Moscow Times : Buried Treasure

Friday, April 29, 2005

Global Eye: Buried Treasure

By Chris Floyd | Published: April 29, 2005

It seemed, at first, like nothing more than a novelty item in the news briefs, the kind of odd, meaningless side-fact thrown off by most major stories: "New Pope, President's Brother Had Link in Swiss Group." But a look beneath the surface of this innocuous connection reveals a vast web of sinister alliances -- and moral corruption on a world-shaking scale.

The network links a bewildering line-up of players -- the Bushes, the Vatican, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and China's Communist overlords, among others -- in a staggering array of crime and turpitude: prostitution, pedophilia, mass death and war profiteering. Yet this is not some grand "conspiracy theory," a serpent's egg hatched in Bilderberg or Bohemian Grove. It's simply the way the Bush boys do business, trawling the globe for sweetheart deals and gushers of blood money from the war and terror they foment.

At the center of this particular nexus is the unlikely figure of Neil Bush, the feckless, fraudulent brother of the current president. Neilsy, as he's known in the family, is most famous for costing American taxpayers $1 billion to bail out a savings-and-loan he had ruined with secret insider loans to his own business partners. For this massive fraud, he was fined -- by his father's administration -- the princely sum of $50,000, which was actually paid by one of his dad's political bagmen, of course.

You see, the Bushes are robber barons, not capitalists: They never risk any of their own money in the competition of the marketplace. Nor do they ever pay the price when their deals go belly-up. Just ask George W., whose first business was jump-started with secret cash from the bin Ladens, laundered through their U.S. frontman, James Bath -- who was also hired by W.'s dad, then-CIA director George Bush Sr., to set up offshore companies for shifting CIA money and aircraft between Texas and Saudi Arabia, the Texas Observer reported.

Neilsy's latest business ventures include a partnership with one of China's own influence-peddling oligarchs: Jiang Mianheng, son of former President Jiang Zemin. He's paying Bush $2 million for "advice" in a field – the semiconductor industry -- which Neilsy cheerfully confesses he knows nothing about. Bush also trousered $1 million for "introductions and advice" from the CP Group, a Bangkok conglomerate spreading bipartisan gravy around Washington. In return for supplying his paymasters with a golden conduit to the White House, Neilsy received a special perk: free prostitutes, served up fresh to his hotel room during business trips to Asia.

But between his sessions of bouncy-bouncy with trafficked women, Neilsy was also sitting down with hard-line cleric Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the former soldier for Nazi Germany now translated to glory as Pope Benedict XVI. The two men were board members of an obscure Swiss institute ostensibly devoted to "interfaith dialogue." Although the organization did have some prominent ecumenical figures on the board, none of them could say exactly why pimp-daddy Neilsy was invited to join, Newsday reported.

Perhaps there's a clue in the group's incorporation. Dunn & Bradstreet lists the supposedly nonprofit foundation as a "management trust," designed for "purposes other than education, religion, charity or research." The group's spokesman says this designation was a "mistake," and anyway, the institute is hastily being "re-launched" with a "new focus" on its religious mission. But a cynic -- i.e., anyone with the slightest acquaintance of Bush business practices -- might think that a "management trust" masquerading as a religious charity would be an excellent place to launder money or park assets away from the taxman's prying eyes.

Meanwhile, Ratzinger spent his time on the Swiss board trying to bury the Vatican's massive pedophilia scandal, the London Observer reported this week. In a secret 2001 letter, he ordered Church officials to prevent police from learning about abuse allegations -- a theological innovation more commonly known in the United States as "obstructing justice." Given this criminal high-wire act, perhaps the good cardinal thought it prudent to cultivate some personal ties with a presidential sibling.

Whatever Neilsy and Das Panzerkardinal were up to in Switzerland, Ratzinger repaid their camaraderie with a decisive intervention in brother George's 2004 election, issuing a fatwa that essentially condemned any Catholic voting for John Kerry to eternal hellfire. With the Vatican's iron hand on the scales, Bush reaped an extra six percent of the Catholic vote -- a huge boost in a tight race.

To Our Readers

Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage?
Then please write to us.
All we ask is that you include your full name, the name of the city from which you are writing and a contact telephone number in case we need to get in touch.
We look forward to hearing from you.

Email the Opinion Page Editor
But it's Neilsy's long-time partnership with Syrian-born businessman Jamal Daniel that has provided the true mother lode: war profiteering. Daniel, also a boardmate in the Swiss adventure with Ratzinger, is a principal in New Bridge Strategies, a firm set up by top Bush insiders to steer corporate clients to the fountains of blood money flowing from George W.'s conquest of Iraq. The company makes frequent use of Neilsy's "introductions" and Middle East connections, The Financial Times reported. It also operates a profitable sideline in mercenaries.

Daniel brings his own unique connections to the regional porkfest: His family was instrumental in the creation of the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq, The Financial Times noted. And of course, the Bush Family's covert arm, the CIA -- whose headquarters bears the name of George Sr. -- assisted not one, but two, Baathist coups in Iraq, including the bloody upheaval that brought Saddam Hussein's family faction to power, historian Roger Morris reported. Still later, the CIA would supply Osama bin Laden and his fellow extremists with weapons, money and terrorist training: a shrewd investment whose long-term consequences -- the current "war on terror" -- are still paying fat dividends for Bush coffers.

Sure, thousands die and millions suffer from these dirty deals -- but it's not a "conspiracy." It's just business -- the Bush way.

Global Research : Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

Friday, April 29, 2005

Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

by Elias Davidsson | | April 29, 2005

The URL of this article is:

The term “official 9/11 account” refers to the account of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as presented in June 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry appointed by President George W. Bush, and complemented by other official documents issued by US government agencies. This account includes various details, such as identities of the alleged hijackers, identities of aircraft, timelines and other data used to prove that the crime of 9/11 was perpetrated by the named individuals under the orders or the inspiration of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.

It can be demonstrated by two straightforward mathematical techniques that the official acccount on 9/11 is simply not true.

The first method uses boolean algebra. The other method is based on probability theory.

Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

Boolean algebra deals not with numbers but with truth values. In Boolean mathematics we have only two values: True and false. One of the primary operations in boolean algebra is the operator AND. In the equation A AND B we have:

Given A = true and B = true, then A AND B = true
Given A = true and B = false, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = true, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = false, then A AND B = false

The AND relationship can be illustrated by three bulbs connected in series. The truth value for each bulb is ON or OFF. In order for bulb C to be ON, both A and B must be ON. If either A or B or both are OFF, C will not obtain electrical current and be OFF. The same would apply to a longer series of bulbs connected in series.

Applying the AND relationship to the official 9/11 account, we posit that

in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.

Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:

1. No plans existed prior to 9/11 to protect the Pentagon and the White House against approaching aircraft (if such plans actually existed, questions would arise why they were not implemented and who prevented their implementation).
2. The idea that the World Trade Center could be attacked from air, did not occur to any US government agency before 9/11 (if it is shown that the idea actually was discussed by US military agencies, the question would arise why it was not taken into consideration to protect these assets).
3. All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 (if they did not board the aircraft, the hijackings could not have taken place).
4. The planes which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 were flight number AA11 (tail number N334AA), flight number AA77 (tail number N644AA), flight number UA93 (tail number N591UA) and flight number UA175 (tail number N612UA) (if the flight and tail number are not those listed here, the question arises whether the planes that allegedly crashed at the known locations were the same ones which departed from the listed airports).
5. Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
6. Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure, the type of aircraft and the claim that this aircraft crashed on the Pengaton).
7. Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft.
8. Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
9. The US military were not notified in time to scramble military jets and prevent the crashes of the hijacked aircraft (had they been notified in time, questions would arise why they did not scramble military jets in time and who was negligent).
10. President George W. Bush did not know that “America was under attack” before entering the primary school in Florida on the morning of 9/11 (should it transpire that President Bush actually knew what was going on in New York as he entered the school, questions would arise as to his foreknowledge of the crime).
11. The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as WTC no. 7 collapsed due to fire (if evidence can be produced that steel buildings cannot be made to collapse by fire, it would suggest that they were made to collapse by explosives, as actually suggested by a number of witnesses).
12. Numerous calls from hijacked passengers were made to family members and airline personnel with cell phones (if it can be shown that at the particular moment of the phone calls the planes were flying above 8,000 feet and/or at the speed of 500 miles per hour or more, it would suggest that the cellphone stories are a fabrication, because of the technical high improbability of succeeding such calls from high altitude and/or high speed).

If any one of the above allegations is found to be false, the official account must be put in doubt or rejected and the suggestion of official deception or criminal complicity must be considered as justified.

Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

It is also possible to “disprove” the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.

The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.

1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.

2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.

3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.

4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings.

5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.

6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Kor’an on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.

7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.

8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.

9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.

10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.

11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.

12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.

13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.

14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.

15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.

16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.

17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.

18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.

19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.

20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.

21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.

22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.

The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.

If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero, to invalidate the official account on 9/11.

While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. authorities have fabricated the official account, the question arises why they have done so, what are they covering up, who perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11 and how was it accomplished. These questions are not pursued further here. As long as the above statements of fact are not fully investigated, the U.S. administration must be considered as covering up the crime and thus as the prime suspect in this crime against humanity.

Email this article to a friend

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries:

© Copyright belongs to the author 2005.