American Police State

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell

"Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

Falsehood is a recognized and extremely useful weapon in warfare, and every country uses it quite deliberately to deceive its own people, to attract neutrals, and to mislead the enemy. The ignorant and innocent masses in each country are unaware at the time that they are being misled, and when it is all over only here and there are the falsehoods discovered and exposed. As it is, all past history and the stories and statements have produced the desired effect; no one troubles to investigate the facts and establish the truth.

A century ago, the U.S. made its debut as an imperialist power by seizing control of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in the Spanish-American War. In the name of "liberating" these colonies from Spanish control, U.S. armed forces turned them into American colonies. In 1898 President William McKinley took the United States to war against Spain after an explosion of uncertain origin on the USS Maine in Havana Harbor. (Apparently it was a boiler mishap.)

During WWI, anti-German propaganda fueled support for the war, but it also contributed to intolerance on the home front. Dachshunds were renamed liberty dogs, German measles were renamed liberty measles, and the City University of New York reduced by one credit every course in German. Fourteen states banned the speaking of German in public schools. The military adversary was thousands of miles away, but German-Americans provided convenient local scapegoats. In Van Houten, New Mexico, an angry mob accused an immigrant miner of supporting Germany and forced him to kneel before them, kiss the flag, and shout "To hell with the Kaiser." In Illinois, a group of zealous patriots accused Robert Prager, a German coal miner, of hoarding explosives. Though Prager asserted his loyalty to the very end, he was lynched by the angry mob. Explosives were never found.

During the Second World War, questionable claims were used to justify both America's response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and its atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. On December 7 1941, Japanese aircraft attacked the headquarters of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Then US President Franklin Roosevelt condemned Japan for its 'surprise offensive' and 'unprovoked and dastardly attack'. It became widely accepted that America was reluctantly drawn into war by the Japanese. Yet evidence that has emerged since suggests that America knew that its hostile trade sanctions against the Japanese over the previous decade were likely to provoke some form of attack, and even that US officials may have had prior knowledge of Japan's plans to bomb America.

On November 25 1941, just two weeks before Pearl Harbor, there was a top-level meeting at the White House where, according to then US secretary for war Henry Stimson, President Roosevelt ignored the agenda and 'brought up entirely the relations with the Japanese'. 'He brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked, perhaps [as soon as] next Monday', wrote Stimson in his diary, 'for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what should we do. The question was, how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves’.

In Britain, Churchill's government concurred that some kind of Japanese attack was bound to take place. 'America provoked Japan to such an extent that the Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbor', said Captain Oliver Lytletton, production minister in Churchill's cabinet, in 1944: 'It is a travesty on history ever to say that America was forced into war.'

Likewise, the Americans justified their atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 as a 'regrettable' but necessary act, to speed the end of the Second World War. Then President Harry Truman claimed that, 'the only language [the Japanese] seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast' (Much of the US media ran with this 'beast' line, depicting the Japanese as apes or vermin, intent on destroying the civilized world.

Yet, again, evidence suggests that US intelligence officials had been aware that Japan was on the verge of surrendering. After the Second World War, the US government's own Strategic Bombing Survey concluded: 'Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to November 11945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.'

Now, it appears to have been a sick experiment. The first bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a uranium-235 bomb (“Little Boy”) while the second bomb, (“Fat Man”) was plutonium-239. The explosive force of the first bomb was recorded as the equivalent of 15000 (imperial) tons of TNT. "Interestingly" it was estimated that only 1-2kg of the 20+kg payload of uranium actually achieved fission. The explosive yield from the second bomb had a 1kg payload that was in excess of 22000 tons of TNT.

Little Boy and Fat Man

In the 1960s, America's Vietnam War was launched on the back of a lie. On August 2 1964, US officials claimed that communist forces from North Vietnam had launched an 'unprovoked attack' on a US destroyer ship that was on a routine patrol in the Gulf of Tonkin. Two days later, on 4 August, US officials said that the Northern Vietnamese followed up with another 'deliberate attack' on two more US ships. Yet the first Vietnamese attack on August 2 was in response to American hostility, not a routine patrol - and the second attack on August 4 never even occurred. It was a fabrication.

US scholar Daniel C Hallin points out that the day before the Vietnamese attacked US ships on August 2, 'two attacks on North Vietnam…had taken place', which were 'part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964'. The second alleged Vietnamese attack, however, was an outright invention of US officials, who were keen to convince the American public that US forces should take action against the Vietnamese communists.

It had the desired effect on American newspapers. The Los Angeles Times encouraged Americans to 'face the fact that the communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities’. The New York Times praised President Lyndon Johnson's speech on 4 August 1964, in which he repeated the Gulf of Tonkin lie, for its 'somber facts'.

When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier. But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.

The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a huge arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, and even spiritual—is felt in every city, every state house, and every office of the federal government ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

President Eisenhower’s warning about the "acquisition of unwarranted influence" by the military-industrial complex is even more relevant today than it was in 1961. Despite the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military budget is higher today than it was when Eisenhower gave his military-industrial complex speech in 1961. At almost $400 billion per year, the U.S. military budget (in constant dollars) remains above the peacetime cold war average that prevailed during the prime period of U.S.-Soviet rivalry, from roughly 1950 to 1989. This is astonishing considering that Russia has slashed its weapons procurement budget by 77% since 1991, and that Russian forces could barely prevail over a rebel army in Chechnya (inside its own borders), much less project force against neighboring countries.

Absent a robust Russian military, where is the threat that justifies spending nearly a half of a trillion dollars per year on war and preparations for war? The Pentagon’s answer is simple: there is no longer one powerful superpower adversary to contend with, but U.S. forces still need to be equipped to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously against "rogue states" like Iraq and North Korea. And getting hundreds of thousands of troops to these far-away places requires spending almost as much as the United States spent during the cold war—or so the Pentagon claims.

This "two war" scenario is implausible in the extreme. As Michael Klare has masterfully demonstrated in his book, Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws, Colin Powell devised the two war strategy once he realized that the United States was "running out of enemies" large enough to justify spending hundreds of billions on the Pentagon every year. Klare also demonstrates that the two "major regional conflicts" that are the building blocks of the Pentagon’s new spending scenario both involve theoretical regional adversaries that are far better armed and equipped than existing regional powers like Iraq or North Korea.

Michael Klare is not alone in suggesting that the new threats to U.S. security have been greatly exaggerated. Pentagon budget analyst Franklin Spinney has bluntly asserted "the Pentagon’s two war strategy is just a marketing device to justify a high budget."

By exaggerating the current threat to U.S. security, the Pentagon is carrying on a long and dishonorable tradition. In fact, in the early 1990s it was revealed that U.S. projections of Soviet military power had been wildly overstated for years as a result of misleading intelligence supplied by people like Aldrich Ames, the CIA agent who was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union. Similarly, in the 1970s, the conservative Committee on the Present Danger pressed the CIA to do a slanted "Team B" assessment of Soviet military power that helped pave the way for Ronald Reagan’s unprecedented peacetime military buildup of the 1980s.

“Now it's called the Military-Industrial-Congressional establishment.”

What is driving these enormous expenditures? First and most obviously, the main beneficiaries of cold war military spending—including the Pentagon, the major military contractors, and key members of Congress who routinely steer military dollars to their districts — have been working overtime to keep the military gravy train running. Beyond this institutional pressure for permanently high military spending, there is also a strategic rationale—the notion that the United States should retain the capability to serve as a sort of "globocop," charging to the rescue to restore order, stability, and "free markets" when they are threatened by the forces of evil and chaos.

For one “relatively small” example, in the early 1990's the Lockheed Corporation advocated the development of "next generation" defenses. As a result, the "Big Three" weapons contractors—Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon—are all profiting handsomely from Star Wars research and development, and stand to make billions more if a national missile defense system is actually deployed.

Boeing—Won $1.6 billion initial contract for "systems integration" of the overall missile defense effort, 4/98; according to the Wall Street Journal (5/1/98), the contract could be worth $5.2 billion to Boeing over the next ten years. Boeing is also the prime contractor for the Airborne Laser (ABL), a chemical laser mounted on a 747 aircraft that is supposed to be able to intercept Scud missiles in their "boost phase" (as they are being launched); the Air Force expects to spend as much as $1.2 billion on this program between now and 2006, most of which will go to Boeing. Boeing has also received a contract to assemble the booster rocket motors for the Ground-Based Interceptor, another key Star Wars component; the boosters will cost an estimated $3 million each.

Lockheed Martin—Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the Army’s Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, THAAD. The project has failed its last six tests in a row, and Lockheed Martin has agreed to pay up to $7 million for the costs of any failed tests in the future. The Army has spent $3.2 billion on THAAD so far.

Raytheon—Raytheon is the prime contractor for the Navy’s Theater Wide missile defense project, which is supposed to intercept enemy missiles early in their flight path by detecting them and firing at them from ships at sea. Theater Wide is the pet project of pro-Star Wars groups like the Heritage Foundation and Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, and it is slated for a $100 million to $200 million per year increase over the next five years. Raytheon is also a major subcontractor to Boeing for systems integration on the overall National Missile Defense effort. The Theater Wide program is slated to receive roughly $1.4 billion in funding from F.Y. 1997 through F.Y. 2003.

The true weapons of mass destruction are the jet fighters, tanks, machine guns and other military exports that the United States ships to non-democratic countries -- a record $8.3 billion worth in the 1997 fiscal year. A huge amount of American taxpayer money goes to support this immoral weapons trade. In 1995, the arms industry received $7.6 billion in Federal subsidies. After agricultural price supports, this represents the largest subsidy program for business in the Federal budget. "We have a bloated, corrupt and unaccountable military industrial congressional system that thrives on a policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace," said David Theroux, president of The Independent Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. "Weapons procurement systems are in reality not linked to need or accountability ... they are primarily pork programs for congressional districts, defense bureaucracy and defense contractors. US military spending is greater than all the military spending of the next 13 countries ranked beneath it. Yet the US share of world trade and world manufacturing is substantially less than it was during the Cold War. This is one central reason why military might is so often the choice of the US ruling class.

Top Five Global Arms Suppliers: 1997

________________________________________________________________

“More and more, the US government relies on brute strength to accomplish its goals.”

________________________________________________________________

Perhaps Orwell should have titled his book 2004 rather than 1984. His scenario of surveillance technology, police power, and perpetual warfare is now a reality. For big government we now have "The Perfect War," everywhere and nowhere, secret and interminable.  The war will justify ever expanding police powers, higher taxes, and more controls over the citizenry.  You can see easily how Washington thrives on war.  Since Sept 11th, there have been no nasty challenges to government spending and waste, no tedious debates over things like social security "lockboxes," nor "political" attacks upon the Presidency.  Congressmen and Think Tank experts get lots of TV time and most everyone jumps to obey government orders and support more regulations.  Any groups opposed to American military interventions overseas appear unpatriotic and are marginalized, while press coverage of the war is restricted, using the last Gulf War as a model.  Big Government, as Orwell wrote, thrives from unwinnable wars; it doesn't get any better than this.

The “terrorist” bombings in the U.S. have prompted politicians and media pundits to demand that the Pentagon be given even more money in order to beef up its national security policies. Costs, just for homeland defense, are already estimated as high as $1.5 trillion over the next five years (Los Angeles Times, October 15, 2001). This is in addition to a military budget approaching $400 billion per year. Also, our growing security forces are very costly; an experienced FBI or Secret Service Agent makes $80,000-100,000 per year plus a good pension, often after just twenty years work.

Newspaper accounts of the arrests of Egyptians accused of blowing up the World Trade Center in 1993 reveal that not only did the FBI have advance notice of the bombing but, worse, their informant, a former Egyptian army officer, built the bomb. Emad Ali Salem infiltrated the anti-Israel group for the FBI, who asked him if the Egyptians could build a bomb. Salem told them they could not. The FBI instructed Salem to build a bomb for the Egyptians, using phony powder. Then the FBI told Salem to use real explosives. Salem did as he was told but began secretly to tape his FBI handlers in their meetings. Transcripts of these recordings were published in the New York Times in October 1993. Properly placed, the bomb could have killed thirty thousand rather then the six people it did kill. According to court documents filed in New York, the FBI had advance knowledge of the bombing. But the decision was made on orders from the highest levels within the government to allow it to occur. Why? Why did the government need a bombing with great loss of life? Is the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act so important to their police state plans that they had to try a second time? Was Oklahoma City a successful second try for the government? See below New York Times article about FBI involvement in the 93 WTC bombing.

Documentation:

From the New York Times:

Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast

By Ralph Blumenthal

New York Times
October 28 1993

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead more than 1000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Crourt in that attack.

[SNIP]

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. headquarters in Washington about the bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent he identified as John Anticev.

"He said, I don't think the New York people would like the things out of the New York office to go to Washington, D.C.," Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev told him.

[SNIP]

In another point in the transcripts, Mr. Salem recounts a conversation he said he had with Mr. Anticev, saying ,"I said 'Guys, now you both saw this bomb went off and you both know that we could avoid that.'" At another point, Mr. Salem says, "You get paid, guys, to prevent problems like this from happening."

Mr. Salem talks of the plan to substitute harmless powder for explosives during another conversation with agent Floyd. In that conversation he recalls a previous discussion with Mr. Anticev.

"Do you deny," Mr. Salem says he told the agent, "Your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?" Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev did not deny it. "We were handling the case perfectly well until the supervisor messed it up, upside down."

Mossad Link to First WTC Bombing Raises Eyebrows

Exclusive To American Free Press

By Michael Collins Piper

Here are the facts about the Mossad connection to the first attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) revealed by investigative reporter Robert I. Friedman in the Aug. 3, 1993 article in The Village Voice, an independent left-wing New York weekly that has occasionally dared to raise criticisms of Israel.

Friedman reported that Ahmad Ajaj, a 27-year-old West Bank Palestinian held in federal custody for conspiring to bomb the World Trade Center, might have been a Mossad mole, according to Israeli intelligence sources.

Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport on Sept. 1, 1992, after he arrived on a Pakistani International flight from Peshawar carrying a forged Swedish passport and bomb-making manuals. He was taken into custody, and subsequently pleaded guilty to entering the country illegally.

Ajaj's traveling companion was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi who law enforcement sources say is a "key player" in the World Trade Center bombing.

Although the FBI identified Ajaj as a senior intifada terrorist, with links to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization, Kol Ha'ir, a respected Hebrew-language weekly published in Jerusalem, said Ajaj was never involved in intifada activities or with Hamas or even the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Instead, according to Kol Ha'ir, Ajaj was actually a petty crook arrested in 1988 for counterfeiting U.S. dollars out of East Jerusalem. Ajaj was convicted of counterfeiting and then sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.

According to Friedman, writing in The Village Voice: "It was during his prison stay that Mossad, Israel's CIA, apparently recruited him, say Israeli intelligence sources. By the time he was released after having served just one year, he had seemingly undergone a radical transformation."

Friedman reports that Ajaj had suddenly become a devout Muslim and an outspoken hard-line nationalist. Then, Ajaj was arrested for smuggling weapons into the West Bank, supposedly for El Fatah, a subdivision of the PLO.

But Friedman's sources in Israeli intelligence say that the arrest and Ajaj's subsequent deportation were "staged by Mossad to establish his credentials as an intifada activist. Mossad allegedly 'tasked' Ajaj to infiltrate radical Palestinian groups operating outside Israel and to report back to Tel Aviv. Israeli intelligence sources say that it is not unusual for Mossad to recruit from the ranks of common criminals."

After Ajaj's "deportation" from Israel, he showed up in Pakistan where he turned up in the company of the anti-Soviet Mujihadeen rebels in Afghanistan.

This in itself could point further toward Ajaj working for the Mossad, for according to Covert Action Information Bulletin (September 1987) the funding and supply lines for the Mujihadeen was not only the "the second largest covert operation" in the CIA's history, but it was also, according to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky (writing in The Other Side of Deception) under the direct supervision of the Mossad.

After Ajaj's ventures with the Mujihadeen, he popped up in New York and purported to befriend members of a small so-called "radical" clique surrounding Sheikh Abdel-Rahman who was accused of being the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing.

On Feb. 26, 1993, the day of the first World Trade center bombing, Ajaj was "safe" in federal prison serving a six-month sentence for entering the country on a forged passport. Later, he was indicted for conspiracy in the WTC bombing.

Said Robert Friedman:

If Mossad recruited Ajaj, it is not known whether he continued to work for the Israeli spy agency after he was deported. One possibility, of course, is that upon leaving Israel and meeting radical Muslims close to the blind Egyptian sheikh, his loyalties shifted.

Friedman reports a second frightening possibility:

Another scenario is that he had advance know ledge of the World Trade Center bombing, which he shared with Mossad, and that Mossad, for whatever reason, kept the secret to itself. If true, U.S. intelligence sources speculate that Mossad might have decided to keep the information closely guarded so as not to compromise its undercover agent.  

The Oklahoma City Bombing:
A Morass of Unanswered Questions

The Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act was unpassable until 168 people were killed in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Immediately after the bombing, a blizzard of OKC-inspired "domestic terrorism" bills were rushed into Congress in a matter of days, some of them pre-written and already printed up BEFORE THE BOMBING. These proposed laws covered everything from banning virtually all privately owned firearms to unlimited and court-admissible Federal wiretaps to censorship of the Internet to the suspension of habeas corpus in "terrorism" cases to the grotesque destruction of the First Amendment advocated in Charles Schumer's bill H.R. 2580, which imposes a five-year prison sentence for publicly engaging in "unseemly speculation" and publishing or transmitting by wire or electronic means "baseless conspiracy theories regarding the Federal government of the United States.

The Antiterrorism Act of 1996 was passed by the Congress and signed by President Clinton on April 24 1996. How was a normally cumbersome, inefficient, and glacially slow legislative branch able to move so quickly, so comprehensively, and so efficiently in introducing these laws which will strip Americans of what remaining freedoms they have?

The reaction to the bombing by both the Republican-controlled Congress and the Clinton Regime was swift. The latter immediately blamed "right wing" talk show hosts and militias – despite no evidence connecting Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols with either. The million dollar question: Was this a pre-arranged and carefully organized response to a tragedy deliberately planned at the highest centers of power to discredit the militia movement and other critics of the federal government’s progressive abandonment of Constitutional government? Was it part of the ongoing campaign to disarm U.S. citizens through so-called gun control laws? Did the federal government sacrifice some of its own employees (and their children) and ruin the lives of many other people just to discredit its critics? The militias were among the first to denounce the bombing. Their leaders took no credit for it, wanted nothing to do with it. They reiterated that their posture was defensive. But since 1995 the number of citizens’ militias has dropped from over 500 to under 200, suggesting that if this was the motive, it worked.

For several hours after the blast, the local media quite clearly and unequivocally referred to a blast inside the building, as did many of the eyewitnesses and victims who were interviewed live on the scene. The anchors even read from a Justice Department press release that said the same thing. But then the story changed. And the live feeds from the street stopped. Now it was a truck bomb parked in front of the building that did all the damage.

One look at the pictures of the damage tells you at least part of the force of the blast came from deep within the building. Why? The severe damage to supporting columns inside the building, (and no damage to the trees.) This kind of damage can only be done by charges placed on or drilled into a column and absolutely cannot be done by the air blast generated by a bomb detonating in the street.

Support columns are designed to withstand huge loads, over 3,000 pounds per square inch. They simply cannot be taken down by the air blast of an explosion that, by the time it reaches it, is only exerting 25 to 35 pounds per square inch.

According to the prosecution, McVeigh used an ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil) bomb to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah federal building. However, the Department of the Army and Air Force Technical Manual No. 9-1910, entitled Military Explosives, states that ANFO requires a greater than 99% purity of ammonium nitrate, as well as a specific dryness, before it can be mixed with diesel fuel to create an explosive substance. The manual further spells out that even under ideal conditions (not often reached even by experts) 4,800 pounds of ANFO explosive would create a much smaller crater than the one left in front of the Murrah building, and its shock wave could not possibly wield the force necessary to compromise the building's concrete support structure. The FBI claims that the ANFO charge was made from 50 bags of fertilizer. Ammonium nitrate fertilizers come in much weaker concentrations than the 99%-plus required for explosives. Creating concentrated amounts of ammonium nitrate is quite complex, and would require many bags of fertilizer. In short, according to the government's own textbook, the Oklahoma City bombing COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE WAY THE FBI SAYS IT HAPPENED. IT IS A PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND THERMODYNAMIC IMPOSSIBILITY.

You don't need to be an engineer or an expert to grasp the basic point: you can't demolish a concrete column designed to withstand hundreds of pounds of pressure with the air shock wave of an explosion. The McVeigh truck bomb could not have been the sole source of the damage done to the Murrah Building and its occupants.

A new study analyzing explosive tests conducted by the U.S. Air Force against a reinforced concrete structure may provide an important key to understanding the April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, which took 168 lives. The report, based on testing data and photographs supplied by the Armament Directorate, Wright Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, lends powerful support to the arguments of those experts who have challenged the official government position that a single, large ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) truck bomb parked outside the Murrah Building was solely responsible for the massive death and destruction. Led by Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, ret.), former director of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory and one of the world's premier explosives and ordnance authorities. Critics have argued compellingly that the blast wave from the ANFO truck bomb was totally inadequate to cause the collapse of the massive, steel-reinforced concrete columns of the federal building in Oklahoma City. This fact, together with much other forensic evidence from the crime scene, they contend, points inescapably to the conclusion that additional demolition charges had to have been placed on columns inside the building. Which means that this terror bombing was a much more sophisticated operation than the federal authorities admit, requiring more hands, brains, and brawn than any lone bomber could supply.

Finally, the EBES concludes: “Due to these conditions, it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO. In fact, the maximum predicted damage to the floor panels of the Murrah Federal Building is equal to approximately 1% of the total floor area of the building. Furthermore, due to the lack of symmetrical damage pattern at the Murrah Building, it would be inconsistent with the results of the ETS test [number] one to state that all of the damage to the Murrah Building is the result of the truck bomb. The damage to the Murrah Federal Building is consistent with damage resulting from mechanically coupled devices placed locally within the structure.... It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself....”

Jane Graham, a federal government employee and the head of her local union describes unfamiliar workmen inside the building, days before the blast. These workmen had architectural plans, wiring and other materials that fit the description of explosives. Some of these unfamiliar workmen were in GSA attire. Graham has been unable to get the government to either identify these workmen or to act upon her testimony.

Others claimed to have seen suspicious activity in the Federal Building itself the day before – which fits with the idea that someone had planted explosive devices inside the federal building.

The BATF offices were conspicuously absent that morning of the bombing,

suggesting that the federal government had advanced knowledge that the Oklahoma City bombing was coming. A number of federal employees were killed in the explosion, but no BATF employees. There were, as everyone knows, BATF offices in the Murrah Federal Building. But very shortly after the bombing, we learned that no BATF personnel were even injured – because none were in the building. Why were all BATF personnel away from their desks on a regular weekday morning? Did someone tip them off in advance? This, obviously, would have required advance knowledge of what would take place that morning.

U.S. Judge Wayne Alley, whose office was located in the Federal Building, reported the next day of having been warned in a Justice Department memo about an unspecified "terrorist act" to be directed against the Federal building? Who issued this memo, and what happened to it? Judge Alley’s statement was published in the Portland Oregonian. Since then he has refused to repeat the allegation and refused all requests for interviews.

Along very similar lines, the Oklahoma City Fire Department was allegedly warned by the FBI the weekend before the bombing to be on alert for something that would take place over the next few days.

DAVID KULKENDORFER (Oklahoma County Sheriff's Reserve Deputy):
Excerpt:
Well, later on, during the evening, a lot of public officials started to show up. The mayor showed up with a contingency, and the district attorney, the governor, and several dignitaries. I was standing approximately in front of the Water Resources Building, to try to keep people out and watching the search and rescue. As I looked to my left, I could see Congressman Istook kind of working his way east to west. Well, he worked his way up to me and he stopped to my left and introduced himself and we kind of small-talked a little bit about, "How's everything? It's a bad, bad, bad deal." And he made the comment to me, he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen." And I said, "Excuse me?" And he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen. We got word through our sources that there is a radical fundamental Islamic group in Oklahoma City and that they were going to bomb the federal building."

"Norma" (not her real name), a witness who worked down the street from the Federal Building, reported seeing what appeared to be bomb squad personnel in the area at 7:45 a.m. – over an hour prior to the explosion. If these really were bomb squad personnel, what were they doing there if no one had advanced knowledge that the Oklahoma City bombing would take place? Other witnesses also claimed to have seen bomb squad personnel around that morning

John Doe No. 2

At least one independent report cites "over 70 witnesses" who claimed to have seen Timothy McVeigh on the morning of the explosion in the company of others who were never identified. This includes those who rented McVeigh the Ryder truck in Junction City, Kansas. In January of 1996, National Public Radio broadcast a half-hour special containing interviews with half a dozen witnesses who personally saw John Doe Number Two in the Ryder truck with Timothy McVeigh on the morning of the bombing. The manhunts for "John Doe No. 2" were finally discontinued. Some of the composite sketches of other "John Does" seemed to be people of Middle Eastern origin. Who were these people seen by dozens of witnesses, and why did none of these witnesses testify at McVeigh’s trial?

Geophysicist Charles Mankin, Director of the University of Oklahoma’s Geological Survey in Norman, just southeast of Oklahoma City, contended that according to two different seismographic records in the Oklahoma City area there were two distinct explosions, the second coming approximately eight seconds after the first. Along these same lines, several witnesses reported two distinct events, describing how the first event enabled them to dive for cover before the Ryder truck exploded, possibly saving their lives. Within 24 hours such reports would also vanish from the official accounts. Again, no one alleging a two-explosions account of the Oklahoma City bombing was called to testify.

FBI agents are said to have tracked down McVeigh's truck rental agency by finding a vehicle identification number (VIN) on the truck's rear axle. This axle was found either in the bomb crater, according to the mayor of Oklahoma City's initial press statement, or three blocks away according to the later FBI version. Which statement is true? There is another problem to the Ryder truck tale. No rear axle on any vehicle manufactured in America is imprinted with a VIN, even after recent legislation forcing manufacturers to place multiple VINS on the engine, firewall, and frame to discourage chop shops. When queried, a spokesman for Ryder told reporters than it does not imprint additional VINS on its trucks. The only conceivable number available on a rear axle is a part number, but a part number couldn't lead to the identification of a specific vehicle. We have here another case where the FBI version of events simply COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED in the way the Bureau claims it happened.

It seems clear that Timothy McVeigh wanted to be caught. FBI informant and star witness Michael Fortier, who admits to trading his testimony for lenient sentencing on gun charges himself, claims that he and Timothy McVeigh scouted out the Murrah building several weeks in advance looking for the BATF offices therein. (But if that is true, why did Timothy McVeigh stop the Ryder truck at a gas station on the morning of the bombing and ask directions to the building, thereby placing himself on the scene?) Within 48 hours after the explosion, he was stopped by police while speeding toward the state line at almost 100 miles an hour in a car with no license plate. Timothy McVeigh was a highly trained combat NCO who won a Bronze Star for courage under fire in the Gulf. Having been stopped by a state trooper, being armed with a pistol, and knowing that he now faced either execution or imprisonment for the rest of his natural life, why did McVeigh make no move at all to defend himself or escape, instead surrendering like a little lamb?

Supposedly McVeigh’s motive was retaliation for the Waco Davidian Church Burning. If this is true, why did he park the truck on the side of the building the farthest away from the BATF offices, when there was an available parking lot which would have placed the truck bomb almost directly under the seventh-floor windows of the BATF?

There are additional allegations of curious events taking place when rescue workers first appeared on the scene following the blast. Some of these allegations involve sightings by rescue personnel of unexploded devices being removed from the debris. One such bomb was a 2 X 2 foot box marked "High Explosives" WHICH HAD A TIMER ON IT. Oklahoma City Fire Marshal Dick Miller confirmed this. The timing mechanism apparently had been set to detonate at ten minutes after nine. Apparently it had
malfunctioned due to the initial blast. According to Toni Garrett, a nurse who was on the scene tagging dead bodies. "Four people--rescue workers--told us there was a bomb in the building with a timing mechanism set to go off ten minutes after nine." According to Garrett, witnesses told
her it was an active bomb. "We saw the bomb squad take it away."
This fact was confirmed by an Oklahoma City Police officer who inadvertently began to walk into the building when a fireman yelled, "Hey idiot, that's a bomb!" The stunned officer looked over and saw the 2 X 2 box surrounded by police crime tape. He then heard the fireman yell, "There's one over there and another over there! We're waiting for the bomb squads to come back from hauling off the others." Investigator Phil O'Halloran has Bill Martin of the Oklahoma City Police Department
on tape stating that one of the bombs found in the building was two to three five-gallon containers of Mercury Fulminate--a powerful explosive--one not easily obtainable except to military sources.

It is difficult to verify these accounts completely. The federal government sequestered the area immediately; no one who did not have official approval was allowed in. Eventually, of course, what was left of the building was bulldozed to the ground, its secrets buried.

While the federal government has more and more relied on brute force to accomplish its goals, domestic as well as foreign, it is still hard for most ordinary people to believe that even the Clinton Regime could be involved in something as evil as this. I cannot blame people for being skeptical. These were the federal government’s own employees – and their innocent children – not to mention the countless other people working there or who just happened to be in the building or in the vicinity when the bomb(s) went off.

The problem is that the official account of what happened in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, has more holes than Swiss cheese. Every independent investigation has concluded that others besides Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved, though they diverge on the details. Some pick up on obscure remarks in McVeigh’s letter to Fox News as pointing to a connection between the bombing and Osama bin Laden, suggesting that Terry Nichols met with bin Laden’s agents in the Philippines two months earlier to help plan the bombing. Jayne Davis, an NBC reporter in Oklahoma City, claimed to have turned up evidence that McVeigh was involved with Iraqi immigrants. There was a group of around 5,000 Iraqi soldiers who had deserted Saddam Hussein’s army and were able to win asylum in the United States following the Gulf War. One such group was settled in Oklahoma City. It was this group that had become the target of Miss Davis’ investigation. She was sued by one of its members. The federal lawsuit went on for two years. Jayne Davis finally won. Neither the lawsuit itself nor the outcome was ever reported in any national media.

Despite Timothy McVeigh's guilty verdict, numerous unanswered questions about the murderous Oklahoma City bombing remain. Indeed, there are so many unanswered questions; it is amazing that the prosecution was able to secure a conviction at all, as 3000 documents, held by the FBI, were not released to either the prosecutors or McVeigh’s defense attorneys. Perhaps more amazing is the fact that the US government reports that the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing case cost - are you ready for this? - $98 million. The defense was permitted to bill an additional $15 million for their "exhaustive" investigation and trial work.

Execution Eye Witness - Susan Carlson, Media Witness: 4 min. 27 sec. "he appeared to be still breathing or what appeared to be shallow breathing, even after being pronounced dead and his eyes remained open".

One of the first rescue workers on the scene, an Oklahoma City police officer named Terrence Yeakey, had expressed deep concern about some of the things he saw to family members. One day not long afterwards, he turned up dead. His death was ruled a suicide. Shades of Vince Foster. A very unusual "suicide" it was too. The man apparently cut his wrists, made another cut on his elbow and then cut both sides of his neck around the jugular vein. Having already lost a great deal of blood, he was able to walk out into a fenced-off area at the outskirts of the city where he shot himself. (What appeared to be rope burns on his neck, handcuff bruises to his wrists, and muddy grass imbedded in his slash wounds strongly indicated that he had some help in traversing this final distance.) The bullet's entrance wound was in the right temple, above the eye. It went through the policeman's head and exited in the area of the left cheek, near the bottom of the ear lobe line. The trajectory was from a 40-45 degree angle above his head. There were no powder burns. His service revolver was not the weapon used. In fact, no weapon was ever reported as found at the scene. No autopsy was done, despite it being standard procedure to do an autopsy when a police officer dies under unusual circumstances. The obvious question: was Officer Yeakey about to reveal information about the Oklahoma City bombing? Members of his family think so, but of course no one can prove it. Officer Yeakey’s briefcase had also disappeared. It turned up later, but had been in the hands of the police who did not want to release it to his family.

'In the City of God there will be a great thunder'

Nostradamus 1555.

FACT: The contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene --to cart away the rubble that remains-- is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building.

Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble left by the destruction of the World Trade Center took over a year and cost over $7 billion, according to the Associated Press.

"The New York cleanup will be a gargantuan undertaking, whose scale and magnitude will go beyond the customary types of disasters," said J. Mark Loizeaux, president of Maryland-based Controlled Demolition, who brought down the remains of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. As in the case of the Oklahoma building, Controlled Demolition carted off the remains and buried them in a hole before the smoke had stopped rising from the ruins. Then the rubble was covered over, surrounded by a security fence and guarded.

FACT: Most of the World Trade Center changed hands in a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance covering buildings and rents - payable to new beneficiaries.

We are MEANT to react in shock. The whole purpose of the audacious World Trade Center attack was to psych us out.

Having studied for years how Americans react in movie theaters, the game planners have decided we are now ready for movie spectaculars in real life.

You are witnessing a cathartic and intense psychological operation. It is designed to alter your perceptions and hence your politics. It's a classic PsyOp. It’s a made-for-TV movie with all the cliché blockbuster elements.

It has mayhem, evil warlords and subtle hints of a military coup. It has terrorists who wrestle for control of Flight 93 with Die Hard have-a-go Bruce Willis clones.

It has final deranged exhortations from a terrorist leader. His last letter is found bundled with a "You Too Can Fly a Plane!" instruction manual and some autographed photos of the great enemy --the legendary Osama Bin Gadaffi Bin Saddam-Laden.

It has whispered good-byes: the departure of American sailors for war was portrayed in 'Titanic' style on network TV and in print media coverage.

A crew of cynical planners who could care less has scripted the entire sequence of events that saw REAL people die in the Twin Towers. These Powers That Be see ordinary people as nothing but political extras on the international stage of military-industrial machinations.

On September 11, four teams of hijackers walked past the security of three major metropolitan airports and hijacked four aircraft. Two were crashed into the World Trade Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one had reportedly come crashing to the ground after some of the passengers fought off the hijackers.

As regards the actual operation itself and the reactions of the defense mechanisms of the US government, there are many questionable occurrences that need to be given more consideration. How could it be that the synchronized hijackings of four large commercial jet aircraft over an extended period of time did not alert anyone to the likelihood of the looming assaults? Whoever carried out this organized and flawless operation must have been coordinated by a significant group who possess money, manpower, and technological knowledge of force of impact and penetration capabilities, as well as insiders' information of strategic parts of the Pentagon. This attack required a high level of military exactitude and the resources of an advanced intelligence body. As well, the attackers would have needed to be familiar with possible defensive flight operations, civil airline flight paths, and the acquisition of a favorable ratio of probability of success without any intrusion from the security apparatus of the vast U.S. intelligence and radar systems. It is amazing to think that these planes were able to swerve from their assigned flight plan, remain undetected for reasonable periods of time and then crash into these key targets without any reported effort to stop them from the greatest military and intelligence system in the world.

Although we have heard much about possible encrypted messages from Al-Qaeda, intelligence operatives concede that Bin Laden had moved from being 'low-tech' to 'no-tech' in the last few years. Did these terrorists really possess the necessary characteristics to successfully carry out such a precise, coordinated and undetected attack?

Strangely enough, the day after the hijacking, the UK's Telegraph reported that "passengers on the hijacked aircraft were ordered to phone their families and tell them they were going to die" and that, "passengers were ordered at knifepoint to say that their flight had been hijacked and they were going to crash into the White House." The article also mentioned: "Similar calls were reported to have been made by passengers on the other flights." It seems odd to think that the hijackers would force passengers to call relatives, but more puzzling than this is the question of why there had been a uniform agenda for the victims on each of the planes to be forced at knifepoint to call their loved ones and convey specific messages. It would obviously have been a pre-planned affair, so what was the intent of the hijackers in carrying out this part of the operation?

Concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings, structural engineers and architects have concluded that when the buildings were struck by planes carrying more than 20,000 pounds of fuel and remained standing, heat became the real structural threat. The planes hit vital components of the building, cascading massive amounts of fuel, thus triggering off raging fires that destabilized the load-bearing capacity of the interior structure.

Experts estimate that temperatures near the airplane wreckage may have risen to levels as high as 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which can easily melt steel. This is what explains the thermal stress that occurred, which activated the great implosion of the buildings.  [But see, also, J. McMichael's I Tried To Be Patriotic

More importantly, it brings to light the questionable nature of the claim that somehow, a hijacker's paper passport could survive that raging inferno and catastrophic implosion — unlike the almost indestructible flight recorder — and amazingly be "discovered in the rubble at the site of the World Trade Centre".

Another more troubling matter in relation to the attacks is the actual identity of the hijackers. Many of the suspects' identities have proven to be mistaken. In the FBI's official press release of September 27, the following was stated: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these (19) individuals are still under way."

FBI Chief Robert Mueller conceded on September 20 and September 27 that at this time, the FBI has no conclusive evidence to prove the true identities of the hijackers. He said investigators think they have identified "several" of the hijackers correctly, adding: "We have several others that are still in question."

This is actually an understatement, as some of these people are on different continents working for such airlines as Tunis Air and Saudi Arabian Airlines. Some of these men have reported that they are considering legal action against CNN and American authorities for having mentioned their names as suspects prior to the issuing of the most recent FBI lists. It should be noted that the FBI kept them on the most recently issued lists despite knowing that these individuals are still alive and were not involved in these terrorist acts in any way. The list is strewn with sentences like "Possible Saudi national", "Possible resident of." and "Believed to be a pilot". If a portion of these identities have been forged, should the possibility of them all being forged not also be considered?

The first list that the FBI issued stated that Hani Hanjour is "believed to be a pilot," but the second list published on September 27 by the FBI does not identify Hani Hanjour as being "believed to be a pilot". The other four suspected hijackers of American Airlines flight #77 which crashed into the Pentagon are also not listed as being pilots. This raises the question of who actually flew the plane into that strategic part of the Pentagon, if not Hani Hanjour? There are other discrepancies that are worthy of mention. The Arab News carried a story on September 23, wherein Muhammad Salim Al-Hamzi, father of Nawaf and Salim al-Hamzi, said the pictures of his sons distributed by the FBI were "fabricated". The pictures of his boys, which the father issued the Saudian paper, clearly differed from those issued by the FBI, although both showed pictures of Arab men. It would be interesting to know why the hijackers had gone to great lengths to forge identities of men who were alive and accredited as being pilots when it is known that they were only boarding the planes as civilians. Who would benefit from them being identified as being certified pilots by trade?

It also seems as if the suspects, whoever they were, were trying to implicate some sort of Saudi Arabian collusion in the attack, judging by the large number of forged Saudi identities involved in the case.

Saeed Alghamdi, Mohald Alshehri, Abdulaziz Alomari, Waleed Alshehri and Ahmed Alnami have either been exempted from involvement in these attacks or their identities are being seriously questioned. As for others such as Amer Kamfar and Adnan and Amer Bukhari, their names have ceased being mentioned as possible suspects, one of who had died approximately two years ago.

The official passenger manifests, which the airlines have issued for all four of the airplanes, do not contain one Arab name. Although the airlines might have been requested by US intelligence to omit this information in their publicized passenger lists, knowing the actual list of the passengers' names would help explain many of the aforementioned irregularities. In a September 21 BBC article entitled "The last moments of Flight 11", a brave flight attendant named Madeline Amy Sweeney made a desperate telephone call which "has provided new details of the last moments of Flight 11 before it hit the World Trade Center." Sweeney spoke of there being only four hijackers, whereas the FBI list shows that there were five. Describing what "appears to conflict with previous information", the BBC article noted, "The seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names."

Indeed, the more that we learn about the list of suspected hijackers, the more mysterious things become. Perhaps nothing is more so than the actual personalities and lives of the suspects themselves. Rather than getting the idea that these people who were supposed to be religious extremists were actually devout people, one is led to believe that they were in fact more interested in partying and womanizing.

On September 13, the Associated Press reported: "Three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending bloodshed the night before the terrorist attacks."

John Kap, a Daytona Beach strip club manager "told FBI investigators the men in his bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards."

"They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said 'Wait 'til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,'" the owner of the strip bar was quoted as saying.

Furthermore, Kap said that he gave the FBI their credit card receipts, photocopied driver's licenses, a business card left by one of the suspects and most amazingly, a copy of a Koran that one of the men had left at the bar. The article mentions that the FBI requested that Kap not reveal the men's names publicly.

These facts truly boggle the mind when we consider that these suspects are supposed to be religious fanatics who are willing to die for their faith the next morning. Anybody who has the slightest acquaintance with the Islamic tradition would know that an impious Muslim, even if he were somehow to fall into the sways of lap dances and drinking, would never be so blasphemous as to bring in a Koran with him and leave it behind at a bar. These religious fanatics, had supposedly been hiding their tracks for anywhere up to five years, and in the last days before the attacks, they suddenly began doing everything they could to be noticed and remembered, leaving behind a plethora of evidence in their last days.

Things become even more astonishing and contradictory. While these men were busy collecting exorbitant bar tabs and blurting out what they had apparently kept secret for years, according to the letter which the FBI published, they were also to keep a rigorous program of worship, contemplation and preparation in what the letter calls the "Last night." We are to believe that while they were coming down from their alcoholic frenzy, they were also to "purify" their hearts by forsaking their beds, standing up "to pray throughout this night".

They are told that during this last night: "You should pray, you should fast", although it is known that Muslims start their fast at dawn and break their fast at sunset, not fasting by night and eating by day. This truly is a mysterious insertion.

"Continue to recite the Koran" and "Obey God", they are told.

In his will, Atta requests that his body be washed and buried. Was he thinking that his body would survive the impact of the attack upon the Twin Towers?

In fact, this letter is so scattered with obvious flaws that it caused the UK-based Independent's Robert Fisk to write an article entitled, "What Muslim would write: 'The time of fun and waste is gone?" In it, Fisk declares that the FBI-issued letter was, "Fearful, chilling, grotesque — but also very, very odd."

"If the handwritten, five-page document which the FBI says it found in the baggage of Mohamed Atta, the suicide bomber from Egypt, is genuine," the Middle East expert added, "then the men who murdered more than 3,000 innocent people believed in a very exclusive version of Islam — or were surprisingly unfamiliar with their religion."

The universal Islamic opening phrase of "In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate" is also written as "In the name of God, of myself, and of my family" at the beginning of the letter. Experts on Islamic studies have said that in the monotheistic tradition of Islam, this phrase is extremely erroneous and absolutely unheard of.

Fisk adds: "No Muslim — however ill-taught — would include his family in such a prayer. Indeed, he would mention the Prophet Mohamed immediately after he mentioned God in the first line." Those who specialize in Islamic studies have explained that this opening line of "In the name of God" would be followed up with the invocation that God send his peace and blessings upon the Prophet Mohamed. It would read something like this: "In the name of God, and may His peace and blessings be upon Prophet Mohamed." Citing numerous deficiencies in the letter, Fisk says that it "raises more questions than it answers."

The Washington Post says the FBI found another copy of "essentially the same document" in the debris of the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. The copy that the FBI issued was found in Mohamed Atta's luggage. [Mohamed Atta was alleged by the FBI to be the pilot of AA Flight 11 that crashed into the North Tower. Supposedly his luggage didn't make it onto the flight, which is how it allegedly came into the hands of the FBI. Curious.] If we were able to understand how a suicide hijacker would bring luggage with him on his final mission, then we might also be able to understand how he would put his final instruction letter in this bag, which happened to be diverted and found by FBI authorities.

In an interesting development, on September 18, Ha'aretz reported that five Israelis had been detained "for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] has described as 'puzzling behavior' following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York". The eminent Israeli newspaper quoted one of the unnamed detainee's mothers as saying that they had been arrested approximately four hours after the attack on the Twin Towers while filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building. She added, "They thought that because he has citizenship of a European country as well as of Israel that he was working for the Mossad."

They were spotted by one of the neighbors who called the police and the FBI, because he saw them "videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery." The men are "expected to be deported sometime soon", the article added. This story otherwise went unnoticed in the media, except that CNN originally reported that they were men of Middle-Eastern origin. The Telegraph reported on September 16 that the Israeli Mossad had actually "warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."

The article noted that "two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many as 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation."

It added that, "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official.

The FBI has flatly denied this story. The Associated Press carried a story on September 20 in which the FBI rebuffed a similar claim which had been written in the Los Angeles Times with FBI spokesman Bill Harlow saying, "That is utter nonsense". The FBI is also being tight lipped about a story which the Washington Post reported on September 27 and also confirmed by Ha'aretz, that Odigo, a New York based instant-messaging firm with offices in Israel, had confirmed "that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks." Micha Macover, CEO of the New York based company with offices in Israel, said two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack, informed the company's management about the warnings. The management contacted the Israeli security services, which consequently brought in the FBI.

Odigo has a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact other Odigo users, although Alex Diamandis, vice president of sales and marketing, said he had not received reports of there being other recipients of the message. The company declined to reveal the exact contents of the warning.

In a front-page article which appeared only one day before the tragic attacks, The Washington Times affirmed that an official 68-page report prepared by 60 US Army officers at the US Army's School for Advanced Military Studies warned of Mossad's capability to target the United States. The report mentioned that the Israeli intelligence agency was "ruthless and cunning" and "a wildcard".

It would be interesting to know how Mossad came to learn that "large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent", as reported by Philip Jacobson in Jerusalem. As well, perhaps American investigators can clarify how Odigo could have been alerted to these attacks two hours prior to their occurrence and why the FBI have failed to publicize this crucial lead as it has done for other Middle Eastern leads.

To believe that a band of terrorist pulled this off without the knowledge of the CIA and the Israeli Mossad (which has infiltrated every Arab terrorist organization to one degree or another) is to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

The answer to this question would appear to be the greatest question in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel frame buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though severe fires ravaged many. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

At 5:20 PM, September 11th, 2001, a 47 story steel frame skyscraper in Manhattan underwent a swift, systematic, straight-down collapse. In a matter of seconds, the immense 600-foot tall structure was transformed into a small pile of rubble lying almost entirely within the building's original footprint.

The building is variously known as Building 7, WTC 7, or 7 World Trade Center. Despite its address, it was across the street from the super-block containing the rest of the World Trade Center, and was of a different architectural style and age than the 6 other WTC buildings.

The cause of the collapse has never been determined. FEMA's Building Performance Study, the only government document that addressed the collapse of Building 7 in any detail, stated:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ... Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

By the time FEMA's report was published, the remains of Building 7 had been almost entirely destroyed, nearly all of the structural steel having been expeditiously removed and shipped to blast furnaces overseas. Without the physical evidence of the structural steel, such research, investigation, and analyses would be impossible.

The Collapse of Building 7 was the third largest structural failure in World history, surpassed only by the collapses of the Twin Towers earlier that day. Fires are blamed for leveling Building 7, but fires have never caused the total or even partial collapse of a steel-frame high-rise, before or since September 11th. Why, then, was there no serious investigation of the collapse of this building, and why does it remain virtually unknown to the American public?

Buildings do fall vertically like Building 7, when destroyed by controlled demolition.

The controlled demolition of large structures is a well-developed art and science. Removing a tall building from an urban landscape without damaging adjacent structures -- a considerable engineering feat -- is a task that a handful of controlled demolitions companies specialize in. One such company is Controlled Demolition Inc., which, incidentally, was subcontracted by Tully Construction to coordinate the removal of rubble from Ground Zero and the disposal of the structural steel in the months following the attack.

The steel skeletons of buildings like WTC 7 are extremely robust. They are designed to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes, and are over-engineered to handle several times the maximum loads anticipated during their lifetimes. Such steel skeletons have local structural integrity. An event that destroyed one portion of the structure would not case distant portions to shatter. If some force obliterated the load-bearing columns well below the top of a 600-foot tall skyscraper, the top of the building would topple like a tree, not smash its way down through intact floors and into its foundation.

Controlled demolition destroys vertical steel structures while overcoming their tendency to topple onto adjacent real estate. It does so by shattering the steel skeleton through the precisely timed detonation of explosive charges.

Demolitions are large undertakings with high stakes. The number of charges required is at least the number of columns times some fraction of the number of floors. An error in timing of the detonations could cause expensive collateral damage.

Most demolitions seek to implode the building, causing the mass to move toward the center, resulting in a tidy rubble pile. In tall buildings shattering the interior structures of the building first or ahead of the exterior structures typically does this. That causes the interior mass to fall first, pulling outer structures toward the center. Pieces of the outer walls end up on top of the rubble pile.

Building 7's documented vertical plunge and tidy rubble pile with exterior wall fragments on top are exactly the kinds of results that controlled demolitions achieve through careful engineering.

The Destruction of Building 7's Remains

Engineering is a science that melds theory and experience to create robust structures. Unintended structural failures are rare events that warrant the most careful scrutiny, since they test engineering theory.

That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes, and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangers. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.

Unintended structural failures are less common in steel frame highrises than in aircraft. Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7's remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis.

Building 7's rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.

There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study.

No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse.

The pile was so well confined to the building's footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.

Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metals vendors and most was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fishkills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers.

This illegal evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials. Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation: Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land Social Club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.

Officials running the "cleanup operation" took pains to make sure the structural steel didn't end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.

The Vertical Collapse of Building 7

Building 7 collapsed in a nearly perfectly vertical motion at near the rate of free-fall. The first sign of the collapse is the falling of the penthouse, immediately followed by the falling of the whole facade, as seen from either the north or south. The middle of the building's north wall fell slightly faster than its edges.

These two video frames appear in Chapter 5 of FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study. Note that most of the white smoke above the building is from the burning debris of the collapsed towers.

The straight-down fall of the building's top can be clearly seen in photographs and videos. In the pair of images above, note that the position of Building 7's right wall remains in almost exactly the same horizontal position despite having fallen over 100 feet.

Dust engulfed the building when the roof had fallen to within about 15 stories of street level. The shape of the rubble pile and the fact that the remains of the exterior walls covered it can infer the nature of the collapse past that point. This means that, not only did the building continue to fall vertically until the end; the outer walls were pulled inward so that they fell on top of the rubble pile.

In short, Building 7 imploded. Buildings are not designed to implode. They are designed to remain standing. To achieve a precisely vertical collapse, in which the remains of the building fall inward, is the objective of controlled demolition.

Building 7's Rubble Pile

Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

* Its location - It was exactly centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* Its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* Its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building

What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?

Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame high-rises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features.
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.

What Was Building 7?

Building 7 was one of New York City's larger buildings. A sleek bronze-colored skyscraper with a trapezoidal footprint, it occupied an entire city block and rose over 600 feet above street level.

Built in 1985, it was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the Savings and Loans collapse, prompting the $500-billion taxpayer-underwritten bailout of the latter 1980s. At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.

It also housed then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. The 1993 bombing may have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his Entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.

Building 7's Location

Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the super-block occupied by the World Trade Center complex. WTC 1 through WTC 6 were on the super-block bounded by West, Church, Liberty, and Vassey Streets. Building 7 occupied a block wedged between the Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings across Vassey Street from the WTC complex. It straddled an electrical substation that filled the first two stories of about half the block.

People who have heard of Building 7 tend to assume that 'ancillary damage' from the collapses of the Twin Towers had something to do with Building 7's collapse. It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex. The wall of Building 7 closest to the WTC complex was 300 feet from the nearest wall of the North Tower. It appears that nearly all of the heavy fallout from the disintegration of the North Tower landed short of Building 7. Building 6 stood between the North Tower and Building 7.

Building 7 was the only of the 7 buildings with a World Trade Center address that was on a different block. It, along with the 6 other buildings, was completely or largely destroyed on September 11th.

These photographs show Building 7 in front of the exploding North Tower. It is the square bronze building on the left. Even in the second photo, the nearest of the debris from the tower is several hundred feet behind Building 7.

On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It has been suggested that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

As you can see from the above animated-gif, the collapse of WTC 7 certainly has the appearance of a controlled demolition. But, judge for yourself, download and watch the following short video clips and a larger version of the animated-gif:

A Video of the collapse of WTC 7.
Another video of the collapse of WTC 7.
And another video of the collapse of WTC 7.
And yet another video of the collapse of WTC 7.
A larger (3.3 MB) version of the above animated-gif.

This video evidence is so compelling that no other evidence is really necessary.

The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

The evidence does not support the idea that Building 7 was damaged by fallout from the tower collapses, nor that there were diesel fuel tank explosions. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep.

Research indicates that even if a steel frame building were subjected to an impossible super fire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse. Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Performance Study contains the following:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

In actual building fires, steel beams and columns probably never exceed 500 C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame car parks conducted by Chorus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360 C.

Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320 degrees F. Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high-rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

The Pentagon

There is no disputing that an explosive event large enough to demolish a portion of the Pentagon occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The question is, “Was the damage of the Pentagon caused by a Boeing 757 as reported by government officials, or was it the result of some other event which is being covered up in an attempt to mislead and manipulate the American people into a war and into the willing relinquishment of their rights?”

I believe that the main problem is that there is no trace of recognizable wreckage from a Boeing 757! There is no fuselage, no tail section; there are no wheels, engines, wings, luggage or passenger seats, nor are there any bodies to be found. This leads us to our first and foremost question, if a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon as was reported by the media and government officials, where did it go? What evidence is there to support the theory of an airliner careening into the building?

According to Boeing, the 757 has a wingspan of 124 ft., 10 in., an overall length of 155 ft., 3 in., a tail height of 44 ft., 6 in., and the maximum fuel capacity is 11,489 gallons. With these statistics in mind let's begin our examination of the photographic evidence.

Critical Analysis of Photographic Evidence

First, let’s look at some photos from other plane crashes.

All these photos have one thing in common, that is, lots of debris. Below are pictures of the Pentagon bombing.

There are several important issues that are raised by these photographs. First, the most obvious question to ask is: "Where is the wreckage of a 757?" There are no signs of wreckage whatsoever! As stated earlier, there is nothing in this or any other photograph available at this time that indicates that an aircraft the size of a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. Notice the size of the demolished area. The Pentagon is four stories high, and if each story is 10-12ft in height, and the added height for the roof area is another 10ft., the total height of the building would be approximately 58ft. The width of the hole according to this and other photos would be about 60-65ft. The wingspan of a 757 as stated earlier is almost 125ft. Why is there no visible damage on either side of the hole where the wings would have struck? Keep in mind that the fuel is carried in both the fuselage and the wing tanks. Notice also the lack of roof damage to the immediate right of the hole and the area just beyond it heading into the center of the Pentagon where it appears the charred roof continues. Finally, once again, there is no indication that a plane hit the ground at any time before making contact.

Here is the famous piece of wreckage, the "star evidence"

backing the official story of what happened in Arlington on

September 11, 2001.    

These photos illustrates the approximate size of a 757 in relation to the hole that is claimed to be the result of such a plane slamming into the building. They are self-explanatory.

This photo shows an aerial view looking down to the northwest face of the Pentagon. One can plainly see that there is no apparent skid marks where a 757 might have hit the ground and slammed into the building. That would indicate that the plane was indeed still airborne when making contact. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* (*250 mph when landing, 600 mph in flight.) only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

This photo shows the roof area that collapsed into the demolished area. Notice that the roof for the most part is still intact and came down in mostly one piece. It is also important to note that the area just below the roof also remained relatively intact. Given the tail height of almost 45 ft., and the fact that there is no evidence that an aircraft hit the ground and slid into the Pentagon, how is it possible that the roof and area immediately below remained virtually undamaged save for the collapse?

These photos are a vital piece of this puzzle and possibly the most important point of this report. Let us recall the other events that happened earlier that day. At 8:45 AM EST, American flight #11 slammed into the North Tower at the World Trade Center. The resulting fireball was so huge and so hot, that as reported, it melted and fatigued the supporting steel girders to the point that the building collapsed. At 9:03 AM EST, United flight #175 slammed into the South Tower at the World Trade Center. The resulting fireball was so huge and so hot, that as reported, it melted and fatigued the supporting steel girders to the point that the building collapsed. At 9:40 AM, EST, American flight #77 reportedly slammed into the Pentagon. All three of these planes had embarked on a trans-continental flight and carried approximately 8,600 remaining gallons of fuel at the time of their respective impacts. The first two crashes caused intense fires hot enough to melt steel. Now look very closely at the above photos. Notice the left side of the hole and note that the walls of the interior are not only unblemished, but show no signs of soot, smoke or heat damage. On the upper floor, to the left of one of the support columns, one can plainly see a green file cabinet with a computer monitor or TV on top of it. Two floors below one can plainly see a wooden stool with an open book on top of it. Are we to believe that a plane with 8,600 gallons of fuel would not generate a fireball and enough heat to singe the pages of an open book only feet away? Or to melt the plastic case of a monitor?

Notice the large wire spools in the center of the above pictures. (It was reported that the Pentagon had been in the process of being renovated in this area.) I find it amazing that according to official reports, the intensity of the blast was of such magnitude as to obliterate all evidence of the plane but yet these construction materials show no damage.

These photos seem to be irrefutable proof that a Boeing 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

The implications are of indescribable significance and it must be assumed that the Pentagon, the U.S. military, and the U.S. government are engaged in the biggest cover-up in the history of this country, if not the world. The events of September 11, 2001 are inescapably tied to one another, and if one group can be tied to one of these events, it would be safe to assume that they would be tied to all of them. No one wants to even entertain the idea of our own government being responsible for the horrific slaughter of innocent lives, but the evidence is now before us that this might very well be the case.

The Cruise Missile Theory

What flying object could it be? Hypotheses: It is an AGM 86 cruise missile.

Source : http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/calcm.htm

The model on the left would be more suitable. The two red military loads inside the missile are (broach type, see description ) :

On the front is a conventional explosive, shaped as a "hollow charge", whose aim is to dig a hole in a wall, but limited to a few meter in action.

On the back, a uranium load. This metal has the property to explode when projected on solid materials, creating plasma inside which the mass of metal propagates. On a smaller scale, this principle is used to destroy tanks.

This type of missile and charge would explain the traces on the pentagon building:

Visible limited destruction where the two short wings of the missile hit the front of the building: (4 x 4 m hole in the front where the hollow charge exploded) and nicely dug holes in the inner buildings and their walls: (action of the uranium load.)

Another bit of evidence that suggests this could have been an AGM 86 cruise missile with a uranium load is the fact that the ground in front of the explosion site was covered with sand very quickly after the crash.

Specialized teams in charge of taking the debris out of the building were dressed in protective clothing and decontaminated themselves after working on the site.

Another argument is the noise produced by the object, said to be “very strident” by some of the witnesses. This is characteristic of a missile and not like the noise of a big airliner.

Donald Rumsfeld himself had a slip of the tongue and referred to a missile hitting the Pentagon.

The Black Boxes

And then there's the curious incident of the planes' black boxes - not ONE of the EIGHT black boxes - two per plane - survived! Not just those of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers, but also of the other two planes! Not even of the one that crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania.

Do you know the kind of crash these black boxes are designed to withstand? The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) web site gives valuable information regarding these devices.

Regarding the Cockpit Voice Recorder it says:

"The CVR records the flight crew's voices, as well as other sounds inside the cockpit. The recorder's "cockpit area microphone" is usually located on the overhead instrument panel between the two pilots. Sounds of interest to an investigator could be engine noise, stall warnings, landing gear extension and retraction, and other clicks and pops. From these sounds, parameters such as engine rpm, system failures, speed, and the time at which certain events occur can often be determined. Communications with Air Traffic Control, automated radio weather briefings, and conversation between the pilots and ground or cabin crew are also recorded." [NTSB web site]

Regarding the Flight Data Recorder it says:

"The FDR onboard the aircraft records many different operating conditions of the flight. By regulation, newly manufactured aircraft must monitor at least twenty-eight important parameters such as time, altitude, airspeed, heading, and aircraft attitude. In addition, some FDRs can record the status of more than 300 other in-flight characteristics that can aid in the investigation. The items monitored can be anything from flap position to auto-pilot mode or even smoke alarms." [NTSB web site]

Thus as we see each plane is equipped with two separate "Black Box" devices which relay different yet complimentary information.

It goes on to say:

"Both the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder have proven to be valuable tools in the accident investigation process. They can provide information that may be difficult to obtain by other means." [NTSB web site]

They are meant to be the hardy and sure way to get information regarding the last minutes before the plane went down.

Here are the specifications of these devices including what they can withstand:

FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
Time recorded: 25 hour continuous
Number of parameters: 5 - 300+
Impact tolerance: 3400Gs /6.5ms
Fire resistance: 1100 degC/30 min
Water pressure resistance: submerged 20,000 ft
Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz
Battery: 6yr shelf life 30 day operation

COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER
Time recorded: 30 min continuous, 2 hours for solid state digital units
Number of channels: 4
Impact tolerance: 3400 Gs /6.5ms
Fire resistance: 1100 deg C /30 min
Water pressure resistance: submerged 20,000 ft
Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz
Battery: 6yr shelf life 30 day operation

These specifications indicate equipment that can survive just about any conditions and any crash. Indeed, Black Boxes have been recovered from crashes in swamps, mountains, and oceans.

ABC News reports:

"Although investigators look for an entire black box, sometimes the only parts of the device that survive are the recorder's crash-survivable memory units (CSMU). The CSMU is almost indestructible. It is housed within a stainless-steel shell that contains titanium or aluminum and a high-temperature insulation of dry silica material." "It is designed to withstand heat of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for one hour, salt water for at least 30 days, immersion in a variety of liquids such as jet fuel and lubricants, and an impact of 3,400 G's. By comparison, astronauts are typically exposed to up to six Gs during a shuttle takeoff." [ABCNews]

So the Black Box is designed to withstand an impact of 3,400 G's. So what about the Pennsylvania crash site?

"The voice recorder was said to be heavily damaged, and the manufacturer was being asked to help with further analysis. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was reported to have hit the ground in excess of 500 miles per hour." [ABCNews]

The plane hit the ground at 500 mph. Taking the weight of the plane, its speed of descent, the G's end up much, much lower than 3,400.

Since each plane has two separate Black Boxes which are designed to be indestructible in the event of a tragedy, that makes a total of eight black boxes. We are to believe that all the Black Boxes were damaged beyond use, while a measly paper passport survived!

The September 11th bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon has propelled the United States to go to war. This parallels the events of December 7, 1941, in which Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The U.S. knew well ahead of time that the raid on Pearl Harbor was planned, but allowed it to take place so the people would support a war effort.

It appears that the same strategy is being utilized with the WTC bombing. The American people have been asked to make sacrifices. This means that we will be asked to give up our remaining rights and liberties. Previous events have been leading up to this eventuality, but not all is lost.

The most important thing all of us can do right now is not buy into the propaganda machine which wants us to go into fear, anger, rage, etc.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell

“We do have a representative government in this country---it just does not represent you and me, but rather the military-industrial complex.” – Lewis Paine