Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (17 comments)

The Three Irrefutable Facts That Shatter Bush's Official 911 Theory

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), does a miraculous job and identifies nearly all the bodies on November 16th 2001.

The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.

--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

The numbers will never add up. Arlington National Cemetary says it interred 184. But AFIP says there were a total of 189 bodies --125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on flight 77. Arlington claims that the unidentified remains of 184 victims share a grave at Arlington National Cemetery.
A five-sided granite marker bearing the 184 names will be placed over a shared grave at Arlington National Cemetery - the nation's most prestigious burial ground - holding the unidentified remains.

--Arlington National Cemetary

I interpret that to mean that this "shared grave" is the final resting place for unidentified victims from both the Pentagon and Flight 77.

Five are unaccounted for --presumably the "terrorist" hijackers. But that does not account for the discrepancy for several reasons. Both Arlington and AFIP claim that there were 64 Pentagon workers. AFIP provided a list of 56 passengers of Flight 77. That''s only 120! If you exclude 5 terrorists from the AFIP's total of 189, you are still left with 64 "people" completely unaccounted for. Who the hell are they?
No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American [Airlines] the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified.

--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

These are just a tiny few of the myriad of facts that Bush loyalists cannot explain away or rationalize with the official conspiracy theory. The silver bullet is this: there were no arabs on the flight manifests when "officialdom" maintains that all the said hijackers were Arab.

Johnny Cochran won a famous murder trial with a single phrase which summed up his defense: "If it does not fit, you must acquit!" I rather think that a guilty party might be indicted just as simply: "No arabs on flight! You must indict!"These are fatal discrepancies in Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. Any one of these glaring faults is enough to collapse the official 'theory', the official bald-faced lie.

But all are true. Therefore, nothing said by Bush about 911 can possibly be true. However, these are but a few of the fatal flaws and/or inconsistencies, impossibilities, outrages and absurdities to have issued from the Bush propaganda matrix. The tiny ditch and lack of wreckage in Pennsylvania, for example, support Donald Rumsfeld's 'misstatement' about the 'missile that shot down Flight 93'. The obvious and admitted 'pulling' i.e, the 'controlled demolition' of Building 7, is enough in itself to dispense with critics who charge that there was not enough time to rig the buildings for demolition. The admitted controlled demolition of Bldg 7 is proof enough that wiring a building for demolition is not a problem if you own the building! Silverstein owned WTC and had access to every part of it. Method, motive, opportunity. Silverstein got $billions$ in insurance! $Billions$ would be considered motive in any criminal court at any time in any country. Except Bush's 'America'. It is improbably coincidental that on the very day of the 911 attacks, Rudi Giuliani , who had set up an Office of Emergency Management and emergency command center on the 23rd floor of WTC7, abandoned that special bunker that had been designed precisely for such an event. Why? A real investigation of 911 would have asked that question. We, the people, are entitled to an answer. What are the odds that Rudi and crew would choose that very day to get the hell out of dodge? 3 Then there are Bush's 'odd' remarks about having seen the first plane crash the north tower on live TV. Only a pre-arranged, closed circuit set up delivering a signal to his improvised command central at a school house in Florida could make a truth of Bush's idiotic remark, a statement delivered in almost the same words on two occasions. Both can be found on the White House website.

What can be done? I urge everyone who reads this to practice 'networking'. If you don't know a Federal Judge, perhaps you know someone who does. A Federal Judge can convene a Federal Grand Jury upon his own motion. A Federal Grand Jury can subpoena Bush himself as well as his cast of characters for which there is probable cause now to indict for numerous felonies and capital crimes, not the least of which is high treason, the waging of war against the people of the United States.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
17 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

It's pretty clear that Shermer is a shill, plant, whatever y by Bill Douglas on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 8:08:28 PM
You should, at least by richard on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 9:23:51 PM
SHOW ME THE WRECKAGE! by Len Hart on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:27:36 AM
a public hanging! by Len Hart on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:36:17 AM
Three Irrefutable Facts by vincent passiatore on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:23:01 PM
More evidence that was never examined or investigated... by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 1:05:27 AM
Why assume ANY planes? (just checking) by Keith Mothersson on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:04:51 AM
Good on ya, Keith! by Robert Hoogenboom on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:01:36 AM
At least.... by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:14:02 AM
What hit the ground at Shaksville....? by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:07:57 AM
rough arguments by gravity32 on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:23:55 AM
the official conspiracy theory. by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:29:14 AM
perfectly correct but still not helpful by gravity32 on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:22:04 AM
May I suggest by john riggs on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:30:26 AM
The burden of proof is on Bush to prove his bullshit theory. by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM
Actually, Allen Roland doesn't make the point, by Robert Hoogenboom on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:05:05 PM
Sorry about the misunderstanding by Len Hart on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:18:25 AM