Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Variety's Peter Bart Drenched With Juicy-Juice Again

Peter Bart

I see that you haven't decided which hat to wear.

Let's start with your "producer" resumee. Maybe you could talk about what happened between 1987 and 2006.

Peter, it looks like you think you know alot about things, but you don't. Publicity works this way: Even when it's bad, it's still very good.

That's where your analogy falls down. Guess who's got the tapes right now, and is doing the investigation? That's right, not Jared Paul Stern.

* * *

Let's talk big picture: The FBI and US Attorney were well aware of the taping, whispering lines to Burkle. Kind of like what movie stars when the leak "really important news" to pieces of trash news column writers.

You may think you know alot about writing, Peter, but when it comes to avoiding adverse judgments you lose. As evidence, consider the upshot of your battle with Burkle: He has alot of money, and you are a writer.

What’s life going to be after all this is over? He’s still be rich, and you’ll still be – wait for it – a writer.

* * *

Initially, you may have conceived dreams of grandeur to replace Page Six, but your problems really started the moment you started typing.

What you should have done was realize, "I'm a writer, and I'm not Burkle." Your problem really started after the fateful typing session.

What you should have done was take your copy to the LA Times and offer a straight forward deal: You would turn over you book writing deals to the LA Times and remain silent about your non-sense, provided that the LA Times did not mention that you are just a writer.

The ethics-in-media types would wince at such a suggestion, but the LA Times is a deal maker, Peter. They would understand a proposal like that.

* * *

Instead you set off a media storm by talking about what you say should not be done. Does it really matter if the public knows the specifics of what you are doing? Of course not, you like to give attention to those things you do not want others to pay attention to. Thus, your hypocrisy and failure to comprehend your own industry: Thou shalt not comment on issues which one does not wish to have thrown in ones face.

How you liking this Peter? But not to stop there, rather than admit that Burkle didn't bother coming to talk to you, you made a cardinal error. You started a war with the financial reporting industry, the public, and the rich and powerful.

Have you lost your mind? Last time we checked it is the money-people who pay producers to make films. If they money-class is going to get ripped to shreds by the media types in Variety, why should anyone bother working with your production company? No answer from you. Aren't you stupid.

It is not nice to declare war on the rich and powerful. You started the war by saying you were a writer, but asking us to believe you're a producer. The media only comments on things when they want attention. Thank you for being stupid. You show that you're not very intelligent. The money will always win, especially when their lawyers are actively cooperating with an ongoing FBI investigation.

* * *

Witness the following: You are not being singled out for even more punishment in the blogosphere. Given your "status", the blogosphere rewarded you with a fair comment -- that you're talking about what you want: Attention.

Peter, go get some help. If you move fast enough you might find a lawyer who won't laugh at you too much. What kind of relationship do you have with the rich and powerful? Wow, you're a writer at Variety. Oooohhhh!

Everyone wants to be your friend now, Peter which isn't really want you are sure you want. But why be specific, when you wish you had important friends.

How do you like writing a column about things you would have us believe are "worthless"? Ha! There, you expose your hypocrisy.

I trust you will not learn your lesson from all this. Life is like a movie set, Peter. In the end, everyone ends up saying, "Crap, another two months of my life wasted, and now I have to go on unemployment." In the end, everyone ends up facing the unemployment line. And God knows your writing still sucks.

Why is Variety stupid enough to keep running your column; or are you just upset that Burkle didn't call you when you were trying to pitch a movie script?

Peter, it's impressive to see someone in Hollywood talk about something that they would have us believe "isn't important." Thank you for spending a few minutes focusing on issues which reveal so much about Hollywood and those who produce films: You like the media frenzy, because that is your juice.

Peter, next time stay out of the supermarket. You won’t have so much juice on your face and clothes. You got drenched this time, it’s seeping through your underwear.

- - -


You'll see that the above words are strikingly similar to this which we will forever use as a model when writing up "really juicy-juice" articles. Thanks Peter! At least we know that non-sense can bless the pages of Variety. What would the world be without your insight, wisdom, and good graces?

We are groveling. We're not worthy!

Where's a mop. . .

Read more . . .

Saturday, April 29, 2006

NSA: White House cannot credibly suppress evidence related to illegal activity

The President and National Security Agency, the military arm that violates American rights, have asked the Department of Justice to suppress evidence related to NSA employee crimes.

In so many words, American war criminals in the White House aim to suppress evidence of their war crimes. They have no legal foundation.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is illegal to suppress this information. Rather, 418 US 683 is precedent for exposing the President's crimes.

The presumption of privilege or "national security" can be rebutted.

There is not merit to any government argument that evidence of crimes should be suppressed; or that the case should be dismissed on "national security grounds."

Rather, the Constitution affords the President the power to wage war, and all conduct must be consistent with the law.

Nowhere does the Constitution give anyone the power or right to violate the law; nor is there any legal authority which permits evidence of illegal activity to be suppressed with any claim of privilege.

We've already shown this American leadership refuses to follow procedures to protect information. They cannot credibly claim they need to protect anything.

Rather, their goal is simply to hide evidence of their crimes. The attorneys know the White House and DoJ filings are based on fraud, and another violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Administration lawyers like Gonzalez and Yoo already face the threat of disbarment. You can see an example of the scope of a discipliary board review may take.

It remains to be understood whether the White House and DoJ counsel under go a legal review for their apparent reckless disregard for the laws and frivolous, fraudulent filings in the courts.

* * *

If the American government chooses not to assert the rule of law, then the States may lawfully draft a New Constitution compelling them to do so under penalty of a felony.

The rule of law will prevail, whether the government chooses to cooperate or rebel.

Read more . . .

Assume Americans are War Criminals

It's becoming increasingly difficult to get reliable information from America. Even bloggers are not willing to discuss the "really nasty things."

NYT is reporting that there's a clamp down on the media.

Not that that really matters much, as the media has already been discredited.

The way forward is to simply make adverse judgments, and continue to press for more proclamations calling for impeachment; and also continue the planning for a New Constitution.

* * *

We don't have to have "evidence" to justify making improvement. Rather, the evidence is all around us: Suppression, abuse of power, delusional leaders, and people unwilling to assert the rule of law.

America is quickly spiraling into a land of zombies.

Don't expose your capital to America; their leaders aren't able to stand by the rule of law.

* * *

Ineffectual media

Don't count on the media to stand up to the war criminals. The media actively support illegal activity.

Why bother reading material from those in bed with the evil ones? Save your time, assume the Americans are violating the law, and put your money in a place that is safer.

Criminals are running the prison called, “America”

You know the criminals are running things when it is illegal to report criminal activity. This White House's idea of "enemies" are those who are willing to assert the rule of law, ask touch questions, and ensure the Constitution is protected.

The White House and DoJ aren't interested in protecting good order. Rather, their goal is to insulate themselves from accountability.

American government has no legitimacy

America isn't protecting classified information. It is acting to prevent the world realizing the scope of the war crimes.

It really doesn't matter how the NSA violates the law; all you have to know is that they violate the law, and unlawfully use military forces against Americans. This is a war crime.

It's absurd to believe this White House is "serous" about protecting secrets. The White House staff openly leaks classified information about their own undercover agents.

There's no reason to believe Gonzalez' assertion that all the violations will be looked at. This DoJ worked hand in glove with the NSA and CIA to abuse Americans, violate the law, and suppress information about illegal American activity around the globe. They are war criminals.

It's absurd to believe the White House is serious about "protecting the Espionage law" -- this White House openly ignores the law, and leaks information related to human sources. What's disturbing is the documents are well stamped with HUMING and ORCON, but this White House staff refuses to comply with the law.

American war criminals and illegal wars of aggression

It is damaging to the US Constitution to wage illegal war, and suppress information about unlawful government conduct. It's illegal to classify something to keep criminal activity beyond public understanding. The government has to show that the information should not be classified.

I would hope that illegal combat operations end. To support them would make American civilians complicit in war crimes. How many Germans could have been saved had the SS not been able to send people to the gas chambers for discussing the illegal activity?

Illegal activity, if it is not stopped, will continue to spread. On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Al Gore reminded the nation that there is nothing stopping this White House from doing the same as the Nazis did in WWII: Committing Genocide. Will the UN take action to contain the war criminals in the US?

* * *

There is a simple way to find out what is going on in America. Read the law, and then assume they're violating it.

If you have a problem in America, you're on your own.

Save your time, don't bother stopping.

Read more . . .

Specter shows signs of mental disorder

Update: Iran agrees.

Asking, "Where is the outrage" Specter shows signs that he's delusional, and not in touch with reality.

He just doesn't get it: Here's the outrage

Here's what the House permits, and this is what Specter is unable to comprehend: [ Click ]

Given Specter's stupidity, it's time to seriously discuss lawfully transforming the Senate into something the Senators can actually do.

Here's what the Senate would look like under a New Constitution: [ Senate Transformed Click ]

And here's another surprise for Specter, we can do this without a Constitutional Convention.

* * *

We can arrange for more states proclamations calling for impeachment.

Or is Specter advocating violence as the "necessary outrage"? Specter should not advocate violence in order to get the government to do its job.

The American people are outraged, and they are peacefully doing what this failed leadership refuses to do: Lawfully take steps to assert the rule of law.

If Congress doesn't wake up, they will not have to go back to DC. They'll be voted out of office.

No need to wake up Specter, he's not fit to be a Senator.

* * *

Specter appears to be in denial, delusional, disconnected from reality, incapable of leading, and appears to advocate violence. This is not appropriate.

Specter's comments and assessments should not be taken serously. Rather, he needs to explain to the public why he should be believed. He has the burden of proof.

We need not waste time with Congress. The public has all the information it needs. The "leader" of the Judiciary Committee is unwilling or incapable of facing reality.

Americans needs to discuss a New Constitution that will force the leadership to face reality, do their jobs, and uphold the rule of law.

Read more . . .

9-11: How to find names of Americans who places explosives in WTC

Correction: Title should read "placed" not "places".

Yes, there's a way to find the names of those who placed the explosives in the World Trade Center.

This outlines how this can be done. The intelligence community has classified communication systems. Based on estimates related to the explosive size, physical storage/delivery locations, and the planning, we can make some inferences for purposes of subpoenas and discovery.

You will find the links to the Intelligence Community classified files, and the other information related to who was involved/how this was planned, and what we know they said: [ Click ] and also the types of Equipment used to support the subsequent cover-up.

Candidate asking questions: [ Click ]

* * *

The key will be to show the court that the discovery requests are based on something linked with physical evidence: Squib photos, likely explosives, lead time to install, and discussions required to plan the event.

We judge the American intelligence community Intel-Link has been intercepted, compromised, and there exist backup files and copies of the data showing who specifically in the US government planned, knew of, and supported the placement of explosives within the World Trade Center prior to Sept 2001.

This note outlines how to put the pieces together for purpose of supporting the ongoing litigation, discovery, and fact finding. Remember, the goal here isn't simply to hold people accountable, but to understand what is needed to ensure the intelligence community does not abuse its power and is more effectively overseen. Without a modernized oversight system, we can fully expect the Americans to do this again. That is not acceptable.

Here's what's going on [ Click ]; this is the case you'll need [ 418 US 683 ] to rebut the President's claims of privilege.

No argument: Explosives were placed prior to Sept 2001

At this point is clear that there were explosives in the WTC. We need to move beyond trying to “make the case” that there are or are not explosives.

Rather, the next phase it to focus on the specific types of explosives, the team size that placed the explosives, the lead time from Sept 2001 they placed, and then trace the actual purchases.

Based on the work, it appears it is well within the scope of possibility to identify the types of explosives, the possible purchase locations, and then identify the dates that funds would have been transferred.

Also, we know which contractors were in the building, and can pinpoint the dates when personnel were in a position to have access. Again, the entry-access logs can be traced; and someone knows which dates the explosives were placed.

Based on the free-fall times, and the observed detonations, we can make some guesses as to the physical size of the total explosive placement; the types of explosives.

Also, using the Richter scale, we can make some judgments as to the total explosive power placed in the buildings; and the range of explosives required to produce this effect.

Again, the key is to remember that if DoD contractors have moved these explosives, those transfers will trace back to specific upload, storage, download, and driver-hire times.

* * *

Things you can do

See what you can find out about this: This is full of intelligence types.

Also, here's an example of a DoD contractor/shipping -- not saying they did anything wrong -- it's just an example name -- see which lists this name appears on, and then see what kind of shipping contracts were let in early to late 2001 in the NY and NJ area. Here's the AMSA information. Notice what happens when you narrow the list to 2001 and NY/NJ areas: You get a very short list of potential movers in the pre Sept 2001 timeframe [ click ] All we're doing is eliminating "what is not possible"; then taking the various lists and overlaying them to see which very small number of people most likely fit the profiles of who may have been involved. Here is another cut -- they may have had a primary shipper/storage company, and in the event a problem they would need a backup.

Remember, in FY00/01 DoD over hired personnel in this facility, so it's not clear why there is confusion over what did or didn't happen. They should have had enough personnel to see what was going on.

Find out about this contract, and see who was involved with the Bandwidth upgrade, how long they took, and what methods they used to plan, communicate. Interested in the leases and physical locations where they had their offices, and the people who were involved --what link they had with the DC-area golfers, and also their travel to and from WTC7 in early to mid 2001.

We're looking for what type of communication there may have been between the explosive-placement team, WTC Security, and the delivery crews which dropped off the explosives.

Look into the results of this testing, see how they were used, and who may have used the results Steel testing This testing could have been ordered not to protect the facility, but to find out the minimum explosives required to do the opposite: What we saw in Sept 2001. You'll want to see which parameters in this test were then used in which reports; and how these discrete numbers were mentioned in the Intel-link files.

* * *

There is a way to find the Americans who committed these murders

The purpose of the information below isn’t to provide the answers to these questions. Rather, it is to show you that you’re on the right track; and outline for you the types of questions that can be answered based on the observed squib-detonations.

Going forward, it is hoped that is outline below provide a crude guide to others who are interested in tracing contracts, estimating team sizes, and doing research on which contactors would have been in a position to provide this type of explosive support; and also the physical locations where the explosives were fabricated and stored prior to final placement.

* * *

Using squib images to assess explosive type/amount

One thing we’ve noticed are the squibs. This isn’t news. What is interesting is to identify the specific floors where the squibs are located; then compare the explosions with the floors which we upgraded with new broadband.

  • Squib detonation photos from a variety of angles

  • Relationship between windows and floors

  • Approximate floors which the squibs were known to exist

  • Comparison with the contract terms

  • * * *

    Sample Questions for your analysis

    This analysis will answer several questions. Note some of these questions are similar, but there are different factors each question is focusing on.

  • 1. Which floors are the explosions occurring; Which specific floors were explosives placed [% of floors with wires, but no detonation]

  • 2. How do the explosions compare with the contract for the broadband upgrade: Is the floor the same as that of the cable upgrade contract [Contract terms]

  • 3. Does the floor number of the squib explosion match exactly the contract terms [Yes, no] [Overlaps, inconsistencies]

  • 4. Are there explosions on floors other than what was contracted for in the broadband upgrade [Outside the contract]

  • 5. Did this contractor do work outside the contract [Yes, no]

  • 6. Did this contractor or another contractor do the work [This one, another one]

  • 7. Did someone else do something at another time [Scope of work in time]

  • 8. How long would it take to do what the squibs are observed doing [Time, personnel, equipment, and surface area]

  • 9. How long would it take to place the known-identified explosives detonated and captured on film [Percentage of total, assumptions about non-photographed squibs]

  • 10. What percentage of the estimated C4-equivanent explosive power can be accounted for by specific images in the squib explosives [1T C4, less the total amount in each image; estimate of C4 per explosive burst]

  • 11. In order to create this debris pattern what other explosives would have had to been placed [Estimate of total explosives required, estimate of total explosives accounted for]

  • 12. What percentage of the C4-equivalent tonnage cannot be explained by the squibs in the photographs [Non-photographed]

  • 13. How long would it take to place the explosives outside the contract, and what other contract efforts would have to exist [Scope of work to place 1T C4 equivalent]

  • 14. Could the WTC collapse in free fall with only a percentage of the floors wired [When does the pancake theory hold true; or do all the floors have to be wired]

  • 15. How many floors are wired: [Number, percentage]

  • 16. What other wiring is required to get the result: Small debris, squibs, free fall [Estimate]

  • 17. Was there enough time to wire the building in one weekend [Yes, no]

  • 18. If the entire wiring was done in a single weekend, how many people would have to do the wiring

  • * * *

    Testing the Various Cover Theories

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the wire/cable upgrade was a cover. How can we prove that the cable they installed contained explosives; or that the work they did was at the time that the explosives were placed; or that what they did was consistent with the full explosives placed in the building

    * * *

    What can be determined

    We would expect to have evidence:

  • The cable was purchased

  • The company telephoned contractors and personnel during meetings and appointments

  • Records of the purchase of the cables

  • A trace from the original purchase order to the original cable manufacturing location

  • Storage locations leases

  • Entry-exit time logs at the locations

  • Manufacturing location

  • * * *

    Sample Data

    Note the links below may not work on a direct click; if they fail, simply copy the link, and place it in a new browser.

    Richter Reading

    Time – Which equates to floors Click


    Excellent Renderings: Floors vs. Time of Collapse [Click ]

    Answer: Pancaking of any of the floors would take to long [ Click ]

    Graphic: Detonation volume –vs-Floors [ Click ] Source: [ Click ]

    Top Floor: Dimensions [Click ]

    Top Floor [ CLick ]

    South Tower -- Squibs on floors: Floors 74-79 [ Click ]

    44th Floor Click

    Nonspecific floors: Reference Tower [ Click ]

    Explosive Flashes [ Click ]

    * * *

    Construction Photos

    [Click ]

    Rendering of the 96th Floor [ Click ]

    * * *

    A second explosive team.

    Evidence of different types of explosive charges, not just squibs [ Click ]

    * * *

    Assumption: WTC7 was the command post for the scenario.

    The explosives team would have identified the likely debris pattern. They key will be to know when the WTC7 personnel evacuated.

    Building 7 proximity [ Click ]

    WTC7 Squibs [ Click ]

    * * *


    The following is a list of recommendations for researchers and other people interested in the anomalies.

    When you are doing your analysis, try to focus on the specific floors, and see if you can make some guesses as to the amount of explosives placed at each floor. The goal will be to come up with a range of estimates as to the total tonnage of explosives placed; the total physical size of the explosives; and then guess as to the types of vehicles required to move the explosives.

    Also, in your analysis, develop a rough estimate of the type of explosive charges used. This will help identify which specific equipment was used to install the explosive; and the approximate version of that explosive. For example a specific explosive with a specific debris/dust pattern will have a signature that can be traced to a lot number and manufacturing point.

    The key at this point isn’t to second guess your work, but to build off the assumption that the building was wired; and to build a model of

  • A. What types of explosives were placed

  • B. Where did the explosives come from

  • C. Which funds would have been transferred to pay for the explosives

  • D. What physically had to be moved into the WTC to create this debris pattern

  • E. What other people would be in a position to notice this type of equipment well before Sept 2001

  • F. Which of the assumptions about the cabling are or are not supported based on the expected equipment uploads

  • G. Could the explosives have been placed within the timeframe, or would there have to be other efforts disguised as something else; and are there other entry-installation efforts that occurred many months before Sept 2001.

    * * *

    At this juncture, I’m not convinced that the explosives could have been placed within the WTC in a single weekend. This is physically too many locations. Further, the different types of explosives would mean that they physically had to raise and lower explosives which two different teams would have to be familiar.

    Again, it could be possible, but the issue at this point is whether we are looking at the right window of time. My view is that the explosive-placement-window [the time between first explosive placement and last explosive placement] is much longer than a single weekend; whether this placement started several weeks or months remains to be explored.

    The reason for making some informed judgments on this is that if we can bound the “most likely time that they started placing explosives” then we can get an idea of which dates to start looking for which fund transfers; and identify which contracts would have to have been in place for payment.

    Obviously, if they’ve paid for the explosives with cash, this is another issue. But the point is that at some point someone would have to physically do something at a specific date; and then these action-times can be back-linked with the NSA intercepts of the phone conversations. Again, if NSA has destroyed this data this doesn’t matter – the mere fact that there are gaps where there should be – combined with the “many usual gaps in evidence” – would support the contention that there were specific-known events prior to Sept 2001 that are related to purchase, acquisition, transfer, storage, manufacturing, placement, and then final readiness of the explosives inside the WTC towers [plural].

    Then we have to go back in time and look: How long before this entire scenario was executed did someone have to look at this and say, “OK” this is what we’re going to do. Again, this will then trigger some looking into the Intel-databases to find out which teams and studies were matching. [Here are the range of American teams used during the 9-11 support activity, and how they were likely organized: Click ]

    Namely, if based on the lead time away from the explosive-dentations, we can guess that the Intel-Link was discussing this scenario; and speculate on what other meetings would have to have occurred. The issue isn’t exactness, but to bound the time that the conversations were likely occurring; then trace those who had access to this Intel-Link and make them account for what they were doing; who they were talking to; and what they were working on.

    Then we can look for specific meetings, conferences, communications, and connections. This is connected to funding that is routed through Columbus Defense Finance and Accounting Service payment, and other means to contractors then a final bank account.

    Eventually, you’re going to get into a pool of people who are most likely involved, were well aware, and fully connected – but their stories are not going to be consistent. At this point, it is likely that their background stories were never expected to be executed – namely nobody ever though they’d have to explain their whereabouts from pre Sept 2001.

    The way forward is to realize that most of these people are still alive; and they were involved; the way forward is to know that their stories are not going to match. That is the issue which will confirm their involvement.

    * * *

    Using the judgemetns about explosives to pinpoint discussion times and data in the Intelligence Community Files

    The Intelligence Community has a well known classified communication system. For purposes of discovery, we'll have to narrow down the times into what is most likely the areas, topic, and times that these conversations occurred and are retained on Intel-Link.

    Remember, there are backup data of all the Intel-Link; and there are foreign intelligence intercepts of the Intel-Link transmissions.

    Even if the NSA and GCHQ have destroyed these communications, there are other sources to find this. The key will be to identify:

  • Dates when the planning conversations took place

  • The range of topics discussed

  • The assumptions that they would have had to use or consider

  • The other issues they were working on

    The above information is merely notional, but if we can create a profile for the range of “other issues” that personnel were working on, then we can create rough schedules for these people, and then see who would fit these profiles. Again, this may appear to be difficult, but it’s actually quite simple: You simple create a generic profile, and then start to identify who is more or less likely to be associated with each of the profiles.

    Eventually, you’re going to narrow in on some matches.

    Remember, history has already happened. They can’t change history. They can only make mistakes when trying to cover it up.

    Their problem is that despite all that they’ve done to hide this, they’re far closer to getting caught than they ever imagined.

    There is no statute of limitations on murder.

    * * *

    To Be filed

    The issue with these failure/destruct modes isn't to assert that they are or are not true -- rather, if they are true what required support would be required in terms of coordination, travel, storage, purchases, and communication:

    One possible chemical: Thermite [ Click ]

    How detonators could have been placed months in advance [ Click ]

    Here are various theories on how C4 was placed in the steel, leading us to explore what types of schedules were required to accomplish this work [ Click ]

    Recall the strange movement of the tower. This theory is that there were a second set of explosives, but the aircraft collected with the wrong building -- the explosives were designed to make it appear the top of the tower was collapsing on the impact point . . . which didn't exist. [ Click ]

    Possible images of what was actually used: There may have been some explosives left behind during the installation [ Click ]

    Hydrogen bomb theory [ Click ]

    Clear Sign of a Problem

    This image shows there was a problem with the sequencing. Using this image, we can get an idea of the statistics. Explosives have a confidence interval, if there are timing mechanisms, there is a probability of success and accuracy.

    Click on this image -- and notice the distance between the exit-point [at red] and the number of floors above to where the squibs are exploding:

    What the above image suggests is that at the extreme failure modes -- in terms of "something detonating when not expected" -- is that well down the column, there is an explosive pattern that is not consistent with the assumed-plan.

    Other view: Are these anomalies, or are they consistent with the theory that explosives were placed every 10 floors:

    [Click to enlarge: Image is placed her for educational/research objectives and falls within fair use of the Copyright Statute]

    If we assume that the original plan was to have a wave effect, we can then look at the alphas, and find out -- based on the anomalies -- how many detonations would likely occur to produce this. Although this may be the only anomaly, we can then apply the data to what is called a weibull distribution curve, then impute a failure mode for that type of explosive-detonation system.

    What this does is it expands the bounds of what is going on, and we can say that with x-confidence the destruction mechanism -- for it to include this type of anomaly -- would most like by Y-type of detonation system.

    Based on the unique failure-mode of this detonation system, we can then quickly narrow down our options as to:

  • A. What type of system it is

  • B. Who would know about it

  • C. How they physically placed it

  • D. Where it was tested

    Read more . . .

  • Friday, April 28, 2006

    CIA making off the record comments

    Remember one of the arguments for blogs -- and against the MSM -- was that there was no conflict, rather a free flow of information.

    How quickly the blogs adopt the same rules.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not calling a certain blog as being "in bed" with the evil ones.

    With respect to the issue at hand -- we can only wonder what the CIA might say that would warrant an "off the record comment."

    Let's make that the issue: Please provide a list of issues and subject that will prompt someone in the CIA Public Affairs office to say, "I want to go off the record."

    Let's imagine:

  • Operations, capabilities, and plans illegally being used stateside against American civilians in violation of the Constitution

  • Lost documents and security breaches at airfields in the United States following aborted takeoffs, and aircraft accidents in adverse weather conditions

  • Disclosure of classified information related to illegal activities, which cannot legally be classified, nor can anyone be bound by a confidentiality agreement when the objective is to mislead or hide evidence of wrong doing

  • Pending litigation or indicators of litigation related to war crimes by CIA personnel and contractors overseas and at home

  • Deficiencies in training on the laws of war, and demoting those who report the misconduct to the CIA IG

  • Failure to comply with Congressional language barring use of funds for illegal purposes

  • Illegal use of funds for non-approved purposes against Americans during illegal warrantless surveillance, intrusion, and interrogations stateside

  • Ongoing investigations of criminal activity in Eastern Europe

  • Areas which the CIA IG refuses to investigate on "national security grounds" but are actually illegal activity which should not be funded

  • Incompetence by the CIA contractors, but failure to cooperate with auditors in the pending investigation

  • Flaws and cost overruns of the CIA development efforts, yet continued false reports to Congress that the programs are on target

  • Illegal uses of the contractor's work products for use against American civilians

  • Knowledge of the pre 9-11 explosives installations inside the three WTC

  • Pending rule changes which have more loopholes, making the changes meaningless and unenforceable

  • Discussions at the Potomac Golf Association related to DoJ informants inside the NSA and CIA who continue to cooperate with the Grand Jury

  • Disciplinary problems related to underage drinking, molestation, and very nasty things done to young women in places where CIA employees are not supposed to be

  • Firings, demotions, transfers because of criminal activity or violations of the United States code against war crimes

  • Reliability of the information, oversight, and governance

  • Status of legislative reforms which are secretly being passed without Congressional debate as part of the "rule changing power" of the DCI

  • Competence of legal counsel, and anecdotes which may warrant a disciplinary board proceeding and other allegations of fraud committed upon the DC court of appeals

  • Competence of Congressional oversight, and anecdotes raising questions as to their fitness to remain in public office/mental capacity, and failure to timely respond to inquiries related to their failure to assert all lawful options to review the alleged crimes

    Did I miss anything?

    Rather, I'm simply surprised of the game that's going on.

    * * *

    Again, I don't mid that bloggers have their sources. But the minute that you agree to "not report everything" or "get background information, but that's off the record" I fail to see how you distinguish yourself from the NYT.

    Remember how the NYT got into trouble: They valued their access to sources and power more than they did in providing the truth.

    That's OK. Everyone has to make their own decisions.

    Where do I fall down on the line? There is no line.

    Anything learned through whatever lawful means is fair game.

    * * *

    Remember the other argument against the MSM: "To maintain access to the powerful, they had to agree not to report things."

    OK, let's suppose that charge against the MSM is true. Again, I fail to see how what some blogs are doing is different.

    Does this mean blogs are bad? No, it must means that the "slippery slope" of the MSM is now part of the blogosphere.

    * * *

    From this perspective, bloggers have a problem when they want to pass themselves off as blogs or "new media" when they have a greater allegiance to sources than they do in reporting.

    I will have no sympathy the day that a blogger is called before a grand jury -- just as the NYT reporters and others have been called before the Fitzgerald Grand jury -- over issues of leaks, and alleged criminal activity.

    If you want to be a blogger, then blog.

    If you want to be a reporter, then report.

    But don't ask the world to believe you're a blogger, when you want to wear the hat of those who have already slid down the slippery slope.

    If you're part of the MSM, then you have a higher burden of proof. In turn, you also have no right to expect to be treated as "just a blogger."

    Rather, you deserve to be treated as anyone else in the MSM: With disdain, contempt, and little personal respect.

    * * *

    If you want to ask for money for your blog, that is fine.

    But if you're going to blog, and allow others to comment -- as they can on their own blogs -- don't whine when the bloggers call you what you are: A shill for the government.

    You can't have it both ways. But as with all shills the blogger-MSM wants it both ways: The power to be free and abuse others; and the discretion to mobilize a pack of idiot blog-readers to smear others.

    You're no better than the MSM. Rather, you're worse. Your readers are stupid, easily manipulated, and when you can't stand on your own arguments or credibility, you enjoy feeding your readers with non-sense to spin them up.

    You're worse than the White House. But you want to make the world believe you're "meeting a higher standard."

    What a load of non-sense.

    Read the details here.

    Read more . . .

  • Illinois Disciplinary Board Has An Issue

    This one caught our eye.

    It appears an attorney allegedly misrepresented the facts about an indictment to his supervisory attorney; the attorney and supervisory agreed the way forward was to file a defamation claim; but that defamation claims was subsequently withdrawn.

    We share with you, a general audience our opinions and fair comments which may not necessarily be widely held.

    * * *

    In general, it is our view that the following allegations are egregious because the attorney knew or should have known the facts, while at the same time knew the conduct was in contravention with the standards of professional conduct. Both factors warrant an upward adjustment in the sanctions against the attorney for the alleged misconduct.

    It is our opinion, and this may not be widely held that this matter warrants review by the Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Board:

  • Alleged attorney frivolous action in lawsuit, [Ref: 3.1 ]

  • Alleged attorney false statements to the tribunal Ref: 3.3

  • Alleged attorney misrepresentations in the complaint to the tribunal [Ref: 3.3 ]

  • Alleged attorney conduct which placed an undue burden on others, in violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. [ Ref 4.4 (e) ]

  • Alleged failure of the supervisory attorney to rectify the alleged conduct of the subordinate [Ref: 5.1 ]

  • Alleged supervisory attorney knowledge of the above misconduct before the tribunal, but failure to timely report and investigate as required [ 3.4 ]

  • Alleged improper trial tactics for taking action which is contrary to public policy--conduct the attorney should have known was inappropriate given the public statements related to the indictment were true/ratified by the withdrawal; and there was no basis for a claim or lawsuit. [ Ref: 3.4 ]

  • Alleged threats of a lawsuit prior to filing -- on the basis of allegedly false information -- to stifle Constitutional Rights of others to discuss in the open media factual information [ Ref: 3.4 ]

    * * *

    It remains to be understood whether counsel faces sanctions or other court remedies as the current rules provide under the tort of "malicious prosecution". [ Ref: Click ]

    * * *

    Based on allegations in the open media, it appears as though there is a reasonable basis to begin a preliminary inquiry:

  • Are the alleged statements true or false;

  • Did the alleged attorney make the statements; and

  • Is the conduct contrary to the rules of professional conduct.

    * * *

    For purposes of discovery, we admit into evidence, the following facts:

  • Plaintiff-attorney allegedly withdrew his defamation suit, leading one to question why the suit was originally filed;

  • Plaintiff-attorney was allegedly indicted, and this alleged indictment was subsequently dropped;

  • The open media has appeared to correctly report the alleged indictment; and

  • Subsequent discussions in the open media appear to raise reasonable questions as to whether the attorney is making truthful or untruthful statements.

    * * *

    The Illinois Bar has a problem. One of your attorneys appears to have a habit of filing defamation suits.

    We make no claim that the alleged attorney has or has not been defamed.

    Rather, our concern is four-fold:

  • 1. Business: The litigation risk;

  • 2. Free speech: The public has the right to discuss;

  • 3. Civility: Respect for fellow human beings right to discuss truthful information; and

  • 4. Rule enforcement: The model rules.

    These are principles as the heart of a civilized society.

    * * *

    Business-risks increase and counter-party-reliability drop when here there is a chilling effect on free speech. Bluntly, where there is an impact on a free flow of information, or the information is apparently corrupted, this tends to reduce the chances that outside investors will allocate capital to the region.

    Based on what little we know of the incident, we judge the following and make the following concerns and opinions known to the open media, blogosphere, and financial markets:

  • A. It appears as though there may be an enforcement issue in Illinois;

  • B. We are not inclined to favorably make any recommendations to allocate capital to Illinois; and

  • C. We remain concerned that at the time the nation has a poor track record of regulating the financial markets, the legal community appears to be just as willing to share what appears to be less than credible statements.

    * * *

    We make no claim that any of the individuals have or have not committed any crime. Rather, it is our judgment that the business environment in Illinois remains robust.

    However, we are concerned that a simple matter related to attorney conduct -- and an apparent recurring pattern conduct -- is not being remedied.

    There are two issues:

  • A. Either the alleged attorney is or he is not engaging in conduct that is contrary to the model rules;

  • B. Either the oversight system is or is not working.

    From this perspective, despite the apparent multiple defamation suits, there appears to be little that is acting as a "wet blanket" on what most might think should be an attorney that should "suck it up".

    * * *

    It is our view that the attorney remains in the law firm, and that his conduct be carefully observed both in and out of the court room.

    Whether he is or is not an attorney or state representative is of little interest. Our concern is that the alleged conduct does have a chilling effect on free speech, and the way forward is not to simply "roll over" and accept things.

    Rather, the State of Illinois and the Illinois Bar need to embrace this issue. The public not just in Illinois, but also across the country and around the globe should have some confidence that the State of Illinois is concerned with the rule of law.

    Clearly, the current discussions on impeaching the President warrant a "positive" for the state. However, in our view, this net positive is slightly downgraded when there appears to be a lone attorney -- perhaps supported by others -- that appears to have a -- how shall we say -- creative use of lawsuit.

    We make no claim that the suit was frivolous. Rather, in our opinion an attorney may have a good basis to bring suit.

    Yet, we are troubled. Because if the lawsuit over defamation is withdrawn within the same nexus that the indictment claims prove true -- namely, that the attorney was actually indicted, but not prosecuted -- then we ask: "What's the issue?"

    If there is no misconduct, then let the issue lie as it is.

    However, it appears as though someone -- for whatever reason -- chooses to discuss something that is true; and someone else chooses to have that discussion suppressed.

    * * *

    We make no claim that someone is being abusive, is a bully, or is abusing the legal system. Rather, it is our view that the abuses could be happening. The issue for the Illinois Bar and disciplinary system is to ask whether you want to intervene, or whether you want to have other factual discussions suppressed on the basis of what appear to be less than credible allegations.

    We have no idea.

    Suffice it to say, it is disappointing. The model rules are clear.

    * * *

    As we understand the model rules in general, there are certain provisions which apply to honesty. Click These rules are outlined in detail here [ Click ]

    As we understand them, the supervisory partner provide legal advice to the attorney-plaintiff. For purposes of discovery and litigation, we judge that this would amount to an attorney client relationship. Click

    At the same time this supervisory attorney would be bound by the model rules. [Click]

    * * *

    We make no claim to have any special information. Rather, we are guided by the following language:
    In order for a lawyer to be liable for malpractice to a non-client, a duty of care must be established to a non-client by showing that the primary purpose of the attorney/client relationship was to benefit the plaintiff. York v. Stiefel, 458 N.E.2d 488 (Ill. 1983).
    [ Click ]

    With the facts as we know them, it appears as though there is an issue to be understood:

    1. What benefit was derived by the supervisor attorney's legal advice to the attorney;

    2. Was the relationship between the attorney and supervisory one that would amount to an attorney client relationship under the Illinois Rules;

    3. Is there an ongoing benefit or contract between the attorney and supervisor which would amount and be furthered if the plaintiff did or did not do something in response to what the supervisory attorney did or said.

    * * *

    We broaden the analysis to ask to what extent this apparent attorney-supervisor relationship occurs. Namely, is there an issue with the supervisor knowing -- or should have known -- that the conduct, potential lawsuit, and planned litigation would or should amount to harassment over issues which the supervisory attorney knew or should have known were false?

    We are guided by the following language: [ Click ] In this case, we remain unclear what interest or benefit anyone would have with filling a defamation claim.

    Rather, it remains to be understood what knowledge the supervisory-attorney had of the indictment. To be clear, based on what we know -- which is not much -- it appears as though the Supervisory Attorney learned of the allegations about the indictment; and then asked the attorney about it.

    Yet, the facts as we understand them paint a benign picture. If we are to believe that the indictment was a "non-issue" in that there was no conviction, what was the basis of the attorney-supervisor communication.

    Are we to believe that the supervisory attorney asked the plaintiff-attorney about the indictment, and the plaintiff-attorney stated that "it was nothing"? If so, then the matter should have been dropped.

    However, as we understand things, this is not what happened. Rather, once the supervisory-attorney and plaintiff-attorney discussed the issue, the fruit of that conversation was something quite extraordinary: They appear to have agreed that the "way forward" was to file a lawsuit.

    So the issue goes back to the following nexus: If the attorney has allegedly been indicted, why did the plaintiff-attorney not say that and end the matter when discussing the issue?

    That is the point. It appears as though despite the alleged indictment being a "non issue", it appears the plaintiff-attorney left the impression with the supervisory-attorney the opposite impression than what can be supported by the facts -- that there was an issue; and the subsequently agreed that the "way forward" was to file a lawsuit.

    * * *

    There is a problem. It would appear as though the plaintiff-attorney knew that the indictment was true; and we judge this to have been a ratified fact when the plaintiff-attorney removed/withdrew the defamation claims.

    But the issue goes back to the conversation the plaintiff-attorney had with the supervisory-attorney:

  • A. What were the facts as the plaintiff-attorney represented them;

  • B. Were there some untruthful statements made by the platinff-atttorney to the supervisory-attorney;

  • C. Did the supervisory-attorney provide legal advice to the plaintiff-attorney based on information that was not accurate, misleading, false, or not consistent with the later decision to withdraw the lawsuit?

    * * *

    At this point, we can only speculate. But it seems odd to discover that the alleged indictment appears to not only be a real thing, but that the attorney appears to have admitted the indictment was known to exist and the basis for the withdrawal of the defamation suit. This is perfectly reasonable.

    But we have to go back to the discussion with the attorney-plaintiff and the attorney-supervisor:

  • Despite a claim of confidentiality or privilege, how can anyone claim that the conversation is or is not protected when the fruit of the conversation is to support a decision which is subsequently reversed?

    * * *

    Based on what little we know -- and we are open to be corrected -- it appears as though there is an issue for the Illinois Disciplinary Board to review.


  • A. Why was the lawsuit filed, then withdrawn;

  • B. What was the agreement or understanding between the plaintiff attorney and the supervisory attorney over the facts related to the alleged indictment

  • C. If the indictment is a real thing, then what was the basis for the supervisory-attorney to recommend/encourage/support/endorse the decision to file a defamation lawsuit

  • D. If the indictment is real thing, and the basis for the attorney-plaintiff to withdraw the defamation lawsuit, then what can be said of the nature of the conversation between the plaintiff-attorney and the supervisory-attorney?

    * * *

    We remain concerned. It appears as though the attorney-plaintiff has allegedly misrepresented facts to the supervisory attorney; and this alleged misrepresentation was the basis for the support of the decision to file the defamation claim.

    At this point, we are not clear. But what does seem clear is that someone learned of an indictment; and perhaps this is an issue which needs to be better understood: Was the indictment not known to the supervisory attorney; was the supervisory attorney supervised by the news of the indictment; and if the indictment was "no big deal" but still a "real thing" then what was the basis for the recommendation to bring suit?

    We can only speculate.

    But the problem we have is that all Americans are a potential target of this conduct. Namely, if two attorneys appear to do something -- namely agree to fact patterns that may or may not be true -- then we argue that such a conversation is not something that the courts should recognize as privileged.

    Rather, the fruit of that conversation -- whether based on alleged fraud, alleged deception, alleged carelessness, or simple oversight or lack of interest in details -- seems to put a premium on the interests of the legal profession, and put the public second.

    That is not acceptable.

    Rather, the way forward is to make it clear that an attorney does not have the power nor the "special status" to both wiled the sword of justice, while at the same time using that sword to compel the public be silent of issues.

    * * *

    We remain open to discussion. However, we are not impressed. Bluntly, it appears as though the attorney and supervisor did not have a fair meeting of the minds based on a consistent fact pattern.

    In our view, the plaintiff-attorney and supervisory-attorney need to have a special visit by the Illinois State Disciplinary Board to find out inter alia

  • A. What was the nature of the conversation

  • B. Why did they agree to do something

  • C. What was understood before the filing of the suit

  • D. How did this understanding later change as the facts surfaced, and the defamation suit was withdrawn

    In our view, again this is merely a personal opinion and not something that may be widely accepted, the conversation appears to been related to some inconsistencies over what the attorney did or didn't say; and the fact that someone may have been surprised.

    In our view, the surprise was that the supervisory attorney learned of something; and the "way forward" was for the plaintiff-attorney to claim that it was a lie, untrue, or false.

    However, by withdrawing the defamation suit, the plaintiff attorney appears to have admitted that the alleged facts -- as reported in the media -- were true; and that the basis for the conversation, and understanding from that conversation was false.

    We may be incorrect. But this takes us back to the model rules and issues of honesty.

    * * *

    We may be wrong. But in our view, the plaintiff-attorney appears to have some issues. Whether this is something that did or didn’t happen is irrelevant. The issue is whether that issue is over.

    Whether the indictment translated into formal charges, or was dripped is irrelevant. The issue for a member of the bar is to face what has or happened and reconcile.

    In our view, if the fruit of that conversation with the supervisory-attorney was an agreement to file a defamation suit, but the suit was dropped, then it appears as though the attorney hasn't reconciled what has or hasn't happened over the indictment, and still has issues with that.

    That is fine. But the purpose of "dropping an indictment" is to say, "It's over." So we ask: Why does the attorney appear to have "an issue" with something that is "over"?

    If it was "over" then would it not have been reasonable for the attorney-plaintiff to have agreed, "Yes, this claim of an indictment is true, but it was dropped" [as was later reported, and did occur."

    We make no claim to have an insight into the plaintiff-attorney's mind, nor do we claim to have any facts. Rather, all we have is the scant record before us: A single press release, an apparent pattern of filing suit, and then the withdrawal.

    * * *

    We remain open to be persuaded that this is a misunderstanding. However, we do remain concerned that the public that appears to truthfully report the facts as best as they can may be subject to litigation for speaking those facts.

    For purposes of litigation, we ask to what extent the defendant has explored issues related to Anti-Slapp statutes; or other motions and cross claims related to frivolous lawsuits. Again, we make no claim that there is a basis for such an action; but based on the events and facts as we have -- and the scant knowledge of what appears to have transpired between the two attorneys -- it appears as though there is an issue of discovery over what some may argue is a privileged conversation.

    That issue of privilege may be real. But let us recall that privilege is not absolute when the fruit of that privilege is to do something that is then contracted, public, then reversed. Rather, this is a public act and no longer protected. We may reasonably make adverse inferences.

    Namely, the attorney-client privilege may be real; but it appears as though a reasonable fact find could conclude that there was some sort of alleged misrepresentation made during the initial attorney-supervisory consultation. Even if this issue is not litigation in an Anti-Slapp statute, we would hope that the Illinois Disciplinary Board review the matter, and make it clear: Attorneys cannot rely on attorney client privilege on matters related to professional conduct, even if that conduct is within your own firm. Once you step out of the insular umbrella of your firm, and enter the nexus of the public court your actions and conduct reflect on the integrity of the bar.

    The issue before us is not the attorney and supervisor. The issue is whether the Illinois State Bar and Disciplinary Board have the statute and credibility to do what appears to be needed: A plan going forward to reconcile the apparently mysterious conduct, and the fact pattern which appears to be at odds with what we might otherwise assume to be a sterling attorney record.

    Either way, we make our own judgments, and appropriately allocate capital and note well the nature of the litigation risk required before entering the American legal nexus. It is disappointing one must have on hand several malpractice attorneys, a bevy of court documents, and piles of rules of evidence merely to make a casual observation of what may or may not be a material issue for corporate counsel.

    Thank you Illinois for opening yourselves to scrutiny and examination.

    * * *


    For those of you who cannot read between the lines, it is our opinion the allegations asserted above are true; and the plaintiff attorney has allegedly misrepresented information to the supervisory attorney, in alleged contravention to his professional standards of conduct.

    It remains to be understood whether the supervisory attorney was mislead, failed to investigate something they should have, or failed to report alleged misconduct that should have been reported under the "self-regulation system."

    To be blunt, it is our opinion that:

  • A. The plaintiff-attorney is a liar and has no credibility;

  • B. He has made out of court inconsistent statements;

  • C. He misleads others;

  • D. He fully knows that others realize this;

  • E. His only "defense" is to keep people quiet;

  • F. He abuses his position as an attorney to intimidate others to be silent about issues which are true;

  • G. He abuses the legal process, violates the rules of professional conduct, and cannot be trusted to adhere to freely chosen professional standards of professional conduct;

  • H. He is willing to abuse the legal process to deny the constitutionally protected rights of others, thereby raising reasonable questions about the seriousness to which he takes his oath to protect that Constitution and the rights others enjoy; and

  • I. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Board should know about this conduct, and other attorneys have failed to report this alleged misconduct to ensure the integrity of the Illinois Bar is maintained.

    To be clear, we're not accusing him of any crime, rather we simply share with you our personal opinion: This attorney's conduct is what reasonably undermines public confidence in the American legal system and profession. We see the result of "self" regulation in America.

    Caveat emptor.

    Read more . . .

  • Thursday, April 27, 2006

    9-11 Classified Exercises: Let's share

    It is illegal to classify something that is related to illegal activity.

    Any agreement to remain silent about American deaths on Sept 2001 is not enforceable.

    Authority: 18 USC 371 former US Atty

    Before the team placed the explosives inside the three World Trade Center, teams within the DoD, NSA, and the DoJ were actively working with other allied nations to conduct exercises.

    * * *


    This isn't simply to outline a discovery plan, but to design an oversight mechanism so that this doesn't happen again. Also, needed are improvements in checking the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    * * *

    Discovery Plan

    There are four known areas to look for:

  • A. Checklists used in WTC7

  • B. Purchases of C4, storage, and shipment

  • C. Contract for a DSL/internet/cabling system upgrade in the WTC towers

  • D. Planning documents to speculate on this scenario.

    We judge the following type of analysis was done on a "speculative future attack," but the "speculation" was intended to be used as a blueprint for the operational plan for Sept 2001.


    Single product was moved through the development, testing, and delivery system under different names and designations. The contractors were told many stories, ranging from a dummy program, test bed, and a building detonation system.

  • Design Team: Team members were told to speculate on what type of systems "might be used" in such a scenario. This formed the blueprints.

  • Fabrication Team: These plans were then provided to a contractor to "reverse engineer" and speculate

  • Testing Team: This team was asked to develop a decoy or trainer simulator to develop as a prototype what others would have to do.

  • Deployment Team: This team was told the end product was a dummy for drilling, testing, and exercise.

  • Handoff Team: This is the connection to the WTC7.

  • WTC Operations Team: Those actually running the scenario had contact with the delivery team, and confidence n the system, and had ensured there were no problems. This team had no idea how the system was created, developed; all they knew is that they had an end item.

    Avionics Team: [ Click ]


    The most vulnerable and dynamic portion of the scenario is the handoff. This is where you'll find the overlap between the contracted effort, and the final operation team. There were meetings and communications on the details.


    One approach is to include within the upgraded cabling system the explosives. It remains to be understood where one would create a braodband-like-cable that was made of explosive material; how it was stored; and how the explosive-cable system inside the WTC was tested if at all.

    The issue is where is the fabrication facility for this cabling. We judge there is a central storage area within 300 miles of ground zero. This facility is secure, can house C4 explosives. Leases are discoverable.

    The question is how much cable -- in physical size -- would be required to equate to 1T of C4-equivalent explosive power. Then we can get an idea of what types of physical object was created, loaded, stored, shipped, and then unpackaged.

    The issue to be understood is whether it is feasible to install 1-ton equivalent explosives within a broadband upgrade over a single weekend.

    Regardless whether there was a transshipment point within 20 miles in New Jersey, the explosive-placement team had to make many trips from where the explosives were contained, to the final fabrication point.

    Personnel are aware of who ordered the entry/exit logs destroyed.

    Also, a DoD contractor is most likely involved in the C4 transshipment, well connected with Army ground transportation. In 2001, this was known as Military Traffic Management Command MTMC which is now called the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command.


    In the early 1990s, a black program was created. The Program manager integrated a system that included missile housing, flight dynamics. This system was tested under various black operation scenarios.

    All people involved were born after 1874; Max Age: 124 years Click ]

    Likely in the late 1960's senior personnel involved were in training. We judge they were 30 years old at this time, and make their approximate age today to be 70 years old, or born in 1930.

    Program management have been to and are aware of Ft. Belvoir.


    The objective was never consistent across all personnel. It's likely that the overall scenario -- the "Justification" for the 9-11 events may have had to do with oil, but in the end the real objective was one thing: Power. You'll notice the "concern for oil in Afghanistan" evaporated as soon as difficulties mounted; and the "concern for Israel" is illusory given the US has rebuffed Iranian requests to meet with the US to recognize Israel.

    * * *

    The 9-11 related activities were organized as "classified training exercises", "war games" and "exercises." Although they may not realize it, NICB is one of the means through which the "exercises" were coordinated, planned, and executed.

    It is well known in DoD that specific personnel were tasked with specific roles. They were led to believe this was part of a national war gaming and exercise.

    The plan was very thorough and they anticipated questions, and the team and element leaders were provided guidelines on how to reassure people. For example, within DoJ the FBI agents in the NY Office we specifically led to believe that despite any problems, the buildings were not supposed to fall down. They were not told about the other teams who placed the explosives inside the buildings.

    Specifically, look in the July and August 2001 archived files in GCHQ and also the foreign intelligence intercepts related to Intel Link. [ Click ] This system was developed in the mid to late 1990s, and will show you the message traffic between such organizations as NSA and DIA.

    As you can see there are many organizations within this network. Here is a list of the organizations. [ Click ] Here you will find the Intel-link organizations that are part of the problem: Each of these organizations has a vested interest in stopping anyone from reviewing the pre Sept 2001 data. [ Click ]

    What is outlined below is general detail is how they used the Intel Link system do organize for Sept 2001. Most of the planning was organized in terms of "operational plans" and "exercises." Some had no idea they were actually planning for a real attack; some were led to believe that this was a simulation, and that the findings and conclusions would then be fed into the NSA and other war fighters’ operational plans.

    The issue with respect to 9-11 and the post-event cover-up is that they have mixed the databases. This means that the original objective of the database has been corrupted; and they've loaded data that is from the NSA as "investigative leads". This information is then used by local law enforcement and provided to informants. Now, they've got a second layer of information: Not actual-bonafide "threat" information, but information related solely to attempted penetration of the original planning; and subsequent efforts to discover what else is going on with the cover-up.

    * * *

    Foreign nationals inside the US have collected and retain information related to these illegal war games.

    The problem is that for them to reveal what they know they will compromise their sources, methods, and fact that they exist.

    Also, the NSA Q2 has been tasked to identify any personnel who may be discussing these issues, and find out where there are compromises.

    * * *

    It is well known that there were two broad scenarios: One was the "phony exercise scenario" and the second was the actual destruction event.

    There was a team that was led to believe that the actual events were merely the exercise. This was the active involvement team; or the group that actually was behind the operation. They do not realize how they were used.

    At the same time, there was a second group which fully knew well what was going on. Yet, these elements were disconnected.

  • 1. Element One: This was the ordinance team. This team was responsible for the placement of the explosives. This element had several sub compartments which placed the explosives in the various separate buildings. The other team members in these sub elements do not appear to be known to each other.

  • 2. Element Two: Was the flight dynamics team. This was the team that created the airborne missile system. If you look closely at the towers you'll see that this team was successful in creating a large hole, permitting the aircraft to enter the WTC. Had the missile not been fired, the hole inside the WTC would not have been large enough, nor would the fuel have spread as quickly as it had done. The missile system was not required to destroy the building; rather, it was required to punch a hole into the side to create the illusion that the subsequent fire was out of control

  • 3. Element Three: This team was assigned the operational role of coordinating the exercises.

  • 4. Element Four: Security and Communications. This team was the core knowledge team. This team is well positioned to know who was involved. This element was actively monitoring the NSA intercepts and exploring whether the operation was or was not compromised. Their job was to conduct dry runs of the approach, and develop an organization structure that would not only evade detection, but still support the overall objectives.

  • 5. Element Five: This was the dry run team. This team was tasked to create and identify various threat scenarios. They were tasked to outline what the "enemy" might do. In short, what they were actually doing was creating a blue print for the US. However, what they were told they ere doing was creating a list of indicators that NSA would then detect. This was how they were used. NSA then took that list of indicators and then flagged that information to be "only exercise" during the actual operations.

  • 6. Element Six: This is the command and control function. This was where the Exercise and Real Scenario was managed. In our view this is where WTC tower 7 comes in. You can confirm that this element is real in that they communicated to the NYC Mayor prior to WTC7 destruction that the command center would have to move.

  • 7. Element Seven: This was the ground diversion. This included the physical injection of personnel, training, and operations. This was the cover team. They would take the fall.

    * * *

    In early July 2001, the elements were well in place. They had the operational plan, and NSA had already listed the indicators and warning.

    By late August, the explosives team had confirmed that the buildings were wired. Their error is that their communications -- required to support their operations -- are not consistently on or off net. Rather, they have blackout spots. You'll see the spikes of their communications, then they’ll disappear. It appears as though they were using some sort of non-official communication methods; and using a system which the NSA was told was a training and exercise.

    It appears as though special forces units familiar with OPSEC and demolitions were used. They appear to be a group of retired military personnel working under contract for the American government. It is unclear at this point whether the funding went through Canada and how these funds were or were not related to various telecommunications contracts. It appears as though the team was using the cover of some sort of cabling or DSL system installation throughout the entire three networks.

    * * *

    German intelligence among many others has confirmed the intercept of transmissions and training related to World Trade Center 7. What is unclear is why the Germans -- despite this knowledge -- then supported the very illegal, groundless actions in Iraq. Keep in mind the Germans knew full well what was going on in Sept 2001; so it unclear why they would cooperate with the Americans by staying in Iraq.

    It is our view that the American government has transferred funds and other valuable consideration and benefits to various intelligence agencies known to operate in the US.

    Following the Sept 2001 events, it appears the NSA then broadened the already illegal interceptions, and targeted specific players in the scenario. It was assumed that if the compartmentalization was sufficient, that there would be no understanding of what happened.

    Yet, they though of that as well.

    However, what the NSA did not count on was that the physical evidence would contradict the cover story. Namely despite seizing tapes, evidence, and other records of what was really gong on, the public still knows the following:

  • A. There were missiles fired into the WTC

  • B. Explosives were placed

  • C. The holes inside the Pentagon are not consistent with the aircraft

  • D. The impact craters are not consistent with the stated crashes

    * * *

    Here's the problem the NSA has:

  • 1. It can no longer be assumed that the elements working inside the US -- those teams which captured the NSA activities before, during, and after 9-11 -- will remain silent;

  • 2. There continues to be a mad rush to destroy evidence; but the problem is that there is now evidence of that subsequent destruction -- the circle of "people in the know" is widening, and you are making more mistakes;

  • 3. NSA and GCHQ archiving system shave too many holes in them at the very time that the President had already ordered an increase in illegal monitoring -- not only does this pose a problem for the Telephone companies that permitted the illegal monitoring, but for the subsequent illegal NSA activity. In other words, by destroying the evidence related to 9-11, they've also destroyed the evidence related to the illegal NSA activities. This is at the heart of the concern the White House general counsel and the DOJ attorneys have: If they actually produce the evidence of what has been destroyed, they’re in trouble; and

  • 4. Teams have already secured the evidence of the initial activities, and the subsequent cover-up. What they're waiting for is a specific commitment before the Grand Jury over what did or did not happen; and what happened to the NSA evidence. No matter what is said, the teams will then direct the Grand Jury and special prosecutor where to find the backup files which the NSA and GCHQ thought were destroyed. This information will also then be provided to the civil litigators in re the NARUS and the AT&T litigation.

    * * *

    Time to face reality. It is April 2006. There are six months to go before the election. This means that it’s only going to get worse. We can find out which specific teams were working under which install contracts inside the WTC; and we also know how to trace the funds.

    If the records have been tampered, we know how to find out who did the damage, and what personnel ordered the destruction. Although the evidence itself may not exist, we can look at the pattern of evidence destruction and make adverse inferences.

    Here's the bottom line for the personnel inside DoD, DoJ and the other support teams. You're in trouble. We know where you are. And the monitoring continues. Here's what you're betting: That those who really know what happened will not talk; and that foreign intelligence working inside the US will never intercept anything or have a reason to speak out.

    These are bad assumptions. Iran has already dispatched word to other nations to begin active preparations for ground combat in America. These units are already in place. At the same time, the information they have about the real events of 2001 is being sent back through those channels to secure locations.

    Also keep in mind what the US proposes to do in Iran: Anyone who sees the real risk to the US -- namely real risk of Iranian/world lawful retaliation against the US for the war crimes -- is well primed to provide their information over what they know bout Sept 2001.

    At this point, they're not going to tip their hat. They don't have to. America is digging itself into a hole.

    Here are your options:

  • 1. You need to fill out an affidavit and get it to the US Attorney;

  • 2. You can do nothing;

  • 3. You can wait for the US to be lawfully attacked in response to an illegal invasion of Iran; or

  • 4. You can wait for the world -- that now has nothing to lose by revealing its sources – to provide the information that you said was not available.

    Either way, you're going to lose. Again, remember the timeline: It is April 2006, six months before the election. I expect you to make a speedy decision about this. Within several minutes. You will be tracked after You will make a mistake to believe that nobody will find out. We already know.

    US military personnel are already poised to stand down and not participate in the illegal combat. At the same time, US personnel are already choosing to speak out and refuse to cooperate with this President.

    You have to decide whether you want the game to end; or whether you want the world to find out more. It will be very easy to find out. Here's what can be done within minutes: [ Click ]

    We have six months, but you have run out of time.

    * * *

    * * *

    But why was time with generalities? You can look into the DoJ records at the IG office which would account for their July 2001 meetings related to the POTOMAC GOLF ASSOCIATION [ Click ]. These were visits associated with the DOJ personnel, and you can confirm whether they visited the locations by reviewing the DoJ access logs to the website, and the subsequent NSA and GCHQ intercepts of the DoJ personnel who were involved with these meetings. This was two months prior to the final stages outlined below.

    In case you missed the obvious, the link above is well connected to the people who are currently under gag orders to be quiet about the Sept 2001 planning. Did you miss his:
    the common thread to PGA membership has been current or past participation in the mysterious inner workings of the national intelligence community -- military, civilian, government, contractors, active duty, retired, and/or friends, acquaintances, and loved ones of all the above.

    You can ask them about their unusual conversations in July and August with the DoJ personnel. Now you have to ask, "Which of the PGA members is now talking to reveal this?"

    In case you happen to run across the White House staff information, you can remind them that this is now a federal investigation and 418 U.S. 683 means they can't claim privilege.

    or those of you who missed the obvious, did you notice on the right hand side of this page specific dollar amounts? That's right: Guess whose names show up on the wire transfers? Bingo, they link back to the Columbus payroll databases.

    Again, your job is to come up with a really good story as to why your attorney’s communications have been intercepted, and why you are "suddenly worried" about something "nobody was supposed to find out about." Shocked! Who inside the NSA would "dare" work with the US Attorney to provide the intercepts of your contacts with private counsel?

    But not to make any mistake about this, in case think this isn't an "equal opportunity", here's what can be done within minutes based on the IP data and ability to penetrate the Columbus Database: An entire profile about you, where you live, and anything needed to do this behind your back. [ Click ]

    Did you check the time? It's still April 2006. How you liking this?

    "Dear 'Big Scary' People who are idiot 9-11 planners: It was dumb to use as a cover the cabling program running through Halifax, Canada. Hope you did not run into too many seals in the Atlantic." Ouch! Stub your toe?

    Let's keep in mind the big picture: In July 2001, DoJ, DoD, and other intelligence personnel were already coordinating with NY personnel on this issue. The IP data matches, shows interactions, and planning. This is two months prior to Sept 2001. How do you explain the "big insight" to meet in DC-area, but discuss issues that were not going to be known for two more months; and how do you explain the interactions with the NY City personnel in DC?

    Holy moly, what are we thinking. The put options on the CBOE, meeting with DoJ and NY personnel in DC two months prior, and "nobody knows anything." Isn't is strange that despite the "big order" to get rid of the records, there are now "records of that order" to get rid of that? Let's check something: "Oh 8-ball . . . is there a statute of limitations on murder?'

    . . . [Rotating the 8-ball] -- says, "Doubtful." Hmmm....that kind of puts a damper on things.

    * * *

    Exercise Names: [ CLick ]

    Amalgam Virgo [ Click ] [ CLick ]

    Confirmed Link between the Intel Community, the databases, and NYC two months prior [ Click ]

    Bandwidth upgrade

    WTC Security

    Steel testing

    Grand Jury

    Keep in mind one thing as we go through this, Libby has been indicted for perjury. Consider this:
    Libby, sees the television images briefly, but turns off the television so as not to be distracted from a conversation on another topic. [Newsweek, 1/31/2002] Click

    Why should we believe that Libby "turned off" the screen; or that his telling of events is credible? It makes no sense.

    Nor does Cheney’s retelling of it: He would have us believe that he was "confused that someone on a clear day collided with the WTC." Why, if Libby turned off the TV, wasn't there a discussion: "Hay, let's watch this. . .!"

    If we look at Libby-Cheney's story in the context of the indictment over Plame, we have to ask: Why should we believe the Vice President was "confused"; but "not so confused" that he said nothing after "Libby turned off the television"?

    Answer: It makes no sense to be confused, then say nothing as the "source of that confusion" vanishes. Given what we know about Libby and that he's been indicted for perjury, we've just found the evidence needed to re-open the entire 9-11, and focus it on one person: Cheney and his relationship with the 9-11 Exercises.

    Also, keep in mind these OSD notes Eric Ruff left in Starbucks in 2004 [ Click ]; now that we know about the faked WMD/9-11 stuff and NSA illegal activity . . what new insights do we have?

    Note: NSPD on page 3 of 7. NSPD of 4 Sept: The "signed date" in the written comments [4 Sept] doesn’t match the actual signed date of 25 October 2001. Questions; Which NSPD; or who signed something else not listed here?

    How much did the [a] distraction of the pre-9-11-planning/cover-up get in the way of [b] the actual planning for Afghanistan, and vice versa?

    But going into NSPD-1 further . . .

    Despite Intel Link, there was a known communication problem which the 9-11 planners have not anticipated would be compared: Namely, taking the different data streams -- that were never consistent -- and then putting them side by side to show how each of the elements were led to believe completely inconsistent things about the exercises.

    NSPD-1 was to funnel all the intelligence through a single point -- so how does this square with the information flow related to the pre 9-11 coordination? Someone must have thought thee was an issue -- with lack of coordination -- and the planners must have included this problem/defect in communication in their planning during pre 9-11. In other words, this is the source of the evidence: They assumed there would be no integration; therefore the two stovepipes sending information in would have inconsistent information in the still archived databases related to pre 9-ll planning and exercises.

    * * *

    FPC 66 (Test, Training & Exercises), 4/2001 [ Ref ]

    This document appears in 3 places: [ Click Florida 2005 GSA networks.

    The "network security" was the cover operation used for the explosives install inside the WTC three towers: WTC 1/2/7.]

    Read more . . .