THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2011
A visit on May 8th, 2011 from Google Inc. in Mountain View, California (184.108.40.206) to a StevenWarRan blog titled 'Closed Shop Forensics,' came via www.google.com/reader/view, but the page it linked to was missing, and I could find no sign of a draft version or its publishing history on my Google dashboard. Knowing what I was looking for, I searched for the title, and found that the very kind Bill Giltner had it maintained over at SharedCopy, which has allowed me to repost it here below.
I don't know if it was the deliberate intent of someone at Google to alert me to the fact my blog page had disappeared, but I'm grateful it turned out that way. It comes at a time when I've had several other blogs taken offline by Google due to claims of copyright infringement (It is my habit to post newsworthy articles in full over at StevenWarRan Backstage, since whenever I cite some actionable intelligence from a "published" source, posting a link to it tends not to last. The Washington Post is especially egregious in using robots.txt to scrub clean the web history of certain articles when the "facts" they contain turn out to be inconvenient later on.)
Upon receiving a complaint, Google reverts an offending blog to draft status, which can at least allow for editing, but apparently Google doesn't investigate or adjudicate disputes. In this blog though, I only quoted from an official government report concerning the September 11th attack on the Pentagon, so perhaps I simply pressed the delete button inadvertently somewhere along the way. However, the point I was making three years ago seems especially relevant now, as the U.S. government will possibly make public forensic evidence that will prove Osama bin Laden was recently killed in an attack by American special forces, and subsequently buried at sea.
Remembering that the military was charged with handling all the evidence of dead bodies at the Pentagon, (and oddly enough, at the crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania as well, where the county medical examiner is the official normally mandated with conducting such an investigation, ) gives me a dim view of the recent developments in the war on terror.
Closed Shop Forensics
SUNDAY, MAY 04, 2008
I finally found a quote I was seeking, mercifully preserved for posterity and the public record on page 69 of the Arlington County After-Action Report
"Dr. Marcella Fierro, Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Virginia, met with FBI and DoD officials at the JOC on September 12. She informed them that Virginia forensic laboratory and mortuary resources were prepared to go to work in support of the response. The FBI and DoD officials declined the offer, preferring to conduct forensic and mortuary activities at DoD facilities. Dr. Fierro asked for and received a letter from Attorney General Ashcroft relieving the Commonwealth of Virginia of those responsibilities."
Since the presence of bodies is a cornerstone "proof" a jetliner filled with travelers struck the Pentagon on September 11th, it would have been more believable if a broader spectrum of professionals had been allowed to do their legally mandated jobs. With the FBI and the DoJ being the sole responders in Shanksville for instance, why was the military tasked with the forensics on the bodies there? Didn't the county coroner say, "Till this day, I haven't seen a drop of blood?"
Thank you Dr. Fierro for laying a golden egg then. It will soon hatch so the chickens can come home to roost.
In 1962, one of the suggestions contained in "Operation Northwoods," which was just a "respon[se] to a request...for brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Cuba," was to "sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock victims."
While this is of course relevant to the pretexts the United States used to invade Iraq, my question seeks to parse out the meaning in the suggestion that [real] funerals be conducted for mock victims, as distinct from mock funerals for [pretend] victims.
In other words, if Operation Northwoods had become a reality, what would this suggestion have looked like? Clearly, we wouldn't hold mock funerals for the benefit of the Cubans. We could simply blow up a ship like once happened with the Maine, but that entails real funerals, which, as 9-11 proves in our time, definitely does the trick. So why didn't the joint Chief's simply suggest such a sacrifice as a kind of necessary collateral damage? The planners would do the mocking, while the unwitting wouldn't know what hit them until it was too late.
So, I am intrigued by this "mock" business.
In order to get the required emotional outrage going to feed our collective desire for revenge, we would have to have legitimately grieving families. In order to accomplish this the funeral wouldn't be so mock to the survivors. Only the planners and the individual volunteers would be in on the "mock" business, undergoing something very similar to deaths--at least as far as their grieving families are concerned.
Lets say a ship filled with mostly twenty-somethings is blown up with no survivors. That sounds like it could trigger a pretext. But to whom would these "mock deaths" mock? The family members couldn't all be in on it. That would require very good acting. So what I imagine is that any volunteers to this sort of enterprise would undergo the equivalent of social and personal annihilation, as they begin new lives elsewhere, in an adapted "witness protection" type program, perhaps in Tahiti.
Would this sort of scenario have a time limit on it? Could the records be sealed for some period like 30 years, then the truth could spill out when we were mature enough to handle it?
Off hand, what was the state of Barbara and Ted Olsen's marriage in September, 2001?
Which brings me to my point.
I have long suspected that some, if not many, of the victims of the Arlington and Shanksville portions of 9-11, may in fact be alive, sequestered away somewhere, awaiting a turn in their political fortunes perhaps.
I have no logical evidence to support this theory, only a handful of anomalous details in the narrative. Plus a sense of power imbalances on the plane manifests. I mean, Flight 93 was the frigging hero narrative flight. You don't get raw hero-myth material like that by accident. Bring it on I say.
Anybody else have any thoughts on the subject? Maybe Pinch will append a comment here. He surely has an insider background that will enable him to see the flaws in my logic.
Elitism! Secrecy! Tradition!
POSTED BY STEVENWARRAN AT 5/12/2011 12:01:00 AM