The base's intelligence officer was unable to get any information on the crisis, but fighters on a training mission learned of the attacks during refuelling around 9:30 a.m., when the Secret Service called and said that it would like some fighters after all. Missiles at the base began to be unpacked, but the commanding officer, Brigadier General David Wherley, wanted orders from a senior official before he would launch and called the Secret Service again.

The first of the fighters returning from training landed at 10:14 a.m., but did not take off again. Wherley discussed the rules of engagement and apparently then wanted to launch planes in response to an aircraft supposedly approaching Washington. One of the returning fighters was dispatched to look for the plane, but, finding nothing, landed again ten minutes later.

Other entries about the day of 9/11 take in an offline radar, the arrival of the air force's liaison at FAA headquarters before 9:00 a.m., and the arrival of fighters from Richmond and Atlantic City over Washington after 11:00 a.m.

There are also several new entries about Osama bin Laden, for whom al-Qaeda offered to arrange a TV interview in October 2001. After the interview had been done, western intelligence naturally managed to come into possession of it before it was broadcast by Al Jazeera. We also have some more about bin Laden's health. He died of lung problems in December 2001, was buried in an earthquake in 2005, and expired in Iran in 2006, all of which makes his near-death condition in 2007 remarkable.

Despite his repeated deaths and the near certainty that, if he has survived them, he is in Pakistan, late last year Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani claimed that bin Laden was not in that country at all, at which point the ISI helpfully unrolled a psyop with the BBC's kind assistance to back him up.

There are also two more entries about al-Qaeda media releases, of which there were over 90 in 2007 and which included a second English language video from al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri last July.

Returning to the topic of psyops, there are three new entries about CIA disinfo peddler John Kiriakou, who went dangerously off-message when he implicated the White House and Justice Department in waterboarding, leading to a referral of his leaking to be Justice Department for a coat of whitewash. When it came to light Abu Zubaida had been waterboarded 82 more times than Kiriakou claimed, at least a couple of journalists proved they had good memories.

Finally, there are also new entries about Sibel Edmonds' offer to break her gag order and the positive DNA identification of one 9/11 hijacker.

NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS

01/02/2010

By: Rob Balsamo

Peer Review by: Captain Jeff Latas, Commander Ralph Kolstad

Introduction - Citizen Investigation Team (CitizenInvestigationTeam.com) has conducted, recorded, and published interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack on 9/11.  Of these witnesses, over a dozen were in excellent locations to be able to judge where the plane flew in relation to the former Citgo gas station, which was the last major landmark along on the plane's flight path in the final seconds before it reached the building.  All of these witnesses unanimously state that they witnessed the plane flying on, or headed towards, the north side of the Citgo gas station.  This includes all known eyewitnesses on the property of the station itself, who had the absolute best possible vantage point to judge which side of the station the plane flew on with zero room for perspective error.

It is physically impossible for a plane approaching the Pentagon on a flight path consistent with eyewitnesses statements to have caused the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and Pentagon as photographically documented and reported.  The following technical analysis will present the calculations that demonstrate this simple scientific fact.

Objective: To determine if an aircraft is able to pass to the north side of the Citgo gas station as reported by eyewitnesses and still cause the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and Pentagon.

Important Note: The simple fact is that most if not all of the eyewitnesses did not stop watching the plane the instant it came even with the north side of the gas station.  In order to assert that the plane may have transitioned from the north side of the station to a trajectory that would allow it to cause the observed physical damage -- beginning with the first down light pole -- one would have to ignore everything drawn and reported beyond that point by the eyewitnesses. Ignoring witness statements is intellectually dishonest and not an objective approach to such an analysis.  This specifically includes, but is not limited to, their placement of the plane over or very near the parking lot outside of the Arlington National Cemetery maintenance buildings, of which a number of witnesses are explicit.  If the hypothetical maneuver in question were possible -- which as this paper shows, it is not -- it would still be a moot point as physical damage analysis and a North Approach Impact hypothesis is not consistent with witness statements, reports or drawings.

Calculations and Analysis

As seen in the video National Security Alert, many of the eyewitnesses who were in the best possible locations to judge where the plane flew in relation to the Navy Annex and former Cigo gas station personally illustrated the flight path on overhead images during their on-location, on-camera interviews with Citizen Investigation Team.  The following is a composite of their drawings.

Based on a hypothetical average of the trajectory as illustrated in these witness drawings, we analyzed the radius required for a transition to the South path, in order to cause the physical damage through the downed light poles, the generator trailer and the "impact" spot on the Pentagon.

Radius drawn with Topography visible

Radius with topography removed
(Scale: 1cm box = 100 feet)

West Turn Radius = 273 feet
East Turn Radius = 264 feet

For simplicity, we will use one calculation for both turns at an average of 270 feet and the formula used to determine acceleration in circular motion.

Calculations are based on speeds of both 400 Knots and 200 Knots.

To determine G Forces experienced by an object in circular motion along a curve/radius, the formula G = (v^2/r)/32 is utilized.

G Forces required are impossible for a transition from the north path to the south path for a Transport Category fixed-wing aircraft of any type.

Hypothetical Least Challenging Scenario
(Contradicts witness testimony even more blatantly than prior scenario)

A hypothetical approach path was offered that was falsely implied to have been reconcilable with the witnesses' description of a north side approach as well as the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and Pentagon.

This path completely ignores and contradicts the majority of the key details about the flight path expressed by all of the witnesses seen in National Security Alert, and others who were not even featured in that video due to time constraints (George Aman, for example).

Another major problem with this path is that its width -- which its illustrator claimed is equal to the wingspan of a 757 (124 feet 10 inches) -- fails to take into consideration the fact that bank angle required to make such turns will reduce the effective wingspan significantly, as we will demonstrate below. In order to turn an aircraft, horizontal component of lift is required. In other words, an aircraft cannot just "yaw" it's way around the path illustrated below and must roll into a bank angle.

Radius was measured for each turn and bank angles are calculated based on speed. Speeds analyzed will once again be 400 and 200 knots. Witness Point Of View images are provided to compare with witness statements.

The following flight path is claimed to be the "First Ever Path Possible" from a north of the gas station approach. This is the path we will analyze closely, and since it is the least challenging hypothetical scenario, any other path will have greater results for bank angle required and therefore G Loading as demonstrated above.

(Click on images to enlarge, click backspace to return to this page)

Radius for the west approach is 2,834 feet. Scale: 1cm box = 100 feet
(Scale Aircraft inserted to demonstrate level flight is needed for physical damage)

Radius for east approach turn is 1,692 feet.
(Scale Aircraft inserted to demonstrate level flight is needed for physical damage)

Topography removed for clarity

The above path does not take into consideration roll rate. Therefore the change in direction from the west turn to the east turn must be performed instantaneously which is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.

To calculate bank angle required based on radius, we use:

Bank Angle = arctan(v^2/11.26r)

G Force can then be calculated from Bank angle using:

G = 1/Cos(Bank Angle)

Follow Cam: 400 Knots
Full Approach
(Please note bank angle as aircraft passes through light poles and wing contact with ground. Impact to light poles is impossible due to bank angle required for turn at either speed. Bank angle would also cause large gouge in ground leading to Pentagon impact.)

Download
(2.7mb)

Parking Gate Cam: 200 Knots

Light Pole Cam: 200 Knots

Download High Quality wmv file
(157K)

Conclusion - It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station. The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.

Wall Street Journal: The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved The FBI disproved its main theory about how the spores were weaponized.

By Jeff Gates

January 18, 2010  -- Response of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when asked on September 11, 2001 what the attacks meant for U.S.-Israeli relations

Game theory war-planners rely on mathematical models to anticipate and shape outcomes with staged provocations. For the agent provocateur, the reactions to a provocation---as well as the reactions to those reactions---thereby become predictable within an acceptable range of probabilities.

With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan poised to expand to Iran and Pakistan, it is time to take a closer look at how conflicts are catalyzed---by way of deception.

 Part 2

YouTube - Criminal State - Part 2 of 3: A Closer Look at Israel's Role in Terrorism  

Part 3

YouTube - Criminal State - Part 3 of 3: A Closer Look at Israel's Role in Terrorism  

When Israeli game theorist Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded from Jerusalem, "the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel" has turned "Israel into the leading authority in this field." A professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality at Hebrew University, Aumann's Nobel lecture, titled "War and Peace," expounded on the rationality of war.

With a well-modeled provocation, a target's anticipated reaction can even become a weapon in the aggressor's arsenal. In response to the provocation of 9-11, how difficult was it to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With U.S. intelligence "fixed" by well-placed insiders around a predetermined goal, how difficult was it to anticipate that the reaction to 9-11 could be redirected to wage war in Iraq?

The emotional component of a provocation plays a key role in game theory warfare. With the nationally televised mass murder of 3,000 people, a state of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for Americans to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible---regardless of the facts.

For false beliefs to displace real facts requires mental preconditioning so that a targeted population can be persuaded to put their faith in fictions. That conditioning enhances the probability of a successful deception. Those who deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq in March 2003 began a decade beforehand to lay the "mental threads" and make the requisite mental associations to advance that agenda.

Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs of a theme-setting article by Harvard University professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of Civilizations, more than 100 think tanks were prepared to promote it. The result created a widely touted narrative---a thematic storyline---supporting a "clash consensus" five years before 9-11 provided a plausible rationale for war.

Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, this self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001.

As an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle's Pentagon advisory post provided a powerful insider position to shape the national security mindset around the removal of Saddam Hussein, a key theme of A Clean Break---released five years before 9-11. That same year Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress at the invitation of Newt Gingrich, the Christian Zionist Speaker of the House.

Murders, books, articles, think tanks and well-placed insiders are common components in a "probabilistic" model deployed by war-planning game theorists. Lawmakers are also a customary ingredient. They provide credibility and a facade of legitimacy---a critical element when inducing a nation to war with phony intelligence fixed around a preset agenda.

That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. By promoting Israel’s 1996 agenda for Securing the Realm, their legislation laid yet another mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein---three years before 9-11.

The legislation also appropriated $97 million to promote their agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and impeachment proceedings catalyzed by a well-timed presidential affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed that Zionist agenda into law in October 1998---4-1/2 years before a U.S.-led invasion removed the Iraqi leader.

After 9-11, McCain and Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Striking a presidential pose aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain---a son and grandson of admirals---laid another mental thread when he waved an admiral's cap and proclaimed, alongside Lieberman, "On to Baghdad."

By Way of Deception

The confidence with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11 while in a principals' meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.

On that same day, San Diego FBI Special Agent Stephen Butler interrogated Iraqi Munther Ghazal at his home near San Diego to determine if he was funding Mel Rockefeller, an American with whom Ghazal traveled to Baghdad in early 1997. After meeting for several days with a top nuclear physicist with oversight of Iraq's mothballed nuclear weapons program, Rockefeller returned to the U.S. with a practical proposal for removing Saddam Hussein without this war and without triggering an insurgency.

When regional specialists at the U.S. Department of State would not meet with him, he traveled to Ottawa in April 1997 where he met with Middle East specialists in the Canadian government to ensure a written record was made to confirm there was an alternative to war in Iraq---six years before the invasion. Instead of debriefing him, FBI agents sought to discredit him. Though FBI agents interviewed Ghazal many times, they have yet to meet with Mel Rockefeller.

Agent Butler cashed checks and paid rent for the two San Diego-based hijackers who piloted planes into the World Trade Center towers. The same Iman counseling Major Nidal Hasan (with FBI knowledge) before he was transferred to Fort Hood also counseled the San Diego-based hijackers---with FBI knowledge. As of December 1, 2009, no one from the FBI or national security had debriefed Mel Rockefeller---eight years after 9-11.

See: Ft. Hood: "Death By Political Correctness"?

and Ft. Hood Tragedy: The Real Story of the Terrorist "Mad Doctor Hasan"

When President George H.W. Bush declined to invade Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Pentagon Under Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz imposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By the invasion of March 2003, the Israeli Mossad had agents deployed for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda were also traced to Mosul---reports that proved false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz in the lead-up to the invasion.

An Inside Job?

The common pro-Israeli source of the phony intelligence that induced war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and---until now—cover up. The leaders of the 9-11 Commission conceded they were thwarted by Commission members adamantly opposed to hearing testimony on the hijackers' motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

The fictions reported as facts by mainstream media included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Only the last claim was conceded as bogus prior to the invasion.

Only after the war began were the balance of the claims disclosed as false, flawed or outright fabricated. An attempt to punish former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Joe Wilson for his exposure of the phony yellowcake account led to a federal conviction of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.

The multi-decade consistency of agent-provocateur fact patterns suggests that this game theory-modeled warfare includes the Israeli provocation that catalyzed the Second Intifada. An intifada is an uprising or, literally, a "shaking off" of an oppressor. The Second Intifada dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem's Temple Mount---one year before 9-11.

After a year of calm during which Palestinians believed that Israel was sincere about peace, suicide bombings recommenced. As Sharon conceded, his march was meant to demonstrate Israeli control over a site considered holy by Muslims worldwide. In response to this second failed attempt at "shaking off" Israeli domination, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only when Americans "feel our pain" would they understand the plight of the victimized Israelis.

These Likud Party leaders commented that the requisite empathy ("feel our pain") would require a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism---the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of the World Trade Center---one year later.

In other words, only with pain could we identify with the Israelis. Does that mean that only with a mass murder could we be induced to respond with our military to advance their agenda? Was the U.S. response mathematically modeled at the Center for the Study of Rationality? Seven months after 9-11, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech in a U.S. Senate office building where he was introduced by Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Liebermn

American Valkyrie?

When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur while leaving the target discredited and depleted by the anticipated reaction. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S.---by its response---was widely criticized for waging war on false pretenses. Only in hindsight did a deceived public realize that Iraq had nothing to do with that mass murder. However, that invasion had everything to do with "securing the realm."

Our response (predictably) triggered a deadly insurgency with devastating consequences for Iraqis, the U.S. and a "coalition of the willing" led to war by a successfully duped U.S. From a game theory perspective, that insurgency was a predictable reaction in a nation populated by three long-feuding sects: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. A violent invasion led by a nation closely allied with Jewish nationalists only further fueled the flames of violence and extremism---another foreseeable outcome.

Until the U.S.-led invasion, peace was maintained by an unsavory dictator and former U.S. ally who was rebranded an Evil Doer in the lead-up to war. As the cost in blood and treasure from our "liberation" of Iraq expanded, the U.S. became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.

The sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq is precisely what Messrs. Rockefeller and Ghazal were cautioned against in early 1997 should Saddam Hussein be removed suddenly and violently. The 1.3 million Iraqi deaths from war-related causes exceeds the worst of Saddam Hussein's atrocities. As any competent game theory war-planner knew, the strategic winner in this war was certain to be Iran as the U.S. neutralized its key foe---and is now urged by Israel to wage war on Iran.

As the U.S.---the primary target of this deception---emerged in the foreground, the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This "probabilistic" Israeli victory also ensured widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a steadily declining capacity to defend our real interests.

Meanwhile the American public came under a system of oversight and surveillance packaged and sold as “homeland security.” This ominously titled operation includes rhetorical echoes of a WWII-era "fatherland" featuring a domestic security force completely alien to U.S. traditions. It is not yet clear whether this new agency was established to protect Americans. Or whether it is meant to shield from Americans those responsible for deceiving us to wage their wars.

In January 2003, Secret Service Agent Richard Sierze interrogated Mel Rockefeller at his home in Fresno, California after he sent an email to Florida Governor Jeb Bush. The email said, in effect, that if the governor's brother (President George Bush) did not interview him on a public record prior to invading Iraq, he would do his best to ensure that lawful means were deployed to see the president executed for treason by a firing squad.

When questioned by Sierze, Rockefeller offered to have the agent speak with Dr. Glenn Olds, an adviser to four presidents, his senior adviser since 1994 and a former U.N. Ambassador who assisted him in entering Iraq through Jordon at a time when Americans were prohibited from traveling there. Sierze declined.

He also repeated his intent to see the president executed for treason and insisted that he be charged and taken before a federal magistrate to present evidence that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that an alternative to war had been available since early 1997. Agent Sierze declined his demand to be arraigned in a U.S. Federal District Court---seven weeks before the invasion.

Agent Sierze should be interviewed to see if, in retrospect, he agrees that---had this advice been followed---the war in Iraq may well have been prevented. To date, no one with line responsibility has interviewed Mel Rockefeller on a public record. Why? The answer to that question would reveal those responsible for this ongoing deception.

The victims of these serial deceptions, including the families of those murdered in November at Fort Hood, may have a wrongful death cause of action against those with line responsibility who aided these operations by failing to engage the Rockefeller record in a timely fashion.

Foreseeable Futures

By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners can wage wars on multiple fronts with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder.

In this case, the result destabilized Iraq while creating (predictable) crises that could be exploited to greater strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran, another Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break---seven years before the invasion of Iraq.

Today's mathematically model-able outcomes undermined U.S. national security by discrediting our leadership, degrading our financial condition and disabling our political will. In game theory terms, this devastation was perfectly predictable---within an acceptable range of probabilities.

Pakistan is primed to emerge as the next battleground for game theory war-planners. When India, an ally of Israel, became the nation honored by the Obama administration's first state dinner, that occasion gave reason for concern due to the dynamics already at work in the background.

See "What Is Israel's Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?"

In the asymmetry that typifies modern warfare, those who are few in number have no alternative when pursuing an expansionist agenda but to wage their wars by way of deception. To maintain its perceived status as a perennial victim, Israeli aggression must proceed non-transparently. Its only option is to operate with duplicitous means, including leveraging the power of its insider influence to advance an agenda from the shadows.

Thus the strategic necessity that this extremist enclave befriend the U.S.---with the intent to betray that friendship to advance its geopolitical goals. Thus the strategic need to create a relationship of trust with a post-WWII super power---in order to defraud us. How else could Colonial Zionists wage their wars except with our military? How else could Jewish nationalists induce our aggression absent the widely shared belief that Israel is not an aggressor but a victim?

Winning Wars from the Inside Out

Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by shaping the perceptions and impressions that become consensus opinions. With a combination of well-timed crises, fixed intelligence and a complicit media, policy-makers can be induced to support a predetermined agenda---not because lawmakers are Evil Doers but because the public mindset has been pre-conditioned to respond to manipulated thoughts, emotions and beliefs.

Without the mass murder of 9-11, would America's credibility be in tatters and its creditworthiness in jeopardy? By steadily displacing facts with false beliefs, those duplicitous few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their deceit. By their steady focus on the mental environment, game theory war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources.

Today's intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, psy-ops wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a targeted populace to freely choose the very forces that imperil their freedom.

Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, popular culture, think tanks, academia and politics---domains where Zionist influence is pervasive not only in the U.S. but also in other nations induced to war on false pretenses.

Germany offers a case study in manipulation of the public mindset in plain sight and under the banner of a free press. In 2003, Zionist media mogul Haim Saban acquired the second largest media conglomerate in Germany. Why? As Saban investment banker Steve Rattner explained his client's motivation: "Because Germany is important to Israel." Or, as Saban concedes: "I have only one issue and that issue is Israel."

By 2005, Saban had succeeded in electing Angela Merkel as German Chancellor. She quickly became the European Union's most reliable and forceful advocate for Israel. By November 2009, she was prepared to sponsor in Berlin an unprecedented joint session of the German and Israeli governments. Following his political success in Germany, Saban acquired in 2007 a controlling interest in Univision, a Latino-focused network serving the fastest-growing voting bloc in the U.S.

Media manipulation serves as an essential force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the periphery or, as with Haim Saban, in plain sight. At the operational core of such psy-ops are game theory war-planners skilled at personality profiling and masterful at anticipating responses to staged provocations and then incorporating those responses into their arsenal.

In the case of Iraq, our (mathematically) foreseeable response to 9-11 led, in practical effect, to Israel's deployment of our military to invade Iraq. For aggressors adept at psy-ops warfare, facts are only an inconvenience to be overcome when waging war by way of deception. Thus the key role played by consensus-shapers featured in mainstream media outlets who focus not on informing the public but on mental conditioning.

For targeted populations dependent on facts and informed consent to protect their freedom and preserve the rule of law, such treachery poses the greatest possible threat. Yet even now many Americans believe that Israel is not an aggressor but a victim and even an ally despite facts confirming a multi-decade pattern of expansionist nationalism and geopolitical deception.

Adhering to an Enemy

The U.S. is far less secure than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of settlements and its continuing blockade of Gaza. Israel has shown no willingness to negotiate in good faith. With few exceptions, Barack Obama has named as senior advisers either Zionists are those known to be strongly pro-Israeli.

The greatest threat to world peace is not Islam. The most fundamental threat that underlies all others is our "special relationship" with a skilled agent provocateur. Without U.S. support for an enclave of nuclear-armed religious extremists, the common source of this threat could long ago have been identified and steps taken to ensure its containment.

In the same way that lengthy pre-staging was required to induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or support an attack by Israel. Pakistan is also now on the agenda of those marketing The Clash narrative with its vision of a perpetual war against "militant Islam." Similar mental conditioning is again at work, including the high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad.

From its outset, the Zionist enterprise sought supremacy in the Middle East. To date, its alliance with the U.S. has enabled the deployment of American military might in pursuit of goals set by Jewish nationalists more than a half-century before a Christian Zionist U.S. president was induced to extend nation-state recognition. Harry Truman made that fateful decision despite his fears that Israel would become what Zionist lobbyists assured him it would not become---and what it immediately became: a racist and theocratic state.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East while making it appear that Islam---not Israel---is the problem. When a long-deceived American public---especially the U.S. military---grasps the common source of this devastating duplicity, the response will shift the geopolitical landscape. The facts suggest that "sympathy for Israel" is not among the probable reactions.

If Barack Obama continues to cater to these extremists, this Nobel peace laureate can rightly be blamed when the next attack features the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a pre-staged Evil Doer. Should another mass murder occur, that incident may well be traceable to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and to the failure of our policy-makers to protect America---and world peace---from this enemy within.

See also:

How Israel Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy

How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight

Appeasing Israel---At What Cost?

American Intifada---Shaking Off Six Decades of Deceit

Watch Episode 6 -- Manchurian Candidate Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura

But the freshly uncovered memos contend that Bush maintained a close personal and business relationship for decades with a CIA staff employee who, according to those CIA documents, was instrumental in the establishment of Bush's oil venture, Zapata, in the early 1950s, and who would later accompany Bush to Vietnam as a "cleared and witting commercial asset" of the agency.

According to a CIA internal memo dated November 29, 1975, Bush's original oil company, Zapata Petroleum, began in 1953 through joint efforts with Thomas J. Devine, a CIA staffer who had resigned his agency position that same year to go into private business. The '75 memo describes Devine as an "oil wild-catting associate of Mr. Bush." The memo is attached to an earlier memo written in 1968, which lays out how Devine resumed work for the secret agency under commercial cover beginning in 1963.

''Their joint activities culminated in the establishment of Zapata Oil,'' the memo reads. In fact, early Zapata corporate filings do not seem to reflect Devine's role in the company, suggesting that it may have been covert. Yet other documents do show Thomas Devine on the board of an affiliated Bush company, Zapata Offshore, in January, 1965, more than a year after he had resumed work for the spy agency.

It was while Devine was in his new CIA capacity as a commercial cover officer that he accompanied Bush to Vietnam the day after Christmas in 1967, remaining in the country with the newly elected congressman from Texas until January 11, 1968. Whatever information the duo was seeking, they left just in the nick of time. Only three weeks after the two men departed Saigon, the North Vietnamese and their Communist allies launched the Tet offensive with seventy thousand troops pre-positioned in more than 100 cities and towns.

While the elder Bush was in Vietnam with Devine, George W. Bush was making contact with representatives of the Texas Air National Guard, using his father’s connections to join up with an elite, Houston-based Guard unit - thus avoiding overseas combat service in a war that the Bushes strongly supported.

The new revelation about George H.W. Bush's CIA friend and fellow Zapata Offshore board member will surely fuel further speculation that Bush himself had his own associations with the agency.

Indeed, Zapata's annual reports portray a bewildering range of global activities, in the Mideast, Asia and the Caribbean (including off Cuba) that seem outsized for the company's modest bottom line. In his autobiography, Bush declares that ''I'd come to the CIA with some general knowledge of how it operated' and that his 'overseas contacts as a businessman' justified President Nixon's appointing him as UN ambassador, a decision that at the time was highly controversial.

Previously disclosed FBI files include a memo from bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, noting that his organization had given a briefing to two men in the intelligence community on November 23, 1963, the day after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The memo refers to one as "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" and the other as "Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency."

When Nation magazine contributor Joseph McBride first uncovered this document in 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush, then vice president and seeking the presidency, insisted through a spokesman that he was not the man mentioned in the memo: "I was in Houston, Texas, at the time and involved in the independent oil drilling business. And I was running for the Senate in late '63. I don't have any idea of what he’s talking about." The spokesman added, "Must be another George Bush."

When McBride approached the CIA at that time, it initially invoked a policy of neither ing nor denying anyone's involvement with the agency. But it soon took the unusual step of asserting that the correct individual was a George William Bush, a one-time Virginia staffer whom the agency claimed it could no longer locate. But that George Bush, discovered in his office in the Social Security Administration by McBride, noted that he was a low-ranked coast and landing-beach analyst and that he most certainly never received such an FBI briefing.

It was perhaps to help lay to rest the larger matter of the elder Bush's past associations that the former president went out of his way during his recent eulogy for President Ford to sing the praises of the Warren Commission Report as the final authority on those days.

After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And a conspiracy theorist can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Gerry Ford put his name on it and Gerry Ford's word was always good.

In fact, Ford's role on the Warren Commission is seen by many experts as a decisive factor in his rise to the top. As a Commission member, Ford altered its report in a significant way. As the Associated Press reported in 1997, "Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy’s body when he was killed in Dallas. The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman."

This modification played a seminal role in ending talk of a larger conspiracy to kill the president. Knowledge of Ford's alteration has encouraged theorists to scrutinize the constellation of other figures who might have had a motivation to cover up the affair.

Meanwhile, there is much more to learn about George H. W. Bush's friend, Thomas Devine. The newly surfaced memos explain that Devine, from 1963 on, had authority from the agency to operate under commercial cover as part of an agency project code-named WUBRINY.

Devine at that time was employed with the Wall Street boutique Train, Cabot and Associates, described in the memos as an "investment banking firm which houses and manages the [CIA] proprietary corporation WUSALINE." These nautical names - 'Saline' and 'Briny' - or, for the Bay of Pigs invasion 'Wave' - are CIA cryptonyms for the programs and companies involved.

George H.W. Bush's own ties are amplified in the 1975 CIA memo, dated November 29, which makes it clear that he had knowledge of CIA operations prior to being named the new director of the CIA in the fall of that year.

The 1975 memo notes that, through his relationship with Devine, "Mr George Bush [the CIA director-designate] has prior knowledge of the now terminated project WUBRINY/LPDICTUM which was involved in proprietary commercial operations in Europe."

The Bush documents, part of a batch of 300,000 records the CIA provided to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, were publicly released in 1998 as the result of a lawsuit, donated to a foundation, scanned into a database - and only just noticed by an independent researcher.

------

9/11 the Crystallizing Event

When offered a list of six major events of the decade, just over half (53%) say that the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were the single most important event of the decade. Trailing far behind, 16% cite Obama’s election as president, 12% the 2008 financial crisis, 6% George W. Bush’s election as president, 5% the war in Iraq, and 3% cite Hurricane Katrina.

More than a quarter (28%) of Democrats say Obama’s election was the single most important event of the decade, far more than among independents (12%) or Republicans (8%). Because of this focus on Obama’s election, fewer Democrats (43%) cite the Sept. 11 attacks as the biggest event of the decade than Republicans (60%) or independents (56%).

And while 9/11 is seen as the most important event across all age groups, opinions about the importance of other events differ in significant ways. People under age 30 are more likely than their elders to name the war in Iraq as the most important event of the decade (11% vs. 3% of those ages 30 and over). And, along with the oldest cohort, younger Americans are less likely to name 9/11 as the most important event.

Council on Foreign Relations President Richard N. Haass gave a talk "on his book- "Wars of necessity, Wars of choice" at the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, California to expound upon the 'big ideas' of foreign policy. Although Haass insists, wherever he goes, that US foreign policy is driven by "big ideas" and not by the small-minded, destructive agendas of conspiratorial cartels and international crime syndicates posing as think tanks, intelligence agencies and transnational corporations, it remains difficult to actually find any ideas among the mountains of Haass a historical, incoherent and amoral pablum.

WeAreChangeLA showed up to clarify matters with Haass. Stewart Howe broke down Haass Grandest Concept, that there are very crucial differences between the mass murder known as "War of Choice" and the mass murder known as "War of Necessity," by pointing out that the term "Wars of Agenda" cleared this deceptive dichotomy up once and for all.

Hass' rhetoric flies in the face of the admitted facts and evidence which support that New World Order ("Global Order") and CFR agenda effectively, along with AIPAC and AEI, controls US foreign policy, despite his lies to the contrary. While he at the same time he ADMITS ON FILM that this mass murder (1.5 MILLION Middle East citizens dead) is carried out in service to the "agenda" and "set of objectives" of "...a group of individuals"! Certainly NOT on behalf of We The People.

Bob Sherman asked Haass how he could praise the 9/11 Commission Report when it failed to deal with World Trade Center Building 7. Haass claimed to not know about WTC 7 and said he would research it.

Other folks got involved with very precise questions that touched on the War, Bush and the Military Industrial Complex. Haass decided to answer by avoiding altogether or answer a historically and deceptively.

The question and answer segment which followed, along with a less formal chat in Rands (Dark) courtyard afterward, allowed for several chances to press Mr. Haass about his pursuit of "Wars of PNAC (now AEI) Agenda", The 9/11 Commission Reports excluding mention of Building Seven, SPP Globalist agenda pursued at the expense of our Constitution, The actual purpose of the CFR being the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty, and the New World Order.

Stewart Howe continued the questioning till Haass had to scurry away. To think that the current occupant 'running' the White House uses this man's language to describe matters of war and peace is quite disturbing. And when this thought is combined with the President's recently-aired rejection of history, morality and the laws of the physical universe under the guise of the 'facts' that 'Al-Qaeda claimed to do 9/11,' the intellectual honesty and/or moral fortitude of the current front running out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. appears to be almost on par with the previous sock puppet crew. Luckily, the questioners showed that the American peoples' intelligence and moral acuity is not well represented by one Richard Haas, his 'boss' and their 'big ideas.'

YouTube - WeAreChangeLA questions current CFR President Richard Haass part 1 of 2

YouTube - WeAreChangeLA questions current CFR President Richard Haass part 2 of 2