 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Online Resources The 9/11 TV Hoax The Daily Grail Television Archives Fake Moon Landings Language Translator The Planetary Movement Benjamin Freedman My Yahoo 360 blog |
| Skip Pulley Contenet Index Wasted Days Six Degrees of Separation Coordination, or lack thereof ACC: Atlantic Coast Creature Who is Anna Nicole Smith? |
What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001?
The flights alleged to have hit the North WTC tower and the Pentagon did not exist.
They were not even scheduled to fly that day.
On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been established for some time that on Sept 11, 2001 the damage to the
Pentagon was caused by something other than the hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the government to have
crashed into the building. More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the North
Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight 11, as claimed in the official story.
In response to these observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing. It raises the question -
"If these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?'
We are now in a position to answer that question.
First lets recap on the official story of what happened to four planes that morning. AA 11 left Boston for LA at about 8 am, was reported as
hijacked about 8.25, and hit the Nth Tower at about 8.46. UA 175 left Boston for LA at about the same time, was reported hijacked at
about 8.55 and hit the Sth Tower at about 9.03 AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time , was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit
the Pentagon at about 9.45 UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time, was reported hijacked about 9.45
and crashed in PA at about 10.10. The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages,
where one can pull up detailed statistics about the historyof which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day.
Go to http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml
and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and
cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number. Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA
77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.
A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and actually departed at 8.01. It is listed
as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and
actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. The term "diverted" does not specify any
differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official
story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.
A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA that day was 0181 at 11.00
A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15.
If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was
scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just
not scheduled. On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both
flights change their numbers. Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77
flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent
with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.
This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non existent flights. In the case
of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges.
However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting that UA 175 left from the same airport,
at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable to AA 11.
Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to speculate at this stage that any
passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11, and asked to booked on it that day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per
the normal routine. They were then told that there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable
period of time, and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation. The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically
lied to about the alleged flight paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the
planes. It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001. For the benefit of any NWO operatives
reading this, just in case you' re thinking of trying to pressure the Bureau into playing hanky panky with the records, the search results
pages have already been backed up and widely distributed. Nevertheless, I do encourage all readers to do the searches themselves
and back up the results pages, just in case this happens.
Gerard Homgren 8:44am Thu Nov 13 2003
The flights alleged to have hit the North WTC tower and the Pentagon did not exist.
They were not even scheduled to fly that day.
On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been established for some time that on Sept 11, 2001 the damage to the
Pentagon was caused by something other than the hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the government to have
crashed into the building. More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the North
Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight 11, as claimed in the official story.
In response to these observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing. It raises the question -
"If these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?'
We are now in a position to answer that question.
First lets recap on the official story of what happened to four planes that morning. AA 11 left Boston for LA at about 8 am, was reported as
hijacked about 8.25, and hit the Nth Tower at about 8.46. UA 175 left Boston for LA at about the same time, was reported hijacked at
about 8.55 and hit the Sth Tower at about 9.03 AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time , was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit
the Pentagon at about 9.45 UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time, was reported hijacked about 9.45
and crashed in PA at about 10.10. The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages,
where one can pull up detailed statistics about the historyof which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day.
Go to http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml
and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and
cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number. Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA
77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.
A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and actually departed at 8.01. It is listed
as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and
actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. The term "diverted" does not specify any
differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official
story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.
A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA that day was 0181 at 11.00
A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15.
If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was
scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just
not scheduled. On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both
flights change their numbers. Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77
flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent
with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.
This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non existent flights. In the case
of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges.
However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting that UA 175 left from the same airport,
at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable to AA 11.
Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to speculate at this stage that any
passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11, and asked to booked on it that day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per
the normal routine. They were then told that there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable
period of time, and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation. The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically
lied to about the alleged flight paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the
planes. It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001. For the benefit of any NWO operatives
reading this, just in case you' re thinking of trying to pressure the Bureau into playing hanky panky with the records, the search results
pages have already been backed up and widely distributed. Nevertheless, I do encourage all readers to do the searches themselves
and back up the results pages, just in case this happens.
Gerard Homgren 8:44am Thu Nov 13 2003
| Fake Terror - The Road to Dictatorship Copyright 2001 by Michael Rivero Veritas News Service - Exclusive, September 24, 2001 -- It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need. |
In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licineus Crassus,
wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited
with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the
scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of
it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell,
Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually
came to be the largest single private landholder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back
Julius Caesar against Cicero. In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on
what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such
limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan. Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by
Sparticus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Sparticus had already
defeated in battle. But Sparticus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be
suicidal. Sparticus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from
the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a
mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom. Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted
Sparticus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal
political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Sparticus, then positioned two
Roman legions in such a way that Sparticus had no choice but to march on Rome. Terrified of the
impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus
then crushed Sparticus' army and even though Pompeii took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul
of Rome the following year. With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of
government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius
Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome. The Romans were hoaxed into
surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.
wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited
with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the
scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of
it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell,
Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually
came to be the largest single private landholder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back
Julius Caesar against Cicero. In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on
what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such
limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan. Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by
Sparticus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Sparticus had already
defeated in battle. But Sparticus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be
suicidal. Sparticus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from
the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a
mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom. Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted
Sparticus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal
political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Sparticus, then positioned two
Roman legions in such a way that Sparticus had no choice but to march on Rome. Terrified of the
impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus
then crushed Sparticus' army and even though Pompeii took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul
of Rome the following year. With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of
government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius
Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome. The Romans were hoaxed into
surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.
Julius Caesar's political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary
accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius
Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast right wing"
conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits on government
was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the
Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much
disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal
strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.
accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius
Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast right wing"
conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits on government
was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the
Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much
disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal
strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.
What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolph Hitler succeeded in doing. Elected Chancellor of
Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his
power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to
recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than
those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much
trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could
end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary
powers. The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting
the rule of Der Fuhrer. The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but
governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant
public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not
because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared
to leave no other choice. Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that
We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in.
Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his
power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to
recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than
those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much
trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could
end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary
powers. The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting
the rule of Der Fuhrer. The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but
governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant
public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not
because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared
to leave no other choice. Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that
We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in.
In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New
York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported
to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with
Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is
reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war".
Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great
atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out
to be complete fabrications. On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine,
lying in Havana harbor in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded
violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no
assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full investigation of the
cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in the press for
"refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared flat out that to
suppose the explosion to be anything other than a deliberate act by Spain was
"completely at defiance of the laws of probability". Under the slogan "Remember
the Maine", Americans went to war with Spain, eventually winning the Phillipines
(and annexing Hawaii along the way). In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral
Hyman Rickover examined the data recovered from a 1911 examination of the
wreck and concluded that there had been no evidence of an external explosion.
The most likely cause of the sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker
imprudently located next to the ship's magazines.
Captain Sigsbee's caution had been well founded.
York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported
to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with
Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is
reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war".
Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great
atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out
to be complete fabrications. On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine,
lying in Havana harbor in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded
violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no
assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full investigation of the
cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in the press for
"refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared flat out that to
suppose the explosion to be anything other than a deliberate act by Spain was
"completely at defiance of the laws of probability". Under the slogan "Remember
the Maine", Americans went to war with Spain, eventually winning the Phillipines
(and annexing Hawaii along the way). In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral
Hyman Rickover examined the data recovered from a 1911 examination of the
wreck and concluded that there had been no evidence of an external explosion.
The most likely cause of the sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker
imprudently located next to the ship's magazines.
Captain Sigsbee's caution had been well founded.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the fever of a major war to
mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression
(and mutating towards Socialism at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to
stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still
struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. Roosevelt violated
neutrality with lend lease, and even ordered the sinking of several German ships in the
Atlantic, but HItler refused to be provoked. Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would
not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America,
much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Sparticus into attacking Rome. The way
open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany,
with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare
war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were
readily at hand. The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's
wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and
mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in
Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading
the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,
Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese
plan to extend it's empire into the "southern resource area". Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as
completely as Crassus had boxed in Sparticus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade
Indonesia to get it, and to do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at
Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them. To enrage the American
people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody
as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians.
From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates
made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in
the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and it's intentions, then
later scapegoated for the attack. (Congress recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel,
posthumously restoring them to their former ranks). But as the Army board had concluded at
the time, and subsequent de-classified documents confirmed, On November 29th, Secretary
of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the
attack, and the New York Times in it's special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13,
reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance!
mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression
(and mutating towards Socialism at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to
stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still
struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. Roosevelt violated
neutrality with lend lease, and even ordered the sinking of several German ships in the
Atlantic, but HItler refused to be provoked. Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would
not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America,
much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Sparticus into attacking Rome. The way
open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany,
with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare
war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were
readily at hand. The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's
wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and
mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in
Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading
the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,
Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese
plan to extend it's empire into the "southern resource area". Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as
completely as Crassus had boxed in Sparticus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade
Indonesia to get it, and to do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at
Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them. To enrage the American
people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody
as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians.
From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates
made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in
the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and it's intentions, then
later scapegoated for the attack. (Congress recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel,
posthumously restoring them to their former ranks). But as the Army board had concluded at
the time, and subsequent de-classified documents confirmed, On November 29th, Secretary
of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the
attack, and the New York Times in it's special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13,
reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance!
The much repeated claim that the Japanese fleet maintained radio
silence on it's way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still
held in the Archives of the NSA is the UNCODED message sent by the
Japanese tanker Shirya stating, "proceeding to a position 30.00 N,
154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December." (near Hawaii)
silence on it's way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still
held in the Archives of the NSA is the UNCODED message sent by the
Japanese tanker Shirya stating, "proceeding to a position 30.00 N,
154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December." (near Hawaii)
President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam. He wanted it to help his friends who
owned defense companies to do a little business. He needed it to get the Pentagon and
CIA to quit trying to invade Cuba. And most of all, he needed a provocation to convince the
American people that there was really "no other choice". On August 5, 1964, newspapers
across America reported "renewed attacks" against American destroyers operating in
Vietnamese waters, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin. The official story was that North
Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox while it
was on "routine patrol". The truth is that USS Maddox was involved in aggressive
intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the
Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam. The truth is also that there was no
attack by torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Captain John J. Herrick, the task force
commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC that the report was the result of an
"over-eager" sonarman who had picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and
panicked. But even with this knowledge that the report was false, Lyndon Johnson went
on national TV that night to announce the commencement of air strikes against North
Vietnam, "retaliation" for an attack that had never occurred.
owned defense companies to do a little business. He needed it to get the Pentagon and
CIA to quit trying to invade Cuba. And most of all, he needed a provocation to convince the
American people that there was really "no other choice". On August 5, 1964, newspapers
across America reported "renewed attacks" against American destroyers operating in
Vietnamese waters, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin. The official story was that North
Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox while it
was on "routine patrol". The truth is that USS Maddox was involved in aggressive
intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the
Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam. The truth is also that there was no
attack by torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Captain John J. Herrick, the task force
commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC that the report was the result of an
"over-eager" sonarman who had picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and
panicked. But even with this knowledge that the report was false, Lyndon Johnson went
on national TV that night to announce the commencement of air strikes against North
Vietnam, "retaliation" for an attack that had never occurred.
President George Bush wanted a war in Iraq. Like Crassus, George Bush is motivated by money. Specifically oil
money. But with the OPEC alliance failing to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was being
glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over roughly 1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region.
George wanted a war to stop that flow of oil, to keep prices (and profits) from falling any further than they already
had. But like Roosevelt, he needed the "other side" to make the first move. Iraq had long been trying to acquire
greater access to the Persian Gulf, and felt limited confined a narrow strip of land along Kuwait's northern border,
which placed Iraqi interests in close proximity with hostile Iran. George Bush, who had been covertly arming Iraq
during its war with Iran, sent word via that the United States would not intervene if Saddam Hussein grabbed a
larger part of Kuwait. Saddam fellfor the bait and invaded. Of course, Americans were not about to send their sons
and daughters to risk their lives for petroleum products. So George Bush arranged a hoax, using public relations
firm Hill & Knowlton, which has grown rich on taxpayer money by being most industrious and creative liars! Hill &
Knowlton concocted a monumental fraud in which the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States,
went on TV pretending to be a nurse, and related a horror story in which Iraqi troops looted the incubators from a
Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the premature babies on the cold floor to die. The media, part of the swindle from the start,
never bothered asking why the "nurse" didn't just pick the babies up and wrap them in blankets or something.
Enraged by the incubator story, Americans supported operation Desert Storm, which never removed Saddam
Hussein from power but which did take Kuwait's oil off of the market for almost 2 years and limited Iraq's oil exports
to this very day. That our sons and daughters came home with serious and lingering medical illnesses
was apparently not too great a price to pay for increased oil profits.
money. But with the OPEC alliance failing to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was being
glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over roughly 1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region.
George wanted a war to stop that flow of oil, to keep prices (and profits) from falling any further than they already
had. But like Roosevelt, he needed the "other side" to make the first move. Iraq had long been trying to acquire
greater access to the Persian Gulf, and felt limited confined a narrow strip of land along Kuwait's northern border,
which placed Iraqi interests in close proximity with hostile Iran. George Bush, who had been covertly arming Iraq
during its war with Iran, sent word via that the United States would not intervene if Saddam Hussein grabbed a
larger part of Kuwait. Saddam fellfor the bait and invaded. Of course, Americans were not about to send their sons
and daughters to risk their lives for petroleum products. So George Bush arranged a hoax, using public relations
firm Hill & Knowlton, which has grown rich on taxpayer money by being most industrious and creative liars! Hill &
Knowlton concocted a monumental fraud in which the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States,
went on TV pretending to be a nurse, and related a horror story in which Iraqi troops looted the incubators from a
Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the premature babies on the cold floor to die. The media, part of the swindle from the start,
never bothered asking why the "nurse" didn't just pick the babies up and wrap them in blankets or something.
Enraged by the incubator story, Americans supported operation Desert Storm, which never removed Saddam
Hussein from power but which did take Kuwait's oil off of the market for almost 2 years and limited Iraq's oil exports
to this very day. That our sons and daughters came home with serious and lingering medical illnesses
was apparently not too great a price to pay for increased oil profits.
Following the victory in Iraq, yet another war appeared to be in the offering in the mineral rich regions of
Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was used to create support for military action. The above photo of Fikret Alic, a
Muslim, staring through a barbed wire fence, was used to "prove" that the Bosnians were running
modern day "Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all possible associations
with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the necessity of sending yet more American troops into
someone else's nation. But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the supposed
Bosnian Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that the photo was a fake!
The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp but a refugee center.
Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful examination of the original photo
revealed that the photographer had shot the photo through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool
shed. It was the photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees. Once again,
Americans had been hoaxed into support of actions they might otherwise not have agreed with.
Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to
distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often
just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans. Again,
the government and the media were hoaxing Americans. Like Germany under Chancellor Hitler, there
have been events in our nation which strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, such as the New York
World Trade Tower bombing, the OK City Federal Building, and the Olympic Park bomb (nicely timed to
divert the media from witnesses to the TWA 800 shoot down). The media has been very quick to blame
such events on "radicals", "subversives", "vast right wing conspiracies", and other "enemies in our
midst", no different than the lies used by Cicero and Hitler. But on closer examination, such "domestic
terrorist" events do not appear to be what they are made out to be. The FBI had an informant inside the
World Trade Tower bombers, Emad Salam, The so-called "hot bed" of white separatism at Elohim City,
occasional home to Tim McVeigh in the weeks prior to the OK City bombing,
was founded and is being run by an FBI informant!
Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was used to create support for military action. The above photo of Fikret Alic, a
Muslim, staring through a barbed wire fence, was used to "prove" that the Bosnians were running
modern day "Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all possible associations
with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the necessity of sending yet more American troops into
someone else's nation. But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the supposed
Bosnian Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that the photo was a fake!
The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp but a refugee center.
Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful examination of the original photo
revealed that the photographer had shot the photo through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool
shed. It was the photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees. Once again,
Americans had been hoaxed into support of actions they might otherwise not have agreed with.
Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to
distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often
just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans. Again,
the government and the media were hoaxing Americans. Like Germany under Chancellor Hitler, there
have been events in our nation which strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, such as the New York
World Trade Tower bombing, the OK City Federal Building, and the Olympic Park bomb (nicely timed to
divert the media from witnesses to the TWA 800 shoot down). The media has been very quick to blame
such events on "radicals", "subversives", "vast right wing conspiracies", and other "enemies in our
midst", no different than the lies used by Cicero and Hitler. But on closer examination, such "domestic
terrorist" events do not appear to be what they are made out to be. The FBI had an informant inside the
World Trade Tower bombers, Emad Salam, The so-called "hot bed" of white separatism at Elohim City,
occasional home to Tim McVeigh in the weeks prior to the OK City bombing,
was founded and is being run by an FBI informant!
And nobody has ever really explained what this second Ryder truck was doing in a secret camp half way
from Elohim City to Oklahoma City two weeks before the bombing. So, here we are today.
Like the Romans of Crassus' and Cicero's time, or the
Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us,
implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung
by that silly old Bill of Rights. Already there have
appeared articles debating whether or not "extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified
under certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face. As was the case in Rome and
Germany, the government continues to plead with the public for an expansion of its power and authority,
to "deal with the crisis". However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to the
stentorian tones of the talking heads' constant dire warnings, it is legitimate to question just how real the
crises is, and how much is the result of political machinations by our own leaders. Are the terrorists
really a threat, or just hired actors with bombs and Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown
shirts to wear by Hitler? Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it a stage
managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they have no choice but to surrender the
Republic and accept the totalitarian rule of a new emperor, or a new Fuhrer?
Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the Germans never got their Republic
back. In both cases, the nation had to totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.
Remember that when Crassus tells you that Sparticus approaches.
Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly designed to provoke the public fear.
Remember that when the Reichstagg burns down.
You can find more of Michael Rivero's research at www.whatreallyhappened.com
from Elohim City to Oklahoma City two weeks before the bombing. So, here we are today.
Like the Romans of Crassus' and Cicero's time, or the
Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us,
implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung
by that silly old Bill of Rights. Already there have
appeared articles debating whether or not "extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified
under certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face. As was the case in Rome and
Germany, the government continues to plead with the public for an expansion of its power and authority,
to "deal with the crisis". However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to the
stentorian tones of the talking heads' constant dire warnings, it is legitimate to question just how real the
crises is, and how much is the result of political machinations by our own leaders. Are the terrorists
really a threat, or just hired actors with bombs and Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown
shirts to wear by Hitler? Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it a stage
managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they have no choice but to surrender the
Republic and accept the totalitarian rule of a new emperor, or a new Fuhrer?
Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the Germans never got their Republic
back. In both cases, the nation had to totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.
Remember that when Crassus tells you that Sparticus approaches.
Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly designed to provoke the public fear.
Remember that when the Reichstagg burns down.
You can find more of Michael Rivero's research at www.whatreallyhappened.com
| Rosslyn, Templars, Gypsies and the Battle of Bannockburn by DIANE MACLEAN |
THE EXPLOSION of theories concerning Rosslyn Chapel and the Knights Templar seem set to
inflame debate for some time yet. With The Da Vinci Code film due out in May and new books
being published regularly, the fascination with this 15th-century building seems inexhaustible.
Andrew Sinclair has written extensively about the Sinclairs and the Templars and his new book
Rosslyn is in many ways a culmination of his journey to find the genesis of his now-famous
surname. The book recaps old theories and offers up new ones, including an alternative
version of Bannockburn that sees gypsies playing a crucial role in winning the battle.
Andrew Sinclair (kneeling) is invested as a Knight Grand Cross Templar. Picture: Jim Davis
Sinclair's interest in Rosslyn began when he rented nearby Roslin Castle for a family holiday.
His cousin Niven Sinclair, who has a passion for Rosslyn, suggested he watch out for signs of
Templars. "I didn't believe a word Niven said about Templars and grails," an unconvinced
Andrew says. "Then I tripped over this stone in three pieces, then looked at the roof and saw
another grail symbol and thought 'Oh my God' maybe there is something. It began the whole
thing." The stone was in fact the gravemarker of a 14th-century Sir William Sinclair who died
before the building of the chapel, but whose body was subsequently placed there. This Sinclair
lived at the time when, according to the more prosaic interpretation of Templar history, the
knights who fled France in 1304 to avoid persecution, landed in Scotland. (This colourful theory
also holds that the Templars brought treasure and esoteric knowledge with them.)
Andrew Sinclair's reading of the gravemarker was that it contained Templar imagery and he
concluded that Sir William had befriended the knights and become initiated into whatever
secrets they may or may not have found in the Holy Land. Whatever knowledge he was given to
him was passed down through the family and became enshrined in stone during the building of
Rosslyn in the next century. The gravemarker which convinced Andrew Sinclair that Sir William
Sinclair had been a Templar.
From this starting point the author looked into the history of his clan. In particular he wanted to
know how they became so wealthy. His conclusions were that, along with possible treasure,
their success lay in the early medieval arms trade - success made possible because of
Templar expertise and the skill of their camp followers.
The knights were founded in 1118 to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land. In order to sustain their
battle-readiness they needed a retinue of metalworkers and ironsmiths to forge and maintain
their weaponry. The knights often used indigenous eastern workers - Egyptians - who may have
returned to France with them after the Crusades ended.
Sinclair takes this further by suggesting that when the Templars escaped to Scotland they took
these metalworkers with them. At some point these Egyptians became known colloquially as
gypsies. Then in the 16th century the gypsies adopted the surname of Sinclair, which translated
into Gaelic became tinkler which gave rise to their secondary naming as tinkers.
It is well documented that the Sinclairs allowed gypsies to live on their land in Midlothian at a
time when they were outlawed elsewhere in Scotland. Legal papers show that a 16th-century
Sir William even saved a gypsy's life from the gallows. Today a permanent exhibition at
Rosslyn is devoted to this unusual relationship.
With a ready supply of skilled metalworkers plus the financial backing of the Templars, Rosslyn
concludes that the Sinclairs were well placed to become the suppliers of arms and weapons to
the Kings and Queens of Scotland.
Andrew Sinclair believes that the presence of gypsies in Scotland, aligned to the Knights
Templar, can even be seen in one of the country's most pivotal moments. There has long been
a tradition that the Battle of Bannockburn, where in 1314 Robert the Bruce defeated the English,
was won by the sudden appearance of a new contingent of fighters, said to be the townsfolk
(or "small folk") brandishing pots and sticks. Recently there has been a revisionist theory, not
endorsed by historians, that argues Bruce won at Bannockburn because Templar knights
fought alongside him. Andrew Sinclair certainly thinks that the knights, grateful for the protection
offered to them in the face of their European-wide persecution, served the Scottish King.
"Templars may well have fought at Bannockburn - well you see one of them did - and that was
William Sinclair buried in Rosslyn," says Sinclair, referring back to the owner of the gravemarker.
Although the idea that Templars fought at Bannockburn is not new, Sinclair hopes to add
credibility by arguing that the presence of the Templars supported by the sudden appearance
on the battlefield of their camp followers, who rushed out at the end to frighten the English.
"The small folk didn't bang pots and pans," says Sinclair. "I say the wee folk who came down
were gypsy armourers."
This is all exciting stuff. The only problem is that by Andrew Sinclair's own admission everything
relies on him having found a Templar grave at Rosslyn. Whilst he's convinced, there are many
more who are not. Few historians give credence to the suggestion that Sir William Sinclair was
a Templar, nor do they think that members of the order fought at Bannockburn.
However, whilst there might be little absolute proof of any connection between Templars and
the Sinclairs, one thing is certain: The need to believe in something special at work in Scotland -
centred in Rosslyn - means that we haven't heard the last of the mysterious knights and the
Sinclairs.
inflame debate for some time yet. With The Da Vinci Code film due out in May and new books
being published regularly, the fascination with this 15th-century building seems inexhaustible.
Andrew Sinclair has written extensively about the Sinclairs and the Templars and his new book
Rosslyn is in many ways a culmination of his journey to find the genesis of his now-famous
surname. The book recaps old theories and offers up new ones, including an alternative
version of Bannockburn that sees gypsies playing a crucial role in winning the battle.
Andrew Sinclair (kneeling) is invested as a Knight Grand Cross Templar. Picture: Jim Davis
Sinclair's interest in Rosslyn began when he rented nearby Roslin Castle for a family holiday.
His cousin Niven Sinclair, who has a passion for Rosslyn, suggested he watch out for signs of
Templars. "I didn't believe a word Niven said about Templars and grails," an unconvinced
Andrew says. "Then I tripped over this stone in three pieces, then looked at the roof and saw
another grail symbol and thought 'Oh my God' maybe there is something. It began the whole
thing." The stone was in fact the gravemarker of a 14th-century Sir William Sinclair who died
before the building of the chapel, but whose body was subsequently placed there. This Sinclair
lived at the time when, according to the more prosaic interpretation of Templar history, the
knights who fled France in 1304 to avoid persecution, landed in Scotland. (This colourful theory
also holds that the Templars brought treasure and esoteric knowledge with them.)
Andrew Sinclair's reading of the gravemarker was that it contained Templar imagery and he
concluded that Sir William had befriended the knights and become initiated into whatever
secrets they may or may not have found in the Holy Land. Whatever knowledge he was given to
him was passed down through the family and became enshrined in stone during the building of
Rosslyn in the next century. The gravemarker which convinced Andrew Sinclair that Sir William
Sinclair had been a Templar.
From this starting point the author looked into the history of his clan. In particular he wanted to
know how they became so wealthy. His conclusions were that, along with possible treasure,
their success lay in the early medieval arms trade - success made possible because of
Templar expertise and the skill of their camp followers.
The knights were founded in 1118 to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land. In order to sustain their
battle-readiness they needed a retinue of metalworkers and ironsmiths to forge and maintain
their weaponry. The knights often used indigenous eastern workers - Egyptians - who may have
returned to France with them after the Crusades ended.
Sinclair takes this further by suggesting that when the Templars escaped to Scotland they took
these metalworkers with them. At some point these Egyptians became known colloquially as
gypsies. Then in the 16th century the gypsies adopted the surname of Sinclair, which translated
into Gaelic became tinkler which gave rise to their secondary naming as tinkers.
It is well documented that the Sinclairs allowed gypsies to live on their land in Midlothian at a
time when they were outlawed elsewhere in Scotland. Legal papers show that a 16th-century
Sir William even saved a gypsy's life from the gallows. Today a permanent exhibition at
Rosslyn is devoted to this unusual relationship.
With a ready supply of skilled metalworkers plus the financial backing of the Templars, Rosslyn
concludes that the Sinclairs were well placed to become the suppliers of arms and weapons to
the Kings and Queens of Scotland.
Andrew Sinclair believes that the presence of gypsies in Scotland, aligned to the Knights
Templar, can even be seen in one of the country's most pivotal moments. There has long been
a tradition that the Battle of Bannockburn, where in 1314 Robert the Bruce defeated the English,
was won by the sudden appearance of a new contingent of fighters, said to be the townsfolk
(or "small folk") brandishing pots and sticks. Recently there has been a revisionist theory, not
endorsed by historians, that argues Bruce won at Bannockburn because Templar knights
fought alongside him. Andrew Sinclair certainly thinks that the knights, grateful for the protection
offered to them in the face of their European-wide persecution, served the Scottish King.
"Templars may well have fought at Bannockburn - well you see one of them did - and that was
William Sinclair buried in Rosslyn," says Sinclair, referring back to the owner of the gravemarker.
Although the idea that Templars fought at Bannockburn is not new, Sinclair hopes to add
credibility by arguing that the presence of the Templars supported by the sudden appearance
on the battlefield of their camp followers, who rushed out at the end to frighten the English.
"The small folk didn't bang pots and pans," says Sinclair. "I say the wee folk who came down
were gypsy armourers."
This is all exciting stuff. The only problem is that by Andrew Sinclair's own admission everything
relies on him having found a Templar grave at Rosslyn. Whilst he's convinced, there are many
more who are not. Few historians give credence to the suggestion that Sir William Sinclair was
a Templar, nor do they think that members of the order fought at Bannockburn.
However, whilst there might be little absolute proof of any connection between Templars and
the Sinclairs, one thing is certain: The need to believe in something special at work in Scotland -
centred in Rosslyn - means that we haven't heard the last of the mysterious knights and the
Sinclairs.
Soundboy America
Subversion the online magazine
Subversion the online magazine
Subversion is a division of Soundboy America
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| New Soundboy TV Videos |
Life is
not
about
finding
yourself
- It's
about
creating
yourself
not
about
finding
yourself
- It's
about
creating
yourself