Army Command Center at the Pentagon Planned to Hold Exercise in Week After 9/11 Based on a Plane Hitting the WTC

Army Command Center at the Pentagon Planned to Hold Exercise in Week After 9/11 Based on a Plane Hitting the WTC

The Army Operations Center

Army officers at the Pentagon were planning a training exercise that would take place less than a week after 9/11 and that would, extraordinarily, be based around the scenario of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center. Preparations for the exercise were being made about a week before September 11.

The existence of the planned exercise was revealed by Major General Peter Chiarelli, who on September 11, 2001, was the Army’s director of operations, readiness, and mobilization. In that position, which he had moved into about a month before 9/11, Chiarelli was in charge of current operations in the Army Operations Center (AOC) at the Pentagon.

Chiarelli recalled in a February 2002 interview that, after beginning his new position, he had “planned to do an exercise for the Crisis Action Team, the CAT.” He said, “In some of my pre-briefings, in learning about the job, it was briefed to me that the Crisis Action Team had not stood up, except for an exercise, in about 10 years in any great role.” He therefore had members of his staff design a CAT exercise that, he said, he planned to run on September 17. [1]

Chiarelli also recalled in the interview that the Personnel Contingency Cell in the AOC had been tasked with putting together a new mass casualty standard operating procedure (SOP) for the Army. About a week before 9/11, Chiarelli said, a colleague of his–“Robby Robinson”–and two other officers “came in to brief me on their new SOP for mass casualty.”

During the meeting, it was decided that in the CAT exercise Chiarelli was going to run, “we would go ahead and use this SOP as a kind of exercise driver.” Chiarelli recalled, “The real amazing thing of that SOP is that the scenario was an aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center.” Chiarelli told the others in the meeting, “Hey, not only is this a good SOP and a good plan, but at the same time, to really make this good, what we need to do is exercise it.” According to Chiarelli, “We decided that we would use a scenario similar to that to drive this exercise” that he was planning. [2]

Chiarelli did not specify in his February 2002 interview what type of aircraft was envisaged hitting the WTC in the scenario. Nor did he say whether it would have been a hijacked plane or one that crashed into the WTC accidentally. But what his account means is that, in the days before the terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon occurred, a military exercise was being planned that was scheduled to take place less than a week after September 11, with a scenario that was identical–or at least extremely similar–to what happened in New York on 9/11.

The possible significance of Chiarelli’s training exercise being based around a plane crashing into the World Trade Center will need to be determined by a new and unrestrained investigation of the 9/11 attacks. However, the odds of this being due to chance, and unrelated to what happened on September 11, must be minute.

The AOC that Chiarelli was in charge of is located in the basement of the Pentagon, two levels beneath a parking lot. It plays an important role within the Army. Reportedly, “Critical information flows through the high-security worksite, with AOC personnel–almost all in uniform–working day and night to keep senior Army leaders aware of issues and events around the world, helping them make timely, critical decisions.” Chiarelli described the AOC as “the Army’s command and control center.” [3] On September 11, senior Army leaders assembled there in response to the terrorist attacks.

The Crisis Action Team, whose members were going to participate in Chiarelli’s training exercise, was activated in response to the attacks on the WTC. Chiarelli said at the time that he had activated it “to respond to the contingency in New York if requested by state and local officials.” He said he “anticipated that the World Trade Center disaster would require enormous rescue, firefighting, and recovery efforts.” [4]

[1] Pete Chiarelli, interview by Frank Shirer. U.S. Army Center of Military History, February 5, 2002. However, in an interview with Chiarelli’s deputy, Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn, Army Center of Military History historian Stephen Lofgren mentioned that the exercise was scheduled for “a couple of days” after September 11, meaning September 13. See Clyde Vaughn, interview by Stephen Lofgren, U.S. Army Center of Military History, February 12, 2002. It is unclear which date for the exercise is correct.
[2] Pete Chiarelli, interview by Frank Shirer.
[3] William Schwab and Lorie Jewell, “The Army’s Nerve Center.” Soldiers, September 2004.
[4] Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11. Washington, DC: Defense Department, Office of the Secretary, Historical Office, 2007, pp. 134-135.



Truth, Propaganda and Media Manipulation


by Global Research

Global Research, March 27, 2011
Email this article to a friend

Print this article

5digg 357Share
Never before has it been so important to have independent, honest voices and sources of information. We are – as a society – inundated and overwhelmed with a flood of information from a wide array of sources, but these sources of information, by and large, serve the powerful interests and individuals that own them. The main sources of information, for both public and official consumption, include the mainstream media, alternative media, academia and think tanks.

The mainstream media is the most obvious in its inherent bias and manipulation. The mainstream media is owned directly by large multinational corporations, and through their boards of directors are connected with a plethora of other major global corporations and elite interests. An example of these connections can be seen through the board of Time Warner.

Time Warner owns Time Magazine, HBO, Warner Bros., and CNN, among many others. The board of directors includes individuals past or presently affiliated with: the Council on Foreign Relations, the IMF, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Warburg Pincus, Phillip Morris, and AMR Corporation, among many others.

Two of the most “esteemed” sources of news in the U.S. are the New York Times (referred to as “the paper of record”) and the Washington Post. The New York Times has on its board people who are past or presently affiliated with: Schering-Plough International (pharmaceuticals), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chevron Corporation, Wesco Financial Corporation, Kohlberg & Company, The Charles Schwab Corporation, eBay Inc., Xerox, IBM, Ford Motor Company, Eli Lilly & Company, among others. Hardly a bastion of impartiality.

And the same could be said for the Washington Post, which has on its board: Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Warren Buffett, billionaire financial investor, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway; and individuals associated with (past or presently): the Coca-Cola Company, New York University, Conservation International, the Council on Foreign Relations, Xerox, Catalyst, Johnson & Johnson, Target Corporation, RAND Corporation, General Motors, and the Business Council, among others.

It is also important to address how the mainstream media is intertwined, often covertly and secretly, with the government. Carl Bernstein, one of the two Washington Post reporters who covered the Watergate scandal, revealed that there were over 400 American journalists who had “secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” Interestingly, “the use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence-gathering employed by the CIA.” Among organizations which cooperated with the CIA were the “American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune.”

By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The CIA even ran a training program “to teach its agents to be journalists,” who were “then placed in major news organizations with help from management.”

These types of relationships have continued in the decades since, although perhaps more covertly and quietly than before. For example, it was revealed in 2000 that during the NATO bombing of Kosovo, “several officers from the US Army’s 4th Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) Group at Ft. Bragg worked in the news division at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters.” This same Army Psyop outfit had “planted stories in the U.S. media supporting the Reagan Administration’s Central America policies,” which was described by the Miami Herald as a “vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory.” These Army PSYOP officers also worked at National Public Radio (NPR) at the same time. The US military has, in fact, had a strong relationship with CNN.

In 2008, it was reported that the Pentagon ran a major propaganda campaign by using retired Generals and former Pentagon officials to present a good picture of the administration’s war-time policies. The program started in the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003 and continued into 2009. These officials, presented as “military analysts”, regurgitate government talking points and often sit on the boards of military contractors, thus having a vested interest in the subjects they are brought on to “analyze.”

The major philanthropic foundations in the United States have often used their enormous wealth to co-opt voices of dissent and movements of resistance into channels that are safe for the powers that be. As McGeorge Bundy, former President of the Ford Foundation once said, “Everything the Foundation does is to make the world safe for Capitalism.”

Examples of this include philanthropies like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation providing immense financial and organizational support to Non-Governmental Organizations. Furthermore, the alternative media are often funded by these same foundations, which has the effect of influencing the direction of coverage as well as the stifling of critical analysis.


White House: Libya fight is not war, it’s ‘kinetic military action’



By: Byron York 03/23/11 10:07 PM
Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ByronYork

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war?  From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no.  But that leaves the question: What is it?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer.  “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,” Rhodes said.  “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.”

Rhodes’ words echoed a description by national security adviser Tom Donilon in a briefing with reporters two weeks ago as the administration contemplated action in Libya.  “Military steps — and they can be kinetic and non-kinetic, obviously the full range — are not the only method by which we and the international community are pressuring Gadhafi,” Donilon said.

Rhodes and Donilon are by no means alone.  “Kinetic” is heard in a lot of descriptions of what’s going on in Libya. “As we are successful in suppressing the [Libyan] air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a meeting with reporters in Moscow Tuesday.  In a briefing with reporters the same day from on board the USS Mount Whitney, Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, said, “The coalition brings together a wide array of capabilities that allow us to minimize the collateral damage when we have to take kinetic operations.”  On Monday, General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, said of the coalition forces, “We possess certainly a very significant kinetic capability.”  And unnamed sources use it too. “In terms of the heavy kinetic portion of this military action, the president envisions it as lasting days, not weeks,” an unnamed senior official told CNN Saturday.

“Kinetic” is a word that’s been used around the Pentagon for many years to distinguish between actions like dropping bombs, launching cruise missiles or shooting people and newer forms of non-violent fighting like cyber-warfare.  At times, it also appears to mean just taking action. In a 2002 article in Slate, Timothy Noah noted a passage from Bob Woodward’s book, Bush at War:

For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S. started going “kinetic,” as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a visible way?

Now, White House officials are referring to the war in Libya not as a war but as a “kinetic military action.” As common as “kinetic” might be among those in government, it still seems likely to strike members of the public as a euphemism that allows the Obama administration to describe a war as something other than a war.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:


Nobel Committee asked to strip Obama of Peace Prize

Posted Mar 21, 2011 by  Joseph E Lovell

The Bolivian President and a Russian political leader have launched a campaign to revoke Obama’s honour after the US attacked Libya.
President Barack Obama greets deployed service members and civilians during a surprise visit to Bagr...
President Barack Obama greets deployed service members and civilians during a surprise visit to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. During his visit he thanked the troops for all their hard work and dedication to the United States. Prior to Obama meeting the troops he flew to Kabul to meet with Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honour bestowed on US President Barack Obama in 2009.Zhirinovsky said the attacks were “another outrageous act of aggression by NATO forces and, in particular, the United States,” and that the attacks demonstrated a “colonial policy” with “one goal: to establish control over Libyan oil and the Libyan regime.” He said the prize was now hypocritical as a result.Bolivian President Evo Morales echoed the call: “How is it possible that a Nobel Peace Prize winner leads a gang to attack and invade? This is not a defence of human rights or self-determination.”Morales won the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 2006.He is amongst a number of left-leaning Latin American leaders who have denounced the attacks against Libya. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Cristina Fernandez of Argentina have all criticised western media coverage of the Libyan crisis.

Hugo Chávez

Courtesy Agência Brasil
File photo: Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela, holds a miniature copy of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution at the 2005 World Social Forum held in Brazil.

Morales and Chavez repeated calls for peace talks with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.” The Committee praised the “change in the international climate” affected by Obama’s presidency.In his Nobel Lecture, he discussed the “hard truth” of the inevitability of war, saying: “There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”A message has been widely retweeted on Twitter today: “Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.”

Read more:


Report faults Army in 2001 anthrax mailings

Report faults Army in 2001 anthrax mailings

Officials missed signs of alarming mental problems in Dr. Bruce Ivins, the scientist suspected in the deadly bioterrorism attacks.

By David Willman, Special to The Times

11:00 PM PDT, March 22, 2011

Reporting from Bethesda, Md.

The Army scientist believed responsible for the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that killed five people and crippled mail delivery in parts of the country had exhibited alarming mental problems that military officials should have noticed and acted on long before he had a chance to strike, a panel of behavioral analysts has found.

The anthrax attacks, the nation’s worst bioterrorism event, “could have been anticipated — and prevented,” the panel said.

The analysts also concluded that confidential records documenting Bruce E. Ivins’ psychiatric history offered “considerable additional circumstantial evidence” that he was indeed the anthrax killer. A copy of the panel’s 285-page report was obtained by The Times.

Ivins “was psychologically disposed to undertake the mailings; his behavioral history demonstrated his potential for carrying them out; and he had the motivation and means,” the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel said.

The anonymous, anthrax-laced letters, sent to news organizations and two U.S. senators in October and November 2001, raised fears of a second wave of terrorism after the Sept. 11 hijackings. Anthrax that leaked from one of the letters forced the closure of a Senate office building for three months. Fear of further contamination prompted a six-day shutdown of the House of Representatives and disrupted operations of the Supreme Court.

Ivins, 62, a microbiologist with expertise in cultivating anthrax, died July 29, 2008. He had taken an overdose of Tylenol PM as federal prosecutors prepared to seek his indictment for murder.

Ivins was a civilian employee at Ft. Detrick, Md., working in the Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, known as USAMRIID, one of the nation’s premier biowarfare research facilities.

If Army officials had investigated signs of Ivins’ instability, the panel said, he would have been denied a security clearance, which he needed to handle anthrax or other potential biowarfare agents.

The panel faulted Army officials for making no effort to debrief any of the psychiatrists or counselors who met with Ivins before the fall of 2001 or thereafter. Nor did the Army pursue questions raised by Ivins’ annual disclosures of aspects of his medical treatment.

For instance, on a government form he completed in 1987, he placed question marks next to these items regarding his psychiatric history: “Memory Change,” “Trouble With Decisions,” “Hallucinations,” “Improbable Beliefs” and “Anxiety.”

“Information regarding his disqualifying behaviors was readily available in the medical record and accessible to personnel had it been pursued under mechanisms that existed prior to and after 2001,” according to the nine-member panel, headed by Dr. Gregory Saathoff, a University of Virginia psychiatrist who served as an FBI consultant during the anthrax investigation.

The report is sure to stoke the debate over whether Ivins was, as the FBI has concluded, the sole perpetrator of the letter attacks. Investigators determined that Ivins spent a string of late nights in his specially equipped lab at USAMRIID preceding the attacks, and that he created and controlled a highly purified batch of anthrax that was matched through DNA tests to the material in the letters.

Among the circumstantial evidence against Ivins was his eagerness to bring to market a new anthrax vaccine, of which he was a co-inventor, and his decades-long fixation with the college sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma, whose office in Princeton, N.J., was adjacent to a mailbox where Ivins is believed to have deposited anthrax-laced letters. The mailbox was the only one where investigators found anthrax spores that matched the attack material.

Some critics, including Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who was an intended recipient of one of the letters, have said they do not accept the FBI’s version of events. As an example of the FBI’s fallibility, Ivins’ defenders point to the government’s $5.82-million legal settlement in 2008 with Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a virologist who had worked at USAMRIID and was the investigation’s main suspect before the focus shifted to Ivins.

Last month, a committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences at the FBI’s request concluded that the scientific evidence implicating Ivins was not definitive but “is consistent with and supports” the bureau’s finding of a genetic match between his batch of anthrax and the material in the letters.

A spokeswoman for USAMRIID, Caree Vander Linden, said the institute, for privacy law reasons, would not comment on its hiring or supervision of Ivins.

The behavioral panel was formed in late 2009 at the suggestion of Saathoff, people familiar with the matter said. Saathoff appointed the remaining panelists: five other psychiatrists, two officials from the American Red Cross and a physician-toxicologist.

The court order authorizing the panel’s work charged it with examining “the mental health issues of Dr. Bruce Ivins and what lessons can be learned … that may be useful in preventing future bioterrorism attacks.” Though the panel’s expenses were paid by the Justice Department, its findings were not reviewed in advance by the government, those familiar with the matter said.

Ivins’ psychiatric records were made available to the panel by order of Royce C. Lamberth, the chief U.S. District Court judge in Washington, and it was with Lamberth that the panel filed its report on Aug. 23, 2010. The document remained under seal until this month, when the Justice Department obtained Lamberth’s permission to eventually allow distribution of an abridged version. None of the contents have heretofore been made public.

Some of the “disqualifying” behaviors that the panel said should have prompted Army officials to reconsider Ivins’ fitness to work in a secure biodefense facility were redacted from the report by Justice Department lawyers because of privacy concerns. However, based on investigative documents made public more than a year ago by the FBI and on remarks by Ivins’ acquaintances, this much is known:

Ivins became obsessed with Kappa Kappa Gamma in the 1960s, when a member of the sorority turned him down for a date. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Ivins twice burglarized houses affiliated with the sorority.

Over the same period, he tormented a former member of the sorority, Nancy Haigwood, by stealing her laboratory notebook, which was integral to her pursuit of a doctoral degree, and by vandalizing her residence. Ivins was a postdoctoral researcher at the University of North Carolina in the 1970s when Haigwood was a graduate student there.

“Despite criminal behavior and sabotage of his colleague’s research,” the panel said, “Dr. Ivins was hired by USAMRIID and received a security clearance, allowing him to work with potential weapons of mass destruction.”

Former Times staff writer David Willman is writing a book about the 2001 anthrax mailings.


Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The U.S. Military’s Cover-up of 9/11


March 21, 2011

The 9/11 crime and cover-up would not have been possible if high-ranking generals in the U.S. military were not informed about the attacks ahead of time and rewarded for their participation in that unforgivable act of treason against the American people and the United States of America. So, while the Bush administration is definitely to blame for the 9/11 attacks, as well as the intelligence agencies of other U.S. allies, particularly Israel’s Mossad, we shouldn’t overlook the involvement of certain men in the U.S. military.

Traitors in the ranks of the U.S. military probably played the most crucial role in the September 11 attacks because special military coordination, military knowledge, and military skill were required to execute such a large-scale operation. A group of in-the-know generals in the U.S. military selfishly advanced their own careers by assisting in the murder of Americans and later covered-up the crime. They took advantage of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity instead of exposing the traitorous plans to strike New York and Washington to the American people. A special place in hell is reserved for these dishonorable and immoral dogs of war.

The corruption of the U.S. military shouldn’t be shocking to anyone. Corruption and deceit is part of most national standing armies. Egypt’s military is notoriously corrupt, so is Russia’s military, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards has been accusedof profiting immensely from sanctions. The point is that a large military is a threat to individual liberty and true national defense. Thomas Jefferson famously opposed standing armies, and supported citizen militias who could be called up at any time the country was under attack. But Jefferson’s wise advice was ignored. Rather than depending on brave and virtuous citizens armed with weapons to protect their freedoms and defend their land, America and most nations depend on corrupt and godless standing armies for their defense – armies which consist of millions of slaves who are sent by their evil government masters to fight meaningless and profit-driven wars. The military is “a living monument to tyranny,” saidthe German poet Heinrich von Kleist.

I don’t know the names of the traitors in the U.S. military who were part of the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks but I will venture a guess and say that Ret. Gen. John “Jack” Sheehan was one of them. Sheehan was a member of the Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group which produced a report in 1998 called “Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy,” that was written by three men, Ashton B. Carter, a U.S. National Security expert, Co-Director of Preventive Defense Project, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics for President Barack Obama; John. M. Deutch, former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense, a member of the Trilateral Commission, and a member of the Board of Directors of numerous criminal companies such as Citigroup and Raytheon; and Philip D. Zelikow, who served as the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, which covered up evidence implicating senior government officials, ignored key witnesses who gave a different version of what happened on 9/11, and pushed the official conspiracy theory that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (AD)

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group was “a nine-month long collaboration of faculty from Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Virginia,” and included “experts on national security, terrorism, intelligence, law enforcement, constitutional law, technologies of Catastrophic Terrorism and defenses against them, and government organization and management.” The group consisted of 20 terrorism analysts, academic professionals, military professionals, and other experts, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, President of the World Bank and former managing director of Goldman Sachs Robert Zoellick, international relations scholar and Harvard Professor Joseph Nye, and many other disgusting creatures such as Retired General Jack Sheehan, the former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Atlantic Command.

It is not a coincidence that Zelikow, one of the main authors of the “Catastrophic Terrorism” report was later picked by the Bush administration to replace Henry Kissinger as the Director of the 9/11 Commission who resigned because there were complaints about his conflicts of interest. Of course, Zelikow also had conflicts of interest but they were not disclosed to the press, the American people, and members of Congress.

It is also not a coincidence that members of the Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group were placed in influential posts in the U.S. government and international bodies, like Robert Zoellick of the World Bank, who looks like an evil Bond villain.

General Jack Sheehan was rewarded by being given the title of Senior Vice President at Bechtel Corporation, the largest engineering company in America which had close relations with the Republican Party and Bush administration and was handed a $680 million Iraq contract immediately after the war began. Bechtel was also chosen early on to manage the clean up of the World Trade Center site after the 9/11 attacks, the cost of which was over 2 billion dollars. Here is an excerpt from an article called “New York Officials May Hire Bechtel For Trade Center Job,” that was written by Debra K. Rubin and Aileen Cho on November 19, 2001:

New York City could soon be turning to San Francisco-based Bechtel Group Inc. to manage the estimated $2.5-billion cleanup of the World Trade Center site.

Bechtel officials confirm it is “in discussions” with New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) and city officials to take over management of cleanup work at the site of the buildings destroyed by the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan to bring in Bechtel has unnerved site contractors and other project participants who claim the move is politically motivated because of the firm’s strong Republican connections.

At ENR press time, neither the mayor’s office nor top officials of the city’s Dept. of Design and Construction (DDC), which has been managing site operations, would officially confirm the management change. But sources close to the project say Bechtel could be on the jobsite as early as just after Thanksgiving. “This is being shoved down our throats,” says one project participant.

It is obvious why Bechtel was chosen by the Giuliani administration to clean up the WTC site: they could be trusted to run a tight ship and help get rid of damaging evidence that would implicate the U.S. government in the attacks. And although the fact that General Jack Sheehan was the Senior Vice President of Bechtel at the time of the attacks is not clear-cut proof that he was part of the conspiracy that was responsible for 9/11, it is a little suspicious.

The war criminals who were part of the government conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks are not masterminds. They are demented little creatures who are rewarded with government and university positions and given titles in order to make it appear as if they attained those positions because they are brilliantly smart. Sheehan, for example, is a clueless bigot and homophobe. He made headlines last year by supporting the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy and defended his position by saying that gays make the military weak, and blamed “the Netherlands’ military’s supposed failure in Bosnia in 1995 on their allowance of openly gay soldiers.” Here is an excerpt from the article “Netherlands to Gen. John Sheehan: You’re Stupid, Stop Talking”:

Sheehan blames the overrunning of Srebrenica, a United Nations safe haven that Dutch forces were protecting, by Bosnian Serb soldiers on the Dutch military’s homos. “It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense,” says Dutch defense spokesman Roger van de Wetering. “The Srebrenica massacre and the involvement of UN soldiers was extensively investigated by the Netherlands, international organisations and the United Nations. Never was there in any way concluded that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role.”

Sheehan’s narrow-mindedness and unpatriotic support for gays who serve in the U.S. military is shameful indeed. But Sheehan is not only a homophobe and an idiot, he is a liar, a state murderer, and a scumbag traitor. The General doesn’t have any honesty or integrity. All his medals should be taken away from him.

The existence of dishonorable and lying traitors in the military is more harmful to a country than the existence of gays in the military. A gay patriot is better than a straight traitor. The former screws his boyfriend behind the scenes, while the latter screws his country behind the scenes.

It is clear what should happen to the war criminals and traitors who share responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and the criminal wars that followed them. The laws of nature and the laws of God demand that they be brought to justice and hanged for their crimes against humanity. What are we waiting for? Let’s hang these rotten bastards and take back our world from the masters of war.

If bumper stickers reflected the way people really think

See all CounterThink cartoons…

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) They won’t admit it in person, but most guys thinkwar is fun to watch on TV. That’s why wars are packaged as entertainment. There’s even a documentary on the topic called “Militainment, Inc.” by Roger Stahl that can tell you more (…).

Most people don’t really do anything to prevent cancer or cure cancer, but they want you to think they care about cancer by posting pink-ribbon bumper stickers on their cars or buying gimmicky “pinkwashing” pink products.

Most people say they support individualism and independent thought, but when it comes down to it, they really just want you to fit in and follow the herd.

Similarly, people claim they want to protectthe environment— just not right now. Let the next generation protect theenvironment. We’ve got more mining or drilling to do!

What people really believe may surprise you

These are some of the provocative topics in my CounterThink Cartoon entitledIf bumper stickers reflected the way people really think. As mid-term elections are nearing in the U.S., I thought it would be interesting to explore some of therealbeliefsthat people hold when they go to the voting polls.

For example, while they won’t really admit it in public, most people strongly supportincreaseddebtspendingbecause itbenefitsthem today while shifting the debt burden to their children. So why not have a bumper sticker that just tells the truth?

Other people believe a larger government will somehow solve all their problems, as if sending your hard-earnedmoneyto a bunch of bureaucrats ever solved anything. This is thethinkingbehind the recenthealthcare reforms which, as people are beginning to notice, have so far only caused health insurance premiums to sharply rise, costing employees yet more money for a system of “sick care” that has proven itself to be an utter failure.

Now, the good news is that these bumper stickers don’t represent everybody — they only speak to the beliefs of the masses. Among those of us who are more aware, there are sharp, educated individuals who understand and follow principles ofpersonal health responsibility. (MostNaturalNewsreaders share that belief.) There are some who understand the importance offiscal responsibilityand paying for our expenses rather than burdening future generations with our debt.

Many people are actively working to protect the environment right now, either through activism or public education, because they recognize and understand the importance of keeping our planet a viable biosphere for abundant life.

Some people, similarly, recognize the need toprotect our freedomsrather than surrendering them all in the name of “increased security.”

You’ll notice, by the way, that these issues cross all political boundaries and speak to the key topics of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and other parties. This is not a pro-party political cartoon, it’s apro-thinkingpolitical cartoon that challenges us all to think about what we truly believe and why we vote the way we do in the polls.

Short-term thinking is bad for humanity

Sadly, the voters inAmerica(and most other countries) are dominated byshort-term thinkerswho want the benefits right now without having to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. Our outrageous national debt parallels the “ecological debt” that has been placed on the planet through pollution and habitat destruction. Both will require a very painful long-term payback that people won’t want to face.

Such is thenatureof truth and consequences. Both economics and environmental chemistry follow certain laws of nature, and those laws have a nasty way of biting you in the rear if you ignore them for very long.

By the way, mathematicians and physicists will recognize the license plate number in this cartoon. It is an approximation of one of the most important numbers in our universe, and it signifies thatwhat goes around comes around. I have a feeling that thevotersin America aren’t going to like what comes around in the next couple of decades as the issues we’ve all tried to circumvent start to come due.

I’m just happy that there are so many intelligent, informed and caring people still remaining in the world who visit sites like NaturalNews and who are working tirelessly in various non-profits, websites, video campaigns and other efforts to literally help save the world.

We need more activism in our world on the really big issues. But most of all, we need people to improve the way they think and learn how to take a longer-term view of the consequences of our present-day actions. Any civilization dominated by short-term thinking is doomed to destroy itself. Only a long-term view (as in centuries) and an investment in a brighter future can rescue us from the pitfalls of short-sightedness.

Permissions to use:Want to use this cartoon? Specific, limited permission is granted to reprint in any book, movie, website, magazine, newspaper, animation or other media under the following ‘professional courtesy’ conditions:

  1. Cartoon creator Mike Adams must be conspicuously credited.
  2. Web address must be posted below or adjacent to the cartoon in a conspicuous manner. If on the web, the link must be clickable.
  3. You may not use this cartoon in a disparaging context or manner.
  4. You may not charge for this cartoon.
  5. Truth Publishing retains all ownership, rights and copyrights.
  6. Reprint rights may be revoked, without notice, on a case by case basis, if reprint courtesy is, in our opinion, abused.

High-resolutions files are available for film and pri

Learn more: