|
Anläßlich des Jahrestags der Hiroshima-Bombe stellt die Journalistin Alexandra Bader von den Ceiberweibern dem Vertreter der USA in Österreich 60 Fragen zu 9/11. Zu viele Fragen sind offen. Trotzdem werden alle, die die offizielle Version anzweifeln, als hysterische Verschwörungstheoretiker abgetan.
Kritische Fragen an die US-Botschaft, die nicht beantwortet werden:
*********
60 Fragen an die US-Botschaft
Österreich ist frei, seit 1955, ein souveräner Staat, der seine Entscheidungen eigenständig trifft und der seine StaatsbürgerInnen, wie ja auch z.B. in der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention verlangt wird, vor den Eingriffen insbesondere auch der geheimen Dienste anderer Länder schützt. ÖsterreicherInnen, die in der Ausübung ihrer Rechte als StaatsbürgerInnen von den geheimen Diensten anderer Länder gehindert werden, weil sie deren Operationen in Österreich hinderlich sind, können sich vertrauensvoll an unsere Sicherheitsorgane wenden.
Ja, so sollte es sein. So sollte es überall in Europa sein, wenn wir statt Österreich ein anderes Land einsetzen und diese Sätze nochmal lesen, die eigentlich bloss Selbstverständliches feststellen. Dennoch wissen wir, dass es "rendition flights" gab, bei denen die CIA (mit jenen Maschinen, die Saudis nach 9/11 aus den USA brachten, als Flugverbot herrschte) angebliche Terrorverdächtige entführte und in Geheimgefängnissen folterte. Duldung bis Komplizenschaft europäischer Staaten wurde in einem Bericht des Europarates festgestellt (von diesem Gremium wurde einst die Menschenrechtskonvention ersonnen), und viele, die sich mit der Materie befassen, bedauern, wie haarscharf der definitive Nachweis von Geheimgefängnissen in neuen EU-Staaten scheiterte, nachdem es sehr konkrete Hinweise gab.
Man putzt sich gerne ab, wenn Entführte nur seit vielen Jahren in Europa lebten, aber keine Staatsbürger sind, und überhaupt, sind ja "terrorverdächtige Muslime". Wenn es sich peinlicherweise doch um Staatsangehörige handelt, brauchen sie nach der Tour durch die Hölle allen Mut, um noch aufzustehen und zu sagen, was sie durchgemacht haben, wie der Deutsche Khaled al Masri. Er wollte, dass die deutschen Mitwisser zur Verantwortung gezogen werden, stand auch dem Ausschuss des EU-Parlaments zu den Entführungsflügen zur Verfügung - und hielt den psychischen Druck nicht mehr aus, die völlige Erschütterung seiner Welt, die Traumata, und legte Feuer. Die Bildzeitung (in alter Tradition, flossen doch CIA-Gelder zu Springer) bläst zum Halali auf einen von seiner Regierung schmählich im Stich gelassenen Menschen "Warum lassen wir uns von so einem terrorisieren?", statt zu fragen, warum "wir" zuließen, dass ein Deutscher mit Billigung seiner Regierung terrorisiert wurde.
Auch zwei in Österreich lebende Muslime wurden entführt, praktischerweise keine Staatsbürger, ergo auch kein Grund für die Regierung, sich nach ihrem Befinden zu erkundigen. Dies hatte damals das profil aufgedeckt, das sich ansonsten nicht extrem für CIA-Machenschaften in heimischen Gefilden interessiert (diese sind generell ein Tabuthema, sodass gerade mal die allerhöchste Spitze des Eisberges irgendwo vorkommt). Wer hierzulande auf CIA-Aktivitäten stößt, ist zuerst meist furchtbar entsetzt, sofern dies aus dem Alltag heraus geschieht, Dinge betrifft, die eine/n persönlich betreffen. Dazu kommt dann das namenlose Entsetzen, dass frau/mann damit aber völlig allein ist, ganz auf sich allein gestellt ist. Wer wirklich seine Rechte auf Schutz und Beistand einfordert, kommt sich vor wie Hermine im neuen Harry Potter Band, in deren Tasche unbegrenzter Inhalt passt. CIA in Österreich ist in Österreich sowas von tabu, dass alle, die eigentlich dagegen auftreten müßten, scheinbar in einer riesigen Tasche in Deckung gehen.
Somit ist es auch nicht verwunderlich, dass hier (wie in anderen Staaten auch, aber müssen die Vorbild / Ausrede sein?) weitreichende Entscheidungen auf Basis unbewiesener Behauptungen der US-Regierung getroffen werden, und dass auf EU-Ebene ebenfalls keine eigenständige Bewertung vorgenommen wird. Die "Mutter aller Lügen" ist hier jene Version von 9/11, die uns seit dem 11.9.2001 nachmittags unserer Zeit eingetrichtert wird. Sie hat Veränderungen im Sicherheitsbereich zur Folge, sie ist auch Basis für eine Erlaubnis für Eurofighter-Piloten, nach eigenem Gutdünken und auf eigene Verantwortung Passagiermaschinen abzuschießen. Seit ich "hierzulande auf CIA-Aktivitäten" stiess und das übliche Desinteresse bzw. Dulden erlebte, versuche ich dennoch immer wieder, die Mauern des Schweigens einzureißen (was aber zu 99,99% bedeutet, auf Mails und / oder Fragen keine Antwort zu erhalten).
Ich wandte mich nun an die amerikanische Botschaft als diplomatische Vertretung der US-Regierung in Österreich. Dort müßte man ja doch imstande sein, 60 einfache Fragen zu 9/11 zu beantworten (die spontan aus vielen vielen weiteren ausgewählt wurden). Immerhin ist es Grundlage auch für den Umgang der dipiomatischen Vertreter mit der Politik des Gastlandes und nach wie vor die Basis für amerikanische Außenpolitik, die für viele Menschen vor allem Leid, Krieg und Tod bedeutet und weniger die versprochene "Befreiung".
Mein Adressat ist der stellvertretende Botschafter, Botschaftsrat Scott F. Kilner, nicht nur weil die Botschafterin Österreich bald verlassen wird. Laut dem deutschen Magazin "Geheim" (www.geheim-magazin.de) ist Kilner nämlich auch CIA-Agent, was ebenso auf Margaret R. Gray, Gregory E. Phillips, James A. Stofko, John J. Beaudry (alle Botschaft) zutrifft. Unter dem Stichwort "US Mission to International Organizations in Vienna" finden wir: George A. Glass, Scott C. Thomson, Matthew Boland, und nochmal Mr. Stofko. "US Mission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development": Sam Laeuchli, David Herbert, John Beaudry.
Und hier die Mail, auf die (natürlich) keine Antwort kam - was impliziert, dass niemand sachlichen Grund hat, die 9/11-Version der US-Regierung ungeprüft für bare Münze zu nehmen.....
Dear Mr. Deputy Head of Mission Kilner,
as 9/11 influences the politics of all Western countries (see the debate on intercepting hijacked planes in Austria) I want to ask you some questions concerning the official version. I frankly admit that I never believed it for a second as I'm used to judge everything on my own in pursuing journalistic ethics at any time. I was completely alone in Austria after 9/11 with this standpoint and I am still the only journalist here who is not silent (though I suppose that many of my colleagues would not dare to doubt anything even in their mind).
As I know also from other researchers in other countries the price you pay for standing up and questioning is very high - you can hardly earn your living and you don't get the opportunities that suit your capacities in items which have nothing to do with 9/11. This means that there is something hidden as a quite clear 9/11 case would stand all kinds of examinations by journalists, researchers, former intelligence officers, experts in fields like flying, air traffic control, construction or demolition. But perhaps you could answer just some of so many questions? I've only written down 60:
Why was no proper aircraft accident investigation taking place after 9/11 (collection of unique numbered parts of the planes, publishing of all protocols - ATC (Air Traffic Controler) of Boston Center, New York Center, Indianapolis Center and Cleveland Center, CVR, flight data recorder etc. -, report that summarizes all data)?
Why were only parts of ATC protocols published and after years of waiting something claimed to be a CVR transcript of UA 93 (a unique piece of CVR transcript as it doesn't match usual standards)?
Why are neither FBI nor NTSB glad about revelations from independent researchers in contrast to the investigation of all other crimes where contributions from thinking people are welcome?
Why were AA 11 and AA 77 not scheduled for any flight on 9/11 according to secured files from BTS data while UA 93 and UA 175 were scheduled in the usual way with tail numbers?
Why were N 334AA Serial 22332 (AA 11) and N 644AA Serial 24602 (AA 77) not deregistered until 1/14/2002 and why were N 591UA Serial 28142 (UA 93) and N612UA Serial 21873 (UA 175) deregistered on 9/28/2005 after inquiries about their still valid registration?
Why did none of the alleged pilots and co-pilots on the 9/11 flights have valid licenses?
How is it possible that the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) has registered a remarkable few number of passengers and crew as dead on 9/11/2001? (In the case of UA 93 (N591UA) the comparison of the data in the book of Jere Longman with the SSDI gives only 12 of 38 Americans on board while the crew and all of those who made phone calls (except that one person listed dead on 9/11/2001 allegedly made a very short call) are not listed?
How could Barbara Olson have made a call via a seat phone when the Boeing 757 (AA 77) had no seat phones?
How could cell phone calls be made when the technology needed was not available in the planes of that type until 2004?
How could both ATCs and NORAD (ADC, Air Defense Center) fail to follow the standard procedures for emergency (which demands immediate reaction when a planes ceases radio communication or comes off course) and for hijacking (which can be a later verified reason for emergency)?
Why did the FDR data (also the raw data) of what was supposed to be AA 77 (Pentagon) provide quite different data of speed, altitude and position of the plane than was always claimed f.e. by the Pentagon? (flight path did not cross the hit lamp poles, last known altitude 273 ft, diving of 240 m/sec not possible with 100 tons etc.)
Why did even the military with it's more advanced surveillance not identify AA 77 after it reappeared on the primary radar of civilian flight control?
How could a 100 tons-airliner that is cut up when hitting a power pole cut several lamp poles without losing balance and pierce through walls of reinforced concrete causing three exit holes in inner rings of the Pentagon?
How could so-called terror pilots who didn't manage safe flights on a one-engine Cessna (weight: not even 1/00 of a 757 or 767, height 2.59 m compared to 13,56 and 15.85 m; length 7,25 m compared to 47.32 and 48.51 m, wingspan 10.17 m compared to 38.05 and 47,57 m, max. speed 200 m/h compared to 914 km/h given for both Boeings) manage to fly complex maneuvres that even experienced pilots fail to fulfill in the flight simulator?
How could these persons with reportedly poor English language knowledge and who never ever saw a 757/676 cockpit from inside master IFR, deal with the artificial horizon, handle the enormous kinetic energy of a 100 tons airliner, make descending turns with curve angles of some hundred meters, match with the G forces and override electronic systems with their warnings and at last hit their targets?
Eruption in the World Trade Center
Which was the role that Vigilant Guardian and other war games played in the unfolding events of 9/11?
Which was the role the Able Danger program of the Special Operations Command where Mohammed Atta and others were handled played on 9/11?
Why were the CNN camera pictures of the New York Skyline that are recorded permanently never released for the time around 9/11/2001 8:46 am?
How could two Boeing 767 whose aluminium parts are damaged when hitting even light buildings or power poles pierce in cartoon like way into a steel framed tower without losing parts?
Why does jet fuel burn immediately usually when a plane hits the ground with the wings but burn with a little delay when the wings hit the towers (videos from the South Tower show sometimes a jet fuel blast at the entry site, sometimes just white smoke)?
Why is UA 175 shown in quite different angles (ranging from under 45 degree to 45 degree to even 90 degree to the horizon) above being explained to differing camera positions?
How could news networks report World Trade Center 7 being collapsed minutes before it actually happened?
Why did those who lost someone inside the planes behave so different compared to those who lost somebody in the towers (with the exception of Ellen Mariani)? Why did they seldom appeal to the Victim Compensation Fund, refuse being contacted by journalists, refuse to join the groups of the other relatives and their protests?
How could AA 77 be hijacked, given that the alleged pilot was a military veteran and given that the passengers were to a high percentage also from the military or the Navy?
How is it possible that none of the four pilots had sent the hijacking code?
How could the 47 store building WTC 7 collapse due to fire when not hit by anything?
Why does the collapse of WTC 7 only resemble videos of controlled demolition with cutting charges (and not of fire damage in comparable buildings which does never cause a collapse) and is described by demolition experts as "an art work of controlled demolition"?
Why is kerosene comparable to jet fuel used for heating in American homes when it is supposed to be so dangerous that it melts steal?
Why could one Boeing 767 bring a steel framed building with massive core columns down when it was designed to withstand the impact of several Boeing 707 (comparable to a Boeing 767, even more maximum speed and probably with more jet fuel on board after just having departed the airport)?
Why do the towers not "implode" like WTC 7 but "explode" as the erupting clouds of pulverized materials show?
Why do the videos of the collapsing towers resemble volcano eruptions (pyroclastic flow)?
How do the eruption images match laws of physics?
How do the collapses of the towers in near free fall-speed match the laws of physics?
How is the pulverized material in the streets below the towers explained while sheets of paper seem undamaged?
Why did witnesses feel themselves lifted up by a hot shock wave?
Why were cars burnt even in some distance to the Twin Towers?
Why were there power outages not solely to be explained by broken cables?
How could the basement of the Towers be damaged severely by just a normal collapse?
Why was molten metal found, why were hot spots visible in satellite images, why was there still something burning after weeks?
How could a normal collapse cause a bone dust cloud like those whose remains were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building in 2006?
Why did some workers and inhabitants die contaminated after cleaning up on Ground Zero or just continuing to live near the site?
Why was steel from Ground Zero shipped abroad instead of being part of the criminal investigation?
How was it possible to discover undamaged plastic ID cards of alleged terrorists on Ground Zero?
Why were no Arab names on all passenger lists?
Some reports on the hijackers and their behavior and whereabouts before 9/11 are so contradictory that the question arises whether they had doppelganger?
How could UA 93 just disappear in the ground as verified by those who went immediately at the impact site and saw no plane, no human remains, just some rubbish?
How is it possible that usually there are remarkably many remains and plane parts after accidents as it was proven f.e. after the crash of two planes in Germany at 10.000 m (the human remains were intact on the surface so an identification by relatives was taken into consideration) while 9/11 is completely different?
How is it possible that true identifications are only given for those who died as persons who were in the Twin Towers or working at the Pentagon that morning but not in the planes?
How do eyewitness accounts that saw something flying relatively low and not very loud with a jet trail (AA 77, UA 93) match with claims that it must have been heavy commercial airliners that are extremely loud, blast everything lighter away and leave no jet trail at lower heights?
Why did mainstream media in the Western world function as an unified speaker of the US government immediately after 9/11?
How much efforts are still made to prevent critical reporting in mainstream media rewarding them for keeping the taboo and stay silent?
Why are those who question the official theory silenced and portrayed as drop heads, fanatics, even holocaust deniers (as some holocaust deniers are - by chance? - trying to appear as independent 9/11 researchers)?
When there is nothing to hide and everything can be explained fact by fact: why is there so much fear of an open debate on an equal level?
Is Osama Bin Laden dead since Dec. 2001, did he die in Pakistan near the Afghan border?
Could you give me examples for the efforts that you take in my country, Austria, to keep the unanswered 9/11 questions from political and public debate?
How could the monitoring of the financial markets by the Intelligence Agencies miss the 9/11 insider trading?
Was Osama Bin Laden in the military hospital of Peshawar the day before 9/11 so the culprit could have been caught easily?
Why were the Heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committee having breakfast with the former head of the ISI, General Ahmad, who wired money to Mohammed Atta?
Why were they rewarded with the chair of the first 9/11 investigation, one of them (Porter Goss) even with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) later?
Why has no independent investigation taken place until now?
Yours sincerely
Alexandra Bader (www.ceiberweiber.at)
PS: Da ich dies am Hiroshima-Tag, dem 6. August 2007 online stelle, wäre auch die Frage angebracht "Was Ground Zero called Ground Zero because it was a Ground Zero?" (Es beziehen sich auch ein paar Fragen auf besonders merkwürdige Merkwürdigkeiten bei WTC 1& 2; wer sich hierfür interessiert, siehe wtcdemolition.blogspot.com)
PPS: "I frankly admit that I never believed it for a second" (die offizielle Version) bezieht sich darauf, dass ich bei der ersten Nachricht von 9/11, die aus einer zusammengefassten Radiomeldung bestand (nach der ich CNN aufdrehte), an einen Putschversuch dachte. Recherchen etwa des Historikers Webster G. Tarpley ("9/11 Synthetic Terrorism") gehen auch in diese Richtung.
|
