|
Part 3
Memo to U.S. Congress
Prima Facie Evidence that Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld Committed Treason on 9/11
April 2, 2010
This article is the third of a
multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the
events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for
our society.
AP: Bush receives
History Making Texans award, March 2, 2010
A
Memorandum to The U.S. Congress presented to then incoming
Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee,
Rep.
John Conyers,
Jr. (D-Mich),
following the November 2006 mid-term elections sets out prima facie
evidence for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to
prosecute then U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President
Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld and numerous Jane and John Does for treason
under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution for acts committed on
September 11, 2001.
Article III (3)
of the U.S. Constitution provides:
"Sect. 3. Treason against the United
States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No
person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of
two witnesses to the same overt act, or on open confession in
open court."
United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al.
is the upcoming trial of five alleged Al-Qaeda members for
“masterminding” the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Regardless of whether U.S. President
Barack H. Obama chooses to have
these defendants tried in a U.S. Military Commission or in a U.S.
Federal court, the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress contains prima
facie evidence that the sitting U.S. President, Vice President, and
Secretary of Defense committed actionable Article III (3) treason on
9/11.
Consequently, one can characterize the
forthcoming trial in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al.
as a political show trial, no different in effect - the wrongful
execution of the defendants and the attempted hoodwinking of the
U.S. and world population - from other political show trials in
recent history.
There is a substantial segment of U.S. and world public opinion that
believes that 9/11 was a false flag operation.
In a 2006 paper entitled, “False
Flag Operations, 9/11, and the Exopolitical Perspective”,
Dr.
Michael E. Salla writes:
“According to an August 2006 Scripps
Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe
9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in
what occurred. A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of
Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11
Commission were covering up the truth.”
This Examiner article contains the first
of two installments setting out the compelling prima facie case of
why an independent prosecutor should be appointed to investigate
actionable treason on 9/11.
The law of
treason and constitutional accountability
The Memorandum to the U.S. Congress addresses the issue of the law
of treason and constitutional accountability for the events of
September 11, 2001.
The Memorandum is designed to set out
the prima facie evidence which supports the appointment by the U.S.
Congress (or other entity) of an independent or special prosecutor
to,
“prosecute Treason against these
United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S.
Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense
Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning
and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III
(3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out,
carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack
upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a
strategic deception operation.”
For reasons of space, the excerpts from
the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this Examiner article do not
contain the footnotes and full references in the original
Memorandum.
Examiner readers are encouraged to
download a copy of the original
Memorandum to The U.S. Congress.
Memorandum to
the U.S. Congress - Parts I - III
The following are Parts I - III of the Memorandum. Please note that
the Memorandum contains this caveat:
CAVEAT LECTOR:
This memorandum is based upon the
best public research resources presently available. It is
presented not as a full treatment of the subject but as merely a
brief summary pointing to the existence of sufficient prima
facie evidence to warrant the appointment of an independent
prosecutor.
AP: Cheney at
National Press Club, June 1, 2009
MEMORANDUM
The September 11, 2001 Attacks as
Acts of Treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution
“The United States Constitution, in Article 3, Section 3, says
that it is treason for a citizen of the USA to engage in
“levying war” against the United States. If U.S. citizens
consciously participated in planning the attacks of 9/11 on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this participation would
clearly be treasonous.
There is considerable prima facie
evidence that named members of the U.S. Executive Branch - U.S.
President
George W. Bush, U.S. Vice
President Richard B. Cheney, and U.S. Secretary of
Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld - participated in this
planning.
“This prima facie evidence sustains a constitutional, Joint
Resolution of the U.S. Congress to appoint an Independent
Prosecutor under the authority of Article III (3) of the U.S.
Constitution to prosecute Treason against these United States of
America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President
Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld,
and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the
acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S.
Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or
causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United
States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception
operation.
“An investigation of these acts of prima facie Treason was not
carried out by the 9/11 Commission. This Commission, directed by
an insider, Philip Zelikow, who was directly connected to
the named U.S. President George W. Bush of the U.S. Executive
Branch, took as its starting point the Bush-Cheney
administration’s claim that the attacks were planned and carried
out entirely by members of al-Qaeda. The Commission examined
only facts and allegations that were consistent with this
theory.
“All evidence pointing to complicity by the named individuals -
U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B.
Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld - along
with other John and Jane Does, was ignored or, in a few cases,
distorted.
The U.S. Congress in its
constitutional jurisdiction needs to authorize the appointment
of an independent prosecutor to conduct a genuine investigation
of this prima facie evidence of Treason under Article III (3) of
the U.S. Constitution, which is summarized below in terms of six
questions.”
I. How Could Hijacked Airliners
Have Struck the WTC and the Pentagon?
“If the standard operating procedure of the FAA and the US
military had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, AA Flight
11 and UA Flight 175 would have been intercepted before they
reached Manhattan, and Flight 77 would have been intercepted
long before it could have reached the Pentagon. (Such
interceptions are routine, being carried out about 100 times a
year.)
As to why these interceptions did
not occur, the public has never been given a plausible
explanation. Indeed, we have received three mutually
inconsistent stories.
“In the first few days, military officials said that no fighter
jets were sent up by
NORAD until after the strike on
the Pentagon at 9:38, even though signs that Flight 11 had been
hijacked were observed at 8:15. That would mean that although
interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes, in this case over
80 minutes had elapsed before any fighters were even airborne.
This story suggested that a “stand-down” order had been issued.
“Within a few days, a second story was put out, according to
which NORAD had sent up fighters but, because FAA notification
had unaccountably come very late, the fighters did not arrive
soon enough to prevent the attacks. Critics showed, however,
that even if the FAA’s notifications had come as late as NORAD
claimed, there would have been time for interceptions to occur.
This second story did not, therefore, remove the suspicion that
a stand-down order had been given.
“The 9/11 Commission Report gives a third account, according to
which, contrary to NORAD’s timeline of September 18, 2001, the
FAA did not notify NORAD about Flights 175 and 77 until after
they had struck their targets. This third story, besides
contradicting the second story and also considerable evidence
that the FAA had notified the military in a timely manner,
contains many inherent implausibilities.
It does not, accordingly, remove
grounds for suspicion that a stand-down order had been issued -
a suspicion for which there is ear-witness testimony.”
II. Why Did the Twin Towers and
Building 7 of the WTC Collapse?
“The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice
President Richard B. Cheney has also failed to provide a
credible explanation of the total collapses of the World Trade
Center buildings.
According to the official
explanation, the Twin Towers collapsed because of the impact of
the airplanes and the heat from the ensuing fires.
But this explanation faces several
formidable problems.
-
“First, Building 7 also
collapsed, and in about the same way. This similarity
implies that all three buildings collapsed because of the
same causes. But building 7 was not hit by a plane, so its
collapse must be explained by fire alone. That would lead to
the conclusion that all three buildings collapsed from fire
alone.
-
“Second, however, the fires in
these three buildings were not very big, very hot, or very
long-lasting, compared with fires in some steel-frame
high-rises that did not induce collapses. In 1991, for
example, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, and in
2004, a fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither of
these fires resulted in even a partial collapse, let alone a
total collapse. By contrast, the World Trade Center’s north
and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes,
respectively, before they collapsed. Building 7, moreover,
had fires on only a few floors, according to some witnesses
and all the photographic evidence.
-
“Third, total collapses of
steel-frame high-rise buildings have never, either before or
after 9/11, been brought about by fire alone, or fire
combined with structural damage from airplanes. All such
collapses have been caused by explosives in the procedure
known as ‘controlled demolition.’
-
“Fourth, the collapses of these
three WTC buildings all manifested many standard features of
controlled demolition, such as: sudden onset (whereas steel,
if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag);
straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over);
collapse at virtually free-fall speed (indicating that the
lower floors were offering little if any resistance); total
collapse (indicating that the massive steel columns in the
core of each building had been sliced into many pieces -
which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions); the
production of molten steel; and the occurrence of multiple
explosions, as reported by dozens of people - including
journalists, police officers, WTC employees, emergency
medical workers, and firefighters. The official theory
cannot explain one, let alone all, of these features - at
least, as physicist Steven Jones has pointed out, without
violating several basic laws of physics. But the theory of
controlled demolition easily explains them all.
-
“Fifth, although the question of
whether explosives were used could have been answered by
examining the buildings’ steel columns, virtually all of the
steel was immediately sold to scrap dealers, trucked away,
and sent to Asia to be melted down. Moreover, although it is
usually a federal crime to remove anything from a crime
scene, in this case the removal was overseen by government
officials.
-
“Sixth, al-Qaeda terrorists
could not have obtained access to the buildings for the
enormous number of hours it would have taken to plant the
explosives. But the question of how agents of the
Bush-Cheney administration could have gotten such access can
be answered by pointing out that Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker
III - the president’s brother and cousin, respectively -
were principals of the company in charge of security for the
WTC. It is also doubtful that al-Qaeda terrorists would have
had the courtesy to ensure that the buildings would come
straight down, rather than falling over onto other
buildings.”
[Examiner note: Please see also, “Scientist:
Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into
nanoparticles on 9/11”]
Wiki: Rumsfeld,
U.S. Secretary of Defense on September 11, 2001
III. Could the Official Account of the
Pentagon Possibly Be True?
“According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by
AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani
Hanjour.
This account is challenged by many
facts.
-
“First, Flight 77 allegedly,
after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to
Washington undetected for 40 minutes, even though it was
then known that hijacked airliners were being used as
weapons and even though the US military has the best radar
systems in the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss
anything occurring in North American airspace.”
-
“Second, the aircraft, in order
to hit the west wing, reportedly executed a 270-degree
downward spiral, which according to some experts would have
been impossible for a Boeing 757. Hanjour, moreover, was
known as “a terrible pilot,” who could not even fly a small
airplane.
-
“Third, how could a pilot as
poor as Hanjour have found his way back to Washington
without guidance from the ground?
-
“Fourth, the Pentagon is surely
the best defended building on the planet. It is not only
within the P-56-A restricted air space that extends 17 miles
in all directions from the Washington Monument, but also
within P-56-B, the three-mile ultra-restricted zone above
the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon.
It is only a few miles from
Andrews Air Force Base, which, assigned to protect these
restricted zones, has at least three squadrons with fighter
jets on alert at all times. (The claim by The 9/11
Commission Report that no fighters were on alert the morning
of 9/11 is wholly implausible. ) Also, the Pentagon is
surely protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles,
which are programmed to destroy any aircraft without a US
military transponder entering the Pentagon’s airspace.
(So even if Flight 77 had
entered the Pentagon’s airspace, it could have escaped being
shot down only if officials in the Pentagon had deactivated
its anti-aircraft defenses.)
-
“Fifth, terrorists brilliant
enough to get through the US military’s defense system would
not have struck the west wing, for many reasons: It had been
reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a strike
anywhere else would have been; it was still being renovated,
so relatively few people were there; the secretary of
defense and all the top brass, whom terrorists would
presumably have wanted to kill, were in the east wing; and
hitting the west wing required a difficult maneuver, whereas
crashing into the roof would have been easier and deadlier.
-
“Sixth, there is considerable
evidence that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not
even a Boeing 757. For one thing, unlike the strikes on the
Twin Towers, the strike on the Pentagon did not create a
detectable seismic signal. Also, the kind of damage and
debris that would have been produced by the impact of a
Boeing 757 was not produced by the strike on the Pentagon,
according to both photographs and eyewitnesses.
Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then
an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon,
writes of ‘a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon
lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact... I
saw... no airplane metal or cargo debris.’
“Photographs show that the façade of the west wing remained
standing for 30 minutes after the strike and that, during
this time, the hole in this façade was only about 16 to 18
feet in diameter. A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of about 125
feet, and a steel engine is mounted on each wing. And yet
there was, as Former Air Force Colonel George Nelson has
pointed out, no visible damage on either side of this hole.
Former pilot Ralph Omholt,
discussing both debris and damage on the basis of the
photographic evidence, writes: ‘there is no doubt that a
plane did not hit the Pentagon. There is no hole big enough
to swallow a 757... There is no viable evidence of burning
jet fuel... The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no
‘forward-moving’ damage... There was no tail, no wings; no
damage consistent with a B-757 ‘crash.’”
“Additional evidence that no large airliner hit the west
wing is provided by the fact that the fourth-floor office of
Isabelle Slifer, which was directly above the strike zone
(between the first and second floors), was not damaged by
the initial impact.
"There is considerable evidence, moreover, that the aircraft
that struck the Pentagon was instead a US military missile.
This evidence consists partly of testimony. Lon Rains,
editor of Space News, said: ‘I was convinced it was a
missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an
airplane.' The upper management official at LAX, quoted
earlier as saying that he overheard members of LAX Security
receiving word of a stand-down order, says that they later
received word that 'the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.'
Professor David Edwards of
Salisbury University reports that on the morning of 9/11, a
young couple burst into his subway car at L’Enfante Station
and started shouting: ‘We were standing at the Pentagon
Station, waiting for the train to come, and we saw a missile
fly into the Pentagon! We saw it, we saw it!’ Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an apparent slip of the tongue,
referred in an interview to ‘the missile [used] to damage
this building.’
“The missile hypothesis is also supported by physical
evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman of Alexandria reports that
shortly after the strike her Geiger counter showed the
radiation level, about 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon,
to be 8-10 times higher than normal.
Two days later, Bill Bellinger,
the EPA radiation expert for the region, said that the
rubble at the crash site was radioactive, adding that he
believed the source to be depleted uranium. These findings
are what one would expect, says a former scientist at the
Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory - if the Pentagon had
been struck by a military missile with a depleted uranium
warhead.
“On the basis of all this evidence, retired Army Major Doug
Rokke has said: ‘When you look at the whole thing,
especially the crash site void of airplane parts [and] the
size of the hole left in the building... , it looks like the
work of a missile.’
-
“A seventh reason to be dubious
about the official story is that evidence was destroyed.
Shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris
from the Pentagon in front of the impact site, put it in a
large container, and carried it off. Shortly thereafter the
entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, with the
result that any remaining forensic evidence was covered up.
FBI agents also immediately
confiscated the videos from security cameras on two nearby
buildings. Although the Department of Justice, responding to
a request under the Freedom of Information Act, has
acknowledged the FBI’s possession of at least one of these
videos, the Department of Justice has refused to release it.
"These seven problems, besides
challenging the official account, collectively indicate that the
strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own
government - an act that would clearly constitute treason.”
Back
to Contents
Back to The Bush Impeachment Movement
|