9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Vancouver Hearings—Evidentiary Submission #3 of 5 by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

Vancouver Hearings—Evidentiary Submission #3 of 5 by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

 

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

 

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

 

Name: Donald Rumsfeld

 

Title at the Time of his Offense:  United States Secretary of Defense

 

Probable Cause:  In his capacity as the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld actively participated in arranging for the occurrence of the Pentagon attack and by making false claims about the events of 9/11, including the following:

 

(1) The SOP for interdicting hijacked aircraft was change on 1 June 2001 so that it would now require the personal authorization of the Secretary of Defense;1

 

(2) Rumsfeld claimed to be unaware of any threats to the Pentagon, where he was located during the 9/11 attacks, until Flight 77 crashed into the building;2

 

(3) Rumsfeld. Condoleezza Rice, and other officials claimed they had no idea that planes could be used as weapons, which is contradicted on many grounds;3

 

(4) The “official account” of the Pentagon attack is not only wholly unsupported by the available evidence but is neither aerodynamically nor physically possible:

 

(a)  the plane is alleged to have skimmed the lawn at over 500 mph, but that is not aerodynamically possible due to the phenomenon of “ground effect”,4 which would preclude the plane getting any closer than 60’ of the ground;

(b)  the plane is alleged to have taken out a series of metal lampposts without affecting its flight path, which is physically impossible, because they would have ripped the wing off the plane and caused its fuel to have exploded;5

(c)  the alleged “hit point” in the building is too small to accommodate a 100 ton airliner, where there is no massive stack of aluminum debris, wings, tail, bodies, seats or luggage, and not even the engines were recovered;6

(d)  even though the Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, the only frame that it has released shows the image of a plane far too small to have been a Boeing 757, so the government’s own evidence contradicts its own story;7

(e)  after the civilian lime-green fire trucks had extinguished the modest fires, the Pentagon lawn was clear, green, and unblemished by any debris from the crash of a large airplane, which should have been widely distributed;8

(f)    Major Gen. Albert Stubblebein, USA (ret.), who was formerly in charge of all us military photographic intelligence, confirmed that no large plane had hit the Pentagon based upon his careful study of photographic evidence;9

(g)  Other witnesses and evidence, including April Gallup, photographic and video evidence, substantiates that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that, according to BTS records, Flight 77 was not even in the air on 9/11;10

 

(5) Secretary Rumsfeld predicts the Pentagon may be hit and is missing in action for at least 20 minutes before emerging on the lawn helping to carry the injured;11

 

(6) In his first public response, he accents that Secretary of the Army Tom White was responsible for “incidents like this”, shrugging off his own responsibility;12

 

(7) Tom White, a former Enron executive, had been appointed to that position on 31 May 2001, the day before the new hijacking instructions had been issued.13

 

SUMMARY:  Even this brief and partial survey indicates that Donald Rumsfeld was too clever by half, appointing a patsy to take the blame the day before he changed the hijacking SOP, which appears to have been part of the plan to be sure there would be no NORAD response to the alleged hijackings.  The claims made about “the Pentagon attack” are not only provably false but are not even aeronautically and physically possible.  No reasonable alternative competes with the conclusion that Rumsfeld was a principal in planning the atrocities of 9/11, which not only caused the deaths of 125 persons who were in the building at the time but betrayed his responsibilities to the people of the United States as their Secretary of Defense, and deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. 



5 Nicely illustrated by a Lockeed Constellation hitting wooden telephone poles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4rYj9UmmE4 (turn down the audio first)

Views: 75

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

© 2017   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service