>Status: U >Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: moderator for [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) >Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 06:48:56 +0100 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Richard K. Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: The Grand Coup of 11 September > > >Friends, > >After seven months, Washington has yet to present one shred >of evidence to support its fanciful story regarding the >events of 9/11. Instead, every piece of direct evidence >that comes to light suggests Washington itself as being the >perpetrator. And they were always the primary suspect, as >they are the only ones who have gained from the event. The >article below reviews this evidence, bringing in >considerable new material that I haven't seen before. It >covers a broader canvas than Michael Ruppert's revelations, >and has perhaps a stronger ring of credibility. You might >find this article worth sharing with others. > >In matrix reality, Bin Laden made War On America - and since >then "fighting terrorism" has been the overriding motive >behind every US action. It's an easy story for people to >follow, as it parallels the script of typical Hollywood >action thrillers. And fiction it is... designed to >distract, like the white gloves of a magician. Meanwhile, >the real action proceeds off camera. > >911 was a grand coup. In a minor coup, some General takes >over the government of a single country. In a Grand Coup >the entire world order is transformed. The whole >Enlightenment heritage has been abandoned: constitutional >government, civil liberties, balance of powers, government >accountability. International law has been abandoned, and >national sovereignty is becoming a subject for nostalgia >buffs. Police state legislation has been passed not just in >the USA, the alleged target of "terrorism", but throughout >the West, in the so-called "modern democracies". In the EU, >the official definition of "terrorism" now includes any >civil disobedience whose objective is to "change the >economic system". > >This was a Global Grand Coup, with historic significance on >a par with the fall of Rome, the Industrial Revolution, or >the birth of Christianity. It marks the beginning of a new >Era, what right-wingers call The New World Order. In some >sense, we are simply seeing capitalism finally forced to >show its true face. In another sense, which amounts to the >same thing, we are seeing Hitler's vision of a Thousand Year >Reich being finally realized by the same crowd that funded >fascism in the first place. > >Perhaps my words seem a bit extreme. If so, that's because >we are so far only seeing the establishment of new >infrastructures, and the propagation of new mythologies. It >won't become obvious where this is all leading until it's >too late. And then most of us will be persuaded to blame >some outside cause, most likely some version of "terrorism". >The media matrix reality is the hypnotic trance that >seduces the public frog into tolerating the rising >temperature in the simmering pot. > >What would it take for people to wake up? What would be the >form of a real Red Pill? > >may the power be with you, >rkm > >============================================================================ >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:30:02 -0700 >From: American Patriot Friends Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Organization: http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], APFN SMARTGROUP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Who was behind the September eleventh attacks? > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: [APFN] Presentation by Thierry Meyssan >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:01:01 -0500 >From: The Webfairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Presentation by Thierry Meyssan (author of the book 11 >septembre 2001: l’Effroyable imposture, Paris: Editions >Carnot, 2002) > >Who was behind the September eleventh attacks? >http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=24052 > >We present below a transcript of the presentation given by >Thierry Meyssan on 8 April 2002 at the Zayed Center in Abu >Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), at a gathering organized under >the auspices Arab League and attended by the diplomatic >corps and the international press corps. This presentation >was followed by questions and answers, which are in the >process of being transcribed and translated. > >Your Highness, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, > >In the first minutes following the first attack on the World >Trade Center, officials suggested to the media that the >person behind the attacks was Osama bn Laden, the epitome of >Muslim fanaticism. Not long after, the recently appointed >director of the FBI, Robert Mueller III, designated nineteen >kamikazes by name and mobilized all the means at the >disposal of his agency to track down their accomplices. The >FBI thus never undertook any investigation but, instead, >organized a man hunt, which, in the eyes much of the United >States public, quickly took on the appearance of an Arab >hunt. This reached such a pitch that people were incited to >attack - even kill - Arabs whom they naively considered >collectively responsible for the attacks. > >There was no investigation by Congress, which, at the >request of the White House, renounced exercising its >constitutional role, supposedly in order not to adversely >affect national security. Nor was there investigation by any >media representatives, who had been summoned to the White >House and prevailed upon to abstain from following up any >leads lest such inquiries also adversely affect national >security. > >If we analyze the attacks of September the eleventh, we >notice first off that there was much more to them than the >official version acknowledges. > > 1.We know about only four planes, whereas at one point it >was a question of eleven planes. Further, an >examination of the insider-trading conducted in relation to >the attacks shows put-option speculative trading in the >stock of three airline companies: American Airlines, United >Airlines and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. > >2. The official version does not include the attack on the >White House annex, the Old Executive Office Building (called >the "Eisenhower Building"). Yet, on the morning of the >eleventh, ABC television broadcast, live, pictures of a fire >ravaging the presidential services building. > >3. Neither does the official version take into account the >collapse of a third building in Manhattan World Trade Center >complex, independently of the twin towers. This third >building was not hit by a plane. However, it, too, was >ravaged by a fire before collapsing for an unknown reason. >This building contained the world's biggest secret CIA >operations base, where the Agency engaged in economic >intelligence gathering that the military-industrial lobby >considered a waste of resources that should have been >devoted to strategic intelligence gathering. > >If we look closely at the attack against the Pentagon, we >notice that the official version amounts to an enormous lie. > >According to the Defense Department, a Boeing 757, all trace >of which had been lost somewhere over Ohio, flew some 500 >kilometers (300 miles) without being noticed. It supposedly >entered Pentagon air space and descended on to the lawn >surrounding the heliport, bounced off the lawn, broke a wing >in collision with an electric transformer station, hit the >façade at the level of the ground floor and first story, and >was totally consumed by fire, leaving no other traces than >two dysfunctional black boxes and pieces of passengers' >bodies. > >It is obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could, for some >500 kilometers, escape detection by civil and military >radar, by fighter-bomber planes sent in pursuit of it and by >observation satellites that had just been activated. > >It is also obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could >enter the Pentagon's air space without being destroyed by >one or more of the five missile batteries protecting the >building. > >When one examines the photographs of the façade, taken in >the minutes following the attack (even before the Arlington >civilian fire fighters had time to deploy), one sees no >trace of the right wing on fire in front of the façade, nor >any hole in the façade into which the plane could have been >swallowed up. > >Apparently without the least fear of laying itself open to >ridicule, the Defense Department declared that the jet >engines, made out of tempered steel, had disintegrated under >the shock of the impact - without damaging the façade. The >aluminum of the fuselage is claimed to have combusted at >more than 2,500° Celsius within the building and to have >been transformed into gas, but the bodies of the passengers >which it contained were so little burned that they were >later identified from their finger prints. > >Responding to journalists during a press conference at the >Pentagon, the fire chief claimed that "no voluminous debris >from the aircraft" had remained, "nor any piece of the >fuselage, nor anything of that sort". He declared that >neither he nor his men knew what had become of the aircraft. > >Close examination of the official photographs of the scene >of the attack, taken and published by the Defense >Department, shows that no part of the Pentagon bears any >mark of an impact that could be attributed to the crash of a >Boeing 757. > >One must acknowledged the evidence: it is impossible that >the attack against the Pentagon on September 11, killing 125 >persons, was carried out by a jet airliner. > >The scene of the attack was thoroughly disturbed on the >following day by the immediate launch of new construction >work, with the result that many of the elements necessary to >reconstruct what had happened are missing. The elements that >do remain, however, converge in a single hypothesis that it >is not possible to prove with certainty. > >An air traffic controller from Washington has testified >seeing on radar an object flying at about 800 kilometers per >hour, moving initially toward the White House, then turning >sharply toward the Pentagon, where it seemed to crash. The >air traffic controller has testified that the >characteristics of the flight were such that it could only >have been a military projectile. > >Several hundred witnesses have claimed that they head "a >shrill noise like the noise of a fighter-bomber", but >nothing like the noise of a civilian aircraft. > >Eye-witnesses have said that they saw "something like a >cruise missile with wings" or a small flying object "like a >plane carrying eight or twelve persons". > >The flying object penetrated the building without causing >major damage to the façade. It crossed several of the >building rings of the Pentagon, creating in each wall it >pierced a progressively bigger hole. The final hole, >perfectly circular, measured about one meter eighty in >diameter. When traversing the first ring of the Pentagon, >the object set off a fire, as gigantic as it was sudden. >Huge flames burst from the building licking the façades, >then they shrank back just as fast, leaving behind a cloud >of black soot. The fire spread through a part of the first >ring and along two perpendicular corridors. It was so sudden >that the fire protection system could not react. > >All these testimonies and observations correspond to the >effects of an AGM[air to ground missile]-86C of the third >(most recent) generation of CALCM [conventional air launched >cruise missile -- see picture at: >http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm > >equipped with depleted uranium warheads and guided by GPS >[global positioning system]. This type of missile, seen from >the side, would easily remind one of a small civilian >airplane, but it is not a plane. It produces a shrill >whistle comparable to that of a fighter-bomber, can be >guided with enough accuracy to be directed through a window, >can pierce the most resistant armor and can set off a fire - >independent of its piercing effect - that will generate heat >of over 2,000° Celsius. > >This type of missile was developed jointly by the Navy and >the Air Force and is fired from a plane. The missile used >against the Pentagon destroyed the part of the building >where the new Supreme Naval Command Center was being >installed. Following the attack, the Navy Chief of Staff, >Admiral Vernon Walters, failed to show up in the crisis room >of the National Military Joint Intelligence Center when the >other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported there. >Instead, he abruptly left the Pentagon. > >Who, then, could have fired such a missile on the Pentagon? >The answer was given by the off-the-record revelations of >Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, and by Karl Rove, >senior advisor to the president, to journalists from the New >York Times and the Washington Post. Eighteen days later, >these men discounted the veracity of the information they >had given the journalists, claiming that they had been >speaking under the stress of great emotion. > >According to those close to George W. Bush, in the course of >the morning, the Secret Service received a telephone call >from those behind the attacks, apparently in order to make >demands. To give credence to their demands, the masterminds >revealed the secret codes giving access to the secure >telephone lines available to the president for secure >communication with the various intelligence agencies and >services as well as for access to the nuclear arsenal. In >fact, only a very few persons with the highest security >clearances, in the top ranks of the government, could have >had these codes. It follows that at least one of the persons >behind the attacks of September 11 has a top government >post, either civilian or military. > >To give credence to the fable of Islamic terrorists, the >United States authorities invented kamikazes. > >Although it would have been possible for a well organized >group of persons to bring fire arms into commercial air >liners, the kamikazes apparently used cardboard cutters as >their only weapons. They are said to have learned to pilot >Boeing 757s and 767s in the space of several hours of >simulator training, becoming better pilots than >professionals. This mastery allowed them to carry out >complex in-flight approach maneuvers. > >The Justice Department has never explained how it >established the list of the kamikazes. The airline companies >have furnished the exact number of passengers in each plane, >and the passenger lists, incomplete, do not mention the >persons who boarded at the last minute. In checking the >these lists, one notices that names of the kamikazes are not >on them and that only three passengers are not identified >for flight 11 and only two for flight 93. It is thus >impossible that 19 kamikazes boarded. Further, several of >those listed as kamikazes have turned up, alive. The FBI >nonetheless maintains that the high-jackers have all been >definitively identified and that complementary information >such as birth dates makes it improbable that they could be >confused with persons of the same name. For those who might >doubt this, the FBI has a ridiculous proof: whereas the >planes burned and the twin towers collapsed, the passport of >Mohammed Atta was miraculously found intact on the smoking >ruins of the World Trade Center. > >The existence of high-jackers, whether these or others, is >confirmed by telephone calls made by several passengers to >members of their families. Unfortunately, these >conversations are known to us only by hearsay and have not >been published, even in the case of those that were >recorded. Thus, it has been impossible to verify that they >were actually made from a particular cell phone of from a >telephone on board. Here, too, we are asked to take the FBI >at its word. > >Further, it was not indispensable to have high-jackers to >carry out the attacks. The Global Hawk technology, developed >by the Air Force, makes it possible to take control of a >commercial airliner regardless of the intentions of its >pilot(s) and to direct it by remote control. > >There remains the case of Osama bin Laden. If it is generally >admitted that he was a CIA agent or collaborator during the >war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the current >version of events claims that he turned coat and became >public enemy number one of the United States. This story >does not bear up under scrutiny either. The French daily le >Figaro revealed that last July, Osmam bn Laden was a patient >at the American hospital in Dubai, where he was visited by >the head of CIA regional office. CBS television in the >United States has revealed that, on September 10, Osama bn >Laden was undergoing dialysis at the Rawalpindi military >hospital, under the protection of the Pakistani army. And >the renown French journalist Michel Peyrard, who was a >prisoner of the Taliban, has recounted how, last November, >Osama bn Laden was living openly in Jalalabad while the >United States was bombing other regions of the country. It >is difficult to believe that the greatest army in the world, >come to Afghanistan to arrest him, was unable to do so, >while the mollah Omar was able to escape from United States >military force on a moped. > >In view of the elements that I have just presented, it >appears that the attacks of September can not be attributed >to foreign terrorists from the Arab-Muslim world - even if >some of those involved might have been Muslim - but to >United States terrorists. > >The day after the attacks of September 11, United Nations >Security Council Resolution 1368 acknowledged "the inherent >right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance >with the Charter", calling on "all States to work together >urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers >and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that >those responsible for aiding, supporting or harboring the >perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be >held accountable". > >If one wishes to heed the call of the Security Council, to >enforce Resolution 1368 and to punish those who really are >guilty, the only way to accurately identify the guilty >parties is to set up a commission of inquiry whose >independence and objectivity are guaranteed by the United >Nations. This would also be the only way to preserve >international peace. In the meantime, Your Highness, >Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, the foreign military >interventions of the United States of America are devoid of >any basis in international law, whether it be their recent >intervention in Afghanistan or their announced interventions >in Iran, Iraq and in numerous other countries. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >APFN INFO AND LINKS - ATTACK ON AMERICA - 911 >http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm > >ALEX JONES - CLIP ON GOVT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE (REAL PLAYER) >http://www.defendersoffreedom.org/videos/9-11.ram > >MEDIA COVERAGE - WHAT HAPPENED ON 911 (REAL PLAYER) >http://clients.encoding.com/imc/philly/02-03-16-201227.ram > >Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot >By Juliet Eilperin - Washington Post Staff Writer >Friday, April 12, 2002; Page A16 >http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_history.htm > >The Threat of Corporate Power >http://www.connix.com/~harry/corp3.htm > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
