from TheWebFairy at NerdCities

You must look at this French site that has an analysis of Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. Here is their English version:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

And this site is doing 3D simulations:
http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/

The French are pointing out:

• No photo shows airplane pieces, body parts of passengers, luggage, etc, nor do news reports mention such parts.
• The initial damage was along the ground floor, which implies the plane hit the ground floor, but there is no airplane-shaped hole in the building. Most importantly, the body of the plane was taller than one floor of the building. Therefore, the body of the plane should have punched a hole through at least two floors.
• The section that collapsed did so quite a while after the plane crash, just as the WTC buildings collapsed for no apparent reason long after the plane crashes (in the case of building 7, the collapse was many hours later).

Photos of the North and South WTC towers show airplane-shaped holes, so where is the hole in the Pentagon? And where are the airplane pieces, luggage, and dead passengers?

The French site has a top view, so I made this front view to show how large the hole in the Pentagon should be (although I certainly have the scaling slightly incorrect because it is difficult to scale four photos properly). (click the image)The upper portion of the image shows the hole in the North tower. The people in the windows give you an indication of the size of the hole. Of course, the plane that hit the North tower was a 767, which was slightly larger than the 757 in this image.

The wings of a Boeing 757 are 125 feet wide (38 meters); the body is 155 feet long (47m); and each engine is about 9 feet in diameter (2.75m). The plane weighs more than 100 tons.
For 757 specs: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/product.html

A 757 is half the height of the Pentagon

We are told the plane came in low to the ground, which explains the lack of a hole in the upper floors of the building. However, the distance between the bottom of the engines and the top of the cabin is more than 18 feet (5.5m). From the bottom of the engines to the top of the tail is about 41 feet (12.6m). The Pentagon is 77 feet (23 meters) tall. Therefore, the plane was 53% of the height of the Pentagon.
Pentagon specs: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html

Look at the size of the plane in my composite image. In order for the plane to hit only the first floor of the building, the engines would have to be below ground level, and we have to ignore the tail.

Also, the plane was 155 feet (47m) long; the only way such a long plane could slip into the first floor is if it were perfectly horizontal and perfectly level. The slightest tilting would cause it to take out the second floor or dig into the dirt.

Considering there is very busy freeway in front of the crash site, along with road signs, light posts, and trees, how did the plane get so close to the ground? Those Arabs were great pilots!

Jet-fuel fireballs are dark orange!

On 7 March 2002 the Pentagon released five images from a security camera to prove the Arabs flew a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. Obviously they lied when they said they did not have any video of the plane crash, but now they feel they must release it, probably to counteract that French site.
Here is the video: http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp

Since they lied about the video, can we trust them on other issues? How many times does a person have to lie to you before you question his other remarks?

The image below is a composite of two frames of that lousy, low quality video. There are two odd things to notice in these two frames.

1) In the upper frame there is something white near the extreme right edge. This resembles the exhast of a missile. A 757 does not leave a trail of white smoke.

Whatever is producing the white smoke is hidden behind the rectangular object in the foreground. It would be more useful to see the frames before and after this. What a coincidence that the military decided to release the frame in which this large 757 is hidden behind a small object!

2) In the lower frame the white smoke has dissipated slightly, and whatever produced the white smoke has exploded. It looks as if the explosion started before it hit the building. Also, the fireball from an airplane crash (or an automobile crash) will be dark orange and full of soot. A bright, clean fireball implies plenty of oxygen was available; ie, explosives.

The Pentagon is 77 feet (23 meters) tall. Notice that the fireball in this image is perhaps 50% taller than the Pentagon. Since the fireball is a bright yellow at this large size, what did it look like when it was half this size? Why not release all of the video frames?

Perhaps the frames before this one showed the fireball glowing such a bright, bluish white that it looked like 10,000 people were arc welding at the same time!

The Arabs were incredible pilots

The Pentagon is a very large building, but it is low to the ground. The plane the Arabs were flying was more than half the height of the building. The easiest thing for the Arabs to do it would be to hit the top of the building while diving down at an angle.

However, we are told that the Arabs decided to hit the front of the building. More amazing, instead of hitting while diving down at an angle, we are told that they flew only inches above the ground to hit the ground floor of the building in a nearly horizontal manner.

There is a busy highway in front of the Pentagon, along with a railing, trees, and other objects. We are suppose to believe the Arabs flew only slightly above the cars along the highway. One witness claims that the airplane was so low that it knocked down a light post along the road.

To make this more absurd, after passing over the highway the Arabs had only a fraction of a second of flight time remaining, and in that brief time the Arabs dropped the plane even lower to a few millimeters above the grass.

The pilot’s view of the ground in a 757 is not very good. For the Arabs to fly so low was a tremendous achievement. Especially when traveling at 345 mph (555 km/hour), which is the speed the flight data recorder supposedly shows. (The Pentagon claims to have found the flight data recorder, but the other parts of the 100 ton airplane vanished. I can believe that!)

Furthermore, airplanes never fly in straight lines; rather, they roll and tilt. Therefore, flying only inches above the ground without crashing is a tremendous achievement for inexperienced pilots!

Do you realize that the 757 was behaving as if it was a cruise missile?

The Arabs certainly were nice guys!

The reports claim that the Arabs flew around the Pentagon a while before hitting the building. By coincidence, the section the Arabs chose to hit did not have many people in it, so casualties were much lower than if they had hit elsewhere. That particular section was being renovated, and the people who normally worked there had been sent to other offices.

The Pentagon is said to be the largest office building in the world, and the Arabs decided to hit the small section that was being renovated. What a coincidence that the Arabs did not hit Rumfeld’s office. What a coincidence that the Arabs did not hit a section of the building that was full of people.

Did the nice Arabs fly around the Pentagon a while in order to find the section with the least number of people in it?

How rapidly did the fireball expand?

The date and time is displayed in the lower left corner of the five frames of video that the Pentagon decided to let us see, although the time is incorrect by about 32 hours.

The time is shown only to the nearest second. I suspect the real video has IRIG time code recorded on an audio track, in which case the military could precisely identify each frame of video.

The first and second frames have identical times. The first frame shows the building before the plane hit. The second frame shows a fireball that is at least 50 percent taller than the pentagon. This means that within 1 second the plane crashed and a fireball grew to a height of at least 100 feet (33m).

If we could see the frames between those two we could estimate the rate at which the fireball expands. This would also let us determine whether the fireball was from jet fuel or an explosive. Jet fuel fireballs, as with automobile fireballs, do not expand very quickly. By comparison, the fireball from an explosive can expand at an enormous rate.

Why does the Pentagon allow us to see only five frames of video rather than the entire video? Note that the video of the planes hitting the World Trade Centers and the collapse of the towers were broadcast by American news reporters at least 2 million times during September in order to stimulate anger towards the Arabs. Why did they not broadcast the video of this plane crashing into the Pentagon at least 2 million times?

I think the Pentagon refuses to release the entire video because it would show a small missile flying close to the ground, and then it would show the fireball expanding at such an incredible rate that even the “ordinary” Americans would realize that it was from an explosive.

If the video proves that a 757 hit the building then the Pentagon officials are idiots for keeping the video a secret. They are also idiots for hiding the remains of the plane, the dead passengers, and the luggage. Their secrecy is allowing conspiracy rumors to run wild.

Do you think the Pentagon officials are so stupid as to hide proof of the 757? I doubt if any human is that stupid. I say their behavior is evidence that they are involved in this fake “Terrorist Attack On America”.

If it looks and acts like a bomb…

When an airplane crash has all the characteristics of a bomb, there is a good chance that it was a bomb.

I think a more sensible explanation for Flight 77 is that it never crashed into the Pentagon. Rather, the Pentagon fired a missile at the building, and they selected a section of the building that was being renovated in order to reduce deaths. I think they also set the missile to explode before it hit the building in order to reduce damage.

The plane that witnesses saw flying around the Pentagon may have been Flight 77, but that plane did not crash into the Pentagon.

What happened to Flight 77?

There were pieces of an airplane scattered around the Pennsylvania countryside. Everybody assumes that all of those pieces belong to Flight 93, but maybe Flight 77 crashed (or was shot down) over there, also.

This would explain why so many people are asking why the Flight 93 debris was scattered over many miles, as this site explains:
http://www.flight93crash.com/

Joe Vialls defends the Pentagon!

Joe Vialls tells us:

Forget the media hype about “Arab hijackers” because there were none on board any of the aircraft on 11 September.

Amazingly, a person who claims the planes were controlled by remote control is defending the Pentagon. Was he bribed or threatened? Or is he just a nutty guy? I don’t know, but I responded by writing an article in response to Joe Vialls:
Response to Vialls

If you never saw Joe’s site:
http://www.geocities.com/vialls/

Do you still believe the Arabs flew a 757 into the Pentagon?

Check out the photos at this site:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html

On page 2 of that document is an image with the caption: “Damage visible in one of the open-air courtyards between building rings.” The article doesn’t identify the courtyard, but if it was one directly behind the crash site, the airplane did not penetrate it. That means the entire airplane compressed itself like an accordion in the outer ring.

The following document has a good image of the Pentagon and how the plane hit. Fortunately (for the Pentagon) the image does not show the highway, trees, or railings, nor how low the plane was to the ground. A more appropriate drawing would be a side view that shows a 757 only slightly above the cars, and how it then descended to only a few millimeters above the grass.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html

News-n-Views

A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, “conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.”

They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.

The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.

“There were a growing number of people in the United States and around the world who were suspicious of the government’s story about what had happened at the Pentagon that day,” Ranke explains. “The doubts were initially fueled by the dubious damage to the building, which seemed incompatible with a 757 crash, the deliberate lack of transparency by the authorities, and many other issues, but they really intensified after a team of professional pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth) analyzed the data obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2006, which was supposedly from the black box of American Airlines Flight 77, and found that the last reported altitude of the plane was far too high to have struck the light poles or the building. This meant that either the plane did not cause the observed physical damage, that the government had released fraudulent data, or both.”

“We were tired of the cover-up, but we were also frustrated with the dead-end theorizing that was taking place”, says Marquis of the project’s genesis. “We knew that the only way we were ever going to know what had really happened was if we actually went to the area, knocked on doors, and interviewed everyday people about what they saw.”

When these eyewitness accounts are aggregated, they paint a very disturbing picture, say the researchers.

“To put it as concisely as possible, the plane had to have flown on a very specific flight path in the final seconds before it reached the Pentagon in order to have caused the observed damage, starting with the light poles that were photographed on the ground and ending with the directional damage to the building itself which was outlined in detail by the American Society of Civil Engineers,” explains Ranke. “The government claims the plane flew on this flight path and hit the building. The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building. It is a non-controversial scientific fact that a strike from this trajectory would have caused a very different damage path.”

It wasn’t just witnesses who watched the plane approach the building that the team spoke with, however.
“We’ve also published our interview with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion”, says Marquis. “We already knew that the plane could not have hit based on the testimony of the witnesses on the other side of the building who watched it approach, but it was still vindicating to get this kind of confirmation.”

A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that “More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” Nevertheless, Ranke and Marquis acknowledge it is still quite controversial to claim, as they do, that “criminal elements within the U.S. government” were complicit in the attacks.

Read the rest, view video, and see more photos at this link.

Hat tip to The National Expositor

by Jerry Mazza

Think of this as part two of Recherche du trillions perdu, my Online Journal article on Dov Zakheim, former Bush appointee as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as I mentioned, was buried under 9-11′s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch.

Yet on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense. So the dark card was shifted to another part of the deck.

Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov (linked below) tells us Zakheim was/is a dual Israeli/American citizen and an ordained rabbi and had been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. He is, as I described him earlier, the bionic Zionist. In fact, Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel’s armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.

Judicial Inc also points out that Israel, a country of 4.8 million Russian and Polish Jewish ‘migr’s, flies on one of the biggest Air Forces in the world, thanks to Dov. Conflict of interest here? Depends on what you’re interested in. That is, in 2001 Dov was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.

More from the resume: Wikipedia points out that Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

As to Dov’s hell-raiser lineage, Judicial Inc points out that Grandpa Zakheim was born in 1870, Julius Zakheim (Zhabinka), in the Ukraine, a Russian rabbi who married a relative of Karl Marx. He was a Menshevik/Bolshevik and played a leading role in the 1905 turmoil that paved the way for the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolshevik master plan called for the state of Israel, which was chosen for its proximity to the world’s oil and an area of religious significance.

Dov’s Father, Rabbi Jacob I. Zakheim was born in 1910 and reared in Poland’s swarm of Zionist hard guys, read assassins and bombers. His Polish town, near Bilaystok, also brought us Yitzhak Shir, and family friends included Menachem Begin and Moshe Arens. Dov’s father was an active member of Betar, formed in 1923 in Riga, Latvia. Its goal was to control the Middle East (and its oil). It was known that the Jewish people needed their own country and they chose Palestine and claimed it a Jewish state “on both sides of the Jordan.”

Betar was in essence a terrorist organization formed because Zionists were sick of being chased from and arrested in country after country. They wanted both a place to escape and a base for their power. Betar joined forces with the Haganah, Irgun, and Stern gangs. With no prospect of a Jewish state in sight, they argued that armed struggle against the British was the only way. Since Britain occupied Palestine and was containing them they went on a blood feast of bombings that killed hundreds of British soldiers. The British pulled out, but the Zionists continue to maul the Arabs to this day.

For a concise history on the Formation of Israel in 1947, I suggest this link to theocracywatch.org.

For an interesting look at “The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology” compiled from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel by Michael T. Benson, link above. For a rounded look at Israel, see Wikipedia.

Returning to Dov: he was born in Brooklyn in 1943 and attended exclusive Jewish schools, spent summers in Israel Zionist camps, which trained the Zionists of the future. As to Dov’s formal education, he graduated from Columbia University in 1970 and the University of Oxford in 1972. From 1973 to 75, he attended the London school of Jewish studies, described as a “Harry Potter” type cauldron; among the subjects Jewish supremacy, Advanced Bible, Talmud, Jewish Mysticism, Holocaust, Anglo-Judaica, and Zionism. After, he was ordained a Rabbi. From 1975 to 80, Zakheim was an adjunct professor at the National War College, Yeshiva University, Columbia University and Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut.

As he stepped into the Reagan administration, he talked them into funding development of the Lavi Fighter at a cost of $3 billion. The Lavi was a total flop and Israel dropped it, though it owed $450 million in contract fees that were cancelled. Israel, according to Judicial Inc, also created a story that China was eager to buy the Lavi. Zakheim convinced Reagan that China had to be sandbagged. Reagan gave Israel $500 million for its lost contracts. Reagan then threw in a wing of F-16′s as a bonus and sign of good will. Do we see a pattern here, personal, familial, career-wise, of over-the-top Israeli advocacy?

Again, during Zakheim’s tenure as Pentagon controller from May 4, 2001, to March 10, 2004, over $3 trillion dollars were unaccounted for. Additionally, military Information was jeopardized and military contractors billed the US for Israeli items: $50 million dollar fighter jets were rated as surplus and the list rolls on. As the scandal of the missing trillion dollars surfaced and Dov resigned, Israel was handed the finest fighter jets in the US inventory while 15 percent of US jets were grounded for lack of parts. In whose best interest was this?

But Dov is not alone. He is one of an elite group of Jewish Americans/Israelis who inter-marry and enter government. They and their Christian counterparts are called neocons and their sole purpose is directing US policy. Most of them are dual citizens and few serve in the US military. Think of Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Ben Wattenberg, to mention a few. Whether their motivation is anger at the Muslim world, seen as a religious and territorial enemy, or a deep-rooted reaction to the Holocaust, the culmination of European anti-Semitism, their reactionary militarism becomes a world-threatening force unto itself. Hence our concern.

Dov and the World Trade Center

Perhaps not coincidentally in May 2001, when Dov served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his firm’s) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation of the first “terrorist” attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center. From the ’90s through 2001, WTC Security was handled by Securacom, a Kuwait-American firm, on whose board Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, sat. After 9/11, Securacom was let go, changed its name to Stratosec, and was delisted from the Stock Exchange in 2002.

According to Conspiracy News.net writers Shadow and “Pax” in Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy, (and I suggest you look at this link) “According to the SPC website (4), a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement. (5)

“As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.

“There is a photograph of the Flight Termination System module, from their site.(5). Note it has a cylindrical shape, and is consistent with the size and shape of the object observed under the fuselage of flight 175.

“The Boeing lease deal involved the replacement of the aging KC-135 tanker fleet with these smaller, more efficient Boeing 767s that were to be leased by Dov Zakheim’s group. The planes were to be refitted with refueling equipment, including lines and nozzle assemblies.”

(Remember both Flight 175, that hit the South Tower, and Flight 11, that hit the North Tower, were Boeing 767s. Flights 77 and 93 were 757s.)

“In the enlargement of flight 175′s photo, we can clearly see a cylindrical object under the fuselage, and a structure that appears to be attached to the right underside of the rear fuselage section.

“When seen in comparison, it is obvious that the plane approaching the Trade Center has both of these structures-the FTS module and the midair refueling equipment, as configured on the modified Boeing 767 tankers. Of particular interest is the long tube-like anomalous structure under the rear fuselage area of flight 175-this structure runs along the right rear bottom of the plane, as it also does on the Boeing 767 refueling tanker pictured.

“After considering this information, I [the author/s] am convinced that flight 175, as pictured on the news media and official reports, was in fact a refitted Boeing 767 tanker, with a Flight Termination System attached. Use of this system would also explain the expert handling of aircraft observed in both New York and Washington investigations, which has been officially credited to inexperienced flight school students.

“Since the refitted 767s were able to carry both passengers and a fuel load, as shown in this photo, it is likely that the plane designated Flight 175 was in fact a refitted 767 tanker, disguised as a conventional commercial passenger plane.

“As shown in this photo of a 767 being serviced, the FTS unit, when in position, would be small and unobtrusive enough to be fairly innocuous (at least to casual observers, such as passengers). The smallest circle indicates the size and position of the anomaly depicted in the photos of Flight 175. The larger circle, which is the size of the engine housing, shows the size of the anomaly in relation to the engine. Note the size and position of the open hatches on the engine housing, which would tend to discredit the widely held theory that the anomaly is an open hatch or cargo door.

“As the . . . diagram shows, all flights involved in the events traveled very near many military installations, and appear to have traveled in a manner suggesting guidance and possible transfer of the control of the planes among the bases.

“Since the evidence from the World Trade Center site was quickly removed, there is little concrete evidence of the involvement of Dov Zakheim, who has since left his position at the Pentagon. However, the proximity of Eglin AFB to MacDill AFB in Florida and Dov Zakheim’s work via SPC contracts and the Pentagon leasing agreement on both of these installations, combined with SPC’s access to World Trade Center structural and security information from their Tridata investigation in 1993, is highly suspicious. Considering his access to Boeing 767 tankers, remote control flight systems, and his published views in the PNAC document, it seems very likely he is in fact a key figure in the alleged terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001.”

EDITORIAL RESPONSE TO READERS’ COMMENTS:

In response to some of our readers who have questioned our premise that it was Rabbi Dov Zakheim who ‘called for’ the Pearl Harbor type of incident, we here at Conspiracy News Net acknowledge that the PNAC document was written by the likes of William Kristol and Donald Kagan, and therefore as the real brains behind the agenda they are the ones calling for it in a literal sense. However, we do stand by our assertion that the Rabbi called for it as well, insofar that he signed his name onto this document. If he signed it he agrees with it and therefore he is calling for it.

Some of you have argued that we are singling out Rabbi Zakheim because he is Jewish, implying that we are pushing some sort of twisted anti-Semitic agenda while noting that he is not the only one who signed the PNAC document and therefore wondering why our article is about him and not the others. We do not mean to imply that the Rabbi acted alone, our article simply points out that Rabbi Zakheim had access to things like structural integrity, blueprints and any number of important facets of information about the WTC through his work with TRIDATA CORPORATION in the investigation of the bombing of the WTC in 1993.

That he had access to REMOTE CONTROL Technology through his work at System Planning Corporation (SPC). That he had access to BOEING AIRCRAFT through a lease deal HE BROKERED while working at the Pentagon.

. . . Finally that he was part of a group of politically radical Straussian Neo-Conservatives, who, through their association with PNAC, called for restructuring of the Middle East, noting that a Pearl Harbor type of event MAY BE NEEDED to foster the frame of mind required for the American public to accept such a radical foreign policy agenda. In light of all this information we here at Conspiracy News Net stand by our statement that Mr. Zakheim not only called for the slamming of the WTC Towers on 9-11, but he activity took part in their demolition by providing the logistics necessary for such an attack to occur.

Coda, a Bitter Frosting on the Cake

Whether or not you agree in whole or in part with these findings, here is an eye-opening article originally from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by Milan Simonich. It is titled Army unit piecing together accounts of Pentagon attack, and from it comes this striking information in paragraph six . . .”One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.

Apart from the question of whether it was F 77 that struck the Pentagon, it is more than ironic that accountants, bookkeepers and budgets analysts, the very people who could pick up the financial frauds were struck. Especially since the hit was directed supposedly at the Office of Naval Intelligence.

Nevertheless, Dov is busy at his Booz Allen job, involved in Strategic Services and who knows what other dark plans as we speak, even as the Middle East is under heavy fire once again from Israel and its fervid ally, the US government.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

by Matthew Rothschild [seriously?!]

The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.

This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”

Taken together, these reserve units would amount to “more than 379,000 military personnel in thousands of communities across the United States,” explained

Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, in a letter to the National Governors Association, dated July 20.

The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.

“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues,” Governor James H. Douglas of Vermont and Governor Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the president and vice president of the governors’ association, wrote in a letter back to Stockton on August 7. The governors asserted that they “must have tactical control over all . . . active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor’s state or territory.”

According to Pentagon public affairs officer Lt. Col. Almarah K. Belk, Stockton has not responded formally to the governors but understands their concerns.

“There is a rub there,” she said. “If the Secretary calls up the reserve personnel to provide support in a state and retains command and control of those forces, the governors are concerned about if I have command and control of the Guard, how do we ensure unity of effort and everyone is communicating and not running over each other.”

Belk said Stockton is addressing this problem. “That is exactly what Dr. Stockton is working out right now with the governors and DHS and the National Guard,” she said. “He’s bringing all the stakeholders together.”

Belk said the legislative change is necessary in the aftermath of a “catastrophic natural disaster, not beyond that,” and she referred to Katrina, among other events.

But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.

That section also defines “major disaster” by citing plenty of specifics: “hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought,” as well as “fire, flood, or explosion.”

But the definition of “emergency” is vague: “Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”

Currently, the President can call up the Reserves only in an emergency involving “a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction” or “a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in significant loss of life or property,” according to Title 10, Chapter 1209, Section 12304, of the U.S. Code. In fact, Section 12304 explicitly prohibits the President from calling up the Reserves for any other “natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe.”

So the new proposed legislation would greatly expand the President’s power to call up the Reserves in a disaster or an emergency and would extend that power to the Secretary of Defense. (There are other circumstances, such as repelling invasions or rebellions or enforcing federal authority, where the President already has the authority to call up the Reserves.)

The ACLU is alarmed by the proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”

At the moment, says Pentagon spokesperson Belk, the legislation does not have a sponsor in the House or the Senate.