Alfred Lambremont Webre has been posting a ground-breaking series on 9/11 in the Seattle Examiner. This (long) article is the third in the series. “Prima Facie evidence” is evidence which, on the face of things, points to a definite conclusion.
By Alfred Webre
April 2, 2010
A Memorandum to the U.S. Congress presented to then incoming Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), following the November 2006 mid-term elections sets out prima facie evidence for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to prosecute then U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and numerous Jane and John Does for treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution for acts committed on September 11, 2001.
Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution provides: “Sect. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on open confession in open court.”
United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. is the upcoming trial of five alleged Al-Qaeda members for “masterminding” the September 11, 2001 attacks. Regardless of whether U.S. President Barack H. Obama chooses to have these defendants tried in a U.S. Military Commission or in a U.S. Federal court, the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress contains prima facie evidence that the sitting U.S. President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense committed actionable Article III (3) treason on 9/11. Consequently, one can characterize the forthcoming trial in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. as a political show trial, no different in effect – the wrongful execution of the defendants and the attempted hoodwinking of the U.S. and world population – from other political show trials in recent history.
There is a substantial segment of U.S. and world public opinion that believes that 9/11 was a false flag operation. In a 2006 paper entitled, “False Flag Operations, 9/11, and the Exopolitical Perspective”, Dr. Michael E. Salla writes: “According to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in what occurred. A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11 Commission were covering up the truth.”
This Examiner.com article contains the first of two installments setting out the compelling prima facie case of why an independent prosecutor should be appointed to investigate actionable treason on 9/11.
The law of treason and constitutional accountability
The Memorandum to the U.S. Congress addresses the issue of the law of treason and constitutional accountability for the events of September 11, 2001. The Memorandum is designed to set out the prima facie evidence which supports the appointment by the U.S. Congress (or other entity) of an independent or special prosecutor to “prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.”
For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this Examiner.com article do not contain the footnotes and full references in the original Memorandum. Examiner.com readers are encouraged to download a copy of the original Memorandum to the U.S. Congress (PDF) here or here.
Memorandum to the U.S. Congress – parts I – III
The following are Parts I – III of the Memorandum. Please note that the Memorandum contains this caveat:
CAVEAT LECTOR: This memorandum is based upon the best public research resources presently available. It is presented not as a full treatment of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the appointment of an independent prosecutor.
AP: Cheney at National Press Club, June 1, 2009
The September 11, 2001 Attacks as Acts of Treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution
“The United States Constitution, in Article 3, Section 3, says that it is treason for a citizen of the USA to engage in “levying war” against the United States. If U.S. citizens consciously participated in planning the attacks of 9/11 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this participation would clearly be treasonous. There is considerable prima facie evidence that named members of the U.S. Executive Branch—U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld—participated in this planning.
“This prima facie evidence sustains a constitutional, Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress to appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the authority of Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.
“An investigation of these acts of prima facie Treason was not carried out by the 9/11 Commission. This Commission, directed by an insider, Philip Zelikow, who was directly connected to the named U.S. President George W. Bush of the U.S. Executive Branch, took as its starting point the Bush-Cheney administration’s claim that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by members of al-Qaeda. The Commission examined only facts and allegations that were consistent with this theory.
“All evidence pointing to complicity by the named individuals—U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld—along with other John and Jane Does, was ignored or, in a few cases, distorted. The U.S. Congress in its constitutional jurisdiction needs to authorize the appointment of an independent prosecutor to conduct a genuine investigation of this prima facie evidence of Treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, which is summarized below in terms of six questions.”
I. How Could Hijacked Airliners Have Struck the WTC and the Pentagon?
“If the standard operating procedure of the FAA and the US military had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 would have been intercepted before they reached Manhattan, and Flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could have reached the Pentagon. (Such interceptions are routine, being carried out about 100 times a year.) As to why these interceptions did not occur, the public has never been given a plausible explanation. Indeed, we have received three mutually inconsistent stories.
“In the first few days, military officials said that no fighter jets were sent up by NORAD until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38, even though signs that Flight 11 had been hijacked were observed at 8:15. That would mean that although interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes, in this case over 80 minutes had elapsed before any fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that a “stand-down” order had been issued.
“Within a few days, a second story was put out, according to which NORAD had sent up fighters but, because FAA notification had unaccountably come very late, the fighters did not arrive soon enough to prevent the attacks. Critics showed, however, that even if the FAA’s notifications had come as late as NORAD claimed, there would have been time for interceptions to occur. This second story did not, therefore, remove the suspicion that a stand-down order had been given.
“The 9/11 Commission Report gives a third account, according to which, contrary to NORAD’s timeline of September 18, 2001, the FAA did not notify NORAD about Flights 175 and 77 until after they had struck their targets. This third story, besides contradicting the second story and also considerable evidence that the FAA had notified the military in a timely manner, contains many inherent implausibilities. It does not, accordingly, remove grounds for suspicion that a stand-down order had been issued—a suspicion for which there is ear-witness testimony.”
II. Why Did the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the WTC Collapse?
“The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney has also failed to provide a credible explanation of the total collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. According to the official explanation, the Twin Towers collapsed because of the impact of the airplanes and the heat from the ensuing fires. But this explanation faces several formidable problems.
“First, Building 7 also collapsed, and in about the same way. This similarity implies that all three buildings collapsed because of the same causes. But building 7 was not hit by a plane, so its collapse must be explained by fire alone. That would lead to the conclusion that all three buildings collapsed from fire alone.
“Second, however, the fires in these three buildings were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting, compared with fires in some steel-frame high-rises that did not induce collapses. In 1991, for example, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, and in 2004, a fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither of these fires resulted in even a partial collapse, let alone a total collapse. By contrast, the World Trade Center’s north and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed. Building 7, moreover, had fires on only a few floors, according to some witnesses and all the photographic evidence.
“Third, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never, either before or after 9/11, been brought about by fire alone, or fire combined with structural damage from airplanes. All such collapses have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as ‘controlled demolition.’
“Fourth, the collapses of these three WTC buildings all manifested many standard features of controlled demolition, such as: sudden onset (whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag); straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over); collapse at virtually free-fall speed (indicating that the lower floors were offering little if any resistance); total collapse (indicating that the massive steel columns in the core of each building had been sliced into many pieces—which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions); the production of molten steel; and the occurrence of multiple explosions, as reported by dozens of people—including journalists, police officers, WTC employees, emergency medical workers, and firefighters. The official theory cannot explain one, let alone all, of these features—at least, as physicist Steven Jones has pointed out, without violating several basic laws of physics. But the theory of controlled demolition easily explains them all.
“Fifth, although the question of whether explosives were used could have been answered by examining the buildings’ steel columns, virtually all of the steel was immediately sold to scrap dealers, trucked away, and sent to Asia to be melted down. Moreover, although it is usually a federal crime to remove anything from a crime scene, in this case the removal was overseen by government officials.
“Sixth, al-Qaeda terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for the enormous number of hours it would have taken to plant the explosives. But the question of how agents of the Bush-Cheney administration could have gotten such access can be answered by pointing out that Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III—the president’s brother and cousin, respectively—were principals of the company in charge of security for the WTC. It is also doubtful that al-Qaeda terrorists would have had the courtesy to ensure that the buildings would come straight down, rather than falling over onto other buildings.”
[Examiner.com note: Please see also, “Scientist: Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into nanoparticles on 9/11”
Wiki: Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense on September 11, 2001
III. Could the Official Account of the Pentagon Possibly Be True?
“According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. This account is challenged by many facts.
“First, Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes, even though it was then known that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons and even though the US military has the best radar systems in the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace.”
“Second, the aircraft, in order to hit the west wing, reportedly executed a 270-degree downward spiral, which according to some experts would have been impossible for a Boeing 757. Hanjour, moreover, was known as “a terrible pilot,” who could not even fly a small airplane.
“Third, how could a pilot as poor as Hanjour have found his way back to Washington without guidance from the ground?
“Fourth, the Pentagon is surely the best defended building on the planet. It is not only within the P-56-A restricted air space that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, but also within P-56-B, the three-mile ultra-restricted zone above the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. It is only a few miles from Andrews Air Force Base, which, assigned to protect these restricted zones, has at least three squadrons with fighter jets on alert at all times. (The claim by The 9/11 Commission Report that no fighters were on alert the morning of 9/11 is wholly implausible. ) Also, the Pentagon is surely protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft without a US military transponder entering the Pentagon’s airspace. (So even if Flight 77 had entered the Pentagon’s airspace, it could have escaped being shot down only if officials in the Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses.)
“Fifth, terrorists brilliant enough to get through the US military’s defense system would not have struck the west wing, for many reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a strike anywhere else would have been; it was still being renovated, so relatively few people were there; the secretary of defense and all the top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted to kill, were in the east wing; and hitting the west wing required a difficult maneuver, whereas crashing into the roof would have been easier and deadlier.
“Sixth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757. For one thing, unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, the strike on the Pentagon did not create a detectable seismic signal. Also, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not produced by the strike on the Pentagon, according to both photographs and eyewitnesses. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of ‘a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.’
“Photographs show that the façade of the west wing remained standing for 30 minutes after the strike and that, during this time, the hole in this façade was only about 16 to 18 feet in diameter. A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of about 125 feet, and a steel engine is mounted on each wing. And yet there was, as Former Air Force Colonel George Nelson has pointed out, no visible damage on either side of this hole. Former pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing both debris and damage on the basis of the photographic evidence, writes: ‘there is no doubt that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757. . . . There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. . . . There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 ‘crash.’”
“Additional evidence that no large airliner hit the west wing is provided by the fact that the fourth-floor office of Isabelle Slifer, which was directly above the strike zone (between the first and second floors), was not damaged by the initial impact.
“There is considerable evidence, moreover, that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was instead a US military missile. This evidence consists partly of testimony. Lon Rains, editor of Space News, said: ‘I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” The upper management official at LAX, quoted earlier as saying that he overheard members of LAX Security receiving word of a stand-down order, says that they later received word that “the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.’ Professor David Edwards of Salisbury University reports that on the morning of 9/11, a young couple burst into his subway car at L’Enfante Station and started shouting: ‘We were standing at the Pentagon Station, waiting for the train to come, and we saw a missile fly into the Pentagon! We saw it, we saw it!’ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an apparent slip of the tongue, referred in an interview to ‘the missile [used] to damage this building.’
“The missile hypothesis is also supported by physical evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman of Alexandria reports that shortly after the strike her Geiger counter showed the radiation level, about 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon, to be 8-10 times higher than normal. Two days later, Bill Bellinger, the EPA radiation expert for the region, said that the rubble at the crash site was radioactive, adding that he believed the source to be depleted uranium. These findings are what one would expect, says a former scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory—if the Pentagon had been struck by a military missile with a depleted uranium warhead.
“On the basis of all this evidence, retired Army Major Doug Rokke has said: ‘When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts [and] the size of the hole left in the building . . . , it looks like the work of a missile.’
“A seventh reason to be dubious about the official story is that evidence was destroyed. Shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris from the Pentagon in front of the impact site, put it in a large container, and carried it off. Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, with the result that any remaining forensic evidence was covered up. FBI agents also immediately confiscated the videos from security cameras on two nearby buildings. Although the Department of Justice, responding to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, has acknowledged the FBI’s possession of at least one of these videos, the Department of Justice has refused to release it.
“These seven problems, besides challenging the official account, collectively indicate that the strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own government—an act that would clearly constitute treason.”
Parts IV – VII of the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress
Parts IV – VII of the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress will be covered in a succeeding Examiner.com article. For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this article do not contain the footnotes and full references in the original Memorandum. Examiner.com readers are encouraged to download a copy of the original Memorandum to the U.S. Congress (PDF) here or here.
Read the entire Examiner.com series on 9/11:
Secret DARPA time travel program may hold key to understanding the deep politics of 9/11
Scientist: Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into nanoparticles on 9/11
This is the third of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.