"The final (ninth), circle of hell is reserved for betrayers… “Treachery was the ninth Circle of Hell. This last circle was dedicated to those people who betrayed their loved ones, friends, best friends, countries, cities, guests and even to their masters. It was also the place where Lucifer’s real body was imprisoned.” The previous one was for fraudsters…one wonders what Saddam will be saying;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI692x4A0_E
“Guess who is whose b**tch now…!”?
Eerily accurate I’d wager…
As a firm believer in the laws of karma, I shudder to think what awaits Rummy, and Bush, Blair, Straw, etc, not forgetting Aaranovitch, Hari, Toynbee, et al. They all have eluded justice on earth, but will get their what´s coming quite soon.
I’m a pretty firm believer too, S. However, under the influence of Tom Campbell’s brilliant, methodical-long-term-experimentation-derived take on the matter, I tend to suspect that the karma-debriefing process which we undergo each time we end a life, and go for our interim session in the Bardo, is done with a mild, understanding and compassionate kindliness by the entities who work there. Fierce Old Testament judgement, with angry condemnation and eternal banishment either to the fires of Hell or to the milder, time-limited, but still unpleasant distress of Purgatory is really just a christian fantasy, I suspect; the grubby product of spiritually-unhealthy souls. I doubt the Vedas see it like that.
Shudder? I jump for joy at the thought of it. My only regret is I won’t get to watch.
PC TV?
"How history will remember Rumsfeld is an interesting question. According to a Department of Defense (DOD) bio, Rumsfeld was a former Navy pilot, White House chief of staff, U.S. NATO ambassador, congressman, and CEO of two Fortune 500 companies by the time he became secretary of defense for the second time in 2001. According to the Gerald Ford Foundation, Rumsfeld worked in Richard’s Nixon presidential administration before being promoted by Ford, eventually becoming defense secretary.
According to the Atlantic, he spent part of the Reagan years working clandestine presidential security programs with Dick Cheney, another stalwart Republican power broker, who would join him in the White House when George W. Bush took office. Following the September 11 attacks, defense secretary Rumsfeld became one of the primary architects of the U.S. invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Months after the U.S. had invaded Afghanistan, secretary Rumsfeld was seeking information about what languages were spoken there, the Intercept reported in 2018, one tidbit from a trove of internal memos showing how Rumsfeld handled Afghanistan and laid the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq.
In a 2011 book, Rumsfeld admitted that he made a “misstatement” about the confirmed presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. The Bush administration’s lies about WMDs helped justify the 2003 invasion. A major United Nations investigation never found any WMDs, as the Guardian reported in 2004. A 2008 Center for Public Integrity article reported that a database of pre-war rhetoric found at least 935 false statements about the national security threat Iraq posed made by administration officials in the two years following 9/11, 109 of them by Rumsfeld.
As the defense secretary during the beginning of the War on Terror, Rumsfeld’s legacy also includes the U.S. torture programs that have characterized this era. What Rumsfeld himself actually did and what he was responsible for as the head of the DOD have been litigated time and again.
In 2010, HuffPost reported he personally signed a 2002 memorandum authorizing interrogation techniques, asking in a handwritten note why forcing detainees to stand was limited to only four hours a day.
The ACLU represented nine men who sued Rumsfeld and others for torture in 2005. Rumsfeld even faced a war crimes suit in Germany, as stated in a 2006 report. A 2008 report from the Senate Armed Forces Committee placed much of the blame for the U.S. use of torture tactics on Rumsfeld and other senior officials, as Reuters reported at the time.
While U.S. courts have held that Rumsfeld is not liable, Rumsfeld, Cheney, George W. Bush, and other senior officials were all found guilty by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission in 2012, Vice reported at the time.
“We have no plan to arrest them,” commissioner Musa Bin Ismail told Vice in 2012. “They will be haunted all their lives by the fact that they’re war criminals who have murdered countless people and affected countless lives through their acts and policy while in office. Their lives will be unsettling, full of regret and the feeling of guilt, punctuated with long stretches of sorrow and unabated sadness. They will die with disgruntled souls.”
Rumsfeld was named “sexiest cabinet member” by People magazine in 2002, UPI reported.
Sign up for our politics newsletter, the Teen Vogue Take" https://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-rumsfeld-secretary-defense-accused-war-criminal-dead-88
*Italics mine. Enviro-toxins have a-lot to answer for…must be a very interesting editorial staff…more power to them…
“observations of a remote guidance test on a Boeing 757 in which technology was used to control the aircraft remotely, while also being able to “Lockout” the Flight Crew from overriding the autopilot”
“Wayne Anderson, an Avionics Technician is interviewed by Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Wayne reveals his observations of a remote guidance test on a Boeing 757 in which technology was used to control the aircraft remotely, while also being able to “Lockout” the Flight Crew from overriding the autopilot system in order to regain control of the airplane. The following interview discusses the details of this test which was performed prior to September 11, 2001, the violations of FAA regulations and the possibilities using such technology.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udmJkrp5rU4
"In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been “highly skilled pilots” and “extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators,” who were “probably military trained,” these experts said.
And yet the four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only “average” or even “very poor” piloting skills. But on their first attempt at flying jet aircraft, on September 11, 2001, these men were supposedly able to fly Boeing 757s and 767s at altitudes of tens of thousands of feet, without any assistance from air traffic control. Three of them were apparently able to successfully navigate their planes all the way to the intended targets, which they hit with pinpoint accuracy.
For such poor pilots to carry out such skilled flying would surely have been extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible. And yet this is what is claimed in the official account of 9/11.
EXPERTS SAID HIJACKERS ‘MUST HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED PILOTS’
Numerous experts commented that the hijackers who flew the aircraft in the 9/11 attacks must have been highly trained and skillful pilots. Tony Ferrante, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration’s investigations division, spent several days after 9/11 carefully piecing together the movements of the four aircraft targeted in the attacks. According to author Pamela Freni, Ferrante’s “hair stood on end when he realized the precision with which all four airplanes had moved toward their targets.” Ferrante said, “It was almost as though it was choreographed,” and explained, “It’s not as easy as it looks to do what [the hijackers] did at 500 miles an hour.” [1]
Darryl Jenkins, the director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University, told the New York Times that the men who carried out the attacks “knew what they were doing down to very small details.” He said, “Every one of them was trained in flying big planes.” The Times reported that a “number of aviation experts agreed” with Jenkins and had said that “the hijackers must have been experienced pilots.” John Nance, an airline pilot, author, and aviation analyst, said that “the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers.” Nance pointed to the “smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers,” and said that “precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill.” Nance concluded, “There’s no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done” in the 9/11 attacks. [2]
A pilot who had been with a major carrier for more than 30 years told CNN that to “pull off the coordinated aerial attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon … the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators.” The pilot added, “They know what they were doing.” [3]
Robin Lloyd, a Boeing 737 captain with a British airline, told The Telegraph that “the hijackers had to be experienced pilots with more than just a rudimentary knowledge of navigation.” Lloyd, who co-runs the Professional Pilots’ Rumour Network website, which is “regarded worldwide as one of the prime sources of accurate information for the aviation industry,” said the terrorists at the controls of the hijacked aircraft “had to be 100 percent switched on people, 100 percent experienced pilots, probably military trained.” He said someone like Osama bin Laden “wouldn’t have access to pilots of the caliber needed to pull it off.” [4]
John Roden, the president of Aviation Advisory Service, an Oakland, California, consulting firm, said the piloting necessary to navigate the planes to their targets “was very skillful. This is practically fighter pilot technique.” [5] And a U.S. Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam War concluded that the hijacked aircraft “either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat or they were being maneuvered by remote control.” [6]
‘CONSIDERABLE TRAINING’ AND ‘IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE’ NEEDED TO FLY 757 AND 767 AIRCRAFT
Two of the aircraft targeted in the 9/11 attacks were Boeing 757s and the other two were Boeing 767s. Experts have commented how difficult it would have been for amateur pilots, like the alleged hijackers, to fly such aircraft.
Aviation experts told the Chicago Tribune, “Unlike a small private plane where pilots generally fly visually, a commercial plane like those hijacked [on September 11] requires a vast command of navigation techniques as well as in-depth knowledge of their myriad systems, from hydraulics to the autopilot.” [7] Michael Barr, the director of aviation safety programs at the University of Southern California, and several commercial airline pilots told the Boston Globe that “they assumed that the terrorists were skilled pilots who had to have received some training in flying transport jets, particularly the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft.” [8]
Steven Wallach, an aviation consultant and former airline captain, said that if the hijackers “took the controls at high altitude and a long distance from their targets”–as allegedly happened–“then they likely had considerable training in a 767 or 757.” Wallach said the hijackers “would have had to descend and navigate to Washington and New York. They would have had to know how to operate the autopilot, as well as other intricate functions.” Boeing 767s and 757s have highly sophisticated “glass cockpits” that include video screens and digital readouts, which require the pilots to have an advanced level of computer skills. “To navigate with that glass cockpit, it can be pretty tricky,” Wallach said. [9]
HITTING THE WTC LIKE ‘THREADING THE EYE OF A NEEDLE’
Some experts commented specifically on the flying skills that would have been necessary to crash planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center." http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11
"This SLATE article slightly soft-pedals the degree of competence required…
(in my opinion), but still points to the logical conclusion that these planes weren’t “flown” they were radar directed…There is no evidence at all that two or more experienced pilots were somehow smuggled on board…so you’re left with the effect of all that clever-tech (which we do know exists),
"How good a pilot would you have to be to hit the World Trade Center? For the record: We’re short of facts, what follows is inference and speculation, the conclusions offered here could all turn out to be wrong.
Still, on the basis of the evidence today, two conclusions seem very likely. One is that the original pilots on the United and American flights were removed from the controls, probably by being killed. The other is that the people who replaced them in the cockpit were skilled pilots, probably with jetliner experience and training, and at least with special preparation in the systems and controls of these planes.
The first conclusion may seem obvious, but it’s worth spelling out the reasoning. A pilot with a gun to his head might well be forced to fly the plane on a suicidal mission into the ground. (What’s his alternative? If he refuses on principle and lets himself be killed rather than give up his passengers’ lives, the pilotless plane will eventually crash anyway.) But it is very difficult to imagine that an unwilling pilot could be forced to fly an airplane into a building–in effect, forcing him to murder countless additional victims. It would be just too easy for the pilot to thwart the plan. In the last two or three seconds before impact, the pilot would need only to have shoved the control yoke to one side–or up or down, in any way missing the skyscraper and instead crashing the plane into New York Harbor. Forcing him to hit the target would be like trying to force a sniper to pick off one of his own troops.
So what about the people who actually steered the planes into the towers? As anyone who has used a flight-simulator program knows, simply guiding a plane in flight is not necessarily that hard. Moreover, the controls of a big Boeing or Airbus are fundamentally similar to those in a little Cessna or Bonanza, and in a pinch any trained pilot could sort of handle any plane. (The amateur pilot’s problems would come when he tried to land the airliner, since everything would happen much faster and with much more momentum than he was accustomed to.)
But changing what an airplane does can be difficult, especially doing it in a smooth, controlled way. All of these planes changed course and altitude substantially–and apparently without the out-of-control veering that an inexperienced pilot would have encountered. According to flight-tracking software, one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center, American Flight 11, made a dramatic change from its original course–turning south, toward New York, rather than continuing west toward Los Angeles. At a minimum, accomplishing that turn would require a pilot who knew how to switch off the “Flight Management Systems” and autopilot that were programmed to guide the plane to Los Angeles. Amateur pilots, like me, would know how to handle the autopilots on small planes; they wouldn’t necessarily know how to do it in a Boeing.
More impressive, Flight 11 was at 29,000 feet before it made that turn. It had to lose 28,000-plus feet of altitude by the time it hit the tower. Making a plane descend is easy if you know what you’re doing. But if you were experienced only in small airplanes, a descent in a big airplane could be terrifying. You wouldn’t know how much to reduce the power, to prevent the plane from gaining too much speed as it went down. (A descent at full power can push a plane past its “never-exceed” speed and lead to structural failure.) You wouldn’t know how or when to arrest the descent, to be sure you could level off and be under control when you neared the target. Everything would be faster, bigger, and heavier than you were used to. You’d do what almost every pilot does when encountering a bigger, more powerful plane: “over-control” it, making the plane lurch from side to side and up-and-down, and “getting behind the airplane,” reacting with ever-growing lag time to what the airplane was doing. The result would less likely be a suicide attack, like the ones in New York and Washington, than simple suicide.
In short, odds are that at least three of the four hijacked airplanes were flown by experienced pilots, who one way or another had gotten big-jet training. And conceivably, a difference in piloting experience may explain why the fourth hijacked plane simply crashed in Pennsylvania, rather than crashing into a target. When the facts are out, of course, the real explanation for that fourth crash could be something else entirely.
Next question?
James Fallows is the national correspondent of the Atlantic Monthly and author of Free Flight." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/how_good_were_the_world_trade_center_pilots.html
“Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for the invocation of Article 5?
/There is absolutely no forensic evidence in support of the claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan.” https://twitter.com/safety/unsafe_link_warning?unsafe_link=https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-frank-taylor-report-the-911-document-that-launched-us-natos-war-on-terrorism-in-the-middle-east/5632874?print=1
For me this is the clincher…first time…spot on? Noooooooo…
(esp. for Rhis!)
