Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt













Did NORAD Send The "Suicide" Jets?
by Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
Copyright, February, 2002
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.
This article soon to be available at:

Since September 11, the basic facts/factoids concerning 9-11 (the
departure times of the aircraft, etc.) have varied depending on the
news organization consulted.  In this article, I have used as my
default the facts/factoids given in Time magazine's September 11
edition unless otherwise indicated.

February 12, 2002 -- Those of us who have been watching know
Operation 911 was an inside job, pulled off by using remote
controlled aircraft.  We also know that the military organization
responsible for protecting American skies --- the North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) -- did not show up on September 11,
leaving the skies wide open for the remote controlled jets to work
their deadly havoc.

Some will tell you the world is full of coincidences.  Here is one
for the books.  The very people who left the American skies open for
the 9-11 attack -- NORAD -- are among the world's leading experts on
remote controlled aircraft.

NORAD personnel had the means to send those planes to attack.  And
NORAD created the opportunity for those planes to attack.  This
suggests NORAD is a prime suspect.

Yes, NORAD trigger men, traitors, may have guided the "suicide jets"
on September 11.  The  dog we bought to guard the hen house may well
have taken the day off and killed the chickens.


NORAD is the military organization formed by treaty between the U.S.
and Canada to monitor and defend North American skies against enemy
aircraft, missiles, and space vehicles.  In the US, NORAD has an
agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration, to cooperate in
emergency civil aviation situations.  NORAD helps when aircraft go
off course or are hijacked.

For information on NORAD, see Canada's Department of National Defence
website, "Canada-United States Defense Regulations,"

You can read  FAA/NORAD regulations at:

You may want to pay particular attention to Chapter 7, which deals
with the escort of hijacked aircraft.  In addition, read the
discussion of military interception of civilian aircraft in "Mr.
Cheney's Cover Story," by Bykov & Israel.  Look at the discussion of
how NORAD jets force troublesome aircraft to land.

NORAD, Masters Of Remote Control

Since 1959, NORAD personnel have been installing remote control units
in a variety of aircraft and remotely controlling those aircraft in
sophisticated aeronautical maneuvers, including combat practice.
See "Thwarting skyjackings from the ground," written by Alan Staats
for Facsnet, and posted on October 2, 2001.   (Facsnet is an
education service provided for its reporters by Associated Press.)
(Look at paragraph entitled "History on remote control.")

"Controlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new.  The
military has been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft
as target drones since the 1950s.  In fact, NORAD (the North American
Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force
General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be
remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a
program known as SAGE.  These aircraft could be started, taxied,
taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely
by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to
fuel and re-arm them."

Re-read that final sentence in the above quote:

"These [NORAD] aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown
into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote
control . . . "

Given over 40 years of institutional experience, flying remotely
controlled "suicide" jets into the World Trade Center towers would
have been a piece of cake for NORAD.  This information puts NORAD's
failure to protect our skies on September 11, 2001 in a new light.

NORAD, Transponders, and Conventional Radar

Transponders are receiver/transmitter devices installed on planes for
the purpose of tracking their location.  Sometimes called "secondary
radar," transponders tell Air Traffic Control the latitude,
longitude, altitude, and speed of the aircraft as well as the plane's
identification, airline and flight number.

Compare transponders with conventional, or "primary radar," which
detects distant objects and determines their position, velocity, and
other characteristics by analysis of very high frequency radio waves
reflected from the surface of the aircraft.  Conventional radar shows
the latitude and longitude of the aircraft, but, unlike transponders,
will not reveal the airline, flight number, nor altitude of the

For years air traffic controllers have relied on conventional radar,
and it still works.  One experienced pilot I interviewed told me that
on several occasions he was flying aircraft when the transponder
failed.  Air Traffic Control simply located his position with
conventional radar, no problem.

For more information on transponders, see "Transponder Basics,"
written by Tom Rogers, a pilot and a Ph.D. physicist who owns an
avionics equipment company.  The article on the website is undated;
however, the author has confirmed (via e-mail to me dated February
10, 2002,) that the information contained in the article is current.
I quote from that article:

"Today, virtually all ATC radar installations are equipped with both
primary and secondary radar capability."

Many Americans I have spoken to believe that NORAD failed to do its
job on September 11 because the "suicide pilots" turned off the
transponders in each of the four planes.  NORAD was thus unable to
find the location of the aircraft and consequently could not
intercept them, they say.

Think about it.  NORAD's job is to protect us from enemy bombers and
missiles sent over our skies by foreign powers.  Would those foreign
powers be considerate enough to put transponders on their bombers and
missiles so NORAD could locate them and shoot them down?  Of course
not.  NORAD is expected to find those unidentified flying objects
without transponders.

Confirm this by visiting the Canadian Defense website again,
"Canada-United States Defense Regulations."

"NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter
jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to
the continent."

Transponders help to filter out all identifiable aircraft for NORAD
and allow them to focus on those craft that are unidentified.  An
aircraft flying without a transponder gets special attention.   NORAD
must have known when each of the transponders in the four "suicide"
jets was turned off, and must have known immediately.  At all times,
NORAD must have known the location of each of the four planes.

Before we go any further, let us consider the implications of the
so-called hijackers/suicide pilots turning off the transponders.  If
the "hijackers" knew enough about transponders to shut them off, they
surely must have known the aircraft could be tracked and located by
conventional radar.  Why, then, did the "hijackers" turn off the
transponders?  There's a question to ponder.

Put in other words, why did the suicide pilots want to keep the name
of the airline, the flight number, the altitude, and the speed of the
aircraft a secret, even though the latitude and longitude of the
aircraft could not be kept secret?  Turning off the transponders
would not have helped the mission if NORAD was doing its job.  The
suicide pilots would have known NORAD would not be fooled by the

Deflecting Attention From NORAD

Those who want to pursue the War on Islam of course want to sustain
the lie that Muslim suicide pilots were responsible for 9-11.  They
want to keep the real trigger men -- the men working behind the NORAD
cover -- hidden from public view.

So public attention must be deflected from NORAD's culpability and
focused on the FAA and the failure of "the system." Top FAA
executives and the FAA/NORAD liaison people were of course involved
and could give us information.  Their failure to speak is either a
sign that they have been ordered to shut their mouths for the sake of
"national security" or a testament to some other complicity.

While reading the following, notice the varied nature of the
diversionary "what did the FAA know and when did they know it and
when did they tell NORAD what they knew" controversy.  You will
notice that no one mentions NORAD's access to complete radar data at
all times.  Instead there is constant fudging about radar data in
general and a pretense that there is no cold, objective evidence that
can be examined to tell us what really happened that day.

Path of Flight 11

The first plane to hit the WTC, American Flight 11, left Boston's
Logan Airport at 7:59 a.m. bound for Los Angeles.  In its story "The
nation reels," published on September 12, 2001,  The Christian
Science Monitor says of Flight 11:

"Shortly afterward, as aircraft (sic) was making its turn toward New
York City, the plane's transponder was turned off. With its
transponder off, its altitude became a matter of guesswork for the
controllers, although the plane was still visible on radar ..."

Nice that the civilian conventional radar system was mentioned, but
note that NORAD's tracking capabilities and mission are not
mentioned.   As the Canadian government tells us, " . . . NORAD uses
a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect,
intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent."

United Statement on Flight 175's Radar History

United Flight 175 left Boston's Logan Airport at 7:58 a.m., headed
for Los Angeles.  At 9:06 a.m., it was the second plane to hit the
WTC.  United Airlines released a press statement that day.  Referring
the Flight 175, the press statement contains this sentence:

"Last radar contact with the aircraft was between Newark, NJ, and
Philadelphia, PA."

Yet we know Flight 175 continued on to New York and hit the south
tower of the WTC.  United could have said that the transponder was
turned off, and included the information that the plane was still
being tracked by conventional radar.  Instead, United gave the
impression that the craft was not visible on radar "between Newark,
NJ and Philadelphia, PA," and was never seen on radar again.  That
surely is misleading.  And of course NORAD is not mentioned.,10026,1534_877,00.html

Washington Post on Flight 77

Let's turn now to the Washington Post, one of the nation's loudest
cheerleaders for the War on Islam.  See "Pentagon Crash Highlights a
Radar Gap," (November 3, 2001), covering Flight 77.

American Airlines Flight 77 left Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C.
at 8:10 a.m. and hit the Pentagon at 9:40. a.m.   The Post states it
disappeared from radar screens at 8:50 a.m., when the "hijackers"
turned off the transponder.  But now the Post turns attention to the
FAA's ability to track the plane with conventional radar.

"The answers to the mystery of the aircraft's disappearance begin
with the fact that hijacking took place in an area served by only one
type of radar, FAA officials confirmed ..."

The article goes on to say that "the radar installation near
Parkersburg, W.Va., was built with only secondary radar -- called
'beacon-only' radar.  That left the controllers monitoring Flight 77
at the Indianapolis center blind when the hijackers apparently
switched off the aircraft's transponder."

Flight 77's transponder was turned off at 8:56 a.m., eleven minutes
after Flight 11 had hit the first tower of the WTC.  Before Flight 11
crashed, its transponder had been turned off.  The non-working
transponder on Flight 77 should have been a warning of another
impending disaster.  When Flight 77's transponder was turned off, its
location was as clear as a bell.  Using mathematical calculations, it
should have been easy for the FAA to estimate a range for its
probable location.  And remember, NORAD would have this information
in real time.  Flight 77 should have been easy to intercept.
Instead, Flight 77 was allowed to meander around the country for 45
minutes, unsupervised.

As the Canadian government might remind us, "NORAD uses a network of
ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept
and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent." Well,
Canada, that's the general idea . . .

The Washington Post of course neglects to mention that NORAD did not
need transponders to track that plane; but still, the Washington Post
was not yet through with muddying the waters and diverting attention
from NORAD.

"In the case of American Flight 77, it is unclear whether additional
warning time would have changed anything.  Military jets were
scrambled after controllers became aware of the hijacked aircraft,
but the fighters could not get to the Washington area in time," says
the Post.

That's a dumb lie, even for the Washington Post.  Andrews Air Force
Base, home of Air Force One, is just 10 miles from Washington D.C.
How long would it take for Andrews jets, capable of flying at 1,200
mph plus,  to get over Washington D.C./Pentagon airspace?

Miami Herald on Flight 77

Now let's cut over to the Miami Herald's more believable September 14
story, "Who watched as flight plan was aborted?"

"FORTY-five minutes. That's how long American Airlines Flight 77
meandered through the air headed for the White House, its flight plan
abandoned, its radar beacon silent.  Originally bound for Los Angeles
from Washington, it got as far as the Ohio border before terrorists
disabled the aircraft's transponder, a piece of equipment that sends
a signal back to control centers.

"It was about 9 a.m.

"At that moment, the north tower of the World Trade Center was
already in flames.

"Minutes later, a second airliner would crash into the south tower,
providing unmistakable evidence that the United States was under
terrorist attack.

"Meanwhile Flight 77 was turning around, streaking back east over
Virginia toward the White House and finally slamming into the
Pentagon at 9:45 a.m.

"Who was watching in those 45 minutes?  . . .  Even with the
transponder silent, the plane should have been visible on radar, both
to controllers who handle cross-continent air traffic and to a
Federal Aviation Administration command center outside of Washington,
according to air traffic controllers.

"The FAA, which handles air traffic control, would not discuss the
track of Flight 77 or what happened in air-control centers while it
was in flight. Neither would American Airlines."

Why won't the FAA and American discuss Flight 77's route?  The damage
has already been done, and the pretext to make war on Israel's
enemies has already been provided.    But while the Miami Herald
quite properly notes the suspicious behavior of the FAA and American
Airlines, it does not breathe a word about NORAD's mission and

CBS vs. White House on Flight 77

White House spokesmen Ari Fleischer said that according to radar data
he had seen, Flight 77 was headed for the White House.  CBS News
publicly disagreed with him, saying that's not what the recorded
flight path showed.  See "Primary Target," September 21, 2001,,1597,310721-412.00.shtml

What was the source of Ari Fleischer's radar data?  What was the
source of CBS's radar data?  We are not told.  All this information
comes from anonymous sources.

Friends, some stuff happened on September 11.  And some stuff didn't.
Radar provides objective evidence of the truth.  Yes, someone's
playing games with Ari Fleischer's radar data.   Someone's playing
games with the FAA radar data.  But no one is talking about NORAD's
radar data.

Time, Newsweek and US Today on Flight 77:
What Did The Radar Really Say?

O.K.  We have established that even when its transponder was turned
off, Flight 77's journey would have been tracked by NORAD's
conventional radars and FAA conventional radar systems (Miami Herald,
above).  Flight 77's flight path should be no great mystery.  Nor
should there be any mystery about the flight paths of the other jets.

Shortly after 9-11, Time, Newsweek, and USA today published diagrams
of the flight paths of the run away jets.   You can see those
diagrams at:

In the copy below those diagrams, you will find a discussion of the
many contradictions among the three.   You will also notice that none
of these diagrams show Flight 175 disappearing from the radar screens
somewhere between Newark and Philadelphia, as United Airlines claims.

But for the moment, let's look at what each says about Flight 77:

* USA Today produced an animated diagram on its webpage which we
cached on October 23, 2001.  According to USA Today, on its flight
westward, Flight 77 made an unscheduled detour over West Virginia
(see the hump.)  This detour does not appear on the Time or Newsweek
versions.  USA Today's Flight 77 does not cross the border into Ohio,
but turns around in West Virginia for its journey back east.  Note
how far south USA Today's Flight 77 flew, compared to the route taken
by Time and Newsweek's Flight 77.

* Time Magazine, in its special September 11 edition (no page
numbers) shows that Flight 77 entered Ohio.  Note the broken line
representing Flight 77's return trip east, with the words "Return
flight path uncertain," under the broken lines.  The same drawing
appeared in Time on September 24, 2001 (pg. 32).

* Newsweek published its version of Flight 77's flight path on
September 24,  pg. 31. You will see that Newsweek's rendition of
Flight 77's return flight is different than Time's.   A point of
similarity: the return path is shown by a broken line, and labelled
"estimated path."

Yes.  Someone's playing games with radar.

Payne Stewart Response: 19 Minutes, hey presto ...

On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida
lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several
companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas.   Nineteen
minutes after Air Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one
or more US Air Force fighter jets were already on top of the
situation, in the air, close to the Learjet.  Moreover, throughout
the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet was given escort from
National Guard aircraft coordinated across state lines.  See "Golfer
Payne Stewart Dies," October 25, 1999, at:
or read the National Transportation Safety Board report on Payne
Stewart's flight:
(There are minor discrepancies between the ABC and NTSB reports.)

That was the response when a small private jet lost radio contact
with air traffic control over a relatively sparsely populated area in
Florida.  Compare that to what was done when they lost communication
with four commercial passenger jets flying over the populous
northeast on September 11,  2001.

September 11 Response: 80 Minutes and waiting ...

Again, the first plane to hit the WTC was American Airlines Flight
11.  It left Logan Airport in Boston at 7:59 a.m.  According to "A
Plane Left Boston and Skimmed Over River and Mountain in a Deadly
Detour," published by The New York Times on September 13, 2001,

"The plane held on course, almost due west, for only 16 minutes.

"Just past Worcester, Mass., instead of taking a southerly turn, the
Boeing 767 swung to the north at 8:15.  It had been taken over . . .

"Five minutes later, at 8:20, Flight 11 failed to follow an
instruction to climb to its cruising altitude of 31,00 feet.  It was
this point that air controllers suspected something was wrong.  And
just about then the plane's transponder, a piece of equipment that
broadcast its location, went out."

When Flight 11 veered sharply off course at 8:15 a.m., Air Traffic
Control should have known immediately something was wrong.  But
apparently they did not try to get in touch with Flight 11, and
allowed five minutes to go by before instructing it to climb to
31,000 feet.  Given that the plane was off course already, why didn't
ATC tell it to get back on course?  And given that it was off course,
why tell the pilots to climb?  We are not told.  But let's put these
considerations aside. Air Traffic Control should have known something
was severely amiss at 8:15 a.m., or at the latest, 8:20. a.m.

Yet Flight 11 and three more passenger jets were sequentially
permitted to go missing and run amok for at least one hour and 20
minutes (the Pentagon was hit at 9:40 a.m.) without any effective
intervention by NORAD.

For further discussion of the many 9-11 anomalies, see

Real Hijackers Would Plan On NORAD Showing Up

"To be able to make these attacks within an half hour [of each other]
- that shows an incredible degree of organization or skill," says
Stanley Bedlington, a retired senior analyst at the CIA
counterterrorism center."   (Quoted in The Christian Science Monitor,
"The national reels," September 12, 2001.)

Rubbish, Mr. Bedlington.  Had there been real hijackers, they would
have earned a "D" for this effort.  Careful planners would have
researched the expected reaction time of NORAD.  The Payne Stewart
example was already well-known, and the NTSB report was publicly
available.  Real hijackers would expect NORAD would be onto them in
19 minutes following detection of a problem.  (Payne Stewart, above.)
Surely this is Hijackology  101.

Look at the three diagrams again:

Real hijackers with "an incredible degree of organization or skill"
would not have taken jets from Boston to hit New York, and given the
NORAD 30 minutes and 50 minutes, respectively, to intercept them.
Real hijackers would not have taken a jet from Dulles and meandered
all the way to Ohio and back again before hitting the Pentagon.

Real hijackers with even a modicum of organization or skill would
have hijacked planes from Kennedy or LaGuardia to hit the WTC towers.
They would have hijacked a plane from National, Baltimore Washington,
or Dulles airports and hit the Pentagon shortly after take-off, while
the planes were close to their targets, before NORAD had a chance to
react.  Remember, "real" hijackers would have believed they had, at
the very most, a 19-minute window of opportunity (Payne Stewart), not
an 80-minute window of opportunity.

No.  "Real" hijackers did not pull off this caper.  Believing that
NORAD tried to protect us but was bested by superior hijacker
strategy is akin to taking professional wrestling seriously.  DC Dave
( ) put it succinctly when he wrote
"The Show Goes On,"

The Rock's opponent cooperates
When he's thrown down on the mat.
Now think of September 11:
Our defense was just like that.


A Word About Joe Vialls' "Operation Home Run"

Because we have been discussing the Facsnet article on remote
control, this is perhaps the place to mention Joe Vialls' article
"Operation Home Run," on remote control of commercial passenger jets
and 9-11.  "Operation Home Run" has been widely circulated on the

In a nutshell, Mr. Vialls says that technology that allows air
traffic controllers on the ground to assume remote control of
aircraft had been secretly installed in US commercial passenger jets.
Mr. Vialls says that unauthorized persons assumed control of the
remote control systems on September 11 and caused the crashes.

Mr. Vialls does not cite any documentary evidence, nor does he cite
any authorities upon whom he relied when writing his article.  A week
or so ago I wrote to Mr. Vialls asking him for the source for his
information, and asking if the technology had ever been successfully
used.  Mr. Vialls got back to me, saying he could not cite any
documentation to substantiate his claim that the Home Run system had
been installed or used on US commercial passenger jets.

Now let's look at the October 2 Facsnet article "Thwarting
skyjackings from the ground" once again.  Notice the subtitle:
"Automated airplane landing systems are advanced enough to bring a
hijacked airplane 'home.'"

The first paragraphs read:

"Technology now exists that could allow a ground crew to override and
direct the flight path of a hijacked plane.

"Following the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade
Center, President George W. Bush called for the creation of a system
that would allow Air Traffic Controllers on the ground the ability to
assume remote control of the aircraft and direct it to a safe landing
at a nearby airport.

"The military has employed this capability since the 1950s.
Modifying and implementing the technology for use on passenger
carrying aircraft in the United States would involve significant
capital outlay, research and testing . . . "

The author thus clearly states that the technology "that would allow
Air Traffic Controllers on the ground the ability to assume remote
control of the aircraft" has not yet been installed into US passenger
jets.  The author, Alan Staats, warns of the capital outlay involved.
Mr. Staats consulted the following experts when researching his

Richard Vandam, US Airways A320 Captain; Former Captain, U.S. Air
Force, RF4-C pilot, Reno National Championship Air Races Air Boss and
Chase Plane pilot, check and instructor pilot for vintage Cold War
era Eastern Bloc fighter aircraft (MiG-15, -17, -21).   Reno, Nevada.
775-742-5640 (cell), 775-851 1930  (home), e-mail

Aircraft Electronics Association .  Contact: Paula
Derks, 4217 S. Hocker, Independence, MO 64055.  Phone: 816-373-6565.
Fax: 816-478-3100; email:

National Business Aircraft Association.  Main contacts: Joseph Ponte,
Jack Olcott, 1200 Eighteenth Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC,
20036-2506.  Tel: (202) 783-9000.  Fax: (202) 331-8364.  Web:

FlightSafety International-Corporate Headquarters.  Contact:  James
Waugh, Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport, Flushing, NY
11371-1061.  (718) 565-4100,� (800) 877-5343; Fax: (718) 565 4174.

Airline Pilots Association, Contact: Gary Dinunno.


Quite clearly the unnamed sources who gave Mr. Vialls his information
contradict the named sources given by Mr. Staats in his Facsnet
article.   I believe there is clear and convincing evidence that the
bad boys operated within the NORAD network, and that's where our
attention should be.  Note the Vialls article draws our attention to
hijackers on the ground outside the NORAD network.

In consideration of all the above, I have come to the conclusion that
"Operation Home Run" is a diversion.

What Motive Did NORAD Have For 9-11?

By now we are familiar with the shocking story of the treason of
President Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara when they allowed
Israel to torpedo the USS Liberty, and ordered American fighter
pilots, who were aloft and coming to Liberty's aid, back to their
aircraft carrier.

When it comes to treason in high places on behalf of Israel, we in
the US  have seen it already.  And every administration since the
time of the Liberty attack has cooperated in the treason by failing
to investigate and punish the traitors.  Such is the bald and ugly
State of the Union.

On September 10, 2001, just one day before 9-11, The Washington Times
ran a front-page story "US troops would enforce peace under Army
study." The Times quoted officers in the Army's School of Advanced
Military Studies (SAMS). Of the Mossad, Israel's intelligence/dirty
trick service, the SAMS officers said: "Wildcard.  Ruthless and
cunning.  Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act."   Repeat: Israel's Mossad is:

"Ruthless and cunning.  Has capability to target US forces and make
it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

"Let's you and him fight," has been a tactic used through the ages by
intelligence agents.  If you can goad someone else to destroy your
enemy, why not?  Thus it is with 9-11.  American Zionists -- both of
the "Christian" and "Jewish" varieties -- have seized upon 9-11 and
used it as a pretext to sweep the world clean of Islam, the burr
under Israel's saddle.  And NORAD was used to set it up.

"Don't Look AT 9-11.  Look BEFORE.  Look AFTER . . ."

There are now a plethora of Congressional investigations into 9-11.
None of them will honestly examine what happened that day.  Instead,
Congress will focus its attention on what happened BEFORE the event
-- our alleged  intelligence failure to predict the "suicide pilots."
Congress will decide our intelligence agencies need more money and
more police state powers.  All opponents to the Empire of Zion  must
be liquidated.  Congress will do everything in its power to make that

In the same fashion, the Zionist flagship newspaper The Washington
Post has just concluded a series of articles about "America's Chaotic
Road To War." The focus here was what happened AFTER September 11.
Neither the Post, nor any other newspaper, will  ever tell the
reading public of NORAD's treachery.

NORAD Traitor Is Promoted

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attack, Gen. Richard B. Myers
was Commander of NORAD.  Myers either oversaw the execution of 9-11
himself, or knowingly allowed his organization to be used for that

Myers has since been rewarded for his treachery.  Now you will often
seem him photographed, on the front pages of our newspapers with the
Stars and Stripes behind him, standing next to the arachnoid Donald
Rumsfeld, for on October 1, 2001, Myers was promoted to Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.
See the handiwork of the world's leading terrorist organization, the FBI:
Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum

911 Lies exposed at
* Operation 911:  NO SUICIDE PILOTS
*  The Taliban Home Video
*  911 Terror:  Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics
* Operation Northwoods:  The Counterfeit
*  Osama bin Surplus
*  Osama bin CIA Agent
*  Press Uses Actors In War On Islam



jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party