Osama Bin Laden Pronounced Dead (Again)

MORE REPORTING AND PERSPECTIVES AT THE BABYLON OBSERVER FORUM

9/11 BBC Conspiracy

There is an abundance of scientific and forensic evidence to support alternative theories, yet the BBC and other mainstream news corporations have continued to dismiss this information as conspiracy theory.

‘The Conspiracy Files’ and the BBC in general have failed to objectively present the detail of this evidence.

9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy – new documentary by Adrian Connock and David Shayler about the BBC’s selective and distorted 9/11 coverage.

With particular reference to the Conspiracy Files programme aired on BBC Two on February 18th 2007.

MORE AT THE BABYLON OBSERVER FORUM

Flight 93 and 175, Just Recently Taken Off FAA 'Active' List. Are Both Jetliners (From the Archives)

WWW, 2005 (Archived) - What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?

Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight 93 and 175, Just Recently Taken Off FAA 'Active' List. Are Both Jetliners Still Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?

FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier.

25 Nov 2005

By Greg Szymanski

Two of the 9/11 airliners were never ‘deregistered’ and remained on the ‘active’ flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville , Penn. , and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to ‘deregister’ the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.

In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were ‘deregistered’ and classified as ‘destroyed’ only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002.

Why the late filing by United?

“My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft,” said one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name. “Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were deregistered. What's up with that?

“Although the planes are deregistered, they are not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United planes.

“There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago . I know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly right about the planes still being registered.

“Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying? Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight 93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?”

A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher’s statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason given as ‘cancelled’ not ‘destroyed.’

The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as ‘cancelled not destroyed,’ FAA officials also gave no further explanation.

Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records.

According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.

Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.

More importantly critics contend this is another clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only ‘phantom flights,” adding even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning 9/11.

Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from unverified sources.

On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember, complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities found one of the most glaring errors never explained by the airlines or the government.

Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be found at indymedia, uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.

Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:

“What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?

“It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight.”

CLICK FOR PDF OF THIS ARTICLE

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons (From the Archives)

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WWW, 2005 (ARCHIVED) - In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.

On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.

On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."

President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

NORAD, a U.S.-Canadian command, was created in 1958 to guard against Soviet bombers.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.

NORAD fighters based in Florida have intercepted two hijacked smaller aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks. Both originated in Cuba and were escorted to Key West in spring 2003, NORAD said.

Agency Was to Crash Plane on 9/11 (From the Archives)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved — to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

``It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility,'' Haubold said. ``As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise.''

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 — the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon — took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.

The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.

An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.

In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, ``On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day.''

The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.

Updated: August 22, 2002 4:53 PM

The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering From Antiquity (From the Archives)

WWW, 2005 (ARCHIVED) - The following is an edited extract from The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11, by Paul David Collins.

Terrorism does not emerge by accident but is usually sponsored by the state to serve the demands of a powerful elite, as can be seen in the creation of Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida.

In our modern world, discomforting truths are usually discarded in favour of fictions. One such fiction is the idea that terrorists are disenfranchised dissidents who independently generate the wealth and resources necessary for their heinous acts. Such is the contention of Professor Mark Juergensmeyer. In his article, "Understanding the New Terrorism", he says that modern terrorism "appears pointless since it does not lead directly to any strategic goal" (p. 158).

Juergensmeyer arrives at this conclusion because he restricts his examination to the visible perpetrators, whose motives may be, in fact, irrational. However, he does not examine the patrons of terrorism. Given the exceptional subtlety and discretion of terrorism's shadowy sponsors, Professor Juergensmeyer may just be oblivious to their existence. On the other hand, he could simply be parroting his fellow academicians in order to maintain the status quo.

Whatever the case may be, this contention seems to be the overall view held by the orthodoxy of academia. With such a view vigorously promulgated by the arbiters of the dominant national paradigm, few can recognise those shady individuals who stand to profit from terrorist acts.

To understand terrorism, one must discard the view that arbitrarily characterises it as "a resort to violence or a threat of violence on the part of a group seeking to accomplish a purpose against the opposition of constituted authority" (Adler, Mueller & Laufer, p. 309). Such an impotent notion is predicated upon the hopelessly flawed accidentalist perspective of history. It relegates terrorism, which is the product of conscious effort and design, to the realm of circumstantial spontaneity. In other words, a contrived act suddenly becomes an inexplicable social phenomenon.

In November 1989, Father Ignacio Martín-Baró, a social psychologist, delivered a speech in California on "The Psychological Consequences of Political Terror". In his speech, Martín-Baró gave a much more precise definition of terrorism, one that is ignored only at great peril. Noam Chomsky provides a synopsis of this speech (p. 386):

He [Martín-Baró] stressed several relevant points. First, the most significant form of terrorism, by a large measure, is state terrorism--that is, "terrorizing the whole population through systematic actions carried out by the forces of the state". Second, such terrorism is an essential part of a "government-imposed sociopolitical project" designed for the needs of the privileged.

Disturbing though it may be, Martín-Baró's definition is one validated by history. The majority of terrorism throughout history has found its sponsors in the hallowed halls of officialdom, in the entity known as government. Terrorism is surrogate warfare, a manufactured crisis designed to induce social change. Its combatants consciously or unconsciously wage the war on behalf of higher powers with higher agendas. Whether its adherents are aware of it or not, terrorism always serves the ambitions of another.

In his article, "Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship", Michael Rivero states that "It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times: creating the enemies you need" (p. 1). The strategy is quite simple: individuals create a crisis so that they can then introduce their desired solution.

Are there recent, modern examples of state-sponsored terrorism? Unfortunately, the answer to that question seems to be "Yes".

Operation Northwoods The first example is in 1962. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer, and his fellow JCS members wanted to remove Castro from Cuba. Exactly what interests Lemnitzer and his fellow warhawks represented are unclear. However, one thing is apparent: these military men considered Castro an impediment to be expunged by means of overt war.

According to James Bamford, former Washington investigative producer for ABC, the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned to engineer several terrorist acts to instigate war (p. 82):

According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the US government. In the name of anticommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.

Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, DC, Miami and elsewhere.

People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

Northwoods even called for the military to turn on itself (p. 84):

Among the actions recommended was "a series of well-coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the US Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations".

Operation Northwoods would draw upon history as well, using the 1898 explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbour as inspiration (p. 84):

"We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

The attempt to create a Cuban terrorist threat makes it clear that the US government has no reservations about using state-sponsored terrorism to achieve its ends.

American Imperialism and the Terrorist Threat However, it is in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 that one sees the tangible enactment of modern-day state-sponsored terrorism. Many Americans have been taught that loners Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, fuelled by militia-inspired conspiracy theories and white supremacist propaganda, perpetrated one of the worst terrorist acts in American history all by themselves.

What came out of the Oklahoma City bombing? Former Czechoslovakian Communist Party Secretariat member Jan Kozak's "pressure from above" went to work and passed oppressive legislation: the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This Act made no one safer and threw the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution into the wastebasket. The pincers clamped down a little bit harder on the American people.

Presently, America finds itself in the midst of a tumultuous conflict because of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. This begs the obvious question: was this attack state-sponsored? Remember the earlier contention that the majority of terrorism is state-sponsored. Terrorists just do not have the resources, the money or the expertise without the aid of a government or factions within a government. It is still too early to know all of the facts and details surrounding the events of September 11. However, there is evidence suggesting that the attack was no exception to the rule. The investigation of government complicity begins with an examination of the evidence for government foreknowledge. Warnings were received at the highest levels of government.

These and other eye-opening revelations have many people asking why the US government did not move to stop bin Laden and al-Qa'ida. This question can be answered with a question: why move against bin Laden and al-Qa'ida if they are your assets?

The story of the dreaded al-Qa'ida terrorist network begins with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor. In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Geostrategic Objectives, Brzezinski provides readers with the motivation for the creation of a terrorist threat. He begins (p. xii):

The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power ...

Brzezinski celebrates the fact that America is being transformed into a world empire. However, he identifies a distinct threat to America's ascendancy to the position of sole global power: "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent" (p. 24). Apparently, the citizenry's aversion towards imperialistic policies, which Brzezinski euphemistically interprets as ambivalence, is an obstacle to the empire's expansion. After all, there are still plenty of patriots who understand that Brzezinski's expansionistic "geostrategy" is irreconcilable with the tenets of Americanism.

This sense of awareness has been a major obstacle to the foreign policy elites that Brzezinski represents. Thus far, enough patriots know that none of the "Freedom Documents" (i.e., the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) makes concessions for the arbitrary extension of America's authority through brutish military expeditions. As a sovereign nation itself, America is supposed to honour the autonomy of other countries and is not to initiate militaristic campaigns unless she is threatened. Yet, Brzezinski believes that adherence to such principles could provoke worldwide social upheaval (p. 30):

America's withdrawal from the world, or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival, would produce massive international instability. It would promote global anarchy.

Brzezinski continues further on in hyperbolic fashion (p. 194):

Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene.

In other words, the promotion and practice of representative government amongst other nations would lead to doomsday itself. In such statements, the former National Security Advisor reveals the authoritarian features of his bizarre eschatology. According to Brzezinski's Weltanschauung, those who cherish individual liberties and the sovereignty of their respective nations constitute the "forces of global disorder"; these forces must be defeated or they will invariably cause the apocalypse--so public opinion must be altered. (Brzezinski fails to mention that such a doomsday will only mean the end for him and his elitist comrades.) Brzezinski cites a very interesting historical example (p. 25):

The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Ah, an option presents itself! Mass consensus could be facilitated through mass trauma. In fact, the engineering of widespread compliance is an essential constituent in the implementation of Brzezinski's foreign policy. In an exemplary moment of self-incrimination so endemic to elitist tracts, Brzezinski pens a damning confession (p. 211):

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.

A readily exploitable menace, whether genuine or promulgated, is the solution.

Brzezinski began the construction of his "direct external threat" years before he wrote The Grand Chessboard. In an interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, the former national security adviser made a stunning confession that will change the history books forever (Blum, p. 1):

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows] that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Re-education and the Creation of the Taliban Having encouraged the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, Brzezinski now had a pretext for radicalising and arming a population that would be used at a future date as a "direct external threat" to the United States.

Part of the radicalisation process included the brainwashing of children under the guise of education. The Washington Post's Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway report (pp. 1-2):

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The "Primers", which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.

Stephens and Ottaway identify the governmental and educational organisations involved in development of the textbooks (p. 4):

Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID [Agency for International Development] grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.

Under this project, the images and talk of violence were craftily intermingled with legitimate education (p. 4): Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited US interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.

An examination of a textbook produced shocking results (p. 5): An aid-worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages.

The writers of the Washington Post story go on to provide a specific example of the material that is nothing less than appalling (pp. 5-6):

One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing.

Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin [sic], who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.

This social engineering project successfully transformed Muslim children into conscienceless killing machines. Many would go on to join al-Qa'ida, the terrorist network headed up by Osama bin Laden.

An heir to a Saudi construction fortune, bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1979 to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden eventually came to head the Maktab al-Khidamar, also known as the MAK. It was through this front organisation that money, arms and fighters were supplied to the Afghan war. However, according to MSNBC's Michael Moran, there is more to the story (p. 2): What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation.

Even after the war, bin Laden was on good terms with the CIA (p. 3): Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante--a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

Bin Laden would later receive three necessary provisions from factions of government. These essentials would allow him and al- Qa'ida to conduct one of the worst terrorist attacks ever conceived. These constituents were: (1) protection courtesy of highly influential, well-placed shepherds in government; (2) government funding; and (3) government training. Without a beat, individuals in positions of authority delivered.

Both Democrat and Republican administrations protected bin Laden. Undaunted by Osama's attack on the USS Cole and bombings of the embassies, this non-partisan aegis consistently insulated the terrorist and his network. President William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat, shielded bin Laden and company from the hand of justice in Sudan. Mansoor Ijaz revealed this fact in the December 5, 2001, Los Angeles Times (Ijaz, p. 1):

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year ...

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton Administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, US National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's President and intelligence chief.

President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton Administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

Sudan offered Bill Clinton the ideal opportunity to apprehend bin Laden and prevent future terrorist attacks. Instead, the US pressured Sudan to make bin Laden leave, "despite their [the Sudanese] feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere" (pp. 1-2). It was off to Afghanistan for bin Laden and his merry, marauding band of cut-throats and murderers (p. 2):

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him: Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the US to be the chief planner of the September 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the US for his role in the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks. Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban protected bin Laden and his al- Qa'ida network. There is an odd symmetry revealed through this relationship. Both bin Laden and the Taliban were little more than a creation of the CIA. Selig Harrison, a South Asian expert from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, made this known at a conference in London. The Times of India records Harrison's revelations (p. 1):

LONDON -- The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre [sic] for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia".

To the average American, the Taliban might have been a rogue gallery of maniacs that comprised a fanatical outlaw government and nothing more. However, Harrison makes it clear that the Taliban was a well-coordinated intelligence project (p. 2):

The Taliban are not just recruits from "madrassas" (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government).

A Covert Government Agenda The government had all the means necessary to detect and prevent the September 11 attacks. Researcher Russ Kick makes a significant statement concerning this point (p. 1):

The US has the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Secret Service, and a host of other intelligence and security agencies. These agencies employ Echelon, which monitors the majority of electronic communication in the world; Carnivore, which intercepts email; Tempest, a technology that can read a computer monitor's display from over a block away; Keyhole satellites that have a resolution of four inches; and other spy technologies, probably most of which we don't know about.

In 2001, the US spent $30 billion on intelligence gathering and an additional $12 billion on counterterrorism. With all these resources, and more, we're supposed to believe that the government didn't have the slightest inkling that terrorists were planning to attack the United States, much less hijack planes and send them careening into major landmarks.

After reviewing the facts, one must consider a more sinister possibility: that certain factions in the United States government created the bin Laden menace and actually desired the attacks. Whether Moran realises it or not, his article, "Bin Laden Comes Home to Roost", reveals evidence that the Agency may have been equipping bin Laden's network for purposes other than fighting the Soviets (p. 4):

The CIA, ever mindful of the need to justify its "mission", had conclusive evidence by the mid-1980s of the deepening crisis of infrastructure within the Soviet Union. The CIA, as its deputy director Robert Gates acknowledged under congressional questioning in 1992, had decided to keep that evidence from President Reagan and his top advisors and instead continued to grossly exaggerate Soviet military and technological capabilities in its annual "Soviet Military Power" report right up to 1990.

Now, a troubling question arises. Given the impending collapse of the Soviet Union and the inexorable demise of communism, bin Laden's involvement in the crusade against the Soviets seems inconsequential. More succinctly, it is irrelevant. Yet, despite his axiomatic obsolescence in the anti-communist campaign, bin Laden continued to receive funds. Since such financing did not represent an investment in the ongoing war with the Soviets, there must have been ulterior motives for maintaining bin Laden's network.

What was the true agenda that motivated the CIA to support what would later become an international Frankenstein's monster? Former CIA Associate Deputy Director of Operations Theodore Shackley may have already answered this question in his book, The Third Option (p. 17):

Senior intelligence officers like myself, who had experience in paramilitary operations, have always insisted that the United States should also consider the third option: the use of guerrilla warfare, counterinsurgency techniques and covert action to achieve policy goals ... Political warfare is very often the stitch in time that eliminates bloodier and more costly alternatives.

It is possible that the September 11 attack represents a tangible enactment of Shackley's third option. Bin Laden's ties to the intelligence community certainly reinforce such a contention. Were al-Qa'ida and bin Laden considered part of a third option to facilitate political and social change in the United States?

Consider a conversation that took place between former DEA agent Michael Levine and a CIA agent. It suggests that the CIA is ready and willing to use the third option in America. This discourse is recorded in The Triangle of Death (Levine, p. 353):

"How can you be so good at what you do and have so little understanding of what really pulls your strings? Don't you realize that there are factions in your government that want this to happen--an emergency situation too hot for a constitutional government to handle."

"To what end?" I asked.

"A suspension of the Constitution, of course. The legislation is already in place. All perfectly legal. Check it out yourself. It's called FEMA. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 'Turn in your guns, you antigovernment rabble-rousers. And who would be king, Michael?"

"CIA," I said.

Terrorism in the United States is one of the methods employed to generate the changes desired by Levine's CIA friend. It has provided a pretext for the introduction of draconian laws and measures previously unthinkable. Representative Henry Gonzalez recognised this fact when he made the following comment (Cuddy, p. 164):

The truth of the matter is that you do have those standby provisions, and the statutory emergency plans are there whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism, apprehend, invoke the military, and arrest Americans and hold them in detention camps.

Add to the list of "statutory emergency plans" the Patriot Act, passed in response to the September 11 attacks. According to Washington Post staff writer Jim McGee (pp 1-2), this law:

... empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence. In addition, the Treasury Department has been charged with building a financial intelligence-gathering system whose data can be accessed by CIA.

Most significantly, the CIA will have the authority for the first time to influence FBI surveillance operations inside the United States and to obtain evidence gathered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps.

The Patriot Act is designed to transform America into a surveillance society. Wiretapping has been expanded to invade the privacy of a larger portion of the populace. In the name of fighting terrorism, the prying eyes of the government can now watch those merely deemed "suspicious". Furthermore, wiretaps are no longer just a tool in criminal investigations. Under the Act, they become a means of gathering information on the citizenry. Unfortunately, the surprises do not stop there. The Act also lifts many of the constraints on the CIA's power. McGee writes (p. 4):

The new law also gives the CIA unprecedented access to the most powerful investigative weapon in the federal law enforcement's arsenal: the federal grand jury. The grand juries have nearly unlimited power to gather evidence in secret, including testimony, wiretap transcripts, phone records, business records or medical records ...

The new law permits allow the FBI to give grand jury information to the CIA without a court order, as long as the information concerns foreign intelligence or international terrorism. The information can also be shared widely throughout the national security establishment ...

All of the above points to a very frightening conclusion: there are some factions of government that consider terrorism to be a tool of social engineering. The direction society is being steered by this "tool" is even more frightening.

Terrorism: A Tool of the Ruling Elite Terrorism is being used to keep the rabble in line on behalf of an elite that wishes to maintain and expand its power. In The Power Elite, sociologist C. Wright Mills introduces these powerful individuals (pp. 3-4):

The power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women; they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences. Whether they do or do not make such decisions is less important than the fact that they do occupy such pivotal positions: their failure to act, their failure to make decisions, is itself an act that is often of greater consequence than the decisions they do make. For they are in command of the major hierarchies and organisations of modern society. They rule the big corporations. They run the machinery of the state and claim its prerogatives. They direct the military establishment. They occupy the strategic command posts of the social structure, in which are now centered the effective means of the power and the wealth and the celebrity which they enjoy.

Talk of oligarchs might tend to conjure pictures of mediaeval feudal lords. However, a Federal Reserve study points out to elitism being alive, well, and existing in the "Land of the Free", the United States. In his Secrets of the Temple, former Washington Post editor William Greider quotes the study (p. 39):

... 54 percent of the total net financial assets were held by the 2 percent of families with the greatest amount of such assets and 86 percent by the top 10 percent; 55 percent of the families in the sample had zero or negative net worth ...

This concentration of wealth in so few hands certainly suggests that there is a ruling class. It is highly naive to believe that this elite does not wield a great deal of influence over civilisation. In her book, Beyond The Ruling Class: Strategic Elites In Modern Society, Professor Suzanne Keller states (p. 3):

The notion of a stratum elevated above the mass of men may prompt approval, indifference, or despair, but regardless of how men feel about it, the fact remains that their lives, fortunes, and fate are and have long been dependent on what a small number of men in high places think and do.

Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency William Colby recognised the existence of a network of bluebloods. When former Nebraska Senator and Vietnam War hero John W. DeCamp was looking into elites' involvement in child abuse, drug running, gun running, and satanic ritual-murder, Colby warned him of the hidden aristocracy and their power (DeCamp, pp. ix-x):

"What you have to understand, John, is that sometimes there are forces and events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or institutions, that you cannot do anything about them, no matter how evil or wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much evidence you have. That is simply one of the hard facts of life you have to face. You have done your part. You have tried to expose the evil and wrongdoing. It has hurt you terribly. But it has not killed you up to this point. I am telling you, get out of this before it does.

"Sometimes things are just too big for us to deal with, and we have to step aside and let history take its course."

Probably the greatest source of "insider" information comes from Oxford professor (and mentor to former President Bill Clinton) the late Carroll Quigley. After being close to the pro-British, Anglophile faction of the elite, Quigley wrote (p. 950):

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it and to many of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.

I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

Quigley also informs us that the ruling class has a very low opinion of the common people. He voices this elitist sentiment when he refers to the commoners as "the petty bourgeoisie ... " (pp. 1243-1244).

So why is the great mass of human civilisation unaware of the oligarchs' presence among them? In The Architecture of Modern Political Power, Daniel Pouzzner explains why (p. 16):

The establishment cloaks itself in cultural camouflage, employing tactics for which it almost seamlessly maintains plausible deniability. Subtle, ubiquitous, often implicit propaganda fosters a broad public acceptance and embrace of the authority of the establishment, and of the establishment's definitions of good and evil, preventing the public from seriously contemplating the reality that the establishment is itself quite often evil by its own definition. The establishment reiterates the mantra that the President of the United States is "the leader of the free world", but a free world has no leader. The President of the United States is simply the most obvious spearhead of the authority of the establishment. He gathers strength at the expense of the world's freedom.

Generally, an errant public attributes the results of the establishment's meddlesome actions to happenstance, or to motives viewed as essentially innocuous or virtuous. The design is irrefutably evident only in the pattern of results, or by actually showing proof of meddling. The public has been systemically conditioned to ignore such patterns, and to condemn those who draw attention to them (derisively calling them "conspiracy theorists"). Thus, controlling access to and dissemination of information that constitutes proof of meddling suffices in large part to protect the establishment program from exposure. The compartmentalization of the establishment's covert apparatus assures that those exposures which do transpire cause only limited damage.

Bush/Bin Laden Family Links Are there any ties between the power elites and the current terrorist network? The answer to that question lies with the Bush dynasty. Neither Bush Senior nor Bush Junior can be described as Presidents in the Lincoln tradition. They do not come from lower class backgrounds and modest upbringings. Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin's in-depth investigation of George Senior led them to propose the following in their excellent book, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (p. 9):

One of our basic theses is that George Bush [Senior] is, and considers himself to be, an oligarch.

In an article for the London Daily Mail, Peter Allen points out a connection between George W. Bush and Osama's brother, Salem bin Laden (pp. 1-2):

Incredibly, Salem went on to become a business partner of the man who is leading the hunt for his brother. In the 1970s, he and George W. Bush were founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr Bush's home state of Texas.

As he built his own business empire, Salem bin Laden had an intriguing relationship with the President-to-be. In 1978, he appointed James Bath, a close friend of Mr Bush who served with him in the Air National Guard, as his representative in Houston, Texas. It was in that year that Mr Bath invested $50,000 ... in Mr Bush's company, Arbusto. It was never revealed whether he was investing his own money or somebody else's. There was even speculation that the money might have been from Salem. In the same year, Mr Bath bought Houston Gulf Airport on behalf of the Saudi Arabian multimillionaire.

Three years ago, Mr Bush said the $50,000 investment in Arbusto was the only financial dealing he had with Mr Bath.

The connection between the bin Ladens and the Bush family does not end with Arbusto Energy.

On the BBC's Newsnight program, Greg Palast stated (p. 5):

Young George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little-known private company which has, in just a few years of its founding, become one of America's biggest defence contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also a paid adviser. And what became embarrassing was the revelation that the bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11.

These business connections may explain why the Bush Administration frustrated the FBI's efforts to investigate Abdullah and Omar bin Laden. Investigations may have demonstrated that Osama was not the "black sheep" of the family. Instead, they may have shown that terrorism was actually the bin Laden family business. This would have associated the Bush family with terrorists, something the current President could not allow to happen.

For neo-conservatives, the portrait of the Bush family as a criminal syndicate with ties to questionable characters is reprehensible. However, this contention can be based upon a major precedent.

Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin's investigation into former President George Herbert Walker Bush's background led to a startling discovery: that "The President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler project" (p. 28).

The Bush dynasty's connections with the bin Ladens suggest that the family's collusion with enemies of the United States has never ceased.

A State-sponsored Sociopolitical Project Re-examining Martín-Baró's previous contention, that terrorism is part and parcel of a "government-imposed sociopolitical project", one is faced with some very disturbing questions.

What will be the results of this "government-imposed sociopolitical project"? Where exactly is all of this state-sponsored terrorism leading?

Quigley provides a fragmentary glimpse of the outcome in Tragedy and Hope. The Oxford professor reveals that a cognitive elite, arbitrarily dubbed "experts", "will replace the democratic voter in control of the political system" (p. 866).

With representation for the masses removed from the picture, what kind of life can the common man expect to live? Quigley (p. 886) declares that this will be a system where the individual's:

... freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.

There you have it. George Orwell's 1984, built al-Qa'ida style!

References: Adler, Freda, Gerhard Mueller, William Laufer, Criminology, McGraw Hill, New York, 2001. Allen, Peter, "Bin Laden's family link to Bush", 2001, http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/fa ... Bamford, James, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, Doubleday, 2001. Blum, Bill (translater), "Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski", January 15-21, 1998, LINK

. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Geostrategic Objectives, Basic Books, 1997. Chomsky, Noam, Deterring Democracy, Hill & Wang, New York, 1992. Cuddy, Dennis, Secret Records Revealed: The Men, The Money, and The Methods Behind the New World Order, Hearthstone Publishing, Oklahoma, 1999. DeCamp, John W., The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska, AWT Inc., Nebraska, 1996. Greider, William, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserves Runs the Country, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1987. Juergensmeyer, Mark, "Understanding the New Terrorism", Current History, April 2000. Ijaz, Mansoor, "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize", December 5, 2001, LINK

. Keller, Suzanne, Beyond The Ruling Class: Strategic Elites In Modern Society, Random House, New York, 1963. Kick, Russ, "September 11, 2001: No Surprise", 2002, http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/September11.htm. Levine, Michael and Laura Kavanau, The Triangle of Death, Delacorte Press, New York, 1996. McGee, Jim, "An Intelligence Giant in the Making", November 4, 2001, LINK

. Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite, Oxford University Press, London/New York, 1956. Moran, Michael, "Bin Laden comes home to roost", http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1, 2001. Palast, Gregory, "Has someone been sitting on the FBI?" 2001, LINK

. Pouzzner, Daniel, The Architecture of Modern Political Power: The New Feudalism, 2001, http://www.mega.nu:8080. Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, MacMillan Company, New York, 1966. Rivero, Michael, "Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship", 2001, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/index.html. Shackley, Theodore, The Third Option: An Expert's Provocative Report on an American View of Counterinsurgency Operations, Dell Publishing, New York, 1981. Stephens, Joe and David B. Ottaway, "From the USA, the ABCs of jihad", http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/728439.asp,2002. Tarpley, Webster Griffin and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, DC, 1992. The Times of India, "CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban", March 7, 2001, LINK

... About the Author: Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he completed his Associate of Arts and Science degree. He will soon complete his Bachelor's degree, with a major in Communications and a minor in Political Science.

Paul's book, The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11, is available online from www.1stbooks.com/bookview/13401, http://www.barnesandnoble.com, and also http://www.amazon.com. It can be purchased as an e-book (ISBN 1-4033-6798-1) or in paperback format (ISBN 1-4033-6799-X).

BYU Professor disputes planes caused WTC collapse (From the Archives)

WWW, November 2005 (Archived) - The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
By Elaine Jarvik

Deseret Morning News

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.

As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."

Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.

Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "

In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
  

Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."

Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.

Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

ILLUMINAZI 9/11 (From the Archives)

WWW, February 2005 (Archived) - Download this professionally produced documentary which undisputedly proofs how the current US/UN led New World Order is not only related to Hitler's "Neue Ordnung", but a perverse and emphasized perpetuation of this wicked system.

DOWNLOAD VIDEO - WATCH VIDEO ON BABYLON OBSERVER WEBSITE

OFFICIAL NOTES:

Who benefits from this atrocity? Islam? Israel? Or is it those who wish to establish a NEW WORLD ORDER on the smoldering ashes of American Sovereignty?

There's been a greater assault on our Bill of Rights in the past 120 days than in the past 200 years. Who'll call for a police state? Who'll call for martial law? Who'll call for national ID cards to give us "security?" It won't be Bin Laden. Are we watching the Nazi-ization of our true nation?

In this 86 - minute volcanic video, former FBI chief agent Ted Gunderson blows the lid off the "FBLies" involvement in the 1993 Trade Center bombing. THEY SET IT UP! Illuminati historian Jordan Maxwell, publisher Clayton Douglas at The Free American, Gunderson and Anthony J. Hilder are calling the attack at the U.S. an "inside job." America has been suckered one more time. This video will shake and shock you into a reality check.

"You're right! We are witnessing the Nazi-ization of this Nation. More Rights & Freedoms have been lost in the last 120 days through Executive Orders & our cowardly Congress than were lost in the past 200 years. Illuminazi 9-11 tells it all in clear, precise terms. This is the beginning of World War III. Make no mistake about it."

Director: Anthony J. Hilder
Producer: Anthony J. Hilder
Production Company: Free World Films
Audio/Visual: sound, color

The First World Trade Center (From the Archives)

WWW, February 2005 (Archived) - Many know the age-old story of the tower of Babel. We know the word babbling, which came directly from it. Most only remember the part in which the language of the builders was changed, so that they could no longer understand each other.

The tower had an enormous symbolical significance. It was a sign of the political power of Babylon. Nimrod's Babylon, to be precise.

Nimrod, definitely the first globalist.

He founded Babylon as a system to keep people in slavery, working for him while he "protected" them against enemies by building walls around his "subjects". He called it "civilization" and spread it across the planet as fast as he could.

He invaded peoples land, lives, thoughts, and even their worshipping of the Creator. All in the name of bringing "civilization"!

What he did, of course, was building the global empire. And what he started, was furthered by his successors until this day.

The leaders today are spiritually rooted in ancient Babylon. At one of their favorite retreats, in the Californian forests, every year a ritual called "Cremation of Care" is being conducted. It is a bizarre ritual in which the ancient Gods of Babylon are not only being called upon, there are actual sacrifices that accompany this religious ritual.

This "Church for the rich" has a membership list that reads like a who's who of the power elite. Just type in "Bohemian Grove" at a search engine and you will find out that this is all recorded on video and available for download on the Internet.

Should it be a surprise that the leaders of today, who are all active globalists, like the leader of yesterday, who were all active globalists, have the same religion?

Of course not. Since the days of Nimrod, many succeeding "empires" proved to be exact "copies" of their predecessors, with a few cultural differences.

Are they "copies"? In a way, yes. But I would rather call them Perpetual stages of Globalization.

Babylon System.

A plan from ancient times.

All for this one goal: a Global Empire with Babylon's god on the throne.

Nimrod didn't build the tower, as the story goes, to reach into the universe. Oh yes, there are many writers today who make good use of this idea. Zechariah Sitchin, Erich von Daniken, and others like to speculate on this idea and write sensational stories about UFO's and landing platforms.

Like the ones who think the tower is all about language, they too miss the point.

It's not about technicalities. It's not about how the tower was built, and if there were UFO's and little green men. It's not about which language they used.

It's about what it means, what it symbolizes. And the tower symbolized the Global Empire of Babylon. Everyone who looked at the Tower knew that.

Everyone who looked at the Twin Towers in New York knew exactly the same. The word, "world trade center" reveals how they symbolized the global economic empire of today's phase of Babylon.

But where today's Twin Towers were destroyed to rebuild them, the first Tower was destroyed by the First Anti-Globalist, the Creator Himself.

There's something mystical behind globalization. It is a religion, it is the strive towards a world government which will naturally be fascist. The ones who work at the heart of globalization are all deeply religious Babylonians.

They want to finish the work that Nimrod started.

And they don't deny it either. How many times have we not heard how "the Americans" are destroying the "Cradle Of Civilization" in their destruction of Iraq? And how many times have we not heard that George Bush was doing the right thing because Saddam Hussein was "re-building Babylon" and viewed himself as a modern age Nebuchadnezzar?

Of course, Saddam Hussein was only a CIA asset. Everyone knows how Saddam was brought to and maintained in power by "the Americans". And everyone knows how crazy he was.

Within the inner circle of Globalization (the participants at the Bilderberger conferences and Bohemian Grove rituals) they knew even more how crazy he was.

Because they knew Babylon couldn't be "re-built" as we're still living in it, and they knew Saddam definitely wasn't the one appointed to head the system either as they put him in power for as long as he was of use to them.

Now it's clear, that workers of globalization are workers of the symbol where Babylon's towers stood for. From the very first ziggurat in Ancient Iraq to the hi-tech skyscrapers in New York, they symbolize this religion of the world government.

A world "united" under political, economical, cultural and religious rule by the philosophy and offspring of Nimrod, the Satanist.

"A Big Idea, A New World Order" (From the Archives)

WWW, February 2005 (Archived) - "New World Order? There is no such thing. It's all a wacky conspiracy theory. You listen to too much Reggae Music and read too many alternative news stories. Can't you see we are being viciously attacked by Muslim Fundamentalists who hate our freedom and are ready to kill to steal it away from us?"

It's sad to realize how many people are led to believe that the above is common sense. Not just because it's everything but sense, the most scary part is the underlying philosophy. And the fact people are actually being held slaves of this philosophy.

A total surrendering of one's critical thinking in exchange for some feeling of security, or as the Bible cynically calls it "peace and safety", has nothing to do with freedom of course. Nevertheless, many are unable to see this logic as clear as they should.

So let's break it down, shall we?

The phrase "New World Order" makes the brainwashed citizen smile when he hears it. Especially when he considers himself to be part of the establishment. He completely forgets how the term was re-introduced by the father of the current King of America, King George II. Exactly 11 years before 9/11, on September 11 2000, George Herbert Walker Bush responded to the alleged fall of communism with the words:

"It's more than one small country. It is a big idea, A New World Order".

And King George The First didn't introduce the phrase either. Everyone can read it in Latin, the language of ancient Rome, on the American One Dollar Bill.

- Announcing the New World Order on the One Dollar Bill -

"Annuit Coeptus Novos Ordo Seclorum" translates as "Announcing the year of the New World Order", although the official story is that it stands for "New Order of the Ages". Does it matter? Of course not. After all, the NEW AGE Movement is only a branch of this New World Order. And the word "Seclorum" can be translated into "world" are well as "age". Every scholar can tell you that.

The year which the New World Order is announced is also written on the Dollar Bill: MDCCLXXVI. For those who can not read the language of the ROMAN EMPIRE, that year is 1776.

In that year, the secret society of the Illuminati or enlightened ones was founded by one man called Adam Weishaupt. This in itself was just another step in that process which started way back in ancient times when Nimrod founded Babylon and had his slaves built that famous tower, the first world trade center.

So yes, there is a New World Order. It is announced way back in 1776 when the Illuminati were formed. And yes, it is a big idea, an idea from ancient times. From "all ages" indeed.

An idea which was formed long before Islam was there. Even long before there was a mention of Israel. So to say that this New World Order is only a reaction to vicious attacks by freedom-hating Muslims doesn't hold substance.

The New World Order was planned centuries before any of the organized religions came into existence. This can easily be figured out after researching the matter.

Every religion is a system of enslavement and comes straight out of Nimrod's Head Quarters. Nimrod ( the founder of Babylon) was also the one who started the process we know as globalization. A process aimed at creating a New World Order.

The modus operandi (working method) of the Globalists or the Babylonians is highly sophisticated and carefully developed over many centuries. But throughout the ages, the basic principal has never changed.

And when this principal is recognized, it becomes evidently where the so-called Freedom Hating Muslims get their motivation from and why they do what they do.

Yes, they hate our freedom. Yes, they are willing to kill to take our freedom away from us.

And they are very successful in doing so!

"Wait a minute", I hear you say. "Isn't the government defending our freedom from these evil terrorists? Didn't the government declare a War on terror? Were you deaf when President Bush bravely announced he would smoke Binladin out of his Afghan cave so that we could stay free? Didn't you get the fact that Saddam is now removed from power because he threatened our freedom with Weapons of Mass Destruction?"

Oh yes, the WMD's. "They got to be somewhere", King George II told the established press in one of his "fun raisers" Oh yes, Binladin. King George said that Osama wasn't the main target anymore either since he wasn't able to commit terrorist acts that much any longer.

Oh yes, Saddam. We all know how he was funded and trained by the CIA. After all, he was one of their assets. But what do all these things mean? Why did they give Saddam Hussein WMD's, only to use that later as a pretext for invading Iraq? Why did they also train Binladin and made him into the monster he now is? Why did 9/11 happen anyway?

The white-wash committees cook fairy-tales for a general public, which starts to sense that there is something fishy surrounding this all.

The whitewashers want us to believe that "Intelligence Agencies were incompetent". In other words, they: "were too stupid to foresee the tragedy".

Their solution is as simple as it is evil. More control and money for the ones who didn't prevent the terror events, so that they will not screw up again.

In reality, the terrorists attack us because they want to take away our freedom and they are succefully doing that because with every new terror event more freedom is indeed taken from the people.

The terrorists have exactly the same agenda as the governments. Both sides on the "War on Terror" clearly have the same goals and even practices.

So the question arises: "Who Are The Terrorists?" Who are the ones using traumatic events to scare the people into trading their liberty for security? Freedom for slavery?

The terrorists are very successful, that's obvious.

Oh yes, a lot of people don't see it because they were never taught to be free in the first place. They do not miss their freedom even when it is taken away from them. They mistake liberty for slavery!

And so the more terror events take place, the more they will scream to the government to take their freedom away from them.

And the more they will become angry at free-thinkers: "Who cares about freedom of speech when those evil terrorists are out to get us?", you hear them again and again.

When you study all of this, there is no doubt. The New World Order is a plan, an agenda, founded way back in ancient times. We know it as globalization.

Because our Creator has given us the right to liberty, naturally we would never accept the New World Order. Not now, and not then in the times of Nimrod. We're simply not created to be slaves.

After all, when a (wo)man is free, (s)he can go through the process of a personal development which is in the end beneficial for all.

We will only accept the New World Order if it is presented to us as something we actually want. For example, when it is presented to us as the only solution for a certain problem.

When the problem is terrorists taking away our freedom, the government's solution is to take away our freedom. They can only do it because the people are led to believe that liberty should be traded for security.

That is why the Globalists have created Muslim fundamentalism.

Did you know the books for the Taliban were printed in the USA? Did you know the Mossad actually founded Hamas? Did you know the British MI5 is admittedly behind most of the terror events subscribed to the terrorist IRA?

Perhaps you did.

And now you also now why.

It's all part of the modus operandi of the New World Order. And scholars know it as "Problem - Reaction - Solution".

Create a Problem, only to make the people React by demanding a Solution.

Babylon's solution, Babylon's agenda.

A Big Idea, a New World Order.

112 and 911 (From the Archives)

WWW, February 2005 (Archived) - A news report from the Netherlands and analysis of the recent political murder of the Dutch Film Maker Theo van Gogh.

Some time ago, Dutch minister of Justice Piet Hein Donner received a high visit. His colleague from the United States came over to have an urgent chat. About terrorism, of course.

Because it's not really going along that well in the Netherlands, with that terrorism. And when this country wants to take his part in the rat race of nations, we got to take our own terrorist a little bit serious, shouldn't we?

When Americans pay a visit, we've come to know how that can have deadly consequences. And not only when they come to deliver "democracy" to Afghanistan and Iraq. Also in the Netherlands, death and destruction follow where Americans mind our business.

I only have to refer to the Dutch Great Bald popular hero Pim Fortuyn. A pain in the ass for the American warmongers, as Fortuyn didn't feel like spending billions to the Military Industrial Complex. When it was up to him, the Joint Strike Fighter simply wouldn't fly over the Netherlands.

He got a visit from the US ambassador and a few days later he was dead. Shot in the head by an animal rights activist who voted for the Dutch "Liberal Conservative" party D'66. Mat Herben, Fortuyn's spokesman and "loyal dog", took control over the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF). Of course he was experienced, being the spokesman too for the Freemason lodge in the Dutch Capital of The Hague.

And the LPF changed its mind. The Fortuynist "revolutionaries" and "true people's representants" followed Mat Herben like blind sheep. Fortuynism showed to be nothing more than fortunism. And so they all voted along with the established order. That JSD would and should fly. And it flied.

A few weeks ago there was again death and destruction in the Netherlands. And again it was the turn for an enfant terrible of the establishment to die.

Theo van Gogh, completely enraged by the traumatized Dutch MP Ayaan Hirschi Ali, tragically was proven right. His last word: "Mercy". He sighed it while he was bestially pierced with a knife by an acquaintant of the Dutch Intelligence Service AIVD.

The same AIVD where van Gogh's father worked for his entire life, when it was still called BVD. The same AIVD where Dutch "Minister of Alien Affairs" and good friend of van Gogh was the head of. The same AIVD that is known for it's provocative actions. The same AIVD that reached the national news, as it appeared that they created "subversive" groups for a lack of real ones.

With such family and friends, who needs enemies?

At first sight, it seems as if the movie "Submission" was the reason for killing Van Gogh. In this movie, an English speaking female voice says a prayer to "Allah". She thanks the god of the Muslims for the fact that her husband is constantly beating her. While you're listening to this "prayer" you can watch a female skin covered with wounds and written Soera's from the Koran.

Theo Van Gogh really liked his movie. In the many interviews that were conducted with him, he often spoke of threats and assaults. And always in a light-hearted manner. No, he wasn't seriously threatened yet. Yes, he had thought about having Al Jazeera broadcast "Submission".

What Van Gogh did was not so much different than what Jan Wolkers and other did years before him. Without getting murdered, by the way. Wolkers and other writers have terrorized the Christian population with their low-level pornographic "literature" in an unbelievable manner.

Wolkers and Van Gogh were both influenced by what Ayaan Hirschi Ali always calls "The Enlightment". Ali herself is also a convinced believer of this "Enlightment" or "Illumination". In one of her many remarkable statements, she revealed Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende (Christian Democrat) is also a member of this movement and added that he "therefore" couldn't be a "real" Christian. Something a lot of Christians wholeheartedly agree with.

There's a lot to say about this "Enlightment". Just one thing is, that it teaches how all religions are the same. And were about to expire as they were no longer of any use.

And like Wolkers hated anything religious, so did Theo Van Gogh. But Van Gogh was brutally confronted with the wrongness of this Enlightment. Because it's very easy to insult a Christian as his faith forbids him to use violence as response. This is not the case for the religion described in the Koran.

It might be easier to enrage a Muslim than a Christian. But in the Netherlands that isn't as easy as some would like...

Because in the meantime the AIVD just couldn't find alien residents who they could convince to do "something terrorist".

Because this is the way these things work. The Intelligence Services provoke people into doing something terrorist.

This is how things go at the global level, when the United States provide Afghan "freedom fighters" with weapons and literature in a war against the Soviet Union in the 1980's. We're now speaking about the Taliban.

This is how it goes, when Saddam Hussein is trained by the CIA who subsequently put him in power. And later removed him as a "big threat".

This is how it goes on the national level, when a bald-headed Pim Fortuyn threatens to become more powerful than the established order. And is being killed by an equally bald-headed animal's rights activist. Everyone in the Netherlands knows the name of Volkert van der Graaff. Not the fact he voted for the Governmental party D'66, by the way. Cause everyone sees him as "extreme left". Extreme left? Take a look at www.nazi.org when you think these people are all "extreme left wing".

This is how it goes at a national level, when some idiot called Mohammed B. who thinks Allah is waiting in heaven to reward him kills another enfant terrible of the establishment.

Volkert Van Der Graaff. Theo Van Gogh. Mohammed B.

All enraged, provoked, by the same "Enlighted" forces. Forces who use the automatism of Problem - Reaction - Solution to reach their goal of Globalisation (a Fascist World Government).

What has this all to do with John Ashcroft's visit to Piet Hein Donner?

Everything.

Because Theo Van Gogh isn't murdered at all because he made a provocative movie which needlessly insulted millions of people worldwide. And it didn't force the government at all to, completely in the tradition of terrorism that "hates us for our freedoms", steal our rights away from us.

Oh yes, he made that movie and oh yes, he was killed by someone who thought a ritual slaughter was an appropriate answer to the movie.

But in reality both Theo Van Gogh and Mohammed B are nothing more than useful idiots who do exactly what they are trained to do: causing problems.

Because of those artificially created problems the Dutch population then responds. A reaction consisting out of a demand to the government to provide solutions.

The result? The introduction of the Police State!

The ladies and gentlemen of the establishment were all shouting into the microphone that "free speech" was murdered. That Theo Van Gogh was killed because of a certain right he was supposed to have. A right to criticize a certain religion without fear of persecution.

The same ladies and gentlemen did not add to that how a few months before a certain Feike ter Velde got a visit from some government officials because he had openly criticized Islam. Ter Velde was told that he would not have to face charges this time, but next time he would surely get into trouble for practising his right to free speech. The story can be found in "Het Zoeklicht", a magazine of which Ter Velde is an editor.

And they didn't mention at all how Feike Ter Velde has expressed his criticism on Islam in a civilized way. Not with provocative movies, but with argumentation. Where may or may not agree with.

The Dutch Government doesn’t want Feike Ter Velde to express his right to free speech in a civilized manner, but turns out to support a crazy, unmannered and rude provocateur like Van Gogh as one man.

And the Dutch population? They think the government protects them from terrorists who hate our freedoms. And allows the government to steal out liberties from us.

In America this is in full swing since September 11 2001.

9-11 is not just the date in which the Police State was formally introduced; it is also the alarm number of the American police.

And in the Netherlands we are now also going in this direction. It couldn't be different, as Theo van Gogh is murdered on 11-2. Which is, not entirely coincidently, the alarm number of the Dutch police.

No, it's not a coincidence that when Americans come to the Netherlands to talk about terrorism, we have our own 9-11 shortly after that.

9/11 In Plane Site (From The Archives)

WWW, February 2005 (Archived) - Hosted by Dave Von Kleist from the Radio talk-show Power Hour, this video asks questions of which the answers should have been provided by the US Government.

Just one example: By carefully analyzing the video material broadcasted by the News Networks on September 11 2001, it becomes evidently that the hole in the Pentagon isn't caused by an impact from a plain, that's for sure.

WATCH VIDEO HERE

MOHAMMED ATTA AND THE VENICE FLYING CIRCUS (From the Archives)

WWW, February 2005 (Archived) - The conspiracy theory we know as "the official version of the tragic events on September 11" is just that, a conspiracy theory. Still, it serves as the moral justification of the current "war on terror".

Only a few hours after the planes flew into the Twin Towers, the world was introduced to Mohammed Atta and his gang. TV stations and newspapers portrayed his -infamous- picture and the UN waged war against the people of Afghanistan.

In this video, you can see another part of the conspiracy theory exposed as that, a conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theory we know as "the official version of the tragic events on September 11" is just that, a conspiracy theory. Still, it serves as the moral justification of the current "war on terror".
Only a few hours after the planes flew into the Twin Towers, the world was introduced to Mohammed Atta and his gang. TV stations and newspapers portrayed his -infamous- picture and the UN waged war against the people of Afghanistan.

In this video, you can see another part of the conspiracy theory exposed as that, a conspiracy theory.

The truth about September 11 is far worse.

Meet Daniel Hopsicker of Mad Cow Productions. He has parents in Venice, Florida. This particular part of the USA is known to have the largest population of old people.

But it turns out, that in the months preceding the tragic events of 9-11 Mohammed Atta and other alleged hijackers have spent some time there too. In this video, Daniel Hopsicker introduces us to the shadowy world of the "Venice Flying Circus".

Mohammed Atta had conversations in restaurants which witnesses describe as "mafia style". A lot of golden chains, and talk about huge sums of money and "the family". He rented cars and even returned them a few days before the events took place.

What did Mohammed Atta and his friends do in Venice Florida? Allegedly, they learned to fly there. The hijackers got training at two different schools. Both happened to be owned by two Dutch residents. One of them is Rudy Dekkers, a very interesting figure.

The connections between Rudy Dekkers, Mohammed Atta and other people turn out to be quite then the conspiracy theory the US government puts forward.

Dekkers was obviously financed and protected, so that he can do what he does. He had several different businesses, but they never turn out to be profitable. Yet he constantly gets money from dubious sources. The government even let him do things which they forbid in their own laws.

Mohammed Atta, as it turns out in Venice Flying Circus, had a military education at Pensacola Airport. His behavior didn't look like he was a Muslim Fundamentalist either.

And these are only a few of the things Daniel Hopsicker brings forward in this remarkable documentary. Good to have on video, as it is packed with information. Look at it once, be shocked. Look at it for the second time, see more of the picture. Then see it for a third time, and...

Book Review: Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (Eric Hufschmid)

When the Twin Towers fell to the ground, Erich Huffschmid had no reason to doubt the conspiracy theory we know as the official version of what happened that tragic day.

After all, with most sensible people he thought that "conspiracy theories" were usually expressions of paranoia. So he probably had to answer one very painful question for himself, before he could write the book we are reviewing here.

"Is the Government story concerning September eleven a conspiracy theory?"

Recent polls show, that a majority of people answer this painful question with "yes".

And Eric Huffschmid is one of them.

Mr. Hasid is a respected software engineer and programmer, respected in what he does. And successful too. Has he become a "conspiracy theorist"?

In a way, yes.

The writer of this great book doesn't really propose another "what really happened" version. And he doesn't speculate either. He's just doing what the title of the book suggests: asking very Painful Questions.

Huffschmid not proposing a conspiracy theory, he is exposing one. By simply asking questions. Each of them can be answered. But the answers will not back up the official version.

Let's take a look at a few of these questions:

• Why is the military hiding the video of Flight 77 as it crashes into the Pentagon?
• Why did the WTC fall down in exactly the same unique way as advertized by the demolition company who cleaned up the ruins afterwards?
• Why do so few people know what Building 7 is and why it collapsed at 5:30 PM?
• Why do the official stories claim that the Twin Towers melted to the ground through fire where it is a scientifically proven fact steel buildings never do?
• Why didn't seismic stations pick up the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon?

This book truly asks the questions. Questions so painful that it doesn't really matter whether they are answered or not.

NOTE: The writer of this book has, after releasing what can only be considered a classic on the topic, moved on to anti-semitic realms where we at the Dubroom most definitely would not want to follow him.

CLICK TO BUY