Thursday, April 30, 2009

George Washington's Blog: 911 Confessions and Guilty Parties KSM confesses to crimes he didn't commit


The following blog entry advocates the No Planes Theory (NPT) on 9/11 – a subset of the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job. For a more mainstream perspective regarding the absence of proof of the guilt of some of the alleged terrorists, see George Washington’s Blog below. (For more information on the NPT, see the links below.) --RB


A recent George Washington's Blog (GWB) entry noticed that the only evidence against reputed high value "terrorists" Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the notorious KSM, are allegations by the Bush-Cheney administration.

GWB emphasizes that he’s not arguing that Abu Zubaida and KSM were NOT guilty; he's only saying that no reliable evidence has been presented on the subject.

Unlike, GWB I can confidently say that the aforementioned detainees are not guilty of having any part in the terror events of 9/11 since 9/11 was an inside job, a concoction of the Bush-Cheney White House.

Moreover, there were no, repeat NO Arabs or Muslims involved. There were no hijackings, no hijackers and no plane crashes into buildings or anywhere else on 9/11/01.

No planes explains why there were no jet interceptors airborne until after the attack on the Pentagon –most likely a missile attack. There were no interceptions by jets because there were no hijacked planes to be intercepted.

No planes and no Muslim or other hijackers also explains why the CIA, NSA, FBI and other security agencies have made a point of hiring as few Arab speakers as possible since Arab speakers, if they saw the relevant traffic, could expose who the real terrorists were. The NPT is also consistent with the lack of verifiable plane wreckage or passenger jet body parts from the “crash” sites.

911 as an inside job also explains why the Bush-Cheney White House employed torture. Waterboarding was one way to get false confessions. It’s good to see that some are beginning to raise questions about the guilt of those who were tortured even while the Left consensus appears to agree with the Right that there must be at least a few “bad guys” at Guantanamo.

It has been pointed out that the torture inflicted on detainees makes the normal judicial process difficult or impossible. We can guess that making fair trials impossible was in part the purpose of the torture.

Now that the issue has fallen into the lap of the Obama administration, the White House seems to feel that it is required to set up some extra-judicial, extra- constitutional arrangement for the Bush-Cheney detainees. The latest rumor is that they will be sent to prisons in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere. Obama seems to be bowing to political pressures that take for granted their guilt.

The pity of it goes beyond the detainees and points to the dagger at the heart of the system of justice that supports civil life in the U.S. and in many countries. One could hope that those in favor of justice and due process would consider examining the evidence regarding what really happened on 9/11. Not least because many of those who continue to defend the torturers appear to have no qualms about citing 3,000 dead on 9/11 as the basis for their continued trashing of the rule of law.

Yes, we can hope. But hopes too often founder on the rocks of reality. In his masterful book on Hitler and Stalin (Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (1991, pp. 476-477) Alan Bullock briefly explores the question of how it was possible for the great majority of Soviet citizens (and many of Stalin's victims) to believe that Stalin, “the Great Helmsman,” was the target of conspiracies against his government, and not the great conspirator himself.

Part of Bullock’s answer is that Stalin’s propaganda campaign was so successful that to believe in Stalin’s guilt would have been to “turn the world upside down in the most alarming way and undermine all sense of security…To think [that Stalin was guilty of unspeakable crimes] would have been to feel the solid ground giving way beneath one’s feet.”

Such considerations tangentially or not remind us that the subtler system of restrictions on permissible political discourse in the West are competitive with Soviet style repression.


April 23, 2009

George Washington's blog wrote:

Self-Confessed 9/11 "Mastermind" Also Falsely Confessed to Crimes He Didn't Commit

As the Washington Post writes of Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu Zubaida:

President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

Okay, maybe they got that one wrong.

But certainly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession that he was the mastermind of 9/11 proves his guilt, right?

Well, as the Telegraph notes today:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, was waterboarded 183 times in one month, and “confessed” to murdering the journalist Daniel Pearl, which he did not. There could hardly be more compelling evidence that such techniques are neither swift, nor efficient, nor reliable
If one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's major confessions (Pearl murder) was false, why should we believe his confession about 9/11?

After all, tough-as-nails Navy Seals usually become hysterical when waterboarded once in training sessions. After 183 waterboarding sessions in a month, I wouldn't be surprised if KSM also confessed to murdering Lincoln and Kennedy.

Note: I am not saying that KSM did or didn't have anything to do with 9/11 (I have no idea). I am saying that nothing that the government said about 9/11 should be accepted without independent verification, and that torture does not constitute independent verification. Indeed, given that the government used techniques which were developed especially for producing false confessions, the assumption must be that any confessions were, in fact, false.

-- George Washington's Blog

Links to information regarding No Planes on 9/11

Gerard Holmgren, "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006).;

Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006).

An essay by Ronald Bleier summarizing the Holmgren and Reynolds findings (with a section on the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers) can be found at:

Friday, April 03, 2009

New York Times & Sarkozy: Obama says no to financial reform

Financial System Reform?? + update 4.3.09

French President Sarkozy’s earlier high profile threat to wreck the London G20 financial summit if his demands for tougher financial regulations were not met suggested that he well understood the signals coming from the Obama administration that they were not inclined to promote real reform. Much of the same unease was clear in the NYT editorial which detailed the evasions in Treasury Secretary Geithner’s well hyped but discouraging proposals.

The NYT editorial (3.29.09) “Questions for Reform” pointed out that Geithner’s call for large hedge funds and private equity firms to register with the Security and Exchange commission is a good start, but that under his proposal, the SEC would not really have the full authority necessary to address important concerns. Instead it would be reduced to merely reporting issues up a “convoluted chain of regulatory command.”

Secondly, Geithner’s call for oversight of unregulated derivatives includes a loophole “disguised as a new rule.” Despite the clear demand by the public and the international community for effective hedge fund and derivative regulation Geithner’s proposals suggest that the Obama administration has caved in to the worst offenders who seem to wish to maintain the current discredited system.

There’s more. The Times goes on to criticize what Geithner left unsaid. They fault him for not challenging the concept of firms too big to fail. Instead they find that the Geithner plan unaccountably “assumes that such firms will be a feature of the financial landscape going forward.”

The Times also notes the absence of a call for a thorough investigation of all the moving parts of the current system, without which the proper fix may be elusive and Geithner’s proposals merely a “charade.”

If the Obama administration is not going to take this once in a generation opportunity to promote effective reform on this clear and crucial issue, how can we expect them to protect our interests on much more tangled and controversial issues.

Whatever we might think of the right of center Sarkozy, it seems he has a better line on what is currently necessary than does the Obama administration.


Update 4.3.09

It was embarrassing to read the front page story of the NYT for 4.2.09, “Obama Faces Calls for Rules on Finances.” Instead of enjoying our attractive and well spoken new leader cutting a dashing figure on the world stage, we find the Times forced to confirm that Obama was standing naked for all to see.

Obama’s position seems to be that Europe and the rest of the world – mainly China – should stimulate their economies so they can bail out Obama while he not merely bails out the reprehensibles (some of his major contributors), but, by giving real reform the back of his hand – as we might expect from Cheney – he works to ensure that their time in the sun will continue as long as Obama can create the trillions to do it with.

Further reading.
There’s so much on the economic misdirection from Obama and his economic sidekicks, Geithner and Summers, that it's difficult to keep up -- not to mention, as Paul Krugman, writes, despair making.

One of many notable and important broadsides comes from the Times op ed page, by Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stigliz, “Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism," 4.1.09.

See also the very good website which seems to have article after article detailing the mess. For example:

Mike Whitney, Zombie Economics: Judgment Day for Geithner,” (3.23.09); “Geithner’s Hog Wallow” 3.27-29, 2009)
Dave Lindorff, “Toxic Bailouts” (3.23.09)
Dean Baker, “Billions More for Failed Banks” (3.25.09)