that part of the
reason that I was being told of what was going on was that the people
in counter-terrorism were trying to get the word to the president or
the senior officials through the press, because they were not able to
get listened to themselves.

"Sometimes, you wonder about why people tell you things and why
people … we always wonder why people leak things, but that's a very
common motivation in Washington. I remember once when I was a
reporter in Egypt, and someone from the agency gave me very good
material on terrorism and local Islamic groups.

"I said, 'Why are you doing this? Why are you giving this to me?' and
he said, 'I just can't get my headquarters to pay attention to me,
but I know that if it's from the New York Times, they're going to
give it a good read and ask me questions about it.' And there's also
this genuine concern about how, if only the president shared the
sense of panic and concern that they did, more would be done to try
and protect the country.

"This was a case wherein some serious preparations were made in terms
of getting the message out and responding, because at the end of that
week, there was a sigh of relief. As somebody metaphorically put
it: 'They uncorked the White House champagne' that weekend because
nothing had happened. We got through the weekend … nothing had
happened.

"But I did manage to have a conversation with a source that weekend.
The person told me that there was some concern about an intercept
that had been picked up. The incident that had gotten everyone's
attention was a conversation between two members of Al Qaida. And
they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing
disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate
more seriously against what had happened to the Cole. And one Al
Qaida operative was overheard saying to the other, 'Don't worry;
we're planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to
respond.'

"And I was obviously floored by that information. I thought it was a
very good story: (1) the source was impeccable; (2) the information
was specific, tying Al Qaida operatives to, at least, knowledge of
the attack on the Cole; and (3) they were warning that something big
was coming, to which the United States would have to respond. This
struck me as a major page one-potential story.

"I remember going back to work in New York the next day and meeting
with my editor Stephen Engelberg. I was rather excited, as I usually
get about information of this kind, and I said, 'Steve, I think we
have a great story. And the story is that two members of Al Qaida
overheard on an intercept (and I assumed that it was the National
Security Agency, because that's who does these things) were heard
complaining about the lack of American response to the Cole, but also
… contemplating what would happen the next time, when there was, as
they said, the impending major attack that was being planned. They
said this was such a big attack that the U.S. would have to respond.'
Then I waited.

"And Stephen said, 'That's great! Who were the guys overheard?'
"I said, 'Well, I don't know. I just know that they were both Al
Qaida operatives.'

"'Where were they overheard?' Steve asked.

"Well, I didn't know where the two individuals were. I didn't know
what countries they were in; I didn't know whether they were having a
local call or a long-distance call.

"'What was the attack they were planning?' he said. 'Was it domestic,
was it international, was it another military target, was it a
civilian target?'
I didn't know.

'Had they discussed it?'

"I didn't know, and it was at that point that I realized that I
didn't have the whole story. As Steve put it to me, 'You have a great
first and second paragraph. What's your third?"'

Anatomy of a scoop

Stephen Engelberg confirms Miller's tale in all respects. Engelberg
first mentioned the incident in an article by Douglas McCollam in the
October 2005 edition of Columbia Journalism Review, which noted:

"Miller was naturally excited about the scoop and wanted the Times to
go with the story. Engelberg, himself a veteran intelligence
reporter, wasn't so sure. There had been a lot of chatter about
potential attacks; how did they know this was anything other than big
talk? Who were these guys? What country were they in? How had we
gotten the intercept? Miller didn't have any answers, and Engelberg
didn't think they could publish without more context. Miller agreed
to try and find out more, but in the end, the story never ran."

In a recent interview, Engelberg expanded on his comments. "I recall
thinking it made perfect sense at the time," Engelberg told us. "The
Cole attack was out of character -- unlike the Africa embassy
attacks, the Millennium plot, the earlier World Trade Center bombing.

"That weekend, pre-4th of July, everybody was nervous," said
Engelberg. "Judy went down to check with the White House and the NSC
types at the Old Executive Office Building and CTC. And she came back
in and had the story. And I knew the source.

"Judy had two guys talking, but no names or details," Engelberg
recalled. "One guy says, 'The U.S. didn't retaliate for the Cole.'
And the other guy says the coming attack 'will be so big they're
gonna have to retaliate.' But no details … Judy had the what but not
the who and the where.

"I said, 'Check with the CIA, NSA, DIA,'" Engelberg remembered. "But
we couldn't get anything that week."

Interview with Judith Miller:

"I realized that this information was enormously sensitive, and that
it was going to be difficult to get more information, but that my
source undoubtedly knew more. So I promised to Steve that I would go
back and try to get more. And I did … try.

"He knew who my source was. He knew that the source was impeccable. I
had also confirmed from a second source that such a conversation had
taken place -- that there was such an intercept -- though my second
source did not seem to know as much about the content of the
intercept as the first source did. But that was enough for me to know
that there was a good story there.

"But whoever knew about the 'who' and the 'where' was not willing
tell me at that time. After the fact I was told that, 'The bad guys
were in Yemen on this conversation.' I didn't know that at that time.
I remember knowing that the person who'd told me seemed to know who
had been overheard, but he was not about to share that information
with me …

"And Washington being Washington, and the CT world being the CT
world, I was soon off pursuing other things. I simply couldn't nail
it down with more specificity. I argued at that time that it was
worth going with just what we had, even if it was vague, that the
fact that the Al Qaida was planning something that was so spectacular
that we have to respond was worth getting into the paper in some way,
shape or form. But I think Steve decided, and I ultimately agreed,
that we needed more details. And I simply couldn't pry them loose.

"At the time I also had had a book coming out. Steve, Bill Broad and
I were co-authors of a book about biological terrorism. So we were
working flat out on that book trying to meet our deadline. I was
desperately trying to get my arms around this series that we were
trying to do on Al Qaida. I was having a lot of trouble because the
information was very hard to come by. There was a lot going on. I was
also doing biological weapons stories and homeland security stories.
And in Washington, if you don't have a sense of immediacy about
something, and if you sense that there is bureaucratic resistance to
a story, you tend to focus on areas of less resistance.

"Our pub date was Sept. 10th. I remember I was very worried about
whether or not the publisher was actually going to get copies of the
books to the warehouses in time. Because of course, Steve, Bill and I
had delivered the manuscript late -- everything was very late.

"The morning of Sept. 11, I was downtown about 12 blocks from the
World Trade Center. I remember walking to a school around the corner
with a very clear view of the World Trade Center, because it was just
a few blocks away. And all I can remember thinking was, 'Are they
going to get those books to the warehouses on time?' I was also
trying to make up my mind who I was going to vote for in the New York
Democratic Primary. And -- everybody says this -- it was one of most
beautiful days in New York I ever remember!

"When I got to the Baxter School, there were people standing out in
front of the school, pointing at the World Trade Center, which was on
fire, and I looked up. I asked what had happened, and they said that
a plane had hit the World Trade Center. There was an awfully big gash
in the building and I didn't see the plane, but there was an awful
lot of smoke and I thought, 'Gosh! That was a pretty big space for a
Cessna or something to have gotten into that building.'

"And here I had spent my whole summer, my whole past year thinking
about an Al Qaida attack, and I yet wouldn't let myself believe that
it was happening right then. I simply wouldn't believe. So I turned
around without voting, without going into the building, and I started
to call my CT sources in Washington, and I remember reaching the
counter-terrorism office at the White House, and I was told that
nobody was there, that all of the principals were out giving speeches
or doing something else. And I said, 'OK, I'll try to call back in 15
minutes.'

"By that time I walked to my house a couple of blocks away, and I
heard a boom, and I turned around and once again I didn't see the
plane, but I saw the fire shoot out from the building from the plane.

"It was only then, after the second plane hit, that I allowed myself
to believe that it really was a terrorist attack -- the attack that
we had been so worried about for so long. And I think I was kind of
amazed at myself, at the power of denial. When you don't want to
believe something's happening, it does not, it's not happening! And I
think that was what was going on in the intelligence community. The
idea that Al Qaida would actually strike in the United States, not at
the Cole or overseas, or in Jordan as part of a warning bombing plot,
but here in the U.S., that was just kind of unthinkable! People were
in the state of denial, as I was that morning.

"I remember calling back the White House that morning, and at that
point, I talked to the secretary in the counter-terrorism office and
she said: 'Nobody's here, Judy, and we're evacuating this building. I
gotta go. Bye.' At that point, I hadn't even heard about the Pentagon
attack, but I knew.

"It was very strange … it was a strange feeling to have written a
series that virtually predicted this, and to have had not a single
other reporter call, not a single other newspaper follow up on some
of the information that we had broken in that series. At the time of
the series, which was published in January 2001, we had information
about chemical and biological experiments at Al Qaida camps.

We had gotten the location of the camps, we had gotten satellite
overhead of the camps. I had interviewed, in Afghanistan, Al Qaida-
trained people who said that they were going to get out of
the 'prison' in Afghanistan and go back and continue their jihad.
They had talked about suicide bombings. We had Jordanian intelligence
say that attempts to blow up hotels, roads and tourist targets in
Jordan over the millennium was part of the Al Qaida planned attack.
And yet I guess people just didn't believe it. But I believed it. I
believed it absolutely, because I've covered these militants for so
long. There was nothing they wouldn't do if they could do it."

The one that got away

Like Miller, Steve Engelberg, now managing editor of the Oregonian in
Portland, still thinks about that story that got away. "More than
once I've wondered what would have happened if we'd run the piece?"
he told the CJR. "A case can be made that it would have been
alarmist, and I just couldn't justify it, but you can't help but
think maybe I made the wrong call."
Engelberg told us the same thing. "On Sept. 11th, I was standing on
the platform at the 125th Street station," he remembered ruefully
more than four years later. "I was with a friend, and we both saw the
World Trade Center burning and saw the second one hit. 'It's Al-
Qaida!' I yelled. 'We had a heads-up!' So yes, I do still have
regrets."

So does Judy Miller.

"I don't remember what I said to Steve on Sept. 11," she concluded in
her interview with us. "I don't think we said anything at all to each
other. He just knew what I was thinking, and I knew what he was
thinking. We were so stunned by what was happening, and there was so
much to do, and I think that was the day in which words just fail you.

"So I sometimes think back, and Steve and I have talked a few times
about the fact that that story wasn't fit, and that neither one of us
pursued it at that time with the kind of vigor and determination that
we would have had we known what was going to happen. And I always
wondered how the person who sent that [intercept] warning must have
felt.

"You know, sometimes in journalism you regret the stories you do, but
most of the time you regret the ones that you didn't do."

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural
<http://www.roryoconnor.org> blog. William Scott Malone is an
investigative journalist and senior editor of NavySEALs.com
<http://navyseals.com/community/main.cfm> and its
newsletter, "BlackNET Intelligence."

<http://www.alternet.org/story/36388>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 5
From: "NoRedCoats@aol.com" NoRedCoats@aol.com
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 8:21am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Pentagon Strike Video on DOD site

Sure the passenger jet there and so is that pair of two's I'm holding in my
hand for you to see from a half mile away! Don't you see the pair of two's?
Don't you believe me?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 6
From: "reggie501" reggie501@optonline.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:00am(PDT)
Subject: Latest 9/11 news from TVNL

9/11 News : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#911

· Osama bin Laden, A.K.A. CIA Asset "Tim Osman" - "Tim Osman" was the
name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S.
military bases, in search of political support and armaments.

· Former NY Times reporter Judith Miller to assert she was warned of
large scale attack before 9/11 - . "But I got the sense that part of
the reason that I was being told of what was going on was that the
people in counter terrorism were trying to get the word to the
President or the senior officials through the press, because they were
not able to get listened to themselves."

· How Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look? - The
government claims all 84 cameras either didn't capture the impact or
that tape in the cameras was mysteriously empty and yet returned as
normal to film the cleanup operations.

· Former Giuliani aide cites asthma after Sept. 11 - An official in
former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's administration began suffering from
severe asthma after working at ground zero in the aftermath of the
Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, a friend said Wednesday.
TVNL Comment: I went from using 1 inhaler evry 2 years to 1 inhaler
per month now. Jesse, Editor, TvNewsLIES.org

· The 9/11 Pentagon Attack: Planes Simply Do Not Vaporize - Why Didn't
They Show Us the Wreckage? - Why didn't they collect, examine and
reveal the wreckage to the public? Why, why, why didn't those in
charge of finding out what happened at the Pentagon show us the
wreckage? We think we know.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 7
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:10am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: NYTimes Reporter Judith Miller was warned of major terrorist att

Notice how she still won't name "anonymous source" -- DE

----- Original Message -----
From: "S Miles Lewis" <yahoolists@elfis.net>
To: <911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:14 AM
Subject: [911TruthAction] NYTimes Disinfo Agent Judith Miller says she was
warned of 911 attack in July 01

NYTimes Disinfo Agent Judith Miller says she was warned of 911 attack
in July 01

Former NY Times reporter Judith Miller to assert she was warned of
large scale attack before 9/11

RAW STORY / Published: Thursday May 18, 2006

http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Story+Image_thumb_051806_story.
jpg[/img]

In AN ALTERNET EXCLUSIVE THURSDAY, former New York Times reporter
Judy Miller tells Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone about the
story she'll regret for the rest of her life -- the fact that an
anonymous White House source told her in July 2001 that an NSA
intelligence report predicted a large al Qaeda attack, possibly on
the continental United States, RAW STORY <http://rawstory.com> has
learned.

"I think everybody knew that an attack was coming -- everyone who
followed this. But you know you can only 'cry wolf' within a
newspaper... before people start saying there he goes -- or there she
goes -- again!" Miller says in an interview.

"I remember the weekend before July 4, 2001 in particular, because
for some reason the people who were worried about Al Qaeda believed
that was the weekend that there was going to be an attack on the US
or on major American target somewhere," Miller recounts. "It was
going to be a large, well-coordinated attack."

Two months later -- on September 11 -- ALTERNET.ORG says Miller and
her editor at the Times, Stephen Engelberg, both remembered and
regretted the story they "didn't do."

"There was always a lot going on at the White House, so to a certain
extent, there was that kind of 'Cry wolf' problem," Miller says. "But
I got the sense that part of the reason that I was being told of what
was going on was that the people in counter terrorism were trying to
get the word to the President or the senior officials through the
press, because they were not able to get listened to themselves."

READ THE FULL ALTERNET STORY BELOW

The 9/11 Story That Got Away
By Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone, AlterNet
<http://www.alternet.org>. Posted May 18, 2006

In 2001, an anonymous White House source leaked top-secret NSA
intelligence to reporter Judith Miller that Al Qaida was planning a
major attack on the United States. But the story never made it into
the paper.
On Oct. 12, 2000, the guided missile destroyer USS Cole pulled into
harbor for refueling in Aden, Yemen. Less than two hours later,
suicide bombers Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa approached
the ship's port side in a small inflatable craft laden with
explosives and blew a 40-by-40-foot gash in it, killing 17 sailors
and injuring 39 others. The attack on the Cole, organized and carried
out by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida terrorist group, was a seminal but
still murky and largely misunderstood event in America's
ongoing "Long War."

Two weeks prior, military analysts associated with an experimental
intelligence program known as ABLE DANGER had warned top officials of
the existence of an active Al Qaida cell in Aden, Yemen. And two days
before the attack, they had conveyed "actionable intelligence" of
possible terrorist activity in and around the port of Aden to Gen.
Pete Schoomaker, then commander in chief of the U.S. Special
Operation Command (SOCOM).
The same information was also conveyed to a top intelligence officer
at the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), headed by the newly appointed
Gen. Tommy Franks. As CENTCOM commander, Franks oversaw all U.S.
armed forces operations in a 25-country region that included Yemen,
as well as the Fifth Fleet, to which the Cole was tasked. It remains
unclear what action, if any, top officials at SOCOM and CENTCOM took
in response to the ABLE DANGER warnings about planned Al Qaida
activities in Aden harbor.
None of the officials involved has ever spoken about the pre-attack
warnings, and a post-attack forensic analysis of the episode remains
highly classified and off-limits within the bowels of the Pentagon.
Subsequent investigations exonerated the Cole's commander, Kirk
Lippold, but Lippold's career has been ruined nonetheless. He remains
in legal and professional limbo, with a recommended promotion and new
command held up for the past four years by political concerns and
maneuvering.

Meanwhile, no disciplinary action was ever taken against any SOCOM or
CENTCOM officials. Schoomaker was later promoted out of retirement to
chief of staff, U.S. Army, and Franks went on to lead the combat
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Enter Judith Miller, the Pulitzer Prize-winning ex-New York Times
reporter at the center of the ongoing perjury and obstruction of
justice case involving former top White House official I. Lewis
(Scooter) Libby. Miller spent 85 days in jail before finally
disclosing that Libby was the anonymous source who confirmed to her
that Valerie Plame was a CIA official, although Miller never wrote a
story about Plame.

Now, in an exclusive interview, Miller reveals how the attack on the
Cole spurred her reporting on Al Qaida and led her, in July 2001, to
a still-anonymous top-level White House source, who shared top-secret
NSA signals intelligence (SIGINT) concerning an even bigger impending
Al Qaida attack, perhaps to be visited on the continental United
States.

Ultimately, Miller never wrote that story either. But two months
later -- on Sept. 11 -- Miller and her editor at the Times, Stephen
Engelberg, both remembered and regretted the story they "didn't do."

Interview with Judith Miller:

"I was working on a special project in 2000-2001 -- trying to do a
series on where Al Qaida was, who Al Qaida was, and what kind of a
threat it posed to the United States. In the beginning I thought it
was going to be pretty straightforward, but it turned out to be
anything but. And it took me a long, long time, and a lot of trips to
the Middle East, and a lot of dead ends, before I finally understood
how I could tell the story to the American people. It was a long-term
investigative piece, which meant that for the most part, I didn't
write articles on specific individual attacks -- I was working the
story .

"I was fairly persuaded that the attack on the Cole was an Al Qaida
operation, based on the sources that I was talking to, because I had
no independent information, obviously. The people that I was covering
ardently believed that Al Qaida was behind a lot of these attacks on
American forces and Americans throughout the Middle East that we were
beginning to see. At the time there was still a fair amount of debate
and a fair amount of resistance to that thesis within the
intelligence community, as it's so-called. But from the get go, I
think the instinctive reaction of the people I was covering was that
this was an Al Qaoda operation. So I started looking at the attack on
the Cole as an example of Al Qaida terrorism.

"I learned that the Al Qaida Cole attack was not exactly a hugely
efficient operation, and I learned later on that there had been an
earlier attempt to take out the Cole or another American ship that
had floundered badly because of poor Al Qaida training. Because of
incidents like that -- you know, overloading a dinghy that was
supposed to go have gone out to the ship and blow it up, so that the
dinghy would sink -- people tended to discount Al Qaida. They
said, 'Oh, they are just a bunch of amateurs." But I'd never thought
that. I never believed that. And the people I was covering didn't
think that .

"I had begun to hear rumors about intensified intercepts and tapping
of telephones. But that was just vaguest kind of rumors in the
street, indicators . I remember the weekend before July 4, 2001, in
particular, because for some reason the people who were worried about
Al Qaida believed that was the weekend that there was going to be an
attack on the United States or on a major American target somewhere.
It was going to be a large, well-coordinated attack. Because of the
July 4 holiday, this was an ideal opportunistic target and date for
Al Qaida.

My sources also told me at that time that there had been a lot of
chatter overheard -- I didn't know specifically what that meant --
but a lot of talk about an impending attack at one time or another.
And the intelligence community seemed to believe that at least a part
of the attack was going to come on July 4. So I remember that, for a
lot of my sources, this was going to be a 'lost' weekend. Everybody
was going to be working; nobody was going to take time off. And that
was bad news for me, because it meant I was also going to be on stand-
by, and I would be working too.
"I was in New York, but I remember coming down to D.C. one day that
weekend, just to be around in case something happened . Misery loves
company, is how I would put it. If it were going to be a stress-
filled weekend, it was better to do it together. It also meant I
wouldn't have trouble tracking people down -- or as much trouble --
because as you know, some of these people can be very elusive.

"The people in the counter-terrorism (CT) office were very worried
about attacks here in the United States, and that was, it struck me,
another debate in the intelligence community. Because a lot of
intelligence people did not believe that Al Qaida had the ability to
strike within the United States. The CT people thought they were
wrong. But I got the sense at that time that the counter-terrorism
people in the White House were viewed as extremist on these views.

"Everyone in Washington was very spun-up in the CT world at that
time. I think everybody knew that an attack was coming -- everyone
who followed this. But you know you can only 'cry wolf' within a
newspaper or, I imagine, within an intelligence agency, so many times
before people start saying there he goes -- or there she goes --
again!

"Even that weekend, there was lot else going on. There was always a
lot going on at the White House, so to a certain extent, there was
that kind of 'cry wolf' problem. But I got the sense that part of the
reason that I was being told of what was going on was that the people
in counter-terrorism were trying to get the word to the president or
the senior officials through the press, because they were not able to
get listened to themselves.

"Sometimes, you wonder about why people tell you things and why
people . we always wonder why people leak things, but that's a very
common motivation in Washington. I remember once when I was a
reporter in Egypt, and someone from the agency gave me very good
material on terrorism and local Islamic groups.

"I said, 'Why are you doing this? Why are you giving this to me?' and
he said, 'I just can't get my headquarters to pay attention to me,
but I know that if it's from the New York Times, they're going to
give it a good read and ask me questions about it.' And there's also
this genuine concern about how, if only the president shared the
sense of panic and concern that they did, more would be done to try
and protect the country.

"This was a case wherein some serious preparations were made in terms
of getting the message out and responding, because at the end of that
week, there was a sigh of relief. As somebody metaphorically put
it: 'They uncorked the White House champagne' that weekend because
nothing had happened. We got through the weekend . nothing had
happened.

"But I did manage to have a conversation with a source that weekend.
The person told me that there was some concern about an intercept
that had been picked up. The incident that had gotten everyone's
attention was a conversation between two members of Al Qaida. And
they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing
disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate
more seriously against what had happened to the Cole. And one Al
Qaida operative was overheard saying to the other, 'Don't worry;
we're planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to
respond.'

"And I was obviously floored by that information. I thought it was a
very good story: (1) the source was impeccable; (2) the information
was specific, tying Al Qaida operatives to, at least, knowledge of
the attack on the Cole; and (3) they were warning that something big
was coming, to which the United States would have to respond. This
struck me as a major page one-potential story.

"I remember going back to work in New York the next day and meeting
with my editor Stephen Engelberg. I was rather excited, as I usually
get about information of this kind, and I said, 'Steve, I think we
have a great story. And the story is that two members of Al Qaida
overheard on an intercept (and I assumed that it was the National
Security Agency, because that's who does these things) were heard
complaining about the lack of American response to the Cole, but also
. contemplating what would happen the next time, when there was, as
they said, the impending major attack that was being planned. They
said this was such a big attack that the U.S. would have to respond.'
Then I waited.

"And Stephen said, 'That's great! Who were the guys overheard?'
"I said, 'Well, I don't know. I just know that they were both Al
Qaida operatives.'

"'Where were they overheard?' Steve asked.

"Well, I didn't know where the two individuals were. I didn't know
what countries they were in; I didn't know whether they were having a
local call or a long-distance call.

"'What was the attack they were planning?' he said. 'Was it domestic,
was it international, was it another military target, was it a
civilian target?'
I didn't know.

'Had they discussed it?'

"I didn't know, and it was at that point that I realized that I
didn't have the whole story. As Steve put it to me, 'You have a great
first and second paragraph. What's your third?"'

Anatomy of a scoop

Stephen Engelberg confirms Miller's tale in all respects. Engelberg
first mentioned the incident in an article by Douglas McCollam in the
October 2005 edition of Columbia Journalism Review, which noted:

"Miller was naturally excited about the scoop and wanted the Times to
go with the story. Engelberg, himself a veteran intelligence
reporter, wasn't so sure. There had been a lot of chatter about
potential attacks; how did they know this was anything other than big
talk? Who were these guys? What country were they in? How had we
gotten the intercept? Miller didn't have any answers, and Engelberg
didn't think they could publish without more context. Miller agreed
to try and find out more, but in the end, the story never ran."

In a recent interview, Engelberg expanded on his comments. "I recall
thinking it made perfect sense at the time," Engelberg told us. "The
Cole attack was out of character -- unlike the Africa embassy
attacks, the Millennium plot, the earlier World Trade Center bombing.

"That weekend, pre-4th of July, everybody was nervous," said
Engelberg. "Judy went down to check with the White House and the NSC
types at the Old Executive Office Building and CTC. And she came back
in and had the story. And I knew the source.

"Judy had two guys talking, but no names or details," Engelberg
recalled. "One guy says, 'The U.S. didn't retaliate for the Cole.'
And the other guy says the coming attack 'will be so big they're
gonna have to retaliate.' But no details . Judy had the what but not
the who and the where.

"I said, 'Check with the CIA, NSA, DIA,'" Engelberg remembered. "But
we couldn't get anything that week."

Interview with Judith Miller:

"I realized that this information was enormously sensitive, and that
it was going to be difficult to get more information, but that my
source undoubtedly knew more. So I promised to Steve that I would go
back and try to get more. And I did . try.

"He knew who my source was. He knew that the source was impeccable. I
had also confirmed from a second source that such a conversation had
taken place -- that there was such an intercept -- though my second
source did not seem to know as much about the content of the
intercept as the first source did. But that was enough for me to know
that there was a good story there.

"But whoever knew about the 'who' and the 'where' was not willing
tell me at that time. After the fact I was told that, 'The bad guys
were in Yemen on this conversation.' I didn't know that at that time.
I remember knowing that the person who'd told me seemed to know who
had been overheard, but he was not about to share that information
with me .

"And Washington being Washington, and the CT world being the CT
world, I was soon off pursuing other things. I simply couldn't nail
it down with more specificity. I argued at that time that it was
worth going with just what we had, even if it was vague, that the
fact that the Al Qaida was planning something that was so spectacular
that we have to respond was worth getting into the paper in some way,
shape or form. But I think Steve decided, and I ultimately agreed,
that we needed more details. And I simply couldn't pry them loose.

"At the time I also had had a book coming out. Steve, Bill Broad and
I were co-authors of a book about biological terrorism. So we were
working flat out on that book trying to meet our deadline. I was
desperately trying to get my arms around this series that we were
trying to do on Al Qaida. I was having a lot of trouble because the
information was very hard to come by. There was a lot going on. I was
also doing biological weapons stories and homeland security stories.
And in Washington, if you don't have a sense of immediacy about
something, and if you sense that there is bureaucratic resistance to
a story, you tend to focus on areas of less resistance.

"Our pub date was Sept. 10th. I remember I was very worried about
whether or not the publisher was actually going to get copies of the
books to the warehouses in time. Because of course, Steve, Bill and I
had delivered the manuscript late -- everything was very late.

"The morning of Sept. 11, I was downtown about 12 blocks from the
World Trade Center. I remember walking to a school around the corner
with a very clear view of the World Trade Center, because it was just
a few blocks away. And all I can remember thinking was, 'Are they
going to get those books to the warehouses on time?' I was also
trying to make up my mind who I was going to vote for in the New York
Democratic Primary. And -- everybody says this -- it was one of most
beautiful days in New York I ever remember!

"When I got to the Baxter School, there were people standing out in
front of the school, pointing at the World Trade Center, which was on
fire, and I looked up. I asked what had happened, and they said that
a plane had hit the World Trade Center. There was an awfully big gash
in the building and I didn't see the plane, but there was an awful
lot of smoke and I thought, 'Gosh! That was a pretty big space for a
Cessna or something to have gotten into that building.'

"And here I had spent my whole summer, my whole past year thinking
about an Al Qaida attack, and I yet wouldn't let myself believe that
it was happening right then. I simply wouldn't believe. So I turned
around without voting, without going into the building, and I started
to call my CT sources in Washington, and I remember reaching the
counter-terrorism office at the White House, and I was told that
nobody was there, that all of the principals were out giving speeches
or doing something else. And I said, 'OK, I'll try to call back in 15
minutes.'

"By that time I walked to my house a couple of blocks away, and I
heard a boom, and I turned around and once again I didn't see the
plane, but I saw the fire shoot out from the building from the plane.

"It was only then, after the second plane hit, that I allowed myself
to believe that it really was a terrorist attack -- the attack that
we had been so worried about for so long. And I think I was kind of
amazed at myself, at the power of denial. When you don't want to
believe something's happening, it does not, it's not happening! And I
think that was what was going on in the intelligence community. The
idea that Al Qaida would actually strike in the United States, not at
the Cole or overseas, or in Jordan as part of a warning bombing plot,
but here in the U.S., that was just kind of unthinkable! People were
in the state of denial, as I was that morning.

"I remember calling back the White House that morning, and at that
point, I talked to the secretary in the counter-terrorism office and
she said: 'Nobody's here, Judy, and we're evacuating this building. I
gotta go. Bye.' At that point, I hadn't even heard about the Pentagon
attack, but I knew.

"It was very strange . it was a strange feeling to have written a
series that virtually predicted this, and to have had not a single
other reporter call, not a single other newspaper follow up on some
of the information that we had broken in that series. At the time of
the series, which was published in January 2001, we had information
about chemical and biological experiments at Al Qaida camps.

We had gotten the location of the camps, we had gotten satellite
overhead of the camps. I had interviewed, in Afghanistan, Al Qaida-
trained people who said that they were going to get out of
the 'prison' in Afghanistan and go back and continue their jihad.
They had talked about suicide bombings. We had Jordanian intelligence
say that attempts to blow up hotels, roads and tourist targets in
Jordan over the millennium was part of the Al Qaida planned attack.
And yet I guess people just didn't believe it. But I believed it. I
believed it absolutely, because I've covered these militants for so
long. There was nothing they wouldn't do if they could do it."

The one that got away

Like Miller, Steve Engelberg, now managing editor of the Oregonian in
Portland, still thinks about that story that got away. "More than
once I've wondered what would have happened if we'd run the piece?"
he told the CJR. "A case can be made that it would have been
alarmist, and I just couldn't justify it, but you can't help but
think maybe I made the wrong call."
Engelberg told us the same thing. "On Sept. 11th, I was standing on
the platform at the 125th Street station," he remembered ruefully
more than four years later. "I was with a friend, and we both saw the
World Trade Center burning and saw the second one hit. 'It's Al-
Qaida!' I yelled. 'We had a heads-up!' So yes, I do still have
regrets."

So does Judy Miller.

"I don't remember what I said to Steve on Sept. 11," she concluded in
her interview with us. "I don't think we said anything at all to each
other. He just knew what I was thinking, and I knew what he was
thinking. We were so stunned by what was happening, and there was so
much to do, and I think that was the day in which words just fail you.

"So I sometimes think back, and Steve and I have talked a few times
about the fact that that story wasn't fit, and that neither one of us
pursued it at that time with the kind of vigor and determination that
we would have had we known what was going to happen. And I always
wondered how the person who sent that [intercept] warning must have
felt.

"You know, sometimes in journalism you regret the stories you do, but
most of the time you regret the ones that you didn't do."

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural
<http://www.roryoconnor.org> blog. William Scott Malone is an
investigative journalist and senior editor of NavySEALs.com
<http://navyseals.com/community/main.cfm> and its
newsletter, "BlackNET Intelligence."

<http://www.alternet.org/story/36388>

Yahoo! Groups Links

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 8
From: "President, USA Exile Govt." prez@usa-exile.org
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:13am(PDT)
Subject: A Day in the Life: 5/18/6

GOVERNMENT OF THE USA IN
EXILE
Free Americans
Reaching Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free

Via <prez@usa-exile.org>

May 18, 2006

From: "CLG News" <clg_news@legitgov.org>
Date: May 17, 2006 8:21:06 PM EST
Subject: Lawmaker: Marines Killed Iraqis "In Cold Blood"

News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
17 May 2006
http://www.legitgov.org/

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Lawmaker: Marines Killed Iraqis "In Cold Blood" --Navy Conducting War
Crimes Probe Into November Violence In Haditha 17 May 2006 A Pentagon
probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city
of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in
cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday. From the beginning, Iraqis
in the town of Haditha said U.S. Marines deliberately killed 15 unarmed
Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children... The video,
obtained by Time magazine, was broadcast a day after town residents
told The Associated Press that American troops entered homes on Nov. 19
and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl,
after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine.

Address to receive newsletter: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg
Please write to: signup@legitgov.org for inquiries. lrp/mdr

CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, General Manager. Copyright © 2006,
Citizens For Legitimate Government ® All rights reserved. CLG Founder
and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.

========================================================================
=================================================================

From: "Total Information" <totalinfo@gmail.com>
Date: May 18, 2006 12:54:16 AM EST
Subject: [911TruthAction] CNN plan to attack Sheen, Pentagon skeptics
Reply-To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com

<
http://www.total911.info/2006/05/cnn-plan-to-attack-sheen-pentagon.html
>

It should first be noted that the CNN Headline News program that
brought Sheen and 9/11 truth to a national cable audience for almost a
week, Showbiz Tonight, no longer airs live, and its primetime access
slot has been pulled in favor of neocon ClearChannel lying warmonger
Glenn Beck.

And here's the latest on CNN from PrisonPlanet.com May 18 2006 :
"We have received word from numerous different sources that CNN is
trying to bait 9/11 truth activists to appear as guests on its programs
and attack Charlie Sheen.

WTC survivor and truth activist William Rodriguez was contacted by the
Anderson Cooper show and asked if he would go on record as saying the
new Pentagon footage dispelled all 9/11 questions. They also requested
that he attack Charlie Sheen's public stance on 9/11.

After Rodriguez refused to take the bait and said he supports Sheen
100% CNN cancelled his appearance even as the car to pick him up was en
route.

Lawyer Philip Berg and philanthropist Jimmy Walters were also
approached by CNN and promised TV time if they agreed to debunk Charlie
Sheen. Both refused.

This is more evidence the release of the Boeingless Pentagon footage
has the corporate mass media scrambling to justify the official BS. CNN
is actually soliciting for influential 9/11-truth figures to swear
allegiance to the Pentagon 757 Fairy Tale and denounce heretics like
Charlie Sheen. It is evident the Pentagon is a real weak point for the
official story.

www.total411.info
www.total911.info

========================================================================
================================================================

From: Henri the Celt <henrithecelt@gci.net>
Date: May 18, 2006 2:19:32 AM EST
Subject: High School Teacher 'Muzzled' For Saying 911 Was An Inside Job

High School Teacher 'Muzzled' and Suspended
For Saying 9/11 Was an Inside Job
By Greg Szymanski
5-18-6http://www.rense.com/general71/inside.htm


The screws are being tightened down hard on free thought, free will and
free speech in today's fascist America even substitute high school
teachers are being treated like common thought criminals.

It's bad enough teachers are paid slave wages, but now it appears the
"slaves" of America's floundering public education system are even
being told by their "masters" what to say, do and think.

And Thomas Mustric, a substitute teacher in the Columbus, Ohio, public
school system found out the hard way that saying 911 was a government
inside job on school grounds is absolutely prohibited in the Bush crime
family's version of modern day America.

Mustric was put on administrative leave last week after the 911 comment
made in a high school lunch room landed him in hot water with school
"Gestapo" authorities.

The incident blew up into a suspension of Mustric's livelihood after
his casual comments made to another teacher in a lunchroom were passed
on to the administration by the teacher who decided to rat on Mustric,
considering his views a threat to the student body.

For rest of story and more informative articles, go to
www.arcticbeacon.com

========================================================================
=================================================================

From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>
Date: May 18, 2006 4:58:40 AM EST
To: clem clarke <oscarptyltd@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: China, Russia to veto UN Security Council's resolution against
Iran

(1) US Spells Out Plan to Bomb Iran

Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 02:55:29 -0400 (EDT) From: IHR News
<news@ihr.org>

US Spells Out Plan to Bomb Iran

The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland)
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/62043.html

The US is updating contingency plans for a non- nuclear strike to
cripple Iran's atomic weapon program if international diplomacy fails,
Pentagon sources have confirmed. Strategists are understood to have
presented two options for pinpoint strikes using B2 bombers flying
directly from bases in Missouri, Guam in the Pacific and Diego Garcia
in the Indian Ocean. The main plan calls for a rolling, five- day
bombing campaign against 400 key targets in Iran, including 24
nuclear-related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations,
and Revolutionary Guard headquarters. At least 75 targets in
underground complexes would be attacked with waves of bunker-buster
bombs.

(2) China, Russia to veto UN Security Council's resolution against Iran

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 07:28:45 -0400 From: "David Chiang"
<sino.economics@verizon.net>

China, Russia to veto force against Iran
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,1915990-
3%255E912,00.html 17may06

RUSSIA and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving the
Iranian nuclear dispute.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said yesterday after meeting
with Chinese officials in Beijing that dialogue was needed to resolve
the stand-off with Tehran.

"Russia and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving this
issue," Mr Lavrov said. "China and Russia agree the Iranian nuclear
issue should be resolved through dialogue."

Western governments have urged Iran to give up nuclear development,
which they fear is aimed at producing weapons.

The U.S. earlier sought a UN Security Council resolution to declare the
program a threat to world peace and subject Iran to sanctions or even
military action if it is not halted. Beijing and Moscow hold veto power
in the Security Council.

In the latest diplomatic initiative, the European Union offered Iran
economic incentives to stop enriching uranium. But the Iranian
president has rejected that.

The Russian-Chinese announcement came as UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan said the international community must take "very urgent steps" to
deal with the dual problems of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear
ambitions.

Mr Annan, speaking ahead of a meeting with South Korean President Roh
Moo-hyun in Seoul last night, urged all parties to stalled six-nation -
the U.S., North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea - talks on
North Korea's programs to resume them, saying human rights and other
topics should not be allowed to block the discussions.

"The nuclear issue is by far the most important and should be given a
separate category and priority as compared with human rights and other
activities," Mr Annan said.

He also urged Iran to work with European countries to settle the
dispute about the country's nuclear plans.

"Until recently we were focused on North Korea. Today we also have
Iran," he said. "The international community has to take very urgent
steps to deal with these issues."

========================================================================
=================================================================

From: "Graham Jukes" <grahamjukes@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: May 17, 2006 5:30:51 PM EST
Subject: The Real Assault on America & Concentration camps waiting?

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
Agency (NSA) may have read this email without warning, warrant, or
notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight.
You have no recourse, nor protection..........

----- Original Message -----
From: FPF
To: ifj@ifj.org
Cc: The New York Times Direct
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:43 PM
Subject: The Real Assault on America & Concentration camps waiting?

The Real Assault on America

by Paul Craig Roberts
May
16, 2006

The neoconservative Bush regime has adroitly used 9/11 to create a fear
of terrorism among Americans that blinds Americans to the Bush regime's
assault on our constitutional system. Americans have meekly acquiesced
to the Bush regime's brutal assaults on civil liberties, human rights,
the separation of powers, and statutory law, because Americans have
been brainwashed to believe that the "war on terror" takes precedence
and cannot be waged under the rules established by the Founding
Fathers.

By elevating its "war on terror" above the U.S. Constitution, the
neoconservative Bush regime has made itself a far greater threat to
Americans than are foreign terrorists. Two constitutional scholars,
Timothy Lynch and Gene Healy, document the Bush regime's forceful
assault on the U.S. Constitution in "Power Surge: The Constitutional
Record of George W. Bush" released May 3 by the Cato Institute in
Washington, D.C.

Lynch and Healy show that Bush has failed in his most important
responsibility "to preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution and,
thus, is in violation of his sworn oath of office. The two scholars
document the Bush regime's "ceaseless push for power, unchecked by
either the courts or Congress" on issues ranging from war powers,
habeas corpus, and federalism to free speech and unwarranted
surveillance. Bush's assault on the Constitution "should disturb people
from across the political spectrum."

Alas, it doesn't. Many Americans believe that Bush's dictatorial powers
will only be applied to terrorists. This belief is extremely foolish,
because it means that "the liberty of every American rests on nothing
more than the grace of the White House."

It has become commonplace to hear Americans dismiss the Bush regime's
illegal and unconstitutional exercise of power on the grounds that only
those implicated in terrorism have anything to fear. These Americans
need to ask themselves why, if only evildoers have anything to fear
from government, the Founding Fathers bothered to write the
Constitution?

If we can trust the government the way Americans seem prepared to trust
the Bush regime, we don't need the Constitution. Indeed, why is a
president inaugurated with his oath to defend the Constitution if we
don't need the Constitution to protect us from our government? If we
can trust government, why go to all the trouble to have elections?

WHY NOT JUST GET A DICTATOR OR A KING OR CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY TO
PROVIDE GOVERNMENT?

The question presents itself: Are Americans guilty of treason when they
turn their backs on the Constitution? Treason is betrayal of country.
And what defines country? In the United States, the Constitution
defines country. The Bush regime's assault on the Constitution is an
assault on America.

MOREOVER, IT IS A FAR MORE DANGEROUS AND DEADLY ASSAULT THAN A
TERRORIST ASSAULT ON BUILDINGS.

Ask yourself, gentle reader, what are we without the Constitution?
Without the Constitution, how do we differ from the hapless subjects
sent to Soviet and Nazi death camps? The Constitution protects our
rights, and without our rights we are nothing.

It has been widely reported, apparently without causing Americans any
unease, that the Bush regime has awarded Halliburton $385 million to
build concentration camps in the United States. - [FPF: pls see below
*] - Who are to be the inmates? Certainly not terrorists. The Bush
regime has proven inept at catching terrorists, and those few who are
captured are kept offshore out of the reach of the courts where they
can be tortured and abused. The camps are certainly not for illegal
aliens who both political parties want to give amnesty and citizenship.

Concentration camps epitomize the horrors and inhumanity of the Stalin
and Nazi era. Why is the Bush regime building concentration camps in
America?

THE BUSH REGIME'S WAR ON TERROR IS THE EQUIVALENT TO THE NAZI REGIME'S
REICHSTAG FIRE. IT SERVES TO BLIND PEOPLE TO THE REAL ASSAULT.

According to Bush, America is under terrorist attack because "they hate
our freedoms."

But, as Lynch and Healy show, it is the Bush regime that is attacking
our freedoms, removing their institutional protections, and making our
liberties subject to the grace of the executive.

[andend] - You can find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8994

***********************************************************************

FPF - ARCHIVE & RELATED:

KBR/HALLIBURTON - 2006 PRESS RELEASES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 24, 2006

KBR AWARDED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CONTINGENCY SUPPORT
PROJECT

FOR EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES

ARLINGTON, Virginia: ³KBR announced today that its Government and
Infrastructure division has been awarded an Indefinite
Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency. KBR is the engineering
and construction subsidiary of Halliburton (NYSE:HAL).

With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five-year term,
consisting of a one-year based period and four one-year options, the
competitively awarded contract will be executed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Fort Worth District. KBR held the previous ICE contract
from 2000 through 2005.

"We are especially gratified to be awarded this contract because it
builds on our extremely strong track record in the arena of emergency
operations support." said Bruce Stanski, executive vice president, KBR
Government and Infrastructure. "We look forward to continuing the good
work we have been doing to support our customer whenever and wherever
we are needed."

The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing
temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event
of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., OR TO SUPPORT THE
RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PROGRAMS. The contingency support contract
provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific
engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish,
operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities.

The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S.
Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as
well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency,
such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the
contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel
performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts.

ICE was established in March 2003 as the largest investigative arm of
the Department of Homeland Security. ICE is comprised of four
integrated divisions that form a 21st century law enforcement agency
with broad responsibilities for a number of key homeland security
priorities.

KBR is a global engineering, construction, technology and services
company. Whether designing an LNG facility, serving as a defense
industry contractor, or providing small capital construction, KBR
delivers world-class service and performance. KBR employs more than
60,000 people in 43 countries around the world.

Halliburton, founded in 1919, is one of the world's largest providers
of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries. The
company serves its customers with a broad range of products and
services through its Energy Services Group and KBR. Visit the company's
World Wide Web site at www.halliburton.com.

[andend] - KBR - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/cffe3

FPF - Related / ICE: "A comprehensive interior enforcement strategy was
developed that creates a seamless web of enforcement extending from the
border, and beyond, to the worksite. It seeks to facilitate internal
coordination among the various ICE enforcement activities and forge
closer ties with other federal, state and local law enforcement and
regulatory agencies.

In addition to strengthening the agency's capabilities to enforce
immigration laws, the strategy will ensure that enforcement activities
are carried out on a consistent basis nationwide. This integrated
enforcement effort will promote national security, public safety,
economic security and the preservation of constitutional rights."

[end quote] - ICE - Url.: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/interior/index.htm

"The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention
centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused
to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to
allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have 'disappeared,' like
the victims of some dictatorships." - The Washington Post.

MOLLY IVENS: WHY DID WE BOTHER TO BEAT THE SOVIET UNION IF WE WERE JUST
GOING TO BECOME IT? - SHAME. SHAME. SHAME! - Austin, Texas - Article
at - Url.: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19865

FPF - Related: Footnotes & links:

One of the latest formed groups of US 'Secret State Killers' - like
Hitler's Gestapo or SS is the 'Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group'
(P2OG) - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/d85yu

'Ex-KGB and STASI Chiefs To Work Under Chertoff - KGB and STASI' -
'Reinforce Homeland Security' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/7zah5

The Washington Post - 'CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons' -
by Dana Priest - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/cu3hj

Concentration camps ready in the US - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/96sb6

United States & Concentration camps - Google - Url.:

Concentration camps Israel - Google - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/rwdhd

The United States of Torture. By MIKE WHITNEY. How did we stoop so low?
... The United States has become the number 1 exporter of torture in
the world today ... Url.: www.counterpunch.org/whitney11052005.html

Wikipedia - STASI - the secret police of East Germany - Url.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

Wikipedia - KGB - Soviet Committee for State Security -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB

Google search "United States" +Torture - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/dkuag

* "Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched." - George Bush Senior speaking in an interview with
Sarah McClendon in December 1992. - And here's why: 'George Bush: The
Unauthorized Biography' - by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin -
Chapter - II - The Hitler Project - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/57qxk

* CNN-Poll - Question: "Do you believe there is a U.S. government
cover-up surrounding 9/11?" - 'Yes' - 89% - 'NO' - 11% - Url.:
http://tinyurl.com/7w7c5

* Google search "Biggest threat to world peace" - Url.:
http://tinyurl.com/dk2lj

* MSNBC - Live Vote: Do you believe President Bush's actions justify
impeachment? - Url.: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

"People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows,
they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget
injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the
terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget: they also
strike back." - 2005 Nobel Literature Prize winner Harold Pinter -
Url.: http://tinyurl.com/9cyeq

* Those who first of all start shouting about 'conspiracy theory' and
'paranoia' or similar, are always the evil INFORMANTS The paid
INFILTRATORS which are afraid of being disclosed. They are the real
Judas's working for treacherous 'masters' - they are the 'Quislings'
that will go to jail - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/clcjn

* Who's financing? - The 'Federal Reserve' and it's usurers is the
absolute biggest crime against all humanity ever. - Url.:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

* 'Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one' ‹ A.J.
Liebling - The merciless engine of propaganda has been turned on: The
infamous US 'Lie Factory' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/8ncal

*Read the Fightin' Cock Flyer - Url.:
http://fightincockflyer.blogspot.com/

* Help all the troops - of whatever nationality - to come back from
abroad! - AND WITH ALL THEIR WEAPONS, WHICH WE WERE FORCED TO PAY FOR
BY TAXES - [http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm ] - We need them badly
at home in many countries to fight with us against our so called
'governments' and their malignant managers - Url.:
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section
107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the
Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information.
Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
http://forpressfound.blogspot.com/
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/amn3q
The Netherlands
fpf@Chello.nl

========================================================================
=================================================================

From: "Chihaya" <chihaya@aapt.net.au>
Date: May 17, 2006 6:47:01 PM EST
To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@connect.com.au>
Subject: one project called...


Project SHAD: American Servicemen Used As Guinea Pigs

http://www.google.com/search?
client=opera&rls=en&q=project+shad&sourceid=opera&amp;ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Project SHAD, an acronym for Shipboard Hazard and Defense, was
part of the joint service chemical and biological warfare test
program conducted during the 1960s. Project SHAD encompassed tests
designed to identify US warships' vulnerabilities to attacks with
chemical or biological warfare agents and to develop procedures to
respond to such attacks while maintaining a war-fighting
capability. Although classified, the Department of Defense has
been actively pursuing declassification of relevant medical
information. To date twelve SHAD projects have been evaluated and
released for your review.

The SHAD program planned as many as a hundred individual tests and
was part of the larger Deseret Test Center program. Many tests
were never actually executed. DoD investigators plan to look at
all Deseret Test Center’s chemical and biological tests conducted
between 1963 and 1970

Of the 4,300 sailors known to be involved, to our knowledge, only
622 have been notified.
http://www.projectshad.org/

I believe it's still full on like with DU, and we never know if
our Government/s would do the same to ours....

Simply,
THEY DON'T CARE.

========================================================================
=================================================================

From: David West <davidgordonwest@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: May 17, 2006 4:05:12 PM EST
To: prez@usa-exile.org
Subject: chemtrails

Here is a good video about chemtrails

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvioxJUL6C0

========================================================================
=================================================================
Reuters
America's elderly face growing drug addiction problem

By Toni Clarke Wed May 17, 8:15 AM ET

BOSTON (Reuters) - When Patrick Gallagher first began nodding off at
dinner, his family thought it was a symptom of old age. Their fears
grew as it worsened.

Withdrawing from the world at age 64, Gallagher was addicted to a
cocktail of alcohol and prescription painkillers.

"My whole life was centered around making sure I had an adequate supply
of drugs and alcohol," said the former instructor at the University of
Miami.

Gallagher, of Jensen Beach, Florida, is an elderly substance abuser, a
fast-growing group in the United States as baby boomers age.

A government survey estimates that the number of adults aged 50 or
older with substance abuse problems will double to 5 million in 2020
from 2.5 million in 1999, in large part due to their comfort with
prescription drugs.

"There is a huge concern that what we're going to be seeing is a tidal
wave of seriously affected substance abusers in later life," said
Frederic Blow, an associate professor at the University of Michigan
Medical School who specializes in geriatric substance abuse.

Unlike their predecessors, the Woodstock generation is comfortable
taking medications for a wide range of problems, including pain,
insomnia, depression and anxiety. As a result, they are more vulnerable
to substance abuse in later life, experts say.

Rush Limbaugh, the politically conservative, 55-year-old talk show
host, who was charged last month with prescription drug fraud in
connection with his addiction to painkillers, is representative of the
new kind of patient showing up in treatment centers and emergency
rooms, experts say.

'PAIN-FREE'

So-called "late onset" substance abuse is often linked to medical
problems and the emotional traumas that can accompany old age, from
isolation to the death of friends and family.

Alcohol remains the most commonly abused substance in the elderly,
followed by prescription painkillers such as OxyContin, made by Purdue
Pharama, and Vicodin, by Abbott Laboratories Inc , and anti-anxiety
pills such as Valium, by Roche, and Xanax, by Pfizer .

Of 495,859 emergency-room hospital visits in the United States in 2004
for the non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, 32,556 were by people aged
55 to 64 years old and 31,203 were by people older than 65, according
to the first national government survey of its kind.

Gallagher's problems began when he began taking OxyContin and oxycodone
to treat serious back pain.

OxyContin is a sustained-release version of oxycodone, whose brand
names include Percocet and Percodan, both made by Endo Pharmaceuticals
and whose abuse potential is similar to that of morphine.

"I felt tremendous," he said. "I thought I'd died and gone to heaven
because I was pain-free."

Gradually, however, those positive feelings gave way to lethargy and
crippling depression. He needed more and more pills to gain the same
effect and he increased his alcohol intake dramatically to help.

"My life became unmanageable," said Gallagher, who entered treatment
about a year ago after his family intervened to help him. Now aged 65,
he manages his pain through alternative, holistic methods such as
acquatherapy and massage.

ELDERLY ILLICIT DRUG USE

It's not just prescription drug abuse that is on the rise. Illicit drug
use is also increasing, though the absolute numbers are still
relatively small.

Of 383,350 emergency admissions nationwide for cocaine abuse in 2004,
10,790 were patients between the ages of 55 and 64, while 1,503 were
aged 65 and older.

"We are beginning to see an increase in heroin and cocaine addiction at
the front-end of the baby boom wave," said Carol Colleran, executive
vice president of public policy and national affairs at Hanley Center,
a treatment program in West Palm Beach and the author of "Aging and
Addiction."

"The increase is slight yet, but it begs the question as to whether
that figure is going to increase dramatically if the baby boomers
revert back in retirement to the drugs they tended to use in their
college years."

While pharmaceutical companies are introducing new medications to
combat pain, anxiety and sleeplessness, supposedly without the
potential for abuse, those drugs can carry their own problems.

Ambien, the insomnia drug made by Sanofi-Aventis cited by U.S. Rep.
Patrick Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) as the cause of his recent
car crash near the U.S. capitol, has been blamed recently for causing
blackouts in patients that have led to car crashes, sleepwalking and
binge eating.

"The drug companies want you to believe their drugs are safe," said
Blow, "but I think I think we are just going to see new problems in the
future."
========================================================================
==============================================================

From: "dahbud_mensch" <dahbud_mensch@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon May 15, 2006 6:47 am
Subject: It's called "Rove-a-dope"

It's called "Rove-a-dope"
by jafac

The political strategy of Karl Rove, is to use the compliant media--
absolutely DESPERATE for any kind of controversial story to sell ad
space, increase revenue--to spread the word about any kind of dirt on
the man everyone loves to hate; George W Bush.

Everyone loves to hate him, because he's a fuckup. And he's stinking
filthy rich, never worked for it. The absolute antithesis of
epicurianism. He drives liberals fucking crazy, because he's
everything a liberal hates.

So he creates a little story about something related to something that
Bush has done, only he makes it look illegal, when technically, due to
some obscure loophole or conservative interpretation of law or the
constitution, it's actually legal. And he calls up his buddies in the
press, the Judy Millers, the Chris Mathews, etc. and says - hey, have
I got a story for you - (or one of your more liberal friends in the
same media organization) - however he gets it going.

What do you think "10 million phone conversations recorded a day"
(oops, I mean 10 million pen-registers a day) means? It means that
what Bush is doing - based on the PATRIOT ACT, is technically legal.
The So-Called Liberal media has been swatting at Bush madly all day
long, and pundits are furiously describing speeches he made where he
talked about obeying the law wrt court orders and such. I'm certain
that the timing of this story has something to do, as well, with the
Goss resignation and Hayden appointment, given Hayden's stewardship of
this NSA program. Too much coincidence.

So the point of all this is - Rove feints with a "fake" Bush is evil
story. The Liberals scream and yell, and over react. They can't help
it - they've been given incomplete, if not false information. It brews
and bubbles for a few days, or weeks, or months, then the FULL story
with all the facts get out, and the Liberals end up losing the
argument, and looking like asses.

Remember Rathergate? We all thought we finally had the proof that Bush
was a deserter. Until the proof turned out to be a forgery. Who forged
it? (My guess: Rove) Where's the REAL evidence that he was or was not
a deserter? (My guess: Shredded decades ago, duh!) What was the final
outcome? (Dan Rather, Liberal media Icon resigns in disgrace - noone
dares question Bush's military service ever again in serious public
debate).

Remember Plamegate? Bush SAID he would fire the leaker. We were all
hoping that that meant, Cheney would be fired, or Libby would be
fired, or Karl Rove would be fired. Then after a very costly
investigation, an indictment which is explained away as "bad memory"
(remember Iran-Contra?) and then the TRUTH finally comes out: BUSH is
the leaker - because he de-classified Plame. Technically legal. The
outcome? Bush still got his war, Libby's case will probably be
dismissed, or he'll be pardoned - G.Gordon Liddy spent time behind
bars for his Watergate Role, and he's making buttloads on the
talk-show and book-signing circuit. And Liberals are "technically
wrong" again, because technically, Bush didn't break the law.

This whole NSA scandal thing sounds exactly the same. Huge
controversey made over a story that is changing every time we hear
about it. Public debate rages over whether he has the right to do this
(when "this" isn't even really defined yet), or whether we have a
right to question during a "war", (whether or not you agree on the
premise, execution, or whether we're technically at "war"). In the
end, I'm afraid we're going to find out that what Bush is doing, is
technically legal (or if it's illegal, those facts will never become
known) - and that a lot of Liberal pundits, and moderate
conservatives, or even hard conservatives who have lost faith, are
going to look like chumps, and congress will end up even MORE impotent
and irrelevant, and Bush will have more clout to do whatever he wants.

Some people think that this rove-a-dope tactic is a demonstration of
Karl Rove's "evil genius". I disagree. People are gullible. They still
trust the media. They trust the media even more when it tells them
soemthing they WANT to hear. Both sides fall for this shit. And it's
not genius at all. It's Power. Pure and simple. Rove can do this,
because they control all the information, they can classify or
declassify or executive privilege any bit of information they want to
at will. Even just for the purpose of appearing secretive - just to
piss people off. They control the judiciary. They control congress,
and ignore them when congress gets out of line. And their proxies in
the corporate boardrooms of major media conglomerates control the
media. With all that power at their disposal, of course all of this is
very easy to do. What I'm suprised at, is why Bush's approval rating
isn't lower than 30% right now. If Rove were really trying hard, he
would drop it in the absolute below-Carter range. Why would he do
that? 06 elections are coming up. With a lower approval rating, some
of the Democratic congressmen might actually grow a pair of balls and
try something. And since they have no power, they'll be thrown off
balance again, and do something again, that will discredit Democrats,
and make Liberalism a dirty word again, and the 06 elections will go
to Republicans. Or maybe he wants Dems to win enough seats to have
subpoena power, but not enough to really accomplish anything, so that
he can spend the next two years having America watch in great detail,
Democrats flailing impotently trying to get something, ANYTHING on
which to get Bush. But face it - the REAL evidence on Bush, will NEVER
come out, no matter what. It doesn't matter how many lobbyists or
congressmen or appointees go to jail. When Bush leaves office (and
perhaps welcomes his brother Jeb in his place) - the Liberals will be
standing there like they were on Nov 2 2004, slack-jawed, in disbelief
that it's happening again, completely unable to understand why, the
Diebold conspiracy theorists will get an interview on CNN, and Wolf
will say "gee that guy's a little crazy", and the Dem who ran against
Jeb will be all "oh well, I guess the best man won". . . and Rove will
continue giggling like a crazed weasel.

You want a hint at why Conservatives like Bush?

* It's not because of his successful business career.

* It's not because he stands up for small government, responsible
spending, or American Rights.

* It's not because he champions adoption of strict religious law (has
he banned abortion yet? Really? He's had 6 years and a majority. Why
not? - because he doesn't want to, he just wants religious whackjob
donations).

* It's not because he's a great speaker.

It's because he drives Liberals absolutely batshit crazy with hatred.
I know. I'm one of them. And I have frequent conversations with a few
conservatives. And when it comes down to it - none of them really
believe in anything. None of them will really defend what Bush has
done. But beneath it all, what triggers their pleasure centers, is
that Bush makes me mad. Bush pisses off the Liberals that Rush
Limbaugh has programmed them to hate. Because Liberals don't respect
the redneck, the white male, the pickup-truck driving, gun-toting,
tobacco-chewing, cross-burning, wife-beating America-loving,
God-fearing Republican. That's really what this is all about. Rove
knows this. And he has no problem at all using it.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/05/11/1216245.shtml

========================================================================
=================================================================

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 9
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:19am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: Judicial Watch Is A Fraud -- the purpose of the Judical-Watch-

From: "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@cyberware.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Judicial Watch Is A Fraud

Hi

I would like you to consider the following statement, made by Tom Fitton,
president of Judicial Watch:-

{quote}
The newly released video shows a silver object streak across the sky and
into the Pentagon building, producing a giant fireball. "Most people,
whether or not they can make out a plane, no one sees a cruise missile. No
one sees a decoy," Mr. Fitton said.

"The most hard-core conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied. But I hope
the video will appeal to the rational and reasonable people out there who
might otherwise be taken in by the pseudo science and half-baked evidence
that these crazies present."
{unquote}
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b3ba5317-1678-46a7-a04
d-58846a90a819&k=83331

Whom does he think he is kidding?

Regards
P.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 10
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:25am(PDT)
Subject: Dahr Jamail: Support Our Troops, Anybody? 2,450 DEAD GIs

Support Our Troops, Anybody?

By Dahr Jamail

Wednesday 17 May 2006

*So Long as I Am Your Commander in Chief*

As the violence in Iraq continues to escalate, at least 2,450 US
soldiers have been killed, with roughly ten times that number seriously
wounded since the beginning of the Invasion in March 2003. If current
trends continue, May will be one of the deadliest months of the
occupation yet for troops, with an average of over three being killed
per day. 54 coalition soldiers have been killed in the first 16 days of
May alone.

This probably explains why 72% of US troops in Iraq think the US should
exit the country within the next year, and over 25% think the US should
exit immediately. The same poll
found that only one in
five troops in Iraq want to heed War Criminal Bush's call for them to
"stay as long as they are needed."

The occupation, now well into its fourth year and going strong, has
already produced 550,000 Iraq war veterans. Troop morale is lower than
ever before and dropping as fast as Bush's approval ratings. Further
adding to the deteriorating situation is the mindless adherence to the
highly absurd pledges of the "commander in chief."

"To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not
run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your
commander in chief. Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to
see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as
possible," he says , ad
nauseum, "And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less
than complete victory." Just as he settled for nothing less than
complete exemption from military service in Vietnam, a fact his soldiers
are all too aware of.

Meanwhile, troops returning from Iraq are finding little comfort in the
hollow rhetoric of their chief chicken-hawk. The medical attention
necessary to support the troops is becoming scarcer with each passing
tax-cut.

When soldiers come home from Iraq, the support they need in order to
physically and mentally recover from the hell of Iraq is way out of
reach for most. With their pay and benefits cut, health care, already
scarce in many cases, is soon to become even more difficult to access.

A case in point is Marine Lance Cpl. James Crosby. He left Iraq strapped
to a gurney after his legs were paralyzed and his innards lacerated by
shrapnel. When he exited the combat zone to head back home for
treatment, he realized the military cut his pay by 50%. "Before you
leave the combat zone, they swipe your ID card through a computer, and
you go back to your base pay," he said
.
*
Of Course He Supports the Troops*

Veterans are a different matter, as a growing number of them are
beginning to realize, waking up to the fact that there is an
ever-widening gap between what their "commander in chief" says and what
he does. While Mr. Bush is busy telling reporters that he supports the
troops in Iraq, even military web sites are posting stories like one
from
February 28 of this year titled "Vets May Be Denied Health Care," which
stated:

At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues
could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable
President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half - if
the White House is serious about its proposed budget. After an increase
for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head.
Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been
growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a
cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.

In the same story, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, the top Democrat on the
panel overseeing the VA's budget, said: "Either the administration is
proposing gutting VA health care over the next five years or it is not
serious about its own budget."

Disturbingly and more recently, on March 21st, a House Budget Committee
Report

shows us that this does indeed appear to be the Bush plan for
"supporting the troops":

The President's 2007 budget provides $36.1 billion for appropriated
veterans programs, which is $2.9 billion above the amount enacted for
2006 and $1.8 billion above the amount needed to maintain purchasing
power at the 2006 level.

Beyond 2007, however, veterans funding is cut in almost every year. Over
five years, the budget cuts funding $10.0 billion below the level the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates is needed to maintain
purchasing power at the 2006 level.

Thus, their "commander in chief" will cut the veterans discretionary
budget by $10 billion over the next five years.

*Supporting Troops, Pentagon Style*

To save the troops from lack of health care, our government has devised
an ingenious solution, which is to let them continue in combat. Last
week the US military was found to be violating its own rules concerning
mentally ill troops by sending them back into combat. A recent news
piece by the Hartford
Courant stated:

US military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to
Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of
mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.

Citing records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and
interviews of families and military personnel, the newspaper reported
"numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own
regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops
from Iraq." The piece tells us that 22 US soldiers have committed
suicide in Iraq last year, which is the highest suicide rate since the
war began.

The article goes on to say that some of the service members who killed
themselves during 2004 and 2005 had been kept on duty despite clear
signs of mental distress, and had been prescribed antidepressants after
little or no mental health counseling.

Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection,
minces no words: "I can't imagine something more irresponsible than
putting a soldier suffering from stress on [antidepressants], when you
know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal.
You're creating chemically activated time bombs."

The article also quotes Dr. Arthur Blank Jr., a psychiatrist who
assisted in having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recognized as a
diagnosis after the Vietnam War: "I'm concerned that people who are
symptomatic are being sent back. That has not happened before in our
country."

* Turning Troops Into Time Bombs*

Among medical professionals, there is an unstated urgency that soldiers
receive adequate treatment promptly upon returning home. "If we don't
get intervention within the first five years, the veteran is set up for
a lifetime of problems," says John Wilson, a psychology professor at
Cleveland State University. In an Associated Press (AP) story
from April 30,
Professor Wilson also adds, "Iraq is a nonstop, 24-seven, hostile
environment, so what happens is that these guys are incredibly wired all
the time. One of the things we learned from Vietnam is that once that
hyper arousal response develops, it doesn't go off."

The tragic death of Andres Raya, a 19-year-old US Marine, demonstrates
this condition. The young man decided to commit suicide by inducing a
gun battle with police officers in his hometown of Ceres, California,
with the apparent motive of avoiding an impending return to duty in Iraq.

Raya, who fought in the April 2004 US assault on the city of Fallujah,
had returned to the US on January 8, 2005, for a holiday. His mother
later described his condition to the Modesto Bee
thus: "He
came back different."

He told his family on several occasions he did not want to go back to
Iraq. According to local police, Raya went to a liquor store in Ceres
wearing a poncho and "talking about how much he hated the world." He
asked the store owner to call the police. Police officer Sam Ryno
responded. He arrived to find Raya pulling the assault weapon from under
his poncho. He shot Ryno, causing serious injuries. When another police
officer arrived in the liquor store parking lot, Raya shot him twice in
the back of the head, killing him, and then disappeared. Three police
departments, the California Highway Patrol, and SWAT officers had to
search the area for the distraught veteran. When they found him, after a
brief but fierce gun battle, Raya was dead, with over 60 bullets in his
body.

An article in the Modesto Bee described the final battle as Raya
"shooting military style at the officers," while using "some of the same
darting and dodging techniques we have seen in reports from Iraq." The
police chief of Ceres told the Bee, "It was premeditated, planned, an
ambush.... It was suicide by cop."

*PTSD: "Post" for a Reason*

Veterans who make it home alive from Iraq are immediately faced with the
task of reconstructing their lives as they battle the effects of PTSD,
which include anger, rage, isolation, sleeplessness, anxiety and
anti-social behavior. In another AP story
from April 28 of
this year, the body of Spc. Robert Hornbeck, 23, was found in a hotel in
Savannah, Georgia, after he had been missing for 12 days.

"A body found with items belonging to a Fort Benning soldier … was
discovered … at a downtown hotel after guests complained of a foul odor
in the lobby," read the story. Hornbeck had spent a year in Iraq with
the 3rd Infantry Division and was to be married to his college
sweetheart this July. Instead, due to lack of treatment for PTSD, "A
maintenance worker at the De Soto Hilton hotel found the body of a man
inside a large piece of air-conditioning equipment. Firefighters wearing
hazard suits removed the body several hours later." His father believed
that Hornbeck was highly intoxicated at the time of his death.

Then there are the soldiers who come home,suffering massive trauma from
their experience in Iraq. Joshua Omvig, a soldier from Iowa, returned
home and killed himself
in front of
his mother, due primarily to lack of assistance in dealing with his
PTSD. The distraught parents of the 22-year-old veteran decided to deal
with their loss by creating a web site in his memory, where his mother
described the emails they receive from other soldiers: "It's been
hundreds a day - so many heartbreaking stories. It's like the same story
over and over again, just different names, different towns. A lot of
them will make you cry, there's so much pain."

A 2004 study of several Army and Marine units returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine found
that only between 23 and 40 percent of those with PTSD had sought
treatment. And post-traumatic stress is called "post" for a reason - its
most serious symptoms usually emerge long after the trauma is over.

*Confessions From the Accountability Office and Others*

Last week the Government Accountability Office announced
that "less than one
quarter of the US military's Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who show
signs of post-traumatic stress are referred for additional mental health
treatment or evaluation, according to a government study."

Nonetheless, the VA has admitted that a staggering 35% of veterans who
served in Iraq have already sought treatment in the VA system for
emotional problems from the war. This statistic was also confirmed by a
US Army study.

A piece written by Judith Coburn for TomDispatch
entitled
"Shortchanging the Wounded," posted this April, reveals many of the
following startling statistics.

Nearly one in three veterans have been hospitalized at the VA, or
visited a VA outpatient clinic, due to an initial diagnosis of a
mental-health disorder, according to the VA itself. These numbers are
consistent with a recent Army study on soldiers who have served in Iraq
or Afghanistan. Such a rate might add up over time (depending on how
long these occupations last) to what could be over half a million
veterans who need treatment.

The VA admits its disability system was overburdened even before the
administration invaded Iraq; and, by 2004, it had a backlog of 300,000
disability claims. Now, the VA reports that the backlog has nearly
doubled, at 540,122. By April 2006, 25% of the rating claims took six
months to process. So veterans wounded severely enough to be unable to
work are left high and dry for up to half a year. Worse yet, an appeal
of a rejected claim frequently takes years to settle. One hundred
twenty-three thousand disability claims have been filed so far by
veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, in its budget requests, the Bush
administration has constantly resisted Congressional demands to increase
the number of VA staffers processing such claims. Here is what the VA's
national advisory board on PTSD says in a report released in February, 2006:

[The] VA cannot meet the ongoing needs of veterans of past deployments
while also reaching out to new combat veterans of [Iraq and Afghanistan]
and their families within current resources and current models of treatment.

How many Iraqi veterans will eventually join the ranks of the 400,000
troops-turned homeless vets already on the streets of American cities?

*Support Our Troops: Anybody?*

When answering a question following a speech
he
gave on March 20th, the day after the three year anniversary of the
beginning of the invasion of Iraq, Bush said, "... the best way you can
help is to support our troops. You find a family who's got a child in
the United States military, tell them you appreciate them. Ask them if
you can help them."

Now is the time to stand up and be counted. It is going to take a little
more than pasting stickers of yellow ribbons that read "Support Our
Troops" on the bumpers of your SUVs and cars. Are the patriotic citizens
of the United States of America willing to support our troops? Because
their "commander in chief" sure as hell is not going to.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
(c)2004, 2005 Dahr Jamail.
All images, photos, photography and text are protected by United States and international copyright law. If you would like to reprint Dahr's Dispatches on the web, you need to include this copyright notice and a prominent link to the http://DahrJamailIraq.com website. Website by photographer Jeff Pflueger's Photography Media http://jeffpflueger.com . Any other use of images, photography, photos and text including, but not limited to, reproduction, use on another website, copying and printing requires the permission of Dahr Jamail. Of course, feel free to forward Dahr's dispatches via email.

More writing, commentary, photography, pictures and images at http://dahrjamailiraq.com

You are subscribed to the Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches because you requested a subscription at some point.

You can visit http://dahrjamailiraq.com/email_list/ to subscribe or unsubscribe to the email list.

Or, you can unsubscribe by sending an email to iraq_dispatches-request@dahrjamailiraq.com and write unsubscribe in the subject or the body of the email.

End of Iraq_Dispatches Digest, Vol 21, Issue 4

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 11
From: "Bill Giltner" bill.giltner@gmail.com
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 10:04am(PDT)
Subject: Your Support Requested (Support 911 Eyewitness)

Alert, Please Help

A new blog, whose purpose is to discredit Loose Change, has posted my
"guest" blog entry here:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/guest-post.html

Please drop by that blog site and lend your support

Thanks,

Bill Giltner
http://bgtruth.blogspot.com

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 12
From: "Kevin Lee Hammond" exposethenewworldorder@yahoo.com
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 10:19am(PDT)
Subject: Fwd: Minutes

monique <hspbrain01@yahoo.com> wrote: Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: monique <hspbrain01@yahoo.com>
Subject: Minutes
To: Alex <captainbreaksumshit@hotmail.com>,
Cyril Allen <democracy@callen.mailworks.org>,
Leon Catchatoorian <thespiritofsong@sbcglobal.net>,
Dean <dashr@fightthenwo.org>, Dean <dashreiner@speakeasy.net>,
David Hammond <solis.one@gmail.com>, Jamie <jamie@xenic.com>,
Kevin <exposethenewworldorder@yahoo.com>, Mouse <mini_che@hotmail.com>,
Parisa <parisab@sfsu.edu>, Tania <natural84sweet@hotmail.com>,
Lois Valencia <drlouisvalencia@yahoo.com>

Hi Folks,

Here are the minutes from last night's meeting - I've also attached it as a word doc for your reference. Thanks for those who made it out, and for those you didnt - please join us next week, 5/23 at 7pm - Cafe International. I'll be out of town, but Jamie will be taking my place to run the show. Thanks Jamie in advance!!

Spread the truth!!

Monique

Minutes
911 Truth Action Weekly Meeting
5/17/06

I. Administrative/Housekeeping
-Monique was the Chair, Dean was the Secretary for this meeting
-Discussion of Robert’s Rules to use in structuring/organizing our group – everyone agreed to use these as standard protocol

In summary, these are Robert’s Rules:
Chair – will run the meetings
Secretary – will take minutes and call on folks to speak or set time limits for speakers. This responsibility can change each time.
Format of meetings: Administrative (read minutes from last week), Discuss Current events, Procedural matters, Special topic of discussion or special presentation of topic of interest, Set agenda for next week

-Meeting date/time – set for every Tuesday night at 7pm at CafĂ© International
- Set up web site for our group as sub-domain of www.fightthenwo.org - Dean

II. Overall Immediate Goals
a. Tabling on campuses and other events
b. Attracting other people to this group
c. Spreading the word about 911
III. Name of our Group
a. Collectively agreed on “911 Truth Action” as the official name of our group
b. We will design a logo, business card and informative flyer to hand out in general and at our events – Jamie/Mouse (rough draft next week – 5/23)
c. General discussion about what topics should be covered in flyer:
WTC7, Controlled demolition of twin towers, Pentgon, melting point of steel vs jet fuel, Lies, Prior knowledge, Put options, Free Fall, Marvin/Jed Bush security of towers, NORAD, Photos of Bin Laden, Fight the silence, Terrorist training at military camps, terrorists are still alive
IV. Tabling
a. We discussed different types of tabling – ie at State and Berkeley as well as at other existing events that might relate
b. We would like to get a banner, flyer, cards, stickers made – Jamie/Mouse
c. We need a tight presentation to give to folks who we encounter
d. Time our tabling with upcoming events we are promoting
e. Invite folks to join our group – have laptop set up to gather emails

V. Film – Loose Change
a. We would like to spread this film as much as possible around SF
b. Next time we will discuss and brainstorm on a list of theatres we can petition to screen the film
c. Approach coffee houses to screen it on their wall
d. Plan smaller screening events – in our homes or friends studios as well as bigger alternative spaces – Monique
VI. Bigger Goals
a. Synching up with other 911 groups locally and domestically to collaborate with
b. Stage protests
c. Challenge other political/peace activist groups to discuss this topic
d. Approach victims of 911 and educate them on what really happened
e. Organize a mass demonstration at Ground Zero on 9/11
f. Approach our local/federal congressmen and voice our concern about 911
VII. Agenda for Next Week
a. Administrative/Housekeeping – Minutes from last week
b. Logo/Flyer first draft review by group
c. Brainstorm – list of local alternative theatres/coffee shops to petition for Loose Change screening
d. Discuss other things we need for tabling – ie marketing material production, locations, dates/times, other logistics
e. General Current event discussion











---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

---------------------------------
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 13
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 10:24am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: Pentagon 9/11 Video -- attach from Wakefield Sault -- no virus

The Defense Dept. download is 5 Mb???!!! Yes, they do want to discourage
people from downloading their pittiful fare. The idea is that the
mysteriously appearing cartooned overlay that is circulating with the
ambigous heading and captions is intended to be the clip that people
remember when they think of the videotaped released on May 16 2006 -- they
are planting the false memory that on May 16 the government released clear
pictures of a Boeing 757 in obvious American Airlines livery hitting the
Pentagon.

I've said this three times now -- and no one on the lists I mail to has
given any response.

To me it is obvious that the DoD and its privatized propaganda arm Judicial
Watch have come out with psy-op disinformation package (including the
floating of the mysterious graphic overlay of a Boeing crashing into the
Pentagon) for one purpose only -- to distract from crowd out my
compilation of Pentagon killer jet evidence which I integrate with the big
picture (Zionist Neocons at the Pentagon working with Mossad etc.)

The real Pentagon event investigators were the only target of this
Judical-Watch-Pentagon disinfo psy-op. It shows what the 9-11 perpetrators
really fear -- and it isn't the "webfairy-holmgren"
no-planes-hit-the-towers" (false-opposition) hypothesis. Damn it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@cyberware.co.uk>
To: "Peter Meyer" <pm@serendipity.li>; "Kee Dewdney" <akd@uwo.ca>; "Jim
Hoffman" <james_t_hoffman@yahoo.com>; "Eric Hufschmidt" <ERICHUF@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:28 AM
Subject: Pentagon 9/11 Video

Hi

Attached is a section of the original Pentagon release of a WMV (Windows
Media Audio/Video file), as downloaded from:-
http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-1_11094135.WMV
http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-2_11094237.WMV

The USA Today reporter's words have been added as voice-over.

One question arising is how the file I am sending you can be a mere 74kb in
size despite also containing an audio track. The downloads from the Pentagon
are each in the region of 5Mb. Is that to discourage downloads?

Please feel free to redistribute the attached WMV as you please.

Kind Regards
Peter Wakefield Sault

P.S. If anyone receiving this knows the name of the USA Today reporter,
please would that person be kind enough to tell me, as I have been unable to
find out.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 14
From: "Debi Clark" debiclark@sbcglobal.net
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 11:08am(PDT)
Subject: Morgan Reynolds: "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories "


http://www.911hoax.com/Morgan_Reynolds_911_Hoax.html



We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories
By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.
March 2006
excerpted from http://nomoregames.net/index
php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

Where there is much desire to learn,
There of necessity will be much arguing,
Much writing, many opinions; for opinion
In good men is but knowledge in the making.
—John Milton
Two Boeing 767s Vanish into Twin Towers
Most 9/11 researchers reject the government’s Big Boeing Theory for the
Pentagon and Pennsylvania events for lack of supporting evidence and
presence of contrary evidence. Skepticism about BBT at WTC is less common
but if we look at the gashes in the towers, a telling question arises:

How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel
towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible
in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?
Expressed another way, no confirmed debris exists from two alleged 767
high-speed crashes into skyscrapers within 17 minutes of each other, a
stunning lack of evidence to support the official 767 theory. Given long
experience with airplane crashes, it is difficult if not impossible to
accept the proposition that a wide-body jetliner can smash into a dense
steel-concrete tower and disappear virtually without a trace, much less do
it twice within 17 minutes in the same city block. Yet the NIST (pdf pg 38)
states about the south tower, “the aircraft completely disappeared into the
building in a fifth of a second.”

Tower walls were composed of high-strength steel beams approximately 14
inches square on one-meter centers (39.37”) surrounding windows with each
column beam secured to others by steel spandrel plates about 52 inches x 10
feet forming a belt around each floor (see p. 8 pdf). Steel beam thicknesses
varied from 4” at the base and tapered from 5/8” to ¼” in the WTC 1 impact
zone and 13/16” to ¼” in the WTC 2 impact zone. WTC floors were grids of
steel topped by four inches of steel reinforced lightweight concrete in
corrugated steel pans. Walls effectively were dense webs of nearly 40% steel
covered by aluminum and backed by steel and concrete floor grids mated to an
incredibly strong and dense core of 47 cross-braced steel columns,
stairwells and elevator shafts. (Follow Link)

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments: