Secret DARPA time travel program may hold key to understanding the deep politics of 9/11- Parts 1-4
Alfred Lambremont Webre
In a 2006 paper entitled, “False Flag Operations, 9/11, and the Exopolitical Perspective”, Dr. Michael E. Salla identifies five exopolitical factors behind false flag operations, including the false flag operation of September 11, 2001. Although Dr. Salla identifies exotic scalar weapons as the “fourth exopolitical factor” in false flag operations, his 2006 article does not disclose how exopolitically-related factors specifically may have played out in the case of 9/11.
Wiki: World Trade Center photo on 9/11 demonstrating molecular dissociation
Since then, a key whistle blower, Andrew D. Basiago, has emerged with evidence that secret U.S. time travel technologies were used as early as 1971 to acquire first-hand documentary knowledge about September 11, 2001 – fully three decades before the horrific events of that fateful day.
Mr. Basiago, a child participant in DARPA’s time travel program, Project Pegasus, has publicly stated how in 1971 he viewed moving images of the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 that had been obtained from the future and brought back to the early 1970’s.
DARPA is the chief research and development arm of the US military, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. DARPA created the precursor to the Internet, “Arpanet,” and has a penchant for trumpeting its advances, such as putting surveillance cameras on the backs of bumblebees and other exotic achievements in military science.
Mr. Basiago claims that DARPA’s secret technical accomplishments go far beyond what it has publicly acknowledged and that by 1970 DARPA had achieved teleportation-based time travel as well as advanced electro-optical means of discerning past and future events via different technologies that provide quantum access.
Mr. Basiago has described how while serving in Project Pegasus, he viewed moving images of 9/11 at the secured U.S. defense-technical facility where they were processed after being retrieved from the future, the Aerojet Corporation facility that once stood at the corner of Bullock Avenue and Leroy Place in Socorro, New Mexico.
According to Mr. Basiago’s whistleblower testimony, Donald H. Rumsfeld, the sitting U.S. Secretary of Defense on September 11, 2001, was the defense attaché to Project Pegasus during the early 1970’s, when Mr. Rumsfeld was officially serving as a counselor to President Nixon and member of his Board of Wage and Price Stabilization.
In all likelihood, Mr. Rumsfeld, as the defense attaché to Project Pegasus, would have known about and possibly had control over the data about 9/11 derived via “quantum access” and brought back to the early 1970’s for analysis by the DARPA research and development program under his administrative authority.
Mr. Basiago’s eyewitness account that Secretary Rumsfeld and others knew about 9/11 decades in advance because data about it was gathered via DARPA’s secret time travel program unlocks several of the more enigmatic facts in the 9/11 literature and may be the key to society’s unraveling of the ultimate accountability for the false flag operation that took place on September 11, 2001.
Examiner.com will explore Mr. Basiago’s whistleblower eyewitness evidence regarding how secret U.S. government time travel technologies relate to 9/11 in future installments of this series.
Corroborative evidence of Andrew D. Basiago’s secret U.S. government time travel
Fig. 1-ProjectPegasus.net: Photo of Andrew D. Basiago on Nov. 19, 1863 at Gettysburg Address
This article introduces Examiner.com readers to quantum access evidence in the form of a time travel artifact that resulted from Andrew D. Basiago’s childhood participation in DARPA’s secret time travel program in the early 1970’s. The ALTA reports and Web Bot technology have identified Mr. Basiago, an emerging figure in the disclosure movement, as a “planetary whistleblower” based on the global significance of his revelations. Exploring this time travel artifact will help establish a frame of reference for Examiner.com readers to better evaluate evidence gathered by quantum access technology and time travel participants like Mr. Basiago.
Corroborative documentary evidence of the veracity of Mr. Basiago’s time travel expeditions on behalf of the U.S. government exists. This documentary evidence consists of a photograph of Mr. Basiago taken at the scene of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863 after he was teleported to that location in the time-space continuum via DARPA time travel technology.
Andrew D. Basiago at Gettysburg, PA on November 19, 1863 (Gettysburg Address)
Figure 1 is the photograph of Andrew D. Basiago as a Project Pegasus time travel participant taken at the site of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, to which Mr. Basiago had been teleported back in time by DARPA.
Mr. Basiago has publicly answered questions about this corroborating photographic evidence of his time travel experiences in the secret U.S. government program in which time travel was achieved.
Q: Is this [Figure 1] the photo of you on November 19, 1863?
Andrew D. Basiago: Yes. I am the boy standing in the foreground of the image at center-left, looking to his right. My shoes were lost in the transit through the quantum plenum that took me from the plasma confinement chamber at the time lab in East Hanover, NJ in 1972 to Gettysburg, PA on the day that Abraham Lincoln gave his famous address there in 1863. When I walked into downtown Gettysburg, where the shops were, after walking into town along the north-south arterial that led into Gettysburg, a cobbler by the name of John Lawrence Burns accosted me and took me inside a millinery shop and furnished me with a pair of men's street shoes and a Union winter parka that he took from a stack of military clothing in a storeroom at the back of the shop. In this image, one can see how over-sized the shoes were. I can confirm that this image was taken right after President Lincoln arrived on the dais, because when I walked over to this location and stood in this manner to detract attention from my shoes, I had been standing over by the dais, and Lincoln had not yet arrived, and I only stood in this position for several minutes before the quantum field effect produced by the plasma confinement chamber ended and I found myself back in the time lab in New Jersey.
Q: This is incredible, Andrew! I did not know there were pictures. Was this a picture (Figure 1) discovered that just happened to have you in it, or was this picture taken by those with you and you brought it back?
Andrew D. Basiago: To my knowledge, this was the only photograph that was taken in a past or future time when I was time traveling for DARPA's Project Pegasus. I think another breakthrough will come in the form of accounts from residents of Santa Fe [New Mexico] about children suddenly appearing at the state capitol complex there in the early 1970's. Our arrivals were sometimes witnessed. Several of my own arrivals were witnessed. I have spoken with area residents who knew that individuals were teleporting into Santa Fe in the early 1970's. Some of that knowledge resulted from the arrival of teleportees, including myself, being seen by others; other knowledge resulted from the fact that employees of LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM] were bringing stories about the teleportation that was going on home from work and sharing them with their children around the dinner table in Los Alamos and White Rock.
Q: What were you looking at [in the photograph in Figure 1]?
Andrew D. Basiago: Nothing, intentionally. I was wearing a hodgepodge of clothes: the Union bugle boy uniform that I had been issued back in East Hanover, NJ in 1972; the Union winter parka that Burns had outfitted me in when I walked into town shivering in the brisk autumn air; the huge men's shoes that he gave me when I walked into town barefoot. When I walked over to the dais, several women were gossiping about me (presumably, because I was apparently a bugle boy separated from his regiment or a carpetbagger). I was questioned by two Union officers about where my regiment was bivouacked. I also had a strange encounter with my father, who was dressed as a Pennsylvania farmer and standing in front of the dais, in which he intentionally ignored me. He later said that encountering me there at Gettysburg was how he found out I was going to be in the program. But he was startled to see me and not expecting me to be there, [he] acted like he didn't know who I was. After I was questioned by the two Union officers, I was concerned that I should make myself inconspicuous. We had been trained to avoid being conspicuous, being questioned, being arrested, being detained, and so on, because these things might create complications that would prevent us from getting back to the present. So, self-conscious about the huge shoes that I was wearing and trying to avoid being further noticed, I walked about 100 paces from the dais and stood with my back to the dais looking in the opposite direction from where I knew Lincoln would be arriving. I hoped that by affecting an air of non-chalance in this manner, I would avoid further scrutiny by those present. It didn't work! I ended up becoming the first time traveler from the future to be photographed!
Andrew D. Basiago answers questions about Project Pegasus and 9/11
Q: Why would the US take part in 9/11?
Andrew D. Basiago: What I know is that in the early 1970's, Project Pegasus had moving images of one of the planes hitting one of the Twin Towers on 9/11; that 9/11 was known and spoken of by project principals; and that the defense attache to Project Pegasus was Donald Rumsfeld, the individual who was serving as Defense Secretary during 9/11. The evidence from Project Pegasus shows that the US government knew about the 9/11 attacks many years in advance, not necessarily that it "took part" in those attacks.
Q: If Project Pegasus knew about 9/11 before it would happen, why wasn't 9/11 prevented from occurring?
Andrew D. Basiago: That's a good question. What I know is that it was the consensus of the US officials administering Project Pegasus that information about future events should be used to engage in contingency planning for future events but not to "play God" and change the future by preventing or altering future events. A paradox exists such that acting to change future events based on prior knowledge of them results in diminished accurate knowledge of future events. So, there is an institutional reluctance to change future events based upon prior knowledge of them because of the impact of doing so on the quality of the intelligence database concerning future events.
Q: How much information about the future has Project Pegasus learned about?
Andrew D. Basiago: My experiences in Project Pegasus indicate that by 1970, the US government was using chronovision to capture remotely and record on film a vast amount of footage of past and future events. When we visited the project location at Flemington, NJ -- where I was shown remote images of the signing of the US Constitution in 1787 and saw George Washington and Benjamin Franklin as they appeared in life -- we could see that the technicians there were filming reams and reams of scenes of past events on 16 mm film stock and storing it in film canisters. Presumably, this process is done digitally today.
Q: Is Project Pegasus still active?
Andrew D. Basiago: I do not know whether Project Pegasus is still active, but the intelligence infrastructure that evolved from it is in all likelihood very active at this time. Project Pegasus was a small, highly secret research and development program launched in the late 1960's. However, the technologies that it developed gave the US government the keys to past and future events. My guess is that the quantum access capabilities that Project Pegasus provided the US government are now headquartered at some form of national intelligence center that provides the President, the intelligence community and the military information about future events.
Q: Was just the military involved or was the government also involved?
Andrew D. Basiago: Project Pegasus combined individuals employed by the US military (Navy, DARPA), the US intelligence community (CIA) and civilian defense contractors (e.g., Parsons). It was a research and development program of the US Department of Defense (DoD).
Q: How could a father actually put his son through all of these violent and possibly fatal transportation experiments?
Andrew D. Basiago: It is my position that my father and I were proud to serve our country during its hour of maximum danger and were also privileged to be involved in America's early activities in time-space exploration. My father did not involve me in Project Pegasus. Rather, we were approached by the US government and told we had to be involved for reasons that remain a mystery. In all likelihood, we were identified by project personnel from the future, who knew from the perspective of their time that we had been involved in the program, and hence we were brought into the program to create the future program that had knowledge of our past involvement.
Q: Why was not an adult the one transported so that the information brought back might be more precise?
Andrew D. Basiago: Children were involved for five main reasons. First, we were experimental test subjects into the physical and mental effects of teleportation on children. Second, we were necessary participants because the holograms produced by the chronovisors would collapse if adults were involved and so small, cooperative, intelligent human beings were needed as the time travelers in the chronovisor probes, and therefore a decision was made to involve gifted and talented American school children. Third, we were regarded as better participant-observers of the past and future events accessed in the program because children are tabula rasa -- blank slates whose perceptions are not skewed by the selection bias produced by their previous experiences. Fourth, we were trainees who were expected to become America's first generation of "chrononauts" in a fully fledged time-space program when we grew up. Fifth and lastly, the Department of Defense found that when adults were involved in time travel, the psychologically destabilizing effects of moving between alternate time lines was causing some adult time travelers to become insane, so it was hoped that by training time travelers from childhood a competent cadre of US time travelers could be formed.
Q: How could a child possibly be put through all of this and also remember everything he saw or even understand what he saw or heard?
Andrew D. Basiago: I am a gifted individual with exceptional powers of observation and memory. These gifts were identified when I was being trained in Project Pegasus. In one test, I recited back random numbers provided to me verbally to 84 places. I was identified as the future whistle blower about Project Pegasus even while I was still serving on the project. I have spent over 10 years investigating my experiences and proving them to an historical certainty. I am an individual who did remember what I saw and heard, so it is not valid to say that I couldn't have done so because a child couldn't or shouldn't have been able to. That involves the fallacy of using the general to refute the specific. I not only remembered much of what I saw and heard, but I later wrote it down and went back and investigated it and proved my memories. Consequently, I am now able to provide an insider's account of the US government's time-space program at the time of its emergence in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
This multi-part series on quantum access technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society will be continued in Part II.
March 16, 2010
Scientist: Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into nanoparticles on 9/11
This is the second of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.
In his article “False Flag Operations, 9-11 and the Exopolitical Perspective” Dr. Michael E. Salla states, “The fourth exopolitical factor [of false flag operations] concerns the use of weather modification technologies that former Secretary of State William Cohen confirmed as existing in 1997.” The “weather modification technologies” Dr. Salla is referring to include directed energy weapons which, by the evidence, have been used in scalar, weather warfare and seismic false flag operations such as December 26, 2004 (Boxing Day) Indonesian Tsunami, the China earthquake of May 12, 2008, the Haiti earthquake of January 12, 2010, and the Chile earthquake of February 27, 2010.
Dr. Judy Wood, a former assistant professor at Clemson University, has developed compelling evidence that a directed energy weapon turned the physical matter of the World Trade Center towers into nanoparticles through the process of molecular dissociation. Dr. Wood demonstrates clear evidence that cannot be accounted for by the official 9/11 Commission explanation or alternative theory of military planes, cruise missiles, or other projectiles hitting the World Trade Center buildings, or a controlled demolition caused solely by "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the World Trade Center dust," or solely by 4th generation mini-nukes.
In a February 22, 2010 Washington Times article, Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, states, "’Government officials will be notified that 'Misprision of Treason,' U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act,’ Mr. Gage says. ‘The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial.’”
The trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may soon begin (subject to reported political negotiations with Republicans), as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testified before a U.S. House appropriations subcommittee on March 16, 2010 that “a decision will be made in a matter of weeks on where to try the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks,” indicating that the Obama administration has a pre-determined position on the evidence that the events of September 11, 2001 were a false flag operation.
United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. "is the upcoming trial of five alleged Al-Qaeda members for aiding the September 11, 2001 attacks. Charges were announced by Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann on February 11, 2008 at a press conference at the Pentagon. The men charged are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed al Qahtani, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ammar al-Baluchi, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi. In an 88-page complaint, the group was charged with attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft, terrorism, and providing material support for terrorism. If convicted, the five will face the death penalty."
Regardless of whether U.S. President Barack H. Obama chooses to have these defendants tried in a U.S. Military Commission or in a U.S. Federal court, the evidence amassed by such researchers as Dr. Judy Wood and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth satisfies the burden of proof that the events of September 11, 2001 were, beyond a reasonable doubt, a false flag operation. Consequently, one can characterize the forthcoming trial in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al as a political show trial, no different in effect – the wrongful execution of the defendants and the attempted hoodwinking of the U.S. and world population – from other political show trials in recent history.
This Examiner.com article in the continuing 9/11 series examines the evidence for the use of secret advanced directed energy weapons in the molecular dissociation of the World Trade Center buildings into nanoparticles on September 11, 2001. The article discusses the implications of this evidence, in light of Andrew D. Basiago’s eyewitness evidence that a secret DARPA time travel program, whose defense liaison was then Nixon Cabinet Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was in physical possession images of the World Trade Center 9/11 events in 1971, 30 years before the actual events occurred on September 11, 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld, of course, was U.S. Secretary of Defense on 9/11.
The World Trade Center and directed energy weapons on 9/11
Dr. Judy Wood has developed multiple lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the molecular dissociation of the physical matter of the World Trade Center towers into nanoparticles on September 11, 2001 was the product of a directed energy weapon. Readers are urged to review this evidence here.
View video (3 of 5) of Dr. Judy Wood on 9/11: The New Hiroshima
9/11 and the laws of evidence
Application of the law of witness and documentary evidence may be a methodology leading to breakthroughs in evaluating a new generation of data now emerging regarding use of secret advanced technologies, such as quantum access time travel and teleportation, and secret directed energy weapons on 9/11.
The basic standard in evaluating witness and documentary evidence in the common law is the standard of “reasonableness.” This standard can be stated as “what would a reasonable person conclude?” When a jury in a court of common law is determining a question of fact, as to whether secret advanced technologies, such as quantum access time travel and teleportation, and secret directed energy weapons on 9/11, the members of the jury resort to the standard of reasonableness in weighing direct and expert witnesses, and documentary evidence.
Evidence and the burden of proof - The principle of reasonableness
Witness evidence - One source summarizes the principles of the law of witness evidence as follows: "In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of evidence that may be sought from witnesses and the manner in which the interrogation of witnesses is conducted during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Other types of evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that a trier of fact such as a jury must apply when it assesses evidence."
Documentary evidence - Documentary, including photographic evidence can be treated, according to one source, as follows: "Evidence of an indirect nature which implies the existence of the main fact in question but does not in itself prove it. That is, the existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints or DNA sample are examples of circumstantial evidence. The fact that a defendant had a motive to commit a crime is circumstantial evidence. It is possible to argue that all evidence is ultimately circumstantial, on the premises that no experience whatsoever can directly prove a fact. Recall, however, that courts of law deal with what is reasonable, not with ontology."
“The principal questions of ontology are ‘What can be said to exist?’ and ‘Into what categories, if any, can we sort existing things?’”
Witness and documentary evidence that advanced, directed energy weapons were used on the WTC on 9/11
Evidentiary sample: directed energy weapons & WTC buildings
One researcher draws on Dr. Wood’s work and sets out a sample of documentary and witness evidence sufficient to conclude that an advanced directed energy weapon was used on the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11.
9/11 documentary evidence of use of directed energy weapons at WTC
1. Seismic Record: “The energy budget recorded in the seismic record on the day of 9/11 and the collapse of the WTC buildings did not reflect the mass of building materials involved in the collapse, nor the nearly freefall of the collapsing buildings. The seismic record demonstrates an event on the scale of a quarry blast. Where was the thud [that would have accompanied a WTC building collapse]?”
2. Kinetic Energy: “Two robust WTC buildings with very robust steel beam reinforcement would release a sizeable amount of kinetic energy from the buildings falling – that would be all of the energy that went into the construction of the WTC buildings. The release of that amount of kinetic energy is not reflected in the physical evidence on the seismic record. Into what physical process did that kinetic energy go?”
3. Molecular Dissociation: “The collapse of the WTC buildings produced the highest mass per volume of very fine particles (nanoparticles) ever measured in an air sample in the United States. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to dissociate or break the molecular bonds of steel, concrete and other building materials that were “powdered” into very fine particles during the collapse of the buildings. The largest mass per volume of metals ever measured in an air sample in the US were reported by Dr. Thomas Cahill who did air monitoring for 5 months. Metal is used in buildings because it is very strong – and would require large amounts of energy to reduce it to nanoparticles. Chemical explosives do not release enough energy to produce that volume of very fine particles. A much more energetic process was involved such as laser or beam energy which releases focused and concentrated energy as complex waveforms necessary to cause molecular dissociation.”
4. Physical Evidence of Buildings Collapsing: “In videos of the collapses on 9/11 the WTC buildings erupted into emulsion like a drinking fountain, and the rubble did not hit the ground. Even on tape huge pieces of aluminum building siding vaporized as they were freefalling, and never hit the ground.”
5. Controlled Demolition: “The [collapse of the WTC buildings] was not a 'controlled demolition' for the following reasons:
WTC Detritus Pile - “Should have been 1/3 the height of the WTC buildings. The 100+ story WTC buildings were about 1 story high when the collapse of the buildings ended. A fireman on one of the news videos said the antenna that had been on the top of WTC Building 1 was on the top of a pile of rubble about one story high. The rubble pile should have been 35 stories if it was a conventional controlled demolition.”
WTC Rubble Never Hit the Ground – “This defies gravity, where did the rubble go?”
Footprints – “Geometrically Round Holes: contiguous round holes 24’ in diameter were in the footprints of the WTC buildings 1 and 2, and a 60’ deep geometrically round hole was in the middle of Liberty Street near the WTC. This is evidence of beam weapons. There was no debris inside the footprints of the two WTC buildings, only bare dirt with circles in the dirt.”
Dust - “In videos of the collapse larger particles fell and cascaded down from the buildings under the forces of gravity, but before they hit the ground they vaporized and suddenly went up into the atmosphere like an antigravity demonstration. Nanoparticles are so tiny that they are not subject to the forces of gravity, so molecular dissociation occurred on the larger particles as they were freefalling, reducing them into nano-particles (0.1 microns in diameter and smaller) that suddenly obeyed other physical laws of quantum mechanics. More evidence of [directed energy weapon or] HAARP/beam weapon technology applied during collapse.”
9/11 Satellite photos - “[9/11 satellite photographs showed] dust going into upper atmosphere –which had to be nanoparticles and may have been enhanced by other technology because most very fine particles/dust would stay in the Troposphere and be rained out in 2 months as we know from depleted uranium particulate releases from battlefield already.”
1400 Toasted Cars - “Located blocks from the WTC buildings, with door handles missing, engine blocks missing, blistering on some parts of the car finish, strange rust patterns on the bodies of the cars.”
Paper Around Cars Not Burned - "Whatever ‘vaporized’ the engine blocks and the door handles on 1400 cars did not ignite fragile and flammable paper lying all over the ground around the cars. If engine blocks and door handles selectively vaporized, why didn’t body of car vaporize?”
Pile of Cars Spontaneously Combusted - “In a news video, the entire pile of cars started burning spontaneously at the same time with no visible cause, it was not a fire that started in one car and spread to others.”
Rust Occurred Immediately - “On cars and trucks, and in FEMA photos there was heavy rust on steel beams – steel does not rust, and it is a slow oxidation process that results in rusting of iron. This rusting happened immediately.”
Basements Of WTC Buildings Undamaged - “Stuffed mannequins in the basement of WTC with clothing on were carried out of the basement undamaged. If a 100+-story WTC building collapsed into its basement and left a 35-story rubble pile, there would be nothing left in the basement. Even streetcars underground at the WTC were pulled out after the collapse and had no damage.”
Prof. Cahill Air Monitoring Samples - “The hardest and most durable materials vaporized (steel, concrete etc), and the most fragile materials (paper) cascading out of WTC windows and all over the ground for blocks were undamaged.”
Truckloads of Potting Soil - “Right after the WTC disaster, the ground was “fuming”, and sequential FEMA aerial photos show 130 dump trucks full of soil (filled almost to the top of the dump truck space) covered with tarps so that the dirt in the trucks was not visible to onlookers on the street, coming into the WTC area, dumping the soil and going out for more. This happened even before the rescues or cleanup started and it continued for some time. The piles of soil were left for a week and got higher each day in sequential photos. The soil ‘fuming’ lasted until March 2002 (8 months).”
Boots Disintegrated – “Boots on emergency responders disintegrated after 2 hours. They had to get new boots every 2 hours – an effect of molecular dissociation. It was not from burning, their skin would have been damaged.”
No Ground Fuming During Rain - “For 99 days the “burning” (fuming) continued at the WTC site, but when it rained there was no fuming. If it had been fires burning, the rain would have caused steam from heating rainwater.”
USGS: Iron versus Steel - “The USGS analyzed the mineral form of the rust on steel beams and iron objects at the WTC. They did not address the ‘steel does not rust’ issue, but dodged it by referring to the rusted steel beams in the rubble pile as ‘iron beams’ and gave mineral analyses of iron minerals produced by oxidation.”
Official Sample Data Not Reliable – “Spectral absorption images at the WTC indicated average particle size was about 1 micron, which is subjected to gravity and would have fallen with the collapsed buildings. USGS did not collect many dust samples and collecting samples by other different agencies did not agree with each other. No samples were taken at the toasted cars.”
Directed Energy Weapon Evidence - “Evidence of use of a directed energy weapon was present at the top of the WTC buildings as ‘lathering up’ started before buildings started coming down. ‘Lathering up’ in videos preceded the collapse of all buildings, even Building 7 which supposedly Larry Silverstein when he said, 'Pull it' to firefighters meant controlled demolition. Color alteration and modification in news videos compared to other photos/videos at tops of buildings indicates “doctoring” of images. When the Seattle Dome was destroyed with controlled demolition, the dust created by the destruction did not get any higher than the top of the building. The WTC dust got into the upper atmosphere almost immediately – which indicates very tiny atmospheric dust sized particles (0.1 micron and smaller), in fact smaller than atmospheric dust that stays mainly in the Troposphere.
“Lathering Up” Incriminating - “WTC Building 7 ‘lathered up’ even before WTC Building 2 went down. WTC Building 7 not damaged at all by WTC Building 2 going down – right next to each other.”
Freon tanks - “Very odd, large tanks were removed from WTC building and OSHA made bogus statement about what and why they were removed. Was freon used in WTC takedown? A NYC cop whom the researcher met with Cindy Sheehan said he was injured in WTC Building 7 and removed on a gurney, but his eyes were covered so he could not see anything as they left the building. He reported he was able to see dead bodies lying all over the floor as he was being carried out – before building 7 had collapsed. Was this due to Freon asphyxiation put through ventilation system like in a recent Russian submarine disaster?
9/11 witness evidence of use of directed energy weapons at WTC
Where Were All the WTC Bodies? - “Emergency Room physicians Dr. Tony Daher and Dr. Lincoln Cleaver were interviewed on TV on 9/11 about the casualties. They said there weren’t any casualties after about noon on 9/11. No more casualties came to the Emergency Room. Firemen saw no bodies but talked about the antenna on top of building 1 that was at ground level on top of about one story of rubble.”
No Fires In Buildings – “William Rodriguez, Senior Janitor at WTC said there were no fires in the buildings. He conducted rescue efforts, saved injured workers and had keys to every lock in both buildings.”
Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab Beam Weapon Demonstration - In 1955 the microwave oven was invented and was a concept for a beam weapon. In the summer of 1990, the researcher observed a demonstration of the Livermore Shiva laser facility in the middle of the night. A 16’ diameter amber colored beam was shot straight up into the sky from the lab and all air traffic was diverted for a 5 mile radius during the demonstration. When the researcher asked a grad student working at the laser facility what they were trying to do, he said, “Make a star”. The researcher knew that could not be true because lasers are used to molecularly dissociate materials by releasing tremendous amounts of energy as very advanced and complex waveforms. Livermore had long been involved in development of HAARP [a directed energy weapon] since 1978 in secret collaboration with the Soviet Union, and advanced beam weapons.
Minneapolis Bridge Collapse (August 1, 2007) – The researcher states, “Similarities to WTC disaster, every bridge segment [in the August 1, 2007 Minneapolis bridge collapse] failed at exactly the same time instead of domino effect after first collapse. This defies the laws of engineering. It should have been one place failed and sequential domino-like failures followed for a normal engineering collapse.”
What are the implications of the evidentiary conclusion that an advanced directed energy weapon was used in 9/11?
1. Documentary and witness evidence – The documentary and witness evidence presented by Dr. Judy Wood and other researchers is sufficient to conclude, by the laws of evidence, that it is more probable than not that an advanced directed energy weapon was used on the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001. Likewise, there appears to be documentary and witness evidence that the following technologies may also have been part of the false flag attack on the World Trade Center buildings: (1) "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the World Trade Center dust," or (2) perhaps even 4th generation mini-nukes. It is plausible that these latter two technologies were employed to mask the use of advanced directed energy weapons in the molecular dissociation of the physical matter of the World Trade Center towers, to sow doubt in any official 9/11 investigation and in the 9/11 truth movement, and thus to preserve the secrecy of directed energy technology application.
2. False flag operation – The use of an advanced directed energy weapon in 9/11 demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a false flag operation. If an advanced directed energy weapon had been used by an overt foreign enemy of the United States upon U.S. soil (the World Trade Center), the U.S. military would have used every possible means to retaliate against any foreign enemy that used such an advanced directed energy weapon.
3. Public Notice – There is ample notice on the public record of Dr. Judy Wood’s evidence regarding the use of directed energy weapons at the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. Starting in March 16, 2007, Dr. Judy Wood has pursued requests for correction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding evidence for directed energy weapons. Dr. Wood filed a Qui Tam action filed at the United States District Court for the Southern District Of New York. A writ of certiorari was filed in this matter in the Supreme Court of the United States on October 14, 2009 and was recently dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. Deemed official notice - The U.S. Department of Justice or a prosecutor before a U.S. Military Commission that is prosecuting the defendants in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. can be reasonably deemed to have notice of the evidence that directed energy weapons were used against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. This evidence is contained in Dr. Wood’s proceedings at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and her Qui Tam action U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Judy Wood’s evidence is of public importance in the question of a trial of the alleged “masterminds” of 9/11 in which capital punishment may result.
5. Political show trial – Regardless of ultimate judicial venue (U.S. Federal court or U.S. Military Commission), if the trial of the defendants in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. proceeds without the Department of Justice prosecutors, the U.S. Attorney, the U.S. President, the U.S. Federal Court or Military Commission, or the defense attorneys having weighed the evidence of directed energy weapons having been used in the World Trade Center, then a major miscarriage of justice will have taken place. It can be reasonably concluded that the trial in the matter of United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. is a political show trial and continued psychological operation, as was the original false flag operation of September 11, 2001.
The term show trial “is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial. The term was first recorded in the 1930s. There is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than correctional justice. Such trials can exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves: they have often signed statements under duress and/or suffered torture prior to appearing in the court-room.”
6. Use of secret quantum access time travel technologies – The eyewitness evidence of Cambridge-educated environmentalist and lawyer Andrew D. Basiago that a secret DARPA time travel program had physical possession as early as 1971 of images of the events of at the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, 30 years in advance of the event must now be evaluated with the evidence of Dr. Judy Wood and other researchers that directed energy weapons were used at the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. Both of secret time travel and teleportation technologies and directed energy weapons are among the most secret and the most advanced technologies in the arsenal of DARPA and the U.S. Department of Defense. The fact that a 9/11 connection has been established for both secret time travel and teleportation technologies and directed energy weapons around one individual of Cabinet rank in both 1971 and 2001 is of high evidentiary importance. By the evidence, that individual is Donald H. Rumsfeld, defense liaison to DARPA’s secret time travel program and a member of U.S. President Richard M. Nixon’s cabinet in 1971, and 30 years later, U.S. Secretary of Defense on September 11, 2001 with line authority over advanced directed energy weapons of the U.S. government.
7. Treason or misprision of treason – The next article in this multi-part Examiner.com series on secret technologies and 9/11 will explore the reasonable prima facie evidence for the criminal indictment and trial for treason (Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution) or misprision of treason (U.S. Code 18, Sec. 2382), of then sitting U.S. president George W. Bush, vice president Richard B. Cheney, U.S. secretary of defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and numerous Jane and John Does.
Read Part 1 of the Examiner.com series on secret technologies and 9/11:
This is the second of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.
Memo to U.S. Congress: prima facie evidence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed treason on 9/11
This article is the third of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.
A Memorandum to the U.S. Congress presented to then incoming Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), following the November 2006 mid-term elections sets out prima facie evidence for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to prosecute then U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and numerous Jane and John Does for treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution for acts committed on September 11, 2001.
Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution provides: "Sect. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on open confession in open court."
United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. is the upcoming trial of five alleged Al-Qaeda members for “masterminding” the September 11, 2001 attacks. Regardless of whether U.S. President Barack H. Obama chooses to have these defendants tried in a U.S. Military Commission or in a U.S. Federal court, the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress contains prima facie evidence that the sitting U.S. President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense committed actionable Article III (3) treason on 9/11. Consequently, one can characterize the forthcoming trial in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. as a political show trial, no different in effect – the wrongful execution of the defendants and the attempted hoodwinking of the U.S. and world population – from other political show trials in recent history.
There is a substantial segment of U.S. and world public opinion that believes that 9/11 was a false flag operation. In a 2006 paper entitled, “False Flag Operations, 9/11, and the Exopolitical Perspective”, Dr. Michael E. Salla writes: “According to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in what occurred. A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11 Commission were covering up the truth.”
This Examiner.com article contains the first of two installments setting out the compelling prima facie case of why an independent prosecutor should be appointed to investigate actionable treason on 9/11.
The law of treason and constitutional accountability
The Memorandum to the U.S. Congress addresses the issue of the law of treason and constitutional accountability for the events of September 11, 2001. The Memorandum is designed to set out the prima facie evidence which supports the appointment by the U.S. Congress (or other entity) of an independent or special prosecutor to “prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.”
For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this Examiner.com article do not contain the footnotes and full references in the original Memorandum. Examiner.com readers are encouraged to download a copy of the original Memorandum to the U.S. Congress (PDF) here or here.
Memorandum to the U.S. Congress – parts I – III
The following are Parts I – III of the Memorandum. Please note that the Memorandum contains this caveat:
CAVEAT LECTOR: This memorandum is based upon the best public research resources presently available. It is presented not as a full treatment of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the appointment of an independent prosecutor.
The September 11, 2001 Attacks as Acts of Treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution
“The United States Constitution, in Article 3, Section 3, says that it is treason for a citizen of the USA to engage in “levying war” against the United States. If U.S. citizens consciously participated in planning the attacks of 9/11 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this participation would clearly be treasonous. There is considerable prima facie evidence that named members of the U.S. Executive Branch---U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld---participated in this planning.
“This prima facie evidence sustains a constitutional, Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress to appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the authority of Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.
“An investigation of these acts of prima facie Treason was not carried out by the 9/11 Commission. This Commission, directed by an insider, Philip Zelikow, who was directly connected to the named U.S. President George W. Bush of the U.S. Executive Branch, took as its starting point the Bush-Cheney administration’s claim that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by members of al-Qaeda. The Commission examined only facts and allegations that were consistent with this theory.
“All evidence pointing to complicity by the named individuals---U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld---along with other John and Jane Does, was ignored or, in a few cases, distorted. The U.S. Congress in its constitutional jurisdiction needs to authorize the appointment of an independent prosecutor to conduct a genuine investigation of this prima facie evidence of Treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, which is summarized below in terms of six questions.”
I. How Could Hijacked Airliners Have Struck the WTC and the Pentagon?
“If the standard operating procedure of the FAA and the US military had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 would have been intercepted before they reached Manhattan, and Flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could have reached the Pentagon. (Such interceptions are routine, being carried out about 100 times a year.) As to why these interceptions did not occur, the public has never been given a plausible explanation. Indeed, we have received three mutually inconsistent stories.
“In the first few days, military officials said that no fighter jets were sent up by NORAD until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38, even though signs that Flight 11 had been hijacked were observed at 8:15. That would mean that although interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes, in this case over 80 minutes had elapsed before any fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that a “stand-down” order had been issued.
“Within a few days, a second story was put out, according to which NORAD had sent up fighters but, because FAA notification had unaccountably come very late, the fighters did not arrive soon enough to prevent the attacks. Critics showed, however, that even if the FAA’s notifications had come as late as NORAD claimed, there would have been time for interceptions to occur. This second story did not, therefore, remove the suspicion that a stand-down order had been given.
“The 9/11 Commission Report gives a third account, according to which, contrary to NORAD’s timeline of September 18, 2001, the FAA did not notify NORAD about Flights 175 and 77 until after they had struck their targets. This third story, besides contradicting the second story and also considerable evidence that the FAA had notified the military in a timely manner, contains many inherent implausibilities. It does not, accordingly, remove grounds for suspicion that a stand-down order had been issued---a suspicion for which there is ear-witness testimony.”
II. Why Did the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the WTC Collapse?
“The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney has also failed to provide a credible explanation of the total collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. According to the official explanation, the Twin Towers collapsed because of the impact of the airplanes and the heat from the ensuing fires. But this explanation faces several formidable problems.
“First, Building 7 also collapsed, and in about the same way. This similarity implies that all three buildings collapsed because of the same causes. But building 7 was not hit by a plane, so its collapse must be explained by fire alone. That would lead to the conclusion that all three buildings collapsed from fire alone.
“Second, however, the fires in these three buildings were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting, compared with fires in some steel-frame high-rises that did not induce collapses. In 1991, for example, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, and in 2004, a fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither of these fires resulted in even a partial collapse, let alone a total collapse. By contrast, the World Trade Center’s north and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed. Building 7, moreover, had fires on only a few floors, according to some witnesses and all the photographic evidence.
“Third, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never, either before or after 9/11, been brought about by fire alone, or fire combined with structural damage from airplanes. All such collapses have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as ‘controlled demolition.’
“Fourth, the collapses of these three WTC buildings all manifested many standard features of controlled demolition, such as: sudden onset (whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag); straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over); collapse at virtually free-fall speed (indicating that the lower floors were offering little if any resistance); total collapse (indicating that the massive steel columns in the core of each building had been sliced into many pieces---which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions); the production of molten steel; and the occurrence of multiple explosions, as reported by dozens of people---including journalists, police officers, WTC employees, emergency medical workers, and firefighters. The official theory cannot explain one, let alone all, of these features---at least, as physicist Steven Jones has pointed out, without violating several basic laws of physics. But the theory of controlled demolition easily explains them all.
“Fifth, although the question of whether explosives were used could have been answered by examining the buildings’ steel columns, virtually all of the steel was immediately sold to scrap dealers, trucked away, and sent to Asia to be melted down. Moreover, although it is usually a federal crime to remove anything from a crime scene, in this case the removal was overseen by government officials.
“Sixth, al-Qaeda terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for the enormous number of hours it would have taken to plant the explosives. But the question of how agents of the Bush-Cheney administration could have gotten such access can be answered by pointing out that Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III---the president’s brother and cousin, respectively---were principals of the company in charge of security for the WTC. It is also doubtful that al-Qaeda terrorists would have had the courtesy to ensure that the buildings would come straight down, rather than falling over onto other buildings.”
[Examiner.com note: Please see also, “Scientist: Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into nanoparticles on 9/11”
III. Could the Official Account of the Pentagon Possibly Be True?
“According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. This account is challenged by many facts.
“First, Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes, even though it was then known that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons and even though the US military has the best radar systems in the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace.”
“Second, the aircraft, in order to hit the west wing, reportedly executed a 270-degree downward spiral, which according to some experts would have been impossible for a Boeing 757. Hanjour, moreover, was known as “a terrible pilot,” who could not even fly a small airplane.
“Third, how could a pilot as poor as Hanjour have found his way back to Washington without guidance from the ground?
“Fourth, the Pentagon is surely the best defended building on the planet. It is not only within the P-56-A restricted air space that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, but also within P-56-B, the three-mile ultra-restricted zone above the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. It is only a few miles from Andrews Air Force Base, which, assigned to protect these restricted zones, has at least three squadrons with fighter jets on alert at all times. (The claim by The 9/11 Commission Report that no fighters were on alert the morning of 9/11 is wholly implausible. ) Also, the Pentagon is surely protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft without a US military transponder entering the Pentagon’s airspace. (So even if Flight 77 had entered the Pentagon’s airspace, it could have escaped being shot down only if officials in the Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses.)
“Fifth, terrorists brilliant enough to get through the US military’s defense system would not have struck the west wing, for many reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a strike anywhere else would have been; it was still being renovated, so relatively few people were there; the secretary of defense and all the top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted to kill, were in the east wing; and hitting the west wing required a difficult maneuver, whereas crashing into the roof would have been easier and deadlier.
“Sixth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757. For one thing, unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, the strike on the Pentagon did not create a detectable seismic signal. Also, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not produced by the strike on the Pentagon, according to both photographs and eyewitnesses. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of ‘a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.’
“Photographs show that the façade of the west wing remained standing for 30 minutes after the strike and that, during this time, the hole in this façade was only about 16 to 18 feet in diameter. A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of about 125 feet, and a steel engine is mounted on each wing. And yet there was, as Former Air Force Colonel George Nelson has pointed out, no visible damage on either side of this hole. Former pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing both debris and damage on the basis of the photographic evidence, writes: ‘there is no doubt that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757. . . . There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. . . . There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 ‘crash.’”
“Additional evidence that no large airliner hit the west wing is provided by the fact that the fourth-floor office of Isabelle Slifer, which was directly above the strike zone (between the first and second floors), was not damaged by the initial impact.
"There is considerable evidence, moreover, that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was instead a US military missile. This evidence consists partly of testimony. Lon Rains, editor of Space News, said: ‘I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” The upper management official at LAX, quoted earlier as saying that he overheard members of LAX Security receiving word of a stand-down order, says that they later received word that “the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.’ Professor David Edwards of Salisbury University reports that on the morning of 9/11, a young couple burst into his subway car at L’Enfante Station and started shouting: ‘We were standing at the Pentagon Station, waiting for the train to come, and we saw a missile fly into the Pentagon! We saw it, we saw it!’ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an apparent slip of the tongue, referred in an interview to ‘the missile [used] to damage this building.’
“The missile hypothesis is also supported by physical evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman of Alexandria reports that shortly after the strike her Geiger counter showed the radiation level, about 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon, to be 8-10 times higher than normal. Two days later, Bill Bellinger, the EPA radiation expert for the region, said that the rubble at the crash site was radioactive, adding that he believed the source to be depleted uranium. These findings are what one would expect, says a former scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory---if the Pentagon had been struck by a military missile with a depleted uranium warhead.
“On the basis of all this evidence, retired Army Major Doug Rokke has said: ‘When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts [and] the size of the hole left in the building . . . , it looks like the work of a missile.’
“A seventh reason to be dubious about the official story is that evidence was destroyed. Shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris from the Pentagon in front of the impact site, put it in a large container, and carried it off. Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, with the result that any remaining forensic evidence was covered up. FBI agents also immediately confiscated the videos from security cameras on two nearby buildings. Although the Department of Justice, responding to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, has acknowledged the FBI’s possession of at least one of these videos, the Department of Justice has refused to release it.
"These seven problems, besides challenging the official account, collectively indicate that the strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own government---an act that would clearly constitute treason.”
Parts IV – VII of the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress
Parts IV – VII of the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress will be covered in a succeeding Examiner.com article. For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this article do not contain the footnotes and full references in the original Memorandum. Examiner.com readers are encouraged to download a copy of the original Memorandum to the U.S. Congress (PDF) here or here.
Read the entire Examiner.com series on 9/11:
This is the third of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.
U.S. attorney or district attorney can prosecute Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for murder on 9/11
This article is the fourth of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.
Former U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld can each be prosecuted for murder by a U.S. attorney, by a district attorney or by a non-U.S. state prosecutor whose citizens were killed at the World Trade Center or in any aspect of the false flag operation on September 11, 2001. The prima facie evidence for prosecuting Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld for murder is contained in a Memorandum to the U.S. Congress, Parts IV – VII of which published in the Examiner.com article below.
In 2008, former Los Angeles assistant District Attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi presented the legal framework for the prosecution of former George W. Bush for murder in having intentionally misled the U.S. Congress in taking the U.S. to war in Iraq. This reporter, Alfred Lambremont Webre, has successfully presented the legal framework for the prosecution of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for murder for having knowingly engaged in command and control operations in the false flag operation of 9/11 that intentionally led to the deaths of approximately 2830 innocent civilians and emergency responders at or around the World Trade Center.
In Memo to U.S. Congress: prima facie evidence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed treason on 9/11, Examiner.com reported how a Memorandum to the U.S. Congress presented to then incoming Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), following the November 2006 mid-term elections sets out prima facie evidence for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to prosecute then U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and numerous Jane and John Does for treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution for acts committed on September 11, 2001.
One source states, “In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. For example, in a trial under Criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant.” The source continues: “Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, as well as the fact that the commission of a murder deprives the victim of their existence, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment. A person convicted of murder is typically given a life sentence or even the death penalty for such an act. A person who commits murder is called a murderer.”
The Memorandum to the U.S. Congress is still on the desk of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. awaiting further action by the U.S. Judiciary Committee. However, as this Examiner.com article demonstrates, prima facie evidence exists for a U.S. attorney, a district attorney or a non-U.S. state prosecutor whose citizens were killed at the World Trade Center or in any aspect of the false flag operation on September 11, 2001 to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld for murder.
The false flag operation of 9/11 is not an academic issue. NATO heads of state, from U.S. President Barack H. Obama to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper routinely still employ "9/11" as the political and symbolic pretext for a war in Afghanistan, and for the expansion of police state measures domestically and in the world’s travel, banking and financial matrix. In a 2006 paper entitled, “False Flag Operations, 9/11, and the Exopolitical Perspective”, Dr. Michael E. Salla writes: “According to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in what occurred. A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11 Commission were covering up the truth.”
Memorandum to the U.S. Congress – parts IV – VII
The following are Parts IV – VII of the Memorandum, together with relevant evidentiary attachments.
For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this Examiner.com article do not contain the footnotes and full references in the original Memorandum. Examiner.com readers are encouraged to download a copy of the original Memorandum to the U.S. Congress (PDF) here or here.
IV. Why Did the President and His Secret Service Agents Remain at the School?
“President George W. Bush reportedly believed, upon hearing that a plane had struck one of the Twin Towers, that it was an accident. It was not terribly strange, therefore, that he decided to go ahead with the photo-op at the school in Sarasota. Word of the second strike, however, should have indicated to him and his Secret Service agents---assuming the truth of official story, according to which these strikes were unexpected---that the country was undergoing an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the Secret Service allowed him to remain at the school for another half hour.
“This behavior was very strange. The president’s location had been highly publicized. If the attacks were indeed unexpected, the Secret Service would have had no idea how many planes had been hijacked, and they would have had to assume that the president himself might be one of the targets: What could be more satisfying to foreign terrorists attacking high-value targets in the United States than to kill the president? For all the Secret Service would have known, a hijacked airliner might have been bearing down on the school at that very minute, ready to crash into it, killing the president and everyone else there---including the Secret Service agents themselves. It is, in any case, standard procedure for the Secret Service to rush the president to a safe location whenever there is any sign that he may be in danger. And yet these agents, besides allowing the president to remain in the classroom another 10 minutes, permitted him to speak on television, thereby announcing to the world that he was still at the school.
“Would not this behavior be explainable only if Bush and the head of the Secret Service detail knew that the planned attacks did not include an attack on the president? And how could this have been known for certain unless the attacks were being carried out by people within our own government? The 9/11 Commission, far from asking these questions, was content to report that ‘[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did not think it imperative for [the president] to run out the door.’ A serious inquiry into this matter, therefore, remains to be made.”
V. Why Did the 9/11 Commission Lie about Vice President Cheney?
“One sign of the complicity of Vice President Cheney is the fact that the 9/11 Commission evidently felt a need to lie about the time of two of his activities: his entry into the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House and his giving the order to shoot down any unauthorized airplanes.
“It had been widely reported that Cheney had gone down to the PEOC shortly after the second strike on the WTC, hence about 9:15. The most compelling witness was Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who testified to the 9/11 Commission that when he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20, Cheney was already there and fully in charge. “The 9/11 Commission Report, however, claimed that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until ‘shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.’ Mineta’s testimony, given in an open hearing, was simply omitted from the Commission’s final report. Why would the Commission go to such lengths to conceal the true time of Cheney’s entry into the PEOC?
“One possible reason would involve the content of Mineta’s testimony. He said: ‘During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ‘The plane is 50 miles out.’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to ‘the plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the Vice President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President . . . said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’
“Mineta said that this conversation---evidently meaning the final exchange---occurred at about 9:25 or 9:26.
“This testimony creates a problem for the official story. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s spokesman, in explaining why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was struck, claimed that ‘[t]he Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.’ The 9/11 Commission claimed that there was no warning about an unidentified aircraft heading towards Washington until 9:36 and hence only ‘one or two minutes’ before the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. Mineta’s account, however, says that Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft more than 10 minutes earlier. There would have been over 12 minutes for the Pentagon to be evacuated.
“Mineta’s account also seems to suggest that Cheney had issued stand-down orders. Mineta himself did not make this allegation, saying instead that he assumed that ‘the orders’ were to have the plane shot down. But besides the fact that that interpretation does not fit what actually happened--the aircraft was not shot down---it would make the story unintelligible: The question whether the orders still stood would not make sense unless they were orders to do something unexpected---not to shoot the aircraft down. By omitting Mineta’s testimony and stating that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, the 9/11 Commission implied that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order to allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon.
“The lie about Cheney’s entry into the PEOC was also important to the controversy over whether the US military shot down Flight 93. The 9/11 Commission, simply ignoring a vast amount of evidence that the military did so, supported the official claim that it did not. The Commission provided this support by claiming that Cheney, having not arrived at the PEOC until almost 10:00, did not issue the shoot-down order until after 10:10---which would have been seven or more minutes after Flight 93 had crashed (at 10:03). But in addition to the evidence that Cheney had been in the PEOC since about 9:15, we also have evidence---including statements from Richard Clarke and Colonel Robert Marr, the head of NORAD’s northeast sector (NEADS) ---that Cheney’s shoot-down order was issued well before 10:00.
“The 9/11 Commission’s obvious lies about Cheney’s activities give reason to suspect that it, under the leadership of Philip Zelikow, was trying to conceal Cheney’s responsibility for the Pentagon strike and the downing of Flight 93.”
VI. Did Members of the Bush-Cheney Administration Have Reasons to Desire the Attacks of 9/11?
“Besides having the means and opportunity to orchestrate the events of 9/11 and their subsequent cover-up, high officials in the Bush-Cheney administration would also have had motives.
“Afghanistan: Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, had said that establishing military bases in Central Asia would be crucial for maintaining ‘American primacy,’ partly because of the huge oil reserves around the Caspian Sea. But American democracy, he added, ‘is inimical to imperial mobilization.’ Brzezinski, explaining that the public had ‘supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,’ suggested that Americans today would support the needed military operations in Central Asia only ‘in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.’
"Support for these operations was generated by 9/11 plus the claim by the Bush-Cheney administration that the attacks had been planned in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden—-a claim for which it refused to provide any proof.
“A more specific motivation was provided by the ‘pipeline war.’ The Bush-Cheney administration supported--as had the Clinton-Gore administration until 1999--UNOCAL’s plan to build an oil-and-gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban, being unable to provide sufficient security, had become regarded as an obstacle. In a meeting in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush-Cheney administration, trying to get the Taliban to share power with other factions, reportedly gave them an ultimatum: ‘Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.’ When the Taliban refused, the Americans reportedly said that ‘military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.’
“Given the fact that the attacks on New York and Washington occurred on September 11, the U.S. military had time to get logistically ready to begin the attack on Afghanistan on October 7.
“Iraq: Some key members of the Bush-Cheney administration---including Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney himself---had in the late 1990s been active members of an organization, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), that advocated attacking Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, establish a strong military presence, and control the oil. PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, released late in 2000, reiterated the idea of a permanent military presence in the Gulf region, saying that the ‘unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification’ but ‘the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’
“Immediately upon taking office, the Bush administration---two former members have revealed--- was intent on attacking Iraq. Then in 2003, after its war in Afghanistan, the administration used 9/11 as a pretext for attacking Iraq, partly by suggesting that Saddam was involved in the attacks, partly by playing on the American people’s sense, created by 9/11, of being vulnerable to a major attack from abroad.
“Increased Military Spending: A second possible motive was provided by PNAC’s more general goal of further increasing America’s military superiority to be able to achieve global domination. This goal had already been asserted in the draft of the ‘Defense Planning Guidance’ written in 1992 by Wolfowitz and Libby under the guidance of Cheney, who was completing his tenure as secretary of defense. (In an essay that was entered into the Congressional Record, this draft was portrayed as an early version of Cheney’s ‘Plan . . . to rule the world.’)
“In 2000, Wolfowitz and Libby were listed as participants in the project to produce PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in which this goal showed up again. This document also contained an idea perhaps derived from Brzezinski’s book: After saying that the desired Pax Americana ‘must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence’ and that such preeminence will require a technological transformation of the US military, it adds that this process of transformation will ‘likely be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor.’
“When 9/11 came, it was immediately treated as ‘the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century,’ as President Bush reportedly called it that very night. It was also characterized as, in Bush’s words, ‘a great opportunity,’ with Rumsfeld adding that 9/11 created ‘the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.’ This idea then showed up in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, which brazenly said: ‘The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new opportunities.’
“A central dimension of the desired technological transformation of the military is the weaponization of space, euphemistically called ‘Missile Defense.’ In January of 2001, the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization, which was chaired by Rumsfeld, published its report. Speaking of the need for massive funding for the U.S. Space Command, the Rumsfeld Commission asked whether such funding would occur only after a ‘Space Pearl Harbor.’
“On the evening of 9/11, Rumsfeld held a press conference. In attendance was Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who was asked this question: ‘Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense. . . . Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending. . . ?’ Congress immediately appropriated an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and much more later, with few questions asked.
VII. Summation: The 9/11 Attacks as Acts of Treason
“The facts recited above constitute prima facie evidence that the named individuals---U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld---and other John and Jane Does are independently and jointly guilty of Treason against these United States under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, because:
“I. The attacks of 9/11, as portrayed in the official account, could not have succeeded if standard operating procedures between the FAA and NORAD had been followed. The Pentagon, under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, has provided three mutually inconsistent accounts of NORAD’s response, which means that at least two of them are false. Moreover, the third account, articulated by the 9/11 Commission, is contradicted by a wide range of facts, including evidence that the FAA had notified NORAD in a timely fashion. There must have been stand-down orders, and these could have come only from the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House.
“II. Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition. But al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the buildings come straight down. The controlled demolition, therefore, had to be the work of insiders. That President Bush was one of those insiders is suggested by the fact that his brother and cousin were principals in the company in charge of WTC security. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by the removal of evidence (the collapsed steel), which is normally a federal offense. Finally, if the airplane strikes could have occurred only with the consent of the president and the secretary of defense (as suggested in the previous point), the coordination of these strikes with the demolition of the buildings implies their involvement in the latter as well.
“III. Overwhelming evidence also exists for the conclusion that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job. That the official story could not be true is evident from many facts: Hani Hanjour’s incompetence; the choice of the west wing as the target; the impossibility of a commercial airliner’s coming back to Washington undetected and hitting the Pentagon unless permitted; and the lack of physical evidence consistent with an attack by a Boeing 757. That the strike was an inside job is implied by the falsity of the official story, the evidence that the strike was made by a military aircraft, the removal of evidence, and the government’s refusal to release videos of the strike. This operation could hardly have been planned without the involvement of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
“IV. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by President Bush’s remaining at the school after it was evident---given the truth of the official account---that the United States was experiencing a surprise attack. This behavior makes sense only if Bush and his lead Secret Service agent knew that there would be no attack on the school.
“V. The complicity of Vice President Cheney in the attack on the Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93 is implied by the testimony of Secretary Mineta in conjunction with the false claims of the 9/11 Commission, under the guidance of administration insider Philip Zelikow, as to when Cheney went to the PEOC and when he issued the shoot-down authorization.
“VI. The conclusion from the evidence that members of the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 is reinforced by the fact that they had some huge projects---prosecuting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and obtaining funding to accelerate the technological transformation of the military---that would likely be possible only in the event of “a new Pearl Harbor.”
“On the basis of this and other evidence, the conclusion that the Bush-Cheney administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks has been reached by many Americans, including intellectuals and former military officers. It is time for an independent official investigation into this evidence."
CAVEAT LECTOR: This memorandum is based upon the best public research resources presently available. It is presented not as a full treatment of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the appointment of an independent prosecutor.
My Observation of LAX Security Events on 9/11
By an Upper Management LAX Official
“I was employed in upper management at LAX involved with security in the APO (Air Port Operations---where the planes are, not the passengers). I will not otherwise identify myself in this statement, since I, for both personal and professional reasons, need to remain anonymous. But I will give as much detail as possible about security-related events in the APO that I overheard on September 11, 2001, and will also suggest ways in which my account could be corroborated.
“’Security’ in the APO involves the CHP, LAWA PD, LAPD, and the FBI, herein referred to as ‘Security’ (but the CHP was not in proximity to me during the period my account covers).
“As on other days, there was ‘chatter’ on LAX Security walkie-talkies, so what Security was saying could easily be heard. On some of the walkie-talkies I could overhear both sides of the conversations, on others only one. I do not know who was at the other end of the walkie-talkies, but I can only assume that it was LAX dispatch or command.
“While there, I observed and heard the following:
“At first, LAX Security was very upset because at that time it seemed to Security that none of the Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs) tracking the hijacked airliners had notified NORAD as required. Security was well aware that LAX was a target and Emergency SOP were already in progress in that there was discussion of evacuating the airport.
“More chatter revealed that the ATCs had notified NORAD, but that NORAD had not responded because it had been ‘ordered to stand down.’ This report made Security even more upset, so they tried to find out who had issued that order. A short time later the word came down that the order had come ‘from the highest level of the White House.’ This seemed inappropriate, so Security made attempts for more details and clarification, which was not resolved in my presence.
“3 planes were grounded and swapped out in Atlanta, Georgia, simply because they did not pass the routine pre-flight inspection checklist. Those planes were found to be fully loaded with automatic weapons. LAX Security surmised that could only have been accomplished by Maintenance, the Caterers, but, in their view, most likely by ‘House Keeping.’
“LAX Security believed that the terrorists did not board the planes through the passenger terminals, but rather by similar means, i.e. via House Keeping. Other airports were mentioned, but I was unable to get it all down. Therefore, I don’t have an accurate accounting for the status and location of the other planes.
“Another piece of information that I overheard was that the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.
“There was also a radio station identifying itself as LAX Radio, from which the following was heard:
“There were 11 planes and 11 targets. But at the time only 10 of the targets were mentioned: the WTC; the Pentagon; the White House; the Capitol; Camp David; the Sears Tower; the Space Needle; the Trans America Bldg.; LAX; and Air Force One—‘if it could be found.’
“Two fighter jets had been scrambled and had successfully shot down a hijacked airliner over Pennsylvania. The point of deployment of the fighter jets was also mentioned, but I can’t remember the name of the military base.
"Points of origin mentioned included Newark, Atlanta, and other locations, but it was confusing to me in that I couldn’t determine if they were with respect to hijacked planes or fighter jets being scrambled. Unfortunately the names of these airports were not all familiar to me or it would have been easier for me to account for them.
“As I was leaving there was an order to evacuate the airport.
“In 2001 and 2002 I tried to notify the media of the events at LAX, but they made it clear they were not interested.
“I can think of four ways in which my account of what I heard could be corroborated:
“1st LAWA PD, LAPD, and FBI records will reveal the names of the security officers on duty in the APO during the time of the attacks.
“2nd I believe the head of LAX Security in the APO at that time was Captain Gray. He should be able to confirm the fact that my account reflects what happened that morning.
“3rd The audio recordings of radio transmissions at LAX would reveal the comments of all the Security officers and LAX dispatch/command.
“4th The audio recording of the LAX Radio broadcast would reveal what was broadcast on 911.
“Note: Items 3 and 4 would reveal if I have inadvertently confused information attained from LAX Security with information received from LAX Radio. (For example, I believe I heard the comment about a rocket hitting the Pentagon during the walkie-talkie conversations, but it is possible that I heard it later on the radio.)”
End of Memorandum to the U.S. Congress
Recent evidence that has emerged pointing to the high-level involvement of operatives of Israel and the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, in the false flag events of 9/11 does not alter the liability of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld for prosecution for treason and for murder.
Read the entire Examiner.com series on 9/11:
This is the fourth of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.