Archive of Cheryl's past columns
|
|
Cheryl's Daily Diatribe: Monday, June 10, 2002
SMOKING GUN feedback:
Where Was G.W. Bush on the Morning of Sept. 11?
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
by Cheryl Seal
Question from reader:
I'm wondering if anyone can refer me to a documentable source for President
Bush's schedule on 9/11. Perhaps Cheryl Seal? I've seen lots of references to
his continuing with his plans to go to the elementary school. I would like the
time table: what time did he leave his hotel, begin his visit with the first
graders, notification of 2nd attack?, left the classroom.
Thank you so much,
Virginia
Hi, Virginia,
After Smoking Gun (the first installments) ran in Democrats.com, the response prompted Bob Fertik at Democrats.com to make a call for all info anyone had on who did what when on Sept. 11 to add to the growing database. There is additional info on Bush's schedule in here. There is some pretty disturbing new info about our "clueless leader's" actions between the hours of 8:30 and 10:00 on the morning of 9/11. Also, it's kinda nifty to see some of the info included in Smoking Gun laid out in a color coded format!
Hope this helps!
Best,
Cheryl
* * *
The CEOs at Offutt on Sept. 11
Several readers were very interested to know about the event at Offutt AFB on Sept. 11 that drew so many captains of business, including several from the WTC.
I need to get the article or evidence you have that actual ceo's of "many" companies that would usually have been at the WTC were instead at a "charity event" on 9/11. Surely there are records of this?
thanks.
* * *
I'd like to know who they are too.
haha
* * *
In the Daily Diatribe of June 3rd you mention executives of corporations with offices in the World Trade Center were at a charity event at Offutt AirForce Base in Nebraska on the morning of September 11th. If you can tell me(us), who were these executives, what companies did they represent, and were they at the base when Bush arrived. If so, did they meet?
Darwin
* * *
I read your article and I was curious where I can find out more information about this?
Thanks for you help.
2:00: Bush at Offutt AFB in Omaha NE. — this is not revealed until almost 4:00 pm Also at Offutt that day from 8:00 am on, are several CEOs — at a "charity event" that just happens to be held at a SECURE AIR FORCE BASE? And it just happens that several of the CEOs WOULD HAVE BEEN at the WTC had they not been at Offutt.
Brian H
DEAR CONCERNED READERS:
I have discovered that the charity event was an annual deal hosted by Buffett — a "Charity Classic" golf event. The guest list in the past has included the CEO's of many large corporations, many of them to do with investment. Here are some links about Buffett's charity event:
First: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/
This CEO from the World Trade Center mentioned in this article said she arrived at the charity event with another group of CEOs from NYC. We assume other WTC-based folks. In any case, Buffett's event ALWAYS drew many CEOs, with many hailing from offices at the WTC. Who were they? If someone could get hold of the guest list for the charity event, we could determine all of them.
Whether they KNEW they were being "spared" is something that could not be determined. I would guess that most did not know ahead of time.
Second: http://www.broadwaytovegas.com/ For this one you need to scroll down quite a ways until you reach the heading "SWEET CHARITY."
If this has been scrubbed by the time this goes to press, here is the google cached link.
This link describes the event as "annual," so the date, Sept. 11, must have been set up to a year (perhaps even more) in advance.
Here's another reference to the "Warren Buffett's annual charity golf event" — scroll way down, it's just one line.
And another.
Do I think Buffett organized this event to protect the CEOs? I could not conclude that yet based on the present evidence. However, I think that the fact that an event that got several CEOs out of the WTC just happened to occur on the same day that the WTC was attacked would appear to be, as they say in statistics, "well outside the realm of coincidence." Perhaps someone else selected the date BASED on Buffett's event. It is entirely possible the thought occurred to "someone" that Buffett, a Gore supporter, might be implicated in the terrorism somehow. In any case, here's another interesting piece of evidence that might suggest that Sept. 11 proved to be a gravy train for more than just the Bush folks: Here's an article in "Motley Fool" (investment publication) that asks why Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway has GAINED overall so much value since Sept. 11.
In addition, Warren Buffett was quoted (see second to last paragraph in this article) as saying there would be another devastating terrorist attack on the U.S. Not only did he predict it, he was SURE of it: "We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country. It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years...it's virtually a certainty." Why so sure, Warren?
I've just read your excellent article " smoking gun". I have a few comments.
There's been so much disinformation spread through the mainstream media on this subject, that I think most writers, including myself have at times fallen for some of these lies, even as we put the noose around Bush's neck. So my following comments are in no way a criticism of your article or integrity, but are meant constructively, because we all need each other's help in peeling back the layers of this deception one by one. I have read nothing, I must admit by Walter.
This part needs examination.
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. Eyewitness observers say that Flight 77 performed a 180-degree "G" turn before diving for the center of the long wall of Wedge One.
I have recently completed a very thorough piece of research into analysis of alleged eyewitness accounts to the Pentagon incident, posted at http://nyc.indymedia.org/.
According to this research, this is only one witness which describes the plane as behaving in anything like this manner, USA today reporter Mike Walter, who's account my article completely discredits. My research showed that there were actually nowhere near as many witnesses as the general impression created by the media, It was a giant exercise in smoke and mirrors. There were only 18 which even superficially gave the appearance of being witness to the crash. Nearly all of these were exposed as fakes, or at least of extremely dubious credibility. Walter was the only one which described the steep dive, and he blatantly contradicted this in other interviews.
What I think happened is that Walter was so widely quoted, and his account so widely paraphrased into generalized second hand descriptions, that the impression has been created that there are many eyewitnesses which report this. I found nearly 400 reports for Walter, simply under "wire service stories." That's before you even get into newspapers or magazines. As far as I can tell he gave only 3 to 5 interviews, and a mish mash of the contradictory statements he made was flooded through the media to create the impression, which you have referred to.
I myself had been also under this impression before I completed the research. I t appears that there is actually no credible eyewitness evidence that the plane behaved in this manner.
Thanks for the kind words.
However, I did not get my information from mainstream media sources. I, for one, trust "everyday people" a whole lot more than I trust the mainstream media or U.S. government. Most of the Pentagon info. was obtained from the type of sites that escape mainstream scrutiny, such as newsletters (one put out for the ordinary folks working at the Pentagon, for example). The plane was clearly seen by many people working at the Pentagon that day, including the construction foreman still trying to complete work on Wedge One. He was standing in the parking lot. Other credible witnesses: several people on the metro coming toward the Pentagon (it has its own stop), at least one witness on the beltway. I am familiar with D.C. and know the layout (I live in Maryland) so I am sure that these people truly did have the view they said they did. And in any case, why make a story up about a fancy 180-degree maneuver? After all, the wedge struck faces west and the plane was coming from a westerly direction. Doesn't it make more sense to make a bee line for the Pentagon? The U-turn strongly suggests remote controlled piloting — why on Earth would conspirators trying to hide their part in the event put out a story like that?
F-16s were finally scrambled into the air, but too late. These planes, by the way, were scrambled out of Langley Airforce base. While Langley is about 130 miles southwest of the Pentagon, Bolling AFB just across the Potomac from the Pentagon, is at most 5 miles southeast while Andrews is 10 miles. The Langley F-16 left the ground two minutes before the Pentagon was hit.
You are quite correct that this information, even if it were true, represents such a bizarre response that one can only conclude collusion. however it appears that no such scramble from Langley ever took place. It was a cover story invented several days after the event, to try to make things look better. It doesn't fool critical thinkers such as yourself, but it has had the desired effect of making it appear to the ordinary consumer of mainstream news that a legitimate attempt was made to protect the pentagon. The evidence that no such scramble from Langley took place is presented by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel at Planes did scramble on 9/11, they just arrived late.
The link you refer to was last updated Jan. 2002, Btw. I don't like to build my case on ruminations and speculations, but on the available best evidence, from which I draw the most likely conclusion, applying the rather unglamorous but time-honored technique called the "scientific method." Formulate a hypothesis based on the evidence, then test that hypothesis (in this case using questions).
To get caught up into the "he said she said" (what Dan Rather said Myers said Bush said etc.) is to get involved in chasing your tail — and everyone else's! History tells us that in a crisis like this, the scramble to cover butts, even when there HASN'T been a conspiracy involved, ususally results in contradictory, every-changing stories. This is true from sorting out who broke the cookie jar in the kitchen to who was caught with their hand in the till at Enron...everyone will scramble to hit on a story that plays well. So, to avoid this quagmire, the best approach is to go with the most concrete evidence and know facts..
Known fact: NORAD called by the FAA because it is the established protocol in such a case (and, as one of my readers suggested, NORAD would probably have known of the planes even before then, based on their radar data). In keeping with protocol, NORAD would have required a response from Bush. Now just applying common sense (another unglamorous habit of mine), here's what you get:
1. If this was indeed a conspiracy involving those in high places, then the details of NORAD's response, which would become a matter of public record, now or in the future, would have been accounted for in advance by the conspirators.
2. When the stakes are as high as the ones involved on 9/11, a conspirator would take NO CHANCES on doing anything that might seem to implicate themselves. By NOT CALLING ANY PLANES, Bush et al would be implicating themselves big time. However, by delaying the call for a scramble and not calling for evacuations, they would easily be able to plead later their decisions were based on not having any idea the danger was of the scope it proved to be. This is, in fact, what the Bush folks have tried to do. If NO PLANES had been called in at all, there are too many "peripheral" people in the chain of communications, from the FAA to NORAD to Bush that would have been outraged and spoken out. A delayed call on the other hand would have been initially seen as "tragic bad luck" and later as too ambiguous to base an accusation on.
And third a general comment, in regard to the scandal about pre-Sept 11 warnings being ignored. I don't have a problem with what you presented, but there is a very important piece of information omitted. One which I think that our movement in general has put too far to the background recently, in out attempts to get maximum exposure for the latest revelations.
The passenger and crew lists we have show no Arabic names for any of the four flights.
Passenger and crew list for Flight 11 (first WTC crash), Flight 77 (Pentagon crash), Flight 175 (2nd WTC crash), and
Flight 93 (Pennsylvania crash).
I lean towards the theory that the 19 Arab hijackers are a complete fiction, which raises very hard questions about the integrity of these so called warnings which were ignored. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be looked at, because this piece of the puzzle is far from clear, but my point is — how could there have been warnings about the hijackers, if they never existed.
First off, these passenger lists you refer to were published in CNN, they were not from FBI files, not directly from a source within the FAA. There are so many possible reasons for the lists to be incomplete that I would not want to base any conclusions on this finding, as suspicious as it may appear on the surface. I have tried to stick to facts that have very few possible alternative benign explanations, those whose best plausible alternative is "colossal coincidence" and thus highly suspect. The lack of names has too many other possible explanations besides coincidence.
And, again, you can't have it both ways: either this was a well-orchestrated inside conspiracy or it was a terrorist act perpetrated solely by outsiders. If it's a well-orchestrated inside conspiracy, the facts should be consistent with that.. If you have actually apprehended a suicide bomber (as an illustrative example), you should find a bomb belt.
If there WERE no Arab hijackers, but you planned to blame the crime on Arabs, wouldn't it make sense to at least create some Arab names on the passenger list? Not to think of that would be like the suicide bomber heading for his destination without his bomb. After all, we are also assuming, based on the circumstantial evidence, that someone manipulated the NUMBER of passengers on the planes so that only a minimum number of people were aboard. This was one of those facts (the low passenger count on EACH flight) that has few alternative benign explanations other than invoking colossal coincidence. If they could achieve manipulating passenger names to achieve a low count, they could achieve throwing in a few Arab names. It makes more sense that the Arabs used assumed names or, more likely, that their names were removed from the list by the FBI to aid in the secrecy of their investigation. In fact, the removal of the names by the FBI tends to exonerate the FBI investigators from complicity — the agents working in the field, that is. After all, it is very much in the conspirators' interests to throw out Arab names into the press!
The Govt is guilty either way, but this needs to be sorted out.
Also you mentioned 64 people aboard F77. You're correct that this is the official summation of those on board, but the published list has only 56 names. This problem is repeated on all four flights, giving a total of 34 names too few for the official summation numbers. What this means isn't entirely clear, but this also should be pointed out at every opportunity.
The biggest smoking gun of all, which I think should be publicized at every opportunity, is research by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel.
I read through their material in preparation for Smoking Gun. I think they were extremely astute and courageous in pointing out the suspicious aspects of 9/11 right from the start and deserve great credit and respect for this. Like Cynthia McKinney and Barbara Lee, they spoke up when it wasn't popular OR SAFE to do so. I myself was barred from the site I was writing for in the weeks following 9/11 because of my comments and questions, both about 9/11 and the "war."
As to Smoking Gun, I feel that people cannot have an entire barrel of facts and red herrings dumped in their laps and expect to sort it all out...the tendency is to throw up their hands in despair, confusion and frustration. Which is just what Bush and Co. would like everyone to do. What I tried to do was to sort through and identify the most tangible facts, then present these, along with all the factual connections between people, places and things, then allow people to ponder it for themselves. I did not set out to "sell" a "conspiracy theory," but if the facts presented happen scream conspiracy, that message will be heard loud and clear.
One thing I have learned is that people 1. are generally quicker on the uptake than the media gives them credit for, and 2. generally recognize the truth when they see it plainly presented. That is why the corporate powers that be and their pals in the mainstream media work very hard to avoid presenting important facts plainly and work even harder to disguise the truth. Guilty for 9-11 Section 3: Bush in the open, by Illarion Bykov and Jared
Israel, which shows that Bush didn't just know 'something" was going to happen — he knew exactly what and when, down to the last details.
Nevertheless, an excellent contribution.
Keep up the good work!
Gerard
* * *
To "Commie":
I read your BULLSHIT!
You are a LEFT WING COMMIE "SLUT"
I hope your lesbian ass dies of CANCER!!!
(unsigned)
Dear "Unsigned",
We will post your, er, "profound note" as an example to all of just what sort of hate-filled people blindly support the Bush regime. Scary indeed. You are too cowardly to sign your letter. At the same time you assume that any woman who has enough guts to sign HER NAME to outspoken articles must be a "lesbian" . Of course, in the sicko little world of ultrarightwingnuts such as yourself, the term "Lesbian" is a term used to dismiss ANY woman who isn't a driveling moron, while the term "Commie" is used to slam anyone who dares to disagree with your narrow, self-righteous, unAmerican belief system.
That's right: UnAmerican. Because if you truly gave a rat's ass about America, you would care what happened to your fellow Americans on 9/11 and you would be asking hard questions and expecting justice. Instead, you obviously support the trashing of a democracy that braver souls than yourself fought and died for. I am proud to be an American because I know what America is SUPPOSED to stand for. And, I am not afraid to lay down my life for her REAL principles. I am not a Lesbian, but if I were, I would be glad that there were more people NOT like you than there are LIKE you. And as for wishing people to die of cancer — there's an old saying in the Ozarks: if you wish ill on someone, it will come back on YOU threefold.
But, in the end, I simply feel deeply sorry for people such as yourself, who live in such a dark, fear-filled place ruled by people (Bush and Co.) who could care less what happened to you or your country.
© 2002, Cheryl Seal
Cheryl may be contacted at cherylseal@hotmail.com.
|
|
Cheryl may be contacted at cherylseal@hotmail.com.
|
