A few ANONYMOUS letters on the matter of the need for a new threat etc.


Here is a statement by a first hand witness to the following event:

Condolezza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, was in Houston to give a
speech in March of 2000. This was prior to Bush assuming the Presidency and
her assuming her new position in his administration. She had worked under
Bush Senior as head of Russian and East European Affairs. Her words were
most prophetic. She said, and these are exact quotes:

"We need a common enemy to unite us."

"We need a new threat as a marker to where we will lead."

"Seperation of powers is a problem for foreign policy."

These statements were not in response to questions but were in the body of
her speech.

Afterwards I asked about about America losing it's moral authority which,
I believe, was the greatest contributing factor in our victory in the Cold
War. This led to the destruction of the Soviet Union which our military
might could not do. She was visibly angered and disturbed by my comments
and simply retorted. "We have other means of asserting our authority".
Meaning, of course, military might and deception.

It is clear to me that the September 11 crashbombing fit perfectly into her
idea of what "we need", what Bush wants. Bush has, to date, been the
greatest benefactor of the events of September 11 and for the foreseeable
future will continue to be.


Item #4:
Another letter from the same citizen:

The best lead on who was behind this was the puts purchased (stock option
contracts betting the price will fall). On one of the cable shows on finance
a analysist said the number of puts in United Airlines, American Airlines
(only in the airlines used by the hijackers) and businesses in the WTC that
were going to be substantially impacted, was 90 times the number of puts
purchase on a daily average THE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACK and this was WORLDWIDE
purchases. He gave some examples of a put purchased for $375,000 that was
worth $2.4 million the day after the attack. Who would gamble that much
without insider knowledge? The numbers of puts purchased, in addition to the
size of the investments, indicate that an extremely large number of people,
possibly thousands, knew the exact day of the attack, the exact target, and
the exact means.

The "money trail" was a big story for a day and then very suddenly no
further mention has been made of it. It was used just long enough to secure
the seizure of money from targeted groups and additions to the
anti-terrorist legislation.

I look forward to seeing the information I am providing you included in your

One more thing I picked up on the news. Some bigwig in the military, I don't
remember his name, was being interviewed on the 17th day following the
attack. He was asked "when can we expect some action in Afganistan". His
reply "The buildup there has been going on for several weeks so it could be
very soon." 17 days is a little short of "several weeks". The quick response
indicates the buildup was beginning even before the attack took place.

A thought I had - If you know, or suspect, you are going to be attacked, it
might be strategic to stage an attack on yourself so you can be ready with
the response. Thus catching your enemy off-guard and unprepared. When
comparing this operation with the attack on WTC in 1993 it appears far too
sophisticated and effective for the type of group it is being blamed on. It
would seem that Some intellegence would have been picked up on an operation
of this size. It could be that some in the intellegence community allowed,
or even assisted, in it happening for the strategic purposes of those they
answer to.

If not guilty for the actual attack there are those in the US governmnet
that are guilty of knowing about it and letting, if not aiding and abetting,
in making it happen. It is interesting to note how little criticizm there
has been of the CIA, FBI, or the intellegence community for letting this
happen. Rather they have been rewarded with bigger budgets and more power.

What people need to continue to ask themselves is not just "who had motive"
(end of letter)

Item #5:

And yet another letter, merely to invite the jury to recall to mind things they have seen and heard and to sift them for clues:
>I read your article on the rense site. The person who sent you some notes
on connie rice, did not have the fortune of seeing rumsfield on the 9th of
sept in an interview on fox news like I did. it was a late sunday afternoon
or early evening, The interview was with brit hume I am pretty sure, and
rumsfield was unusually happy about the coming week where his defense budget
cuts would be reversed, in fact he was inferring that his budget would be
increased by a large % when congress would come to understand how important
defense was to national security. It was such an interesting interview I
made my wife sit down and watch it which is very unusual because like most
women, she is not into the global or national events...and my vibes from it
were not good. That sept 11 evening interview with the pentagon at 9 pm had
all the big wigs on, again rumsfield was the point man for the press
conference. after his speech the first question taken from a reporter was
right to rumsfield and he asked him if intelligence or anyone high up in the
government had any knowledge of the events
. Rumsfield looked like he got
punched in the stomach, looked down and away and said " I cant answer any
questions of a national security issue" I was like what heck, total
destruction and this guy looks away as guilty as sin and wont answer the
reporters question. if you get your hands on the video footage of the press
conf, its a real eye opener. Bottom line, they knew, what other reason was
pres bush out of dc for over a month, and "on vacation finding peace and
quiet. " More crap. just how stupid do they think we are. Today my wife
showed me a picture of a 31 year old fire man she went to school with and is
listed as "missing". They can lie all they want, all you have to do is
follow the "wacko" conspiarcy writings for the last 10-20 years to see where
we are headed next.
(end of letter)