9/11 Coverup Falling Apart

More on Breaking Story

http://www.johnkaminski.com/
Since Gem City Joe and others have expressed interest in this subject I have put up a 4 part Reply in this Blog archive anyone can visit to get the complete timeline for the date of 9/11 as contained at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/ . This is yet another article on the subject, complete with exaustive web link list for anyone who is interested in being informed on this. Because it is a story the 'controlled-media' won't tell you about, you'll find it here at this blog. Feel free to comment or e-mail:[email protected] Blog On.
ARTICLE EXCERPT BEGINS
-Caveat Lector- Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE):
Free Americans Proclaiming Total Emancipation and Working Towards
Democracy. NOTE: In his splendid piece below John Kaminski forgets
the distinguished
3,536 views 18 replies
Reply #1 Top
Ah the Internet.
Reply #2 Top
~applauds~ Beautiful! I had said the day that it happend that it could possibly have something to do with our government as well as the Old money fighting the new .com monies which is basically what NASDAQ is and Old money is scared to death of the New money. So theoretically this would have been a way to kill many birds with one stone. Help the old money, make our military the #1 priority and take some guys out of power who wouldn't fall in line with The Plan.
Reply #3 Top
There would have had to have been hundreds of people involved in this for it to be true. Word would have certainly leaked out. There has never been a big event ever happen in America, that there hasn't been some conspiracy story thought up in order to sell books newspapers and magazines. This is yet another. GCJ
Reply #4 Top
It doesn`t sound very serious....
9/11 was probably the best thing that occur to W., It doesn`t mean that he has done it. 5specialy when you see the clumsy way of this administatrion to do anything discreetly. (naming Kissinger was such a fanastic idea.... :-))
Reply #5 Top
Exactly as GCJ said, anything can have a spin. Unfortunately half the population will belief lies while the other half won't accept truth. Such a dilemma.

Enough charisma can dupe an entire nation into doing anything, including war and genocide. WW2 was because of one man's charisma.

Now, all you Bush haters and Anti-Americans tell me this. Is Bush THAT charismatic? I don't think so.

(Would reporters/writers have ANYTHING to discuss if it wasn't for 9/11, lately? Sad people in sad times.)
Reply #6 Top

Bush is many things. Charismatic isn't one of them. I can't stand him.

But he seems to emit some sort of ultrasonica "crazy ray" on the left. They try to claim he's an idiot while at the same time having him mastermind some vast conspiracy only months after he gets into office.

Reply #7 Top
Thank You for all the posts. I must say I do tend to agree with the observation of M. Wardell with regard to this article. My main intent was to put up the links list he attached but felt it only fair to give him a read as a whole, as I would want from him.
There is a wealth of investigative information that doesn't single out President Bush as a culprit in 9/11 and I find some of the scenarios that do hard to phathom much less read. There was recently a site which elicited characterizations of Pres. Bush clips on the net for a contest, and you can imagine what they were. However, they pointed out that although there was no bar to it, not one person sent in a positive clip to be judged. Whether or not true, it makes the point that the Republican, or Conservative, resolution to the discussion of 9/11, and the Party-promised betrayals to his own, has been to make snide remarks or argue for the censoring of adverse observations. This is in no one's interests, especially if non-accountability leads us to suffer another tragedy because the status quo is not moved to act by public dis-content.
To my mind, there is enough evidence to collect on claims of negligence by this Administration, and despite the censoring of those claims by the 'controlled-media', they may go to trial and become an embarrassment after discovery is completed. The claims are by wives, sons, and husbands who lost loved ones in the attacks and they are not left-wing or anti-American to seek justice for their own. We do well to defend their right to be heard and not characterize them ambulance chasers and support the limitation of compensation for them by this Administration.
If we do not insist on learning from history, we will repeat it, and in this instance, the price of ignorance is too heavy for me. So I put it up and hope a link or two will help inform the readers of the blog.
Again, Thanks for your interest and comments, and Blog On.
Reply #8 Top
I believe in keeping an open mind to all possibilities and gathering as much info as you can before forming a conclusion. I am afraid that this article, due to terms like "Bush and his thugs" presents info that is not so open minded. I also tend to get a bit turned off by conspiracy theory presentations. I am more open to the "here are some facts, what do you think?" presentation.

One part I thought was just plain poorly thought out was saying that you couldn't have been investigating the potential hijackers without knowing they were planning to use commercial planes as weapons. If someone is taking flight lessons and is not interested in learning how to land, there is reason to be suspicious. I personally would never take the leap to "They obviously plan to fly a commercial airliner into a building." A suicide flight in a personal plane would be my thought. It is just an example of custom fitting conclusions to fit an agenda.

I think it is fine to say that our administration needs to be investigated. Matter of fact, all reasonable scenarios concerning 9/11 should be explored. I think it is heinous though to outright say that our President is a murderer and intentionally committed such an atrocity for his own betterment. You better have solid evidence rather than all of the accusatory conclusions presented thus far.(Wahkonta, I realize you are not the author but rather you are just trying to get information out there. I have no dispute with that.)
Reply #9 Top
Your comments are insightful and you all are a credit to blogging. I in no way agree with any holding that the President of the United States is a murderer and apologize my name was attached to such statements due to my own lack of stringent review. My intention was to put up links and this article had several at the ready. I'll be more careful to separate myself from such a holding and,again, I apologize.
Reply #10 Top
Hi wahkonta ana.
I really do love America, am one myself, but see things from a different perspective as I am in Europe for many years thanks to Reaganomics. So go ahead blast me for that. I vote for the socialist party too and am not a communist.
JillUser I'll say this with conviction and resolve:
The president of USA is a murderer and used 9-11 to embetter the cause of the neo-conservatives movement towards fascism.

Finally, we are getting the truth out in the open. It is inconceivable to think The American President could be party to something so evil. Yet the US *media* won't touch this with a stick. Doesn't that seem......weird?
It is evil and so is the Bush administration_but wait_ things are going to get much worse before they/if they get better.
You may be stuck with him for the duration of the "war" The war_HA.
Miss User it is so apparent that Bush was aware and had direct ties to Family Bin Laden. Guilt by association, why won't he comply with the questions? Does that not seem fishy to you?
9-11 was the best event in NeoCon history. To appoint the Kissinger as head of investigations was a laughable inside joke for the 'cause'_he was the one who engineerd this global dominance plan and homeland terror_to keep the masses in line while the rich get richer.
Look at the hatred the uncompassionate mouthpieces throw around with such ease ( it's all over this site_ to disagree is not " to hate") This climate of collective hate, with us or against us mind set would allow with ease ethnic cleansing, it would become OK for government officials to execute anyone that did not submit to this fascism.

Reply #11 Top
Normative ethics - something is right or wrong depending on the situation. If everyone says it's OK, is it so? This is the danger of a democracy versus that of a rule-of-law society. Many Americans are easily swayed by what shows up on TV. I do not believe that anyone would lift a finger if Muslims were offed en masse. Of course, the parallels to Nazi Germany would be staggering.

I was wondering where the follow-up to a lot of the post-9/11 data was? Hopefully, we'll someday get a president that will shine light on this subject. I don't see it happening. Germany today illuminates all of its past mistakes. I think it's wishful to think that we will do the same...
Reply #12 Top
I have read the 9/11 chronology of events. It does seem clear that the President knew of the attack beforehand and did deliberately delay the order to send up jets so as to allow time for the crashes to be completed. It is undeniable he was told before he entered the school and did not act, though his Staff were frantically calling back and forth. There were even physical removals of Cheyney at this time and Condoleeza Rice was taken down into the bunker for National Emergency Procedures. That Bush claims he knew nothing till later is a lie in my opinion. This leads one to ask WHY? If he knew the attacks were occuring and did deliberatley delay action in response - the fighters were less than 5 minutes away when plane 2 hit the WTC, and could easily have been there in time if Bush had followed procedure and ACTED as President - then the involvement of the Carlysle Group, Haliburton, Brown&Root, etc. are on the table. It is a well known fact that in 2000 there was a report generated which called for a oil pipeline to be constructed on a path through Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. I believe the only reason we aren't in Pakistan is because it is a Nuclear power and we haven't solved them in war games yet, but Bush and his neocons will. I just do not understand how a American Mom or Dad can send their Son or Daughter off to die or be maimed in the name of oil. There is also a rise in the number of resignations, dissents, and AWOL's in this war and it will only increase so stay tuned as this President raises health costs and delays help for our best and brightest, showing how he feels for our American military.
Reply #13 Top
"I do not believe that anyone would lift a finger if Muslims were offed en masse."

Bad bad claim. US special forces trained Afghanis during the Soviet invasion, and because Bin Laden was heading up one of the units that received the training, "Bush has ties to Osama, Osama was a CIA Operative, and the CIA trained Osama and the al Queda" all conspiracies that resulted in the US putting forth efforts to save a lot of Muslim lives.

Yugoslavia - Serbs were doing to Muslims what Hitler had done to the Jews. Clinton and Congress after much wrangling, got the US involved, to save a few more muslims. End result, "US is Imperialistic, Clinton is a warmonger, Wesley Clark is a mass murderer".

Somalia - More muslims, end result, Somalia is now being run by a very extremist muslim group, and US soldiers didn't just die, several of them were desecrated.

and one MORE BLOODY TIME, THE IRAQ INVASION THIS LAST GO ROUND WAS NOT FOR OIL. The administration lied about the reason for the war, but no one that REALLY DOES follow what is going in the world today, can make an unfounded claim like that.
Reply #14 Top
Well then tell me What is going on the world? If the claim is, "unfounded" then what is, "founded" to you? The Report is a matter of public record. If Lady Di says they are going to murder her in a car crash, so keep this note in the event of my death, and she subsequently dies in a car crash, is that un-founded? If Perle and his neo-cons tell Bush to take over Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to build a oil pipeline to the orient, and he subsequently does so, is that un-founded? It's denial to say it didn't happen.
Today it is silly to hold forth that JFK was not murdered in a conspiracy, but THEN it was crazy whacko conspiracy theory. Today, it is crazy whacko conspiracy theory to tell you that Bush( a third generation oil man) is there for oil and not to save Moslems for the Jews. Catch ya tomorrow.
Reply #15 Top
The Report is a matter of public record.

What pulic record? It is not so much a report as an accusation. There is a difference.

And I can come up with valid documentation to dispute it.

Here we go:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power
by Carrie Satterlee
WebMemo #217


February 28, 2003 - Updated, April 1, 2003 | |



France
France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2]
In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.
France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.[5]
In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.[6]
More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations.[7] Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons.
Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.[8]
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[9]
Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[10]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[11]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[12]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[13]
Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980’s.[14]
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.[15] An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.
Russia
Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[16] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[17]
According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[18]
Russia’s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[19]
In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[20]
In April 2001, Russia’s Zaruezhneft and Tatneft companies received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion. Together the deals were valued at $13.2 million.[21]
A future $40 billion Iraqi–Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[22] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[23]
Russia’s Gazprom Company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[24]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[25]
Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.
Three Russian firms are suspected of selling electronic jamming equipment, antitank missiles and thousands of night-vision goggles to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions.[26] Two of the companies identified are Aviaconversiya and KBP Tula.
China
China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[27]
China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.[28]
In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import–Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell “meteorological satellite” and “surface observation” equipment to Iraq. The U.N. oil-for-food program approved this contract.[29]
CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.[30]
According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.[31]
United States


The United States remains the largest importer of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil-for-Food program. However, U.S. companies can no longer deal directly with Iraq for its oil imports. U.S. companies are forced to deal with third party vendors as a result of a ban on all American companies imposed by Iraq. In 2002, the U.S. imported $3.5 billion worth of Iraqi oil.[32]
Iraq is the sixth largest supplier of oil to the United States. In 2002, imports from Iraq accounted for only 5 percent of total U.S. oil imports, dropping down from 8.5 percent in 2001. In addition, American oil companies have not signed a contract with Baghdad since 1972.
In 2002, the U.S. exported $31 million worth of goods to Iraq.[33] The exports consisted mostly of agricultural goods and machine parts. U.S. sales to Iraq dropped off after the Gulf War and resumed only on a limited scale in 1996 under the UN Oil-for-Food program.
According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq’s weapons imports. The top three suppliers, from 1981 to 2001, were Russia, China and France respectively.[34]

Reply #16 Top
http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml

US Oil Imports:

Top 10 countries as of 2002 according to the Department of Energy:

Canada - between 1800-2000 Barrels per day
Saudie Arabia - between 1400-1600 Barrel per day
Mexico - between 1400-1600 Barrels Per Day
Venezuela - 1400 Barrels Per Day
Nigeria - 600 Barrels Per Day
Iraq - Between 400-600 Barrels Per Day
UK - Between 400-600 Barrels Per Day
Norway - 400 Barrels Per Day
Angola - Between 200-400 Barrels Per Day
Algeria - Between 200-400 Barrels Per Day

What this is reflective of is the decreasing dependence on petroleum out of the Middle East, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, which continues to be one of the top importers.
Reply #17 Top
Let's get back on topic M. Danhouse70.
What you have put forth has nothing to do with the subject of the posting. As far as I can discern, your articles serve to foster dislike for the ancient American Citizens' ally, the French, who helped us defeat the oppresive British Governmental control of our Forefathers - who had to fight and die for freedom from the oppressive monarchial scam still ruling "loyal British Subjects' to this day - yet are now being villainized for opposing the thesis that there were weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to justify our invasion of Iraq. Since even Gen. Colin Powell, a loyal member of President Bush's Cabinet, admits it was false to represent such, I assume you too will not dispute at least this admitted fact. Besides rendering our presence and the killing of unarmed civilians of Iraq - who have never commited an act of aggression against the United States - a violation of law and our own code of morality, the evidence supports the French, and had we a leader as wise as the French leadership to see it was false intelligence, we would now have over 500 living best and brightest (this number is just since "official hostilities ceased")who are now dead from fighting on foreign soil for an unjust cause. But even this is not the subject.
The subject is that the 'cover story' that WMD were the reason we had to invade Iraq, and we had to kill Iraqis, ostensibly before Saddam put some bomb in a subway or other such plot, is falling apart under scrutiny, and further review. I go further and am willing to offer evidence of Who had prior knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist assault on the United States, and why is it not being told to the American people. The 'controlled-media' represent it was a spontaneous and surprise event and it was impossible to know it could occur. I, and other informed researchers, have asserted here and in other posts that the facts show there was United States Governmental foreknowledge not only years in advance, but right up to and during the very minutes it was occuring, and that the event was used as an excuse to invade Iraq . That this is in keeping with a report submitted to President George Bush as early as 2001( which held that there was money to be made by building a oil pipeline through Iraq) is more than coincidence. So let us go to the post page these next two days and view the FACTS and let the viewing Americans and other world-wide-web viewers see.
So as to not allow the topic to degenerate into a tiff, allow me to respond in the forum section - and in sections - as it requires additional space. Please then go to my future posts on who knew, when they knew, and why they did not stop the acts BEFORE they occured. I am distracted by such, but since you have difficulty due to lack of information, I think I should help you be informed of the facts. Let us then get down to it so you understand what the world's readers have known for months about this subject. For now, I must address other issues and information relevant to my blogging. I had a couple things to post un-related to this, so please excuse me for a moment as I tie down loose ends and then I'll be glad to put up a more complete reply to your posting. I do have an e-mail address of:[email protected] if you'd like to take this off-line so I can answer your doubts more directly, but otherwise I'll post and note the posts as: "Reply to 'damouse70' Part 1, Part 2, etc. Fair enough?
Till then Monsieur,I bid you adieu.
Reply #18 Top
My goodness, so I post actual FACT, and you tell me it is anti-French? Certainly it deviates from your allegations against the US, however, it is fact. Spending just a bit of time researching UNSCOM documents, OPEC.COM, MBECKI, and many other sites that provide online research will reconfirm my post.

While the arguement that the war was for "oil" can not apply to the US, the arguement against another Iraqi invasion by France, Russia, and China based on the facts, suggests that it was in fact against a war in protection of oil interests.

My response to the allegations made against the US for going into Iraq were more than applicable to the debate.

It is clear that you and I will not agree on this issue. I am not an anti-government person, I am just anti-political. I also prefer proof when it comes to a conspiracy theory, allegations mean nothing to me, as they are made all the time in some format or another, and the frequency with which those allegations are actually recycled, discredits them.