by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
This article is the fourth of a multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our society.
Former U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld can each be prosecuted for murder by a U.S. attorney, by a district attorney or by a non-U.S. state prosecutor whose citizens were killed at the World Trade Center or in any aspect of the false flag operation on September 11, 2001. The prima facie evidence for prosecuting Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld for murder is contained in a Memorandum to the U.S. Congress, Parts IV – VII of which published in the Examiner.com article below.
In 2008, former Los Angeles assistant District Attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi presented the legal framework for the prosecution of former George W. Bush for murder in having intentionally misled the U.S. Congress in taking the U.S. to war in Iraq. This reporter, Alfred Lambremont Webre, has successfully presented the legal framework for the prosecution of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for murder for having knowingly engaged in command and control operations in the false flag operation of 9/11 that intentionally led to the deaths of approximately 2830 innocent civilians and emergency responders at or around the World Trade Center.
In Memo to U.S. Congress: prima facie evidence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed treason on 9/11, Examiner.com reported how a Memorandum to the U.S. Congress presented to then incoming Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), following the November 2006 mid-term elections sets out prima facie evidence for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to prosecute then U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and numerous Jane and John Does for treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution for acts committed on September 11, 2001.
One source states, “In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. For example, in a trial under Criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant.” The source continues: “Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, as well as the fact that the commission of a murder deprives the victim of their existence, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment. A person convicted of murder is typically given a life sentence or even the death penalty for such an act. A person who commits murder is called a murderer.”
The Memorandum to the U.S. Congress is still on the desk of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. awaiting further action by the U.S. Judiciary Committee. However, as this Examiner.com article demonstrates, prima facie evidence exists for a U.S. attorney, a district attorney or a non-U.S. state prosecutor whose citizens were killed at the World Trade Center or in any aspect of the false flag operation on September 11, 2001 to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld for murder.
The false flag operation of 9/11 is not an academic issue. NATO heads of state, from U.S. President Barack H. Obama to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper routinely still employ "9/11" as the political and symbolic pretext for a war in Afghanistan, and for the expansion of police state measures domestically and in the world’s travel, banking and financial matrix. In a 2006 paper entitled, “False Flag Operations, 9/11, and the Exopolitical Perspective”, Dr. Michael E. Salla writes: “According to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in what occurred. A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11 Commission were covering up the truth.”
Memorandum to the U.S. Congress – parts IV – VII
The following are Parts IV – VII of the Memorandum, together with relevant evidentiary attachments.
For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S. Congress in this Examiner.com article do not contain the footnotes and full references in the original Memorandum. Examiner.com readers are encouraged to download a copy of the original Memorandum to the U.S. Congress (PDF) here or here.
IV. Why Did the President and His Secret Service Agents Remain at the School?
“President George W. Bush reportedly believed, upon hearing that a plane had struck one of the Twin Towers, that it was an accident. It was not terribly strange, therefore, that he decided to go ahead with the photo-op at the school in Sarasota. Word of the second strike, however, should have indicated to him and his Secret Service agents---assuming the truth of official story, according to which these strikes were unexpected---that the country was undergoing an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the Secret Service allowed him to remain at the school for another half hour.
“This behavior was very strange. The president’s location had been highly publicized. If the attacks were indeed unexpected, the Secret Service would have had no idea how many planes had been hijacked, and they would have had to assume that the president himself might be one of the targets: What could be more satisfying to foreign terrorists attacking high-value targets in the United States than to kill the president? For all the Secret Service would have known, a hijacked airliner might have been bearing down on the school at that very minute, ready to crash into it, killing the president and everyone else there---including the Secret Service agents themselves. It is, in any case, standard procedure for the Secret Service to rush the president to a safe location whenever there is any sign that he may be in danger. And yet these agents, besides allowing the president to remain in the classroom another 10 minutes, permitted him to speak on television, thereby announcing to the world that he was still at the school.
“Would not this behavior be explainable only if Bush and the head of the Secret Service detail knew that the planned attacks did not include an attack on the president? And how could this have been known for certain unless the attacks were being carried out by people within our own government? The 9/11 Commission, far from asking these questions, was content to report that ‘[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did not think it imperative for [the president] to run out the door.’ A serious inquiry into this matter, therefore, remains to be made.”
AP: Cheney at National Press Club, June 1, 09
V. Why Did the 9/11 Commission Lie about Vice President Cheney?
“One sign of the complicity of Vice President Cheney is the fact that the 9/11 Commission evidently felt a need to lie about the time of two of his activities: his entry into the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House and his giving the order to shoot down any unauthorized airplanes.
“It had been widely reported that Cheney had gone down to the PEOC shortly after the second strike on the WTC, hence about 9:15. The most compelling witness was Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who testified to the 9/11 Commission that when he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20, Cheney was already there and fully in charge. “The 9/11 Commission Report, however, claimed that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until ‘shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.’ Mineta’s testimony, given in an open hearing, was simply omitted from the Commission’s final report. Why would the Commission go to such lengths to conceal the true time of Cheney’s entry into the PEOC?
“One possible reason would involve the content of Mineta’s testimony. He said: ‘During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ‘The plane is 50 miles out.’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to ‘the plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the Vice President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President . . . said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’
“Mineta said that this conversation---evidently meaning the final exchange---occurred at about 9:25 or 9:26.
“This testimony creates a problem for the official story. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s spokesman, in explaining why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was struck, claimed that ‘[t]he Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.’ The 9/11 Commission claimed that there was no warning about an unidentified aircraft heading towards Washington until 9:36 and hence only ‘one or two minutes’ before the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. Mineta’s account, however, says that Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft more than 10 minutes earlier. There would have been over 12 minutes for the Pentagon to be evacuated.
“Mineta’s account also seems to suggest that Cheney had issued stand-down orders. Mineta himself did not make this allegation, saying instead that he assumed that ‘the orders’ were to have the plane shot down. But besides the fact that that interpretation does not fit what actually happened--the aircraft was not shot down---it would make the story unintelligible: The question whether the orders still stood would not make sense unless they were orders to do something unexpected---not to shoot the aircraft down. By omitting Mineta’s testimony and stating that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, the 9/11 Commission implied that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order to allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon.
“The lie about Cheney’s entry into the PEOC was also important to the controversy over whether the US military shot down Flight 93. The 9/11 Commission, simply ignoring a vast amount of evidence that the military did so, supported the official claim that it did not. The Commission provided this support by claiming that Cheney, having not arrived at the PEOC until almost 10:00, did not issue the shoot-down order until after 10:10---which would have been seven or more minutes after Flight 93 had crashed (at 10:03). But in addition to the evidence that Cheney had been in the PEOC since about 9:15, we also have evidence---including statements from Richard Clarke and Colonel Robert Marr, the head of NORAD’s northeast sector (NEADS) ---that Cheney’s shoot-down order was issued well before 10:00.
“The 9/11 Commission’s obvious lies about Cheney’s activities give reason to suspect that it, under the leadership of Philip Zelikow, was trying to conceal Cheney’s responsibility for the Pentagon strike and the downing of Flight 93.”
VI. Did Members of the Bush-Cheney Administration Have Reasons to Desire the Attacks of 9/11?
“Besides having the means and opportunity to orchestrate the events of 9/11 and their subsequent cover-up, high officials in the Bush-Cheney administration would also have had motives.
“Afghanistan: Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, had said that establishing military bases in Central Asia would be crucial for maintaining ‘American primacy,’ partly because of the huge oil reserves around the Caspian Sea. But American democracy, he added, ‘is inimical to imperial mobilization.’ Brzezinski, explaining that the public had ‘supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,’ suggested that Americans today would support the needed military operations in Central Asia only ‘in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.’
"Support for these operations was generated by 9/11 plus the claim by the Bush-Cheney administration that the attacks had been planned in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden—-a claim for which it refused to provide any proof.
“A more specific motivation was provided by the ‘pipeline war.’ The Bush-Cheney administration supported--as had the Clinton-Gore administration until 1999--UNOCAL’s plan to build an oil-and-gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban, being unable to provide sufficient security, had become regarded as an obstacle. In a meeting in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush-Cheney administration, trying to get the Taliban to share power with other factions, reportedly gave them an ultimatum: ‘Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.’ When the Taliban refused, the Americans reportedly said that ‘military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.’
“Given the fact that the attacks on New York and Washington occurred on September 11, the U.S. military had time to get logistically ready to begin the attack on Afghanistan on October 7.
“Iraq: Some key members of the Bush-Cheney administration---including Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney himself---had in the late 1990s been active members of an organization, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), that advocated attacking Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, establish a strong military presence, and control the oil. PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, released late in 2000, reiterated the idea of a permanent military presence in the Gulf region, saying that the ‘unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification’ but ‘the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’
“Immediately upon taking office, the Bush administration---two former members have revealed--- was intent on attacking Iraq. Then in 2003, after its war in Afghanistan, the administration used 9/11 as a pretext for attacking Iraq, partly by suggesting that Saddam was involved in the attacks, partly by playing on the American people’s sense, created by 9/11, of being vulnerable to a major attack from abroad.
“Increased Military Spending: A second possible motive was provided by PNAC’s more general goal of further increasing America’s military superiority to be able to achieve global domination. This goal had already been asserted in the draft of the ‘Defense Planning Guidance’ written in 1992 by Wolfowitz and Libby under the guidance of Cheney, who was completing his tenure as secretary of defense. (In an essay that was entered into the Congressional Record, this draft was portrayed as an early version of Cheney’s ‘Plan . . . to rule the world.’)
“In 2000, Wolfowitz and Libby were listed as participants in the project to produce PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in which this goal showed up again. This document also contained an idea perhaps derived from Brzezinski’s book: After saying that the desired Pax Americana ‘must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence’ and that such preeminence will require a technological transformation of the US military, it adds that this process of transformation will ‘likely be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor.’
“When 9/11 came, it was immediately treated as ‘the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century,’ as President Bush reportedly called it that very night. It was also characterized as, in Bush’s words, ‘a great opportunity,’ with Rumsfeld adding that 9/11 created ‘the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.’ This idea then showed up in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, which brazenly said: ‘The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new opportunities.’
“A central dimension of the desired technological transformation of the military is the weaponization of space, euphemistically called ‘Missile Defense.’ In January of 2001, the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization, which was chaired by Rumsfeld, published its report. Speaking of the need for massive funding for the U.S. Space Command, the Rumsfeld Commission asked whether such funding would occur only after a ‘Space Pearl Harbor.’
“On the evening of 9/11, Rumsfeld held a press conference. In attendance was Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who was asked this question: ‘Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense. . . . Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending. . . ?’ Congress immediately appropriated an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and much more later, with few questions asked.
Wiki: Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense on September 11, 2001
VII. Summation: The 9/11 Attacks as Acts of Treason
“The facts recited above constitute prima facie evidence that the named individuals---U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld---and other John and Jane Does are independently and jointly guilty of Treason against these United States under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, because:
“I. The attacks of 9/11, as portrayed in the official account, could not have succeeded if standard operating procedures between the FAA and NORAD had been followed. The Pentagon, under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, has provided three mutually inconsistent accounts of NORAD’s response, which means that at least two of them are false. Moreover, the third account, articulated by the 9/11 Commission, is contradicted by a wide range of facts, including evidence that the FAA had notified NORAD in a timely fashion. There must have been stand-down orders, and these could have come only from the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House.
“II. Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition. But al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the buildings come straight down. The controlled demolition, therefore, had to be the work of insiders. That President Bush was one of those insiders is suggested by the fact that his brother and cousin were principals in the company in charge of WTC security. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by the removal of evidence (the collapsed steel), which is normally a federal offense. Finally, if the airplane strikes could have occurred only with the consent of the president and the secretary of defense (as suggested in the previous point), the coordination of these strikes with the demolition of the buildings implies their involvement in the latter as well.
“III. Overwhelming evidence also exists for the conclusion that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job. That the official story could not be true is evident from many facts: Hani Hanjour’s incompetence; the choice of the west wing as the target; the impossibility of a commercial airliner’s coming back to Washington undetected and hitting the Pentagon unless permitted; and the lack of physical evidence consistent with an attack by a Boeing 757. That the strike was an inside job is implied by the falsity of the official story, the evidence that the strike was made by a military aircraft, the removal of evidence, and the government’s refusal to release videos of the strike. This operation could hardly have been planned without the involvement of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
“IV. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by President Bush’s remaining at the school after it was evident---given the truth of the official account---that the United States was experiencing a surprise attack. This behavior makes sense only if Bush and his lead Secret Service agent knew that there would be no attack on the school.
“V. The complicity of Vice President Cheney in the attack on the Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93 is implied by the testimony of Secretary Mineta in conjunction with the false claims of the 9/11 Commission, under the guidance of administration insider Philip Zelikow, as to when Cheney went to the PEOC and when he issued the shoot-down authorization.
“VI. The conclusion from the evidence that members of the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 is reinforced by the fact that they had some huge projects---prosecuting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and obtaining funding to accelerate the technological transformation of the military---that would likely be possible only in the event of “a new Pearl Harbor.”
“On the basis of this and other evidence, the conclusion that the Bush-Cheney administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks has been reached by many Americans, including intellectuals and former military officers. It is time for an independent official investigation into this evidence."
CAVEAT LECTOR: This memorandum is based upon the best public research resources presently available. It is presented not as a full treatment of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the appointment of an independent prosecutor.
My Observation of LAX Security Events on 9/11
By an Upper Management LAX Official
“I was employed in upper management at LAX involved with security in the APO (Air Port Operations---where the planes are, not the passengers). I will not otherwise identify myself in this statement, since I, for both personal and professional reasons, need to remain anonymous. But I will give as much detail as possible about security-related events in the APO that I overheard on September 11, 2001, and will also suggest ways in which my account could be corroborated.
“’Security’ in the APO involves the CHP, LAWA PD, LAPD, and the FBI, herein referred to as ‘Security’ (but the CHP was not in proximity to me during the period my account covers).
“As on other days, there was ‘chatter’ on LAX Security walkie-talkies, so what Security was saying could easily be heard. On some of the walkie-talkies I could overhear both sides of the conversations, on others only one. I do not know who was at the other end of the walkie-talkies, but I can only assume that it was LAX dispatch or command.
“While there, I observed and heard the following:
“At first, LAX Security was very upset because at that time it seemed to Security that none of the Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs) tracking the hijacked airliners had notified NORAD as required. Security was well aware that LAX was a target and Emergency SOP were already in progress in that there was discussion of evacuating the airport.
“More chatter revealed that the ATCs had notified NORAD, but that NORAD had not responded because it had been ‘ordered to stand down.’ This report made Security even more upset, so they tried to find out who had issued that order. A short time later the word came down that the order had come ‘from the highest level of the White House.’ This seemed inappropriate, so Security made attempts for more details and clarification, which was not resolved in my presence.
“3 planes were grounded and swapped out in Atlanta, Georgia, simply because they did not pass the routine pre-flight inspection checklist. Those planes were found to be fully loaded with automatic weapons. LAX Security surmised that could only have been accomplished by Maintenance, the Caterers, but, in their view, most likely by ‘House Keeping.’
“LAX Security believed that the terrorists did not board the planes through the passenger terminals, but rather by similar means, i.e. via House Keeping. Other airports were mentioned, but I was unable to get it all down. Therefore, I don’t have an accurate accounting for the status and location of the other planes.
“Another piece of information that I overheard was that the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.
“There was also a radio station identifying itself as LAX Radio, from which the following was heard:
“There were 11 planes and 11 targets. But at the time only 10 of the targets were mentioned: the WTC; the Pentagon; the White House; the Capitol; Camp David; the Sears Tower; the Space Needle; the Trans America Bldg.; LAX; and Air Force One—‘if it could be found.’
“Two fighter jets had been scrambled and had successfully shot down a hijacked airliner over Pennsylvania. The point of deployment of the fighter jets was also mentioned, but I can’t remember the name of the military base.
"Points of origin mentioned included Newark, Atlanta, and other locations, but it was confusing to me in that I couldn’t determine if they were with respect to hijacked planes or fighter jets being scrambled. Unfortunately the names of these airports were not all familiar to me or it would have been easier for me to account for them.
“As I was leaving there was an order to evacuate the airport.
“In 2001 and 2002 I tried to notify the media of the events at LAX, but they made it clear they were not interested.
“I can think of four ways in which my account of what I heard could be corroborated:
“1st LAWA PD, LAPD, and FBI records will reveal the names of the security officers on duty in the APO during the time of the attacks.
“2nd I believe the head of LAX Security in the APO at that time was Captain Gray. He should be able to confirm the fact that my account reflects what happened that morning.
“3rd The audio recordings of radio transmissions at LAX would reveal the comments of all the Security officers and LAX dispatch/command.
“4th The audio recording of the LAX Radio broadcast would reveal what was broadcast on 911.
“Note: Items 3 and 4 would reveal if I have inadvertently confused information attained from LAX Security with information received from LAX Radio. (For example, I believe I heard the comment about a rocket hitting the Pentagon during the walkie-talkie conversations, but it is possible that I heard it later on the radio.)”
End of Memorandum to the U.S. Congress
Recent evidence that has emerged pointing to the high-level involvement of operatives of Israel and the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, in the false flag events of 9/11 does not alter the liability of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld for prosecution for treason and for murder.
COPYRIGHT: Permission to use extracts & copyright notice
Copyright Alfred Lambremont Webre JD, MEd, All right reserved
Permission is granted to include extracts of this article on websites and email lists provided a link is included to the original article.
This article is copyrighted and should not be added in its entirety on other websites or email lists without author's written permission. For permission please contact: [email protected] Thank you.