3 Items
Condoleezza a liar
The Hijacking of the 'War on Terror'
A letter to readers regarding the cover-up artists (Webfairy, "Val
Smith,"
"Ozzy bin Oswald") practicing disinformation psy-ops at frameup
yahoogroup.
(An essay on why the 9-11 investigators like me have failed, despite
solving
the crime.)
April 9, 2004
AN OPEN LETTER TO CONDOLEEZZA RICE -- "You Are a Liar" by former Assistant
Secretary of Housing, Catherine Austin Fitts
TO: President George W. Bush; Vice President Richard Cheney
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Attached please find a letter sent to Condoleezza Rice via Webmail
today.
Sincerely Yours,
Catherine Austin Fitts
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I
Solari, Inc
Hickory Valley, Tennessee
Attachment pasted below:
==========================
Hon. Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Wa****ngton, DC 20500
April 9, 2004
Dear Ms. Rice:
I am writing to communicate four points regarding your testimony yesterday
under oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States.
Point #1: You are a liar.
Attorney General Ashcroft sits on the National Security Council. Warned by
his FBI security detail, the head of law enforcement for the United States
knew to avoid commercial airlines on September 11, 2001. It was your job
as
National Security Advisor to make sure that the people who flew on
American
Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, United Airlines Flight 93
and American Airlines Flight 77 had the benefit of the same warnings as
those they paid to protect us.
You knew. You kept silent. They died.
You had numerous warnings of the risks of 9-11 -- sufficient to let the
American people know and use their best judgment as to how to protect
themselves from a possible attack. It was your job as National Security
Advisor to make sure that the people in the South Tower of the World Trade
Center had the knowledge they needed to evacuate their building upon
seeing
the North Tower hit by a plane.
You knew. You kept silent. They died.
Point #2: Your motives are transparent.
The World Trade Center is in the heart of New York City -- one of the
great
financial capitals of the world. The Pentagon is in the heart of
Wa****ngton
-- the appropriation and accounting capital for the US federal budget and
credit and the US Treasury -- the largest issuer of securities in the
world.
Unlike many other terrorist attacks, these attacks killed people whose
family, friends and neighbors understand how these financial systems work.
Victim families, friends and the residents of the communities directly
harmed can calculate who made money on 9-11 profiteering. They can trace
the flow of money into the 2004 Presidential campaign coffers from the
profits your sup****ters made as a result of 9-11 profiteering. They can
calculate how 9-11 profiteering connects to the financing and silence of
cor****ate media.
Those personally impacted and the global researchers they network with
have
the intellectual power and personal courage to ask and answer, Cui Bono?
(Who Benefits?) They understand that your success as National Security
Advisor is as a direct result of your failure to stop 9-11. They can see
how your lies about 9-11 made money for the investment syndicate that put
you in power and for the buyers of US Treasury securities who are so
richly
paid to finance the US military, intelligence and enforcement apparatus
and
the defense contractors and oil interests it serves.
All the campaign ads in the world can not now convince the American people
that you have their best interests at heart.
Point #3: You are going down.
The richest and most powerful people in the world pay for performance.
They
pay you to make the US governmental apparatus look legitimate while they
use it to centralize economic and political power. That means they need
liars who are better at lying than you.
The myth that you had no idea that Americans deserved to be warned about
the risks of flying or planes being used as weapons is now in the dust
heap
with the notion that the United States attacked Iraq and our soldiers are
dying to protect us from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Your lies of 9-11 -- like your lies about the Iraqi war -- have been
profitable for the military-banking complex you represent. These lies,
however, have not misled the crowd. The American people and global
citizens
are looking for the truth. We demand the changes that will give meaning
and
honor to those who died on 9-11 and in the ensuing wars. We demand an end
to further bloodshed. We demand a refund of all that you and your backers
have stolen from those of us who remain alive.
Point #4: You are guilty of criminal gross negligence.
If you want to catch a terrorist today, you need look no further than your
own mirror.
Many Americans gather this weekend to give thanks that Jesus died for our
sins and gave us the covenant of grace. In the spirit of our Lord's
crucification and resurrection, may God have mercy on your soul.
Sincerely yours,
Catherine Austin Fitts
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I
President
Solari, Inc
cc: President George W Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, and the
National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.Unansweredquestions.org
or http://www.911truth.org
============
References:
Joe Conason | Condoleezza Rice, The Artful Dodger
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/041004A.shtml
Bush Told of Hijack Warning Weeks Before 9/11
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/041004B.shtml
9/11 Panel: Bush White House Withheld Papers
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/041004C.shtml
Families at 9/11 Hearing Want More Info
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/041004E.shtml
Testimony of Condoleezza Rice Before 9/11 Commission
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040904C.shtml
9/11 Blunders Left Workers, Residents Literally in the Dust
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040904G.shtml
William Rivers Pitt | 20 Questions for Condi
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040804A.shtml
John Dean: "Bush Should Be Impeached" -Democracy Now!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040804C.shtml
Bush May Delay 9/11 Re****t Release Until After Election
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040704B.shtml
White House to Review 9/11 Re****t Before Release
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040604C.shtml
9/11 Families on Rice's Testimony
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040104B.shtml
Walter Cronkite | Secrets and Lies Becoming Commonplace
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040704F.shtml
Paul Krugman | This Isn't America
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040104E.shtml
Robert Scheer | Bush Puts a 'Cancer on the Presidency'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/040104I.shtml
==========================
The Hijacking of the 'War on Terror'
by Linda S. Heard
CAIRO, 6 April 2004 - Have you noticed how Israeli government
spokespersons,
when asked to defend their country's aggressive stance toward the
Palestinians, invariably invoke the US "war on terror"? Ask them why they
rolled their tanks and bulldozers into a refugee camp and they'll say they
were merely fighting terror. Call them on their policy of extra-judicial
assassinations and they'll designate the targeted person as "a terrorist"
and even go as far as to compare him with Osama Bin Laden as they did with
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas. Take them to task on
the
fortified apartheid wall dividing the West Bank and they'll say it's the
only way they can keep the terrorists out. A spin-off from Bush's "war on
terror" has been to provide Sharon with the perfect gift - a moral
umbrella
for Israeli crimes - at least in the eyes of those gullible enough to fall
for it.
They've even called the duly elected leader of the Palestinian people the
ailing Yasser Arafat a terrorist and feel perfectly free to publicly
threaten his life too. At the end of February, Israeli forces carried out
what can only be described as bank heists in Ramallah, carrying off with
them an estimated $6.7 million under the pretext those were terrorist
funds.
For the Israeli authorities "combating terrorism" is its new
self-defensive,
challenge-proof sound bite, in the same way the overused term
"anti-Semitism" has been utilized to ward off any valid criticism of the
Jewish state. Count how many times Ariel Sharon uses the word "terror" in
his speeches. During one before the Israeli Parliament in June last year,
he
said it more than 20 times vowing "no compromise" in Israel's campaign
against Hamas as long as "fire, terrorism and violence" continues.
Conveniently forgotten is Israel's earlier sup****t of Hamas, which it
formerly considered a useful counter to that of Arafat's Fatah movement.
It is true to say that Sharon is merely shadowing the American president
when it comes to his frequent use of "terror". Bush can hardly open his
mouth without that word or associated words pouring forth. For Bush,
fighting terror is of paramount im****tance; so crucial that climate
change,
massive defense spending, weaknesses in the economy, and critiques of his
pre-emptive wars can be cavalierly brushed aside. If nations are tagged
with
a terrorist harboring/sup****ting/facilitating label, this is virtually the
kiss of death.
I can hear you saying "of course terrorism should be wiped off the face of
the planet" and you are absolutely right. We've all witnessed the horrors
of
the embassy bombings in Kenya, the toppling of the WTC towers, the carnage
wrought in Bali, Turkey, Casablanca, Saudi Arabia and Spain. Terrorism
must
stop. But first there should be a properly thought out definition of
terrorism and a way of dividing those with a legitimate right to oust an
occupying force from their own land from actual terrorists who are driven
by
bigotry or a fundamentalist ideology. The Palestinian militant groups
should
fall into the former category along with the Lebanon-based Hezbollah,
while
the hydra-headed Al-Qaeda and its copycats are, indeed, terrorist groups.
In Iraq, too, words like "terrorists" and "terrorism" are being overused
to
suit the Bush administration's spin on actual events on the ground. Until
recently, the insurgency in Iraq was painted by the US administration as
the
work of Saddam-sup****ting remnants with foreign extremists flooding across
the Iranian and Syrian borders (notice how they never ever cross over from
those countries which are US allies). If we were to believe the likes of
America's viceroy in Iraq Paul L. Bremer, the Iraqi people are all happy
bunnies grateful to the administration for invading their country and
incensed by the Baathist insurgents congregating within the so-called
"Sunni
Triangle" ruining their chances for democracy.
Unfortunately for Bremer and his masters, recent events have exposed this
stance as a fabrication. Last weekend it was ****ite followers of Moqtada
Sadr who flooded the streets of Baghdad, Basra and Najaf protesting the
closure of a pro-Sadr newspaper and the incarceration of one of his top
aides. Numerous accounts of Fallujah residents have backed up the argument
that their anger has nothing to do with sup****t of their former president
and all to do with resentment at foreign occupation. The uprisings in
Fallujah were initially triggered when US troops commandeered their
schools
and later shot at demonstrators.
Furthermore the "terrorism" tag should not be limited to individuals or
groups. Why should states, which perpetrate terrorist acts, be given carte
blanche to do their worst in the name of "security"? Are we to suppose
that
states cannot be terrorist entities? In that case, was Hitler, responsible
for the murder of tens of millions, not a terrorist?
When Israel sent its IDF tanks, armored personnel carriers and bulldozers
into Jenin razing part of it to the ground, using civilians as human
****elds
and preventing ambulances from reaching the sick and injured, was this not
an act of terror? And what was the US campaign of "Shock and Awe" if not
designed to instill the Iraqi populace with fear? Wasn't the bombing of
Baghdad's Al-Amariya air-raid shelter during the 1991 Gulf War - which
resulted in the incineration of over 400 hundred Iraqi women and children
-
a terrorist atrocity, bearing in mind the coalition was told of its benign
purposes and given its coordinates in advance? I'm no lawyer, but if I
were
charged with defining who is a terrorist and who is not, I would say this:
Groups or individuals seeking to defend their country from invading
foreign
forces are legitimate freedom fighters. Those who take their fight to
third
countries for the purpose of targeting civilians, together with those who
use bloody methods to dislodge their own governments, should be labeled
"terrorists".
We must, however, acknowledge the rare exceptions because if we fail to do
so, we would have to call the military wing of the South African ANC
movement formerly "terrorist". Subsequently, we would get into the
argument
"does the end justify the means"? If the methods of the ANC did not
include
violence, would South Africa still be ruled by an inhumane racist regime?
Perhaps not since world opinion was long against it. In the case of
Palestine and Iraq, world opinion is being deliberately manipulated by the
occupiers. One example is the con that Iraq will be handed back to the
Iraqis at the end of June when in reality over 100,000 foreign troops will
remain on that country's soil probably for decades to come.
Gandhi with his peaceful urgings to take up the spinning wheel and his
salt
march had it right. It worked for him and his followers. But all the
spinning wheels in the world will not stand against the Israeli
spin-masters
who have hijacked the "war on terror" to suit their own ends, and their
American mentors.
- Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She
welcomes
feedback at morgandewales@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
takes his yahoogroup evidence archives off the net on Wednesday
and
closes each of the lists he moderates.
A letter to readers regarding the cover-up artists (Webfairy, "Val
Smith,"
"Ozzy bin Oswald") practicing disinformation psy-ops at frameup
yahoogroup.
(An essay on why the 9-11 investigators like me have failed, despite
solving
the crime.)
In Propaganda_Matrix@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Ozzy bin Oswald"
<hisholiness@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> --- In Propaganda_Matrix@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"hrossthjof"
>> <hrossthjof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>The technology exists, you know that, and yet you
>> denied there was even such a project.
Ozzy bin Oswald is famous for running away to fight another day in the
Usenet newsgroups on the subject of the small-plane attack on the
Pentagon,
which he attempted to heckle and freep, but never to engage the photo
proof.
Why is he writing in defense of Webfairy's disinformation?
The Talmud, of course, but I mean besides that -- why the strategy of
backing the impossible holographic projection of a jetliner cra****ng into
a
building where maybe a half a million eyes are watching from every
direction
with any number of cameras and video cameras to capture the event?
Project Blue Beam, if it exists as a weapons or creating undetectably
insubstantial 3-D images in the air by any other means. Merely dropping
the
name "Project Blue Beam" into a discussion of the impossibility of
projecting holograms in mid-air, the impossibility of making a hologram of
something as large and structurally unstable as a jetliner (the subject of
holographic photography cannot make even the smallest movement without
destroying the defraction gradient patterning necessary for holographic
photography -- a large object like an airplane simply would not hold still
for the picture. And consider the impossibility of getting the
holographic
representation even if the two impossibilities could be overcome by a
suspension of the relevant laws of physics -- they could not get a movie
hologram (only stop-motion-photography could is possible) -- so they would
have to get a "still" shot of a plane (impossible, remember -- and
holograms cannot be enlarged or shrunk) and move the holographic
representations through the New York and Arlington skies.
Sgt. William Lagasse was blown into his car by when Boeing 757 slightly
north of him as he pumped gas immediately west of the Pentagon. That was
no
science-fiction/CIA disinformation "projection" -- that was the real
aircraft. (For those who can't/won't think the hologram problem through.)
So we must ask, why Usenet disinformation artist and seasoned disinfo
agent
heckler is coming to the rescue of Webfairy (Rosalee Grable). Why have
these two sought to graft an impossibility onto the proven case of no
airliner hitting the Pentagon, the presence of the Boeing on a different
course than the proven direction of attack etc.) Why add the discrediting
abusurdity, the scientific impossibility of holographic projections of jet
liners that impossibly deceive hundreds of thousands of observers viewing
the burning North Tower from every angle in New York when South Tower was
hit? Why amend solid case based on photo evidence and consistent with
all
witness testimony by attaching to it a laughable way-out fantasy fiction
of
"blue beam law-of-physics defying phantom holographs"?
The answer is simple. If you can't discredit a finding, do a psy-op
disinfo-op to identify the finding with something absurd and impossible
and
"way-out Art-Bellish Jeff-Renseish. In other words tie it in the public
mind to the "reptilians," the "greys," the "Chupacabras," "alien
abductions," and "Area 31" etc. (all disinfo ops, to conceal secret
aircraft or to scare ignorant people off choice Latin American real estate
etc.) This has always been how Webfairy opperates -- and really stupid
people who write well, like John Kaminsky, fall for it (the sonofa*****),
and help Webfairy discredit the truth by grafting on absurdities.
I am so damn sick of people stupidly falling for this -- and the only
person on this list (frameup) is "val smith" (name from Heinline's
stranger
in a strange land -- he is anonymous) who poses as a foul-mouthed
ego-maniac
who is only concerned about how many times he has "kicked ass" while
remaining indifferent to great crime under discussion and the new deaths
ever day because of the success of the disinfo/psyop work of Webfair and
others. BUT OF COURSE VAL SMITH MUST ALSO BE PART OF THE COVER-UP --
WHILE
WEBFAIRY ATTACHES THE ABSURD IMPOSSIBLE OFF-THE-TOP-OF-HER-HEAD SCIENCE
FICTION BAGGAGE TO THE TRUTH, OPERATIVE "VAL SMITH" ATTACHES THE STIGMA OF
"ROTTON PERSONALITY AND TWISTED MOTIVATION" TO 9-11 INVESTIGATORS WHO
ANSWER
WEBFAIRY BY BECOMING ONE OF US, BY BEING A HUMAN STINK BOMB REPRESENTING
THE
SOUND INVESTIGATORS.
THAT IS WHY BOTH OF THESE PEOPLE -- WEBFAIRY AND VAL SMITH HAVE MOVED IN
ON
THIS LIST WHICH WAS CREATED TO DISCUSS MY FINDINGS (THE FIRST 40 OR SO
ARTICLES TO THIS LIST WERE WRITTEN BY ME -- BUT THEN WEBFAIRY MOVED IN
WITH
THE ABSURD MISINFORMATION AMENDMENTS, FOLLOWED BY VAL SMITH WITH THE
WARPED
PERSONALITY -- THUS TURNING OFF EVERYONE AND ACTUALLY DRIVING ME AWAY
WITH
THE REST OF THE PEOPLE -- AND WEBFAIRY IS A FULL-TIME DISINFO OPERATIVE
--
THERE IS NOT FORUM WHERE SHE HAS NOT GOTTEN THERE FIRST AND POISONED THE
WELL FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL PENTAGON EVIDENCE.
So here for the last time is my Pentagon evidence -- I am taking it all
down
on Wednesday -- so view it while you can. (I won't ask all you why you
ignored my evidence and my strategy for using the evidence to bring down
the
administration, and you don't ask me why I am now taking away these pearls
from you all.
I really doubt that any of the original readers are still subscribed to
"frameup" -- but if you are, let me tell you that I dispise people like
you
at least as much as those who have sidelined the truth for the sake of the
coverup. They are Zionists. What was your excuse?
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Wa****ngton
LAST CHANCE TO VIEW PENTAGON EVIDENCE -- BETTER COPY WHAT YOU WANT OF IT
--
IT WILL BE GONE WEDNESDAY:
Here is the critical information needed to derive an informed
opinion of what really happened on at the Pentag on
September 11, 2001:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
INDEX OF PROOF
1. Pentagon security camera shows
a. Too short a plane
b. Smoke trail of a missile being fired
c. White-hot flash explosion consistent with a missile warhead
2. Photos show wrong crash imprint in the wall
3. Photos show and wrong flash-powder burn darkening the wall
4. Downed lampposts and witness consensus each identify
a different approach path to the Pentagon, the Boeing's
and the killer jet's and they are mutually incompatible --
(path of sighted Boeing also inconsistent with civil
engineers re****ted "50 degree- angle of entry" -- witnesses
re****ting the Boeing coming over the Sheraton Hotel, the
Naval Annex, the Citgo gas station, and the southernmost
extremity of Arlington National Cemetery -- an angle much
closer to perpendicular to the wall)
5. Wrong kind of debris
6. Single piece of right kind of debris shown to have been
found on the opposite side of the approach path from
the side of the plane where that particular piece had
to have come from.
7. Witnesses also
a. heard a missile
b. heard a sonic boom prior to blast
c. smelled burning chordite after the blast
d. saw a radar blip behaving like a jet-fighter blip
8. No photos of wreckage from inside consistent with the crash
9. Evidence of only one engine and one seat , a pilots seat.
10. A distraction plane, a four- engine plane making dives
over D.C. both photographed, videotaped and shown
on BBC, and re****ted (erroneously) by many wintesses
as the actual plane "diving at an irrecoverable angle)
11. The attack was made almost horizontally into the first-floor
level -- consistent with a countour-hugging jet-fighter attack
12. Normal rescuers were prevented from entering the building
while only certain people, including Rumsfeld himself, conducted
(screened) victims from the building
13. Rumsfeld had recently been given exclusive power to
OK air interceptions -- and yet he was in his office the whole
time the twin towers were hit, and when the Pentagon was
hit he went to oversee "rescue" instead of going to the situation
room where his interception authority could be given -- he
arrived at the situation room at about the time the Pennsylvania
plane (backup for the Pentagon) was finally shot down.
14. The various drills and practices for an air attack on the Pentagon
including some kind of simulation on 9-11-01 itself, coupled with
denials that such an attack had been considered possible.
15. Impossible stories by, for example, John Judge (regarding
his amazing stewardess friend who claims to have seen the
Boeing inside the hole, recognized the plane as the one she
always flew, recongized her stewardess friend as a victim by
a photo of her severed arm with the matching "friend****p
bracelett" they both wore; that she was passing out
doughnuts and coffee to the rescue workers with the salvation
army when the salvation army was nowhere in evidence at the
scene -- John Judge who is a professional JFK conspiracy
theory debunker and discloses that this same stewardess
friend is also a JFK theory investigator, the same
John Judge who launched the phony "People's Investigation
of 9-11 with a press conference by stating that the Pentagon
attack is not something responsible investigators should bother
investigating etc. since we "know" the Boeing hit the Pentagon
and don't want to be a laughing stock etc. -- the People's
investigation that never once reviewed any of the evidence
packages I posted to them -- the same John Judge who to this
day refuses to debate Dick Eastman on any internet forum and
whom all -- dare I use the term -- "responsible" 9-11 investigators
think is a John Judge who is working for the coverup, for
obstruction of justice, and because he does it so badly is himself
become one of the proofs of the frameup along with the known-
only-to himself flight attendant who works one of the flights that
most definitely had to have been regularly monitored by
US intelligence operatives, probably flight attendents, and
this one just happened not to take Flight 77 that day by
happenstance etc. -- so how about it, Mr. Judge?
16. The deaths of only the CIA's indepdendent intelligence
revivals , the Offices of Naval Intelligence personel, and
auditors of defense spending contracts etc. alone moved
into the "newly renovated" section that was hit -- on the side
where most of the witnesses would be the Arlington Cemetery
dead or people involved with driving their cars. Naval Intelligence
would have independently investigated 9-11 had they lived --
the investigator that no official has yet conducted -- Wolfowitz
sure bin Laden had done it and ready with the solution of invading
Afganistan on the very first day -- even as they were allegedly
taken by complete suprise only a few hours before that
determination.
See the evidence photos and witness testimony confirming all of the
above and further analysis in sup****t of these conclusions by
internationally respected American men of science here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
and here
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Wa****ngton
======
Double standard -- double think -- double trouble -- Kerry/Bush
"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that
I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area.
The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man,
because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will
go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an
Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would
make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750
Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by
raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and
we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do
but we tell others what they shall do."
[Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister, In an interview with General
Ouze Merham, 1956]
|
