You reported last night about the new development in the 9/11
Commission investigation. I read two LA Times stories on the development
this morning.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06182004/nation_w/176560.asp
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06182004/nation_w/176564.asp
According to the article, "Just before 9 ... Cheney was seated in his White
House office ... when an aide came in and told him to turn on the television...
The vp was wondering 'how the hell a plane could hit the WTC' when he saw a
second aircraft strike the South Tower."
Meanwhile [not mentioned in the story], Bush has just entered the Booker
Elementary classroom. And as any one can see in the widely distributed video,
the only communication Bush had during that time in the classroom was when, at
9:05am, two minutes after the second plane hit, which Bush had seen on TV just
before entering the classroom, Andrew Card came and told him the second tower
had been hit and that America was under attack; and Bush continued for at least
another 7 and perhaps as long as another 18 minutes in the classroom.
The story continues that secret service agents then spirited Cheney into an
underground tunnel. "Halfway down, Cheney paused. In front of him was a
secure phone... He asked to speak to the president. He told the president of the
three planes and of the hit on the Pentagon."
The story makes it sound like this happened shortly after the second plane hit,
but according to 911timeline.net, it wasn't until 9:32 am that Secret Security
agents "burst into Cheney's White House office" to spirit him
away. That is hardly "things happened quickly."
www.911timeline.net reports that the first Bush-Cheney call took place at 9:23am
(before the Pentagon was hit), and that authorization was not yet given to shoot
down.
The Pentagon was hit at 9:37 am.
My guess is that it took several minutes to take Cheney underground, and that
the phone call to Bush in which Bush authorized shoot down would have happened
shortly after 9:37 am. That command most likely resulted in the downing of the
last plane in PA.
That supports my supposition last night upon hearing of the new news in which I
posited that no such order was given until after the Bush press conference at
9:30 am, supporting my assertion that Booker was an alibi to give Bush an excuse
for inaction until it was too late, to allow the attack to proceed, to have the
impact that it had.
For those reading this open letter, I will review briefly the points I was able
to make last night on the show.
- Ann Tatlock, whose office complex was hit dead on, in the second tower, was
scheduled before sept. 11 to appear at an event at the invitation of Warren
Buffet at Offut Air Force Base in Omaha Nebraska. She was en route to that
facility at the time the first plane hit. She arrived just in time to be
spirited by military personnel to a TV where she saw the second plane smash into
her office complex, killing 67 of her employees. George Bush showed up at
Offut Air Force Base later that day. This convergence of prime victim,
wealth, and power must be looked at carefully as it has all the makings of
conspiracy. Colmes completely dismissed this information as totally
irrelevant. I said it was astonishing that Colmes would have the audacity
to say it is irrelevant.
- Bush knew at least 15 minutes before his Booker Elementary event that the WTC
had been hit by a jetliner. Even though an accident could not be ruled out
at that point, as Commander and Chief of the nation, when a national terrorist
target is hit, the first thing you must presume is intent. He should have
immediately scrapped the events of the day, but he did not. Even when he
was informed by Andrew Card on video, for all to later see, he still went
forward with the Booker event (holding the book up-side-down). This
inaction on his part bespeaks foreknowledge and intent to carry out a
pre-arranged alibi. I invited all to watch the video of that event and
watch the gamut of emotions on the President's face, to see if they are
consistent with foreknowledge and complicity. I posit that they are wholly
consistent. They range from "Oh, my God, what have we done," to
"what suckers." He even has a chuckle look on his face at one
point. One of his emotions is that of blanched terror. "I can't
believe I agreed to this." And "Well, it's
happening." The main point is that he just sat there and did
nothing. According to witnesses at the school, he didn't even hurry to
leave when the event was over, but lingered in the classroom, even after the
press had left.
- I also touched on background and motive. Bush is Skull and Bones and a
life-time secret society member, and that he is part of a conspiracy to subvert
the American Constitution to a police state stripping of fundamental rights.
- I also touched on his foreknowledge of the likelihood of not just a terrorist
attack in general, but of the use of airliners in specific, so that when a
primary terrorist target in the US is hit by an airliner, he should have
immediately known that a terrorist attack was the most plausible explanation,
and should have dropped everything to attend to the matter at hand. I
quoted a statement from.
I read this statement:
"White
House officials acknowledged that U.S.
intelligence officials informed President Bush
weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's
terrorist network might try to hijack American planes..."
-ABC
(5/16/02)
None of these points made even the slightest impression on
Colmes. Rather, almost from the beginning, he painted me as a kook of the
most extreme hugh.
* * * *
A GENERAL OBSERVATION ABOUT ALAN COLMES
Alan,
I found your style of interviewing to not be fair. You ask, push, and before the
person has a chance to muster and answer, you begin barging in and cutting him
off, calling him names, making him have to talk over you in order to even have a
sliver of a chance to get heard by the listening audience. I've been on with
many talk show hosts. You are among the most inconsiderate that I have
encountered this regard.
On a matter as complex as this, it is entirely unreasonable for you to expect a
one minute answer. If it was that simple, it would be widespread knowledge. When
I didn't give a satisfactory answer in the first few seconds of our time on the
air, you immediately went into ridicule/steamroller mode and did not let up.
I would recommend that when an interviewee does not immediately satisfy you,
that you say, "That answer doesn't do it for me because.... Do you have
anything else?"
Three sentences, then give them another chance, and another, and another.
Then your audience will feel satisfied that you gave the person a fair shake. If
they have truth to impart, it will come out. If they are full of BS, you will
have been able to methodically point it out, one point at a time.
Your approach of ridicule and bullying serves no purpose except to possibly
intimidate your interviewee, and what kind of answer are you going to get then?
That is not productive.
If you are in a quest for truth, such animal tactics are not the way to get to
it.
Verbally, it is not better than the torture chamber.
Be more of a gentleman.
At least I had guts to stand up to you and talk over you [unless of course you
unplugged the line at those times].
I was not impressed.
Your style is part of the reason I didn't dare start naming names when you asked
me to do so. That would have taken us another direction. I knew it. My comment
should have been, "I'm not sure who not to name of the present
establishment." Most are low-level unwitting lackeys, such as yourself. Few
are wolves, such as Scowcroft and Bush Sr.
Buch Jr. is a low level, reluctant conspirator for which the movie Skulls is an
interesting parallel. I was hoping he would opt out, but he hasn't. Too much of
a wimp.
Another thing I would have clarified last night had I not been flustered by your
steamroller approach to interviewing, would have been that Bush has "some
parallels" to Hitler. We all do, to a certain extent. It is a matter of
degree. It is not an mirror identity situation as you made it come across, and
didn't give me a chance to correct.
Thank goodness to the Internet, so the world has an alternative to the
mainstream apparatchik organ of which you are a part. Reporters who do know what
is going don't dare say anything lest they lose their job. Most are just yuppies
going along with the insider crowd -- the useful idiots, to use Lenin's
vernacular.
You might be brilliant of mind, but you are not fully honest at heart.
When you decide to be more honest, it will come through by you actually
listening to the people who have views contrary to yours, rather than pulling
out the ridicule card at first opportunity and lambasting them.
REPORT ON DAN SAVIAO INTERVIEW, CHICAGO
By the way, since I announced the Chicago Radio interview with Dan Saviao along
with the announcement of my interview with you, I should give a brief report of
that one as well. In contrast to your interview, we had a dynamic,
wonderful dialogue and covered a huge amount of territory in the hour of time we
had, interrupted by just two, two-minute breaks. What a contrast. No
confrontation. We talked about the Dan Burish saga, the politics of
non-disclosure of the ET presence in general, and the pending emergence of
alternative energy technologies. Given your interview style, it would have
taken me ten hours (that you would never give me, I'm sure) to make the same
number of points I did in Dan's show.
Sterling
Also published at:
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Bush/FoxNewsRadioJune17_2004/report/
and:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/6/prweb135212.htm
Feedback
