Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie ‘The 9/11 Commission Report’

September 1, 2011 by · Leave a Comment 

Hard evidence exists that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 — the laws of science refute the official account of 9/11

By Enver Masud, The Wisdom Fund

911-truth-movementAt the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense News Briefing, “American Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757”, were not even mentioned.

The security camera video of “Flight 77” released by the Pentagon has one frame showing something — labeled “Approaching Aircraft” — moving parallel to the ground about 100 yards in front of the Pentagon.

This is the U.S. government’s evidence to support its claim that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

However, the government’s own records — Pentagon transcripts, official reports, flight data recorder, and the laws of science belie “The 9/11 Commission Report”.

September 11, 2001: CNN News Report

Just minutes after the alleged attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported: “From my close up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage — nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”

McIntyre continued, “If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that all of the floors have collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately. It wasn’t till almost 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”

This news report apparently was not rebroadcast, and a few years later McIntyre claimed on CNN (Wolf Blitzer’s show) that he had been taken out of context.

Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, who from her fifth-floor, B-ring office at the Pentagon, witnessed “an unforgettable fireball, 20 to 30 feet in diameter” confirms McIntyre’s account.

Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect  from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.”

Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York): “As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.” She added, “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11” — a few minutes before Flight 77 that is alleged to have struck the Pentagon at 9:38.

A diagram (derived from the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”, Figure 7.9) indicates a “Slab deflected upward” which is consistent with either an explosion below the slab, or an upward blow by a hard object.

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) — former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, and head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence — stated in a video interview, “I don’t know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.”
Major Douglas Rokke, U.S. Army (ret) adds: “No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.”

Other eyewitnesses, however, did report seeing a plane hit the Pentagon. Available evidence does not support their accounts.

September 12, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing

At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, “American Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757” were not even mentioned.

How significant is this?

With the world’s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757” were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!

Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” Plaugher responded, “there are some small pieces of aircraft … there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”

When asked, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”, Plaugher responded “You know, I’d rather not comment on that.”

The transcript reveals that reporters were being “threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away”.

This year, the transcript of the September 12, 2001 News Briefing was removed from the DoD website.

September 15, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing

At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.

When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.”

Apparently, no one asked how “the nose of the aircraft” (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.

‘Pentagon Building Performance Report’

In January 2003, the U.S. government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology released the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”.

Page 35 of this report reads: “An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing.

The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.”

Had a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, its wings would probably have been found outside the Pentagon. But these wings were not found outside the Pentagon!

Photographs, and CNN’s Jamie McIntyre confirm this fact.

Page 36 of this report reads: “The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade.

This implies that whatever struck the Pentagon, couldn’t have been a Boeing 757.

Page 39 of this report reads: “Most likely, the wings of the aircraft were severed as the aircraft penetrated the facade of the building.

Even if portions of the wings remained intact after passing through the plane of the facade, the structural damage pattern indicates that the wings were severed before the aircraft penetrated more than a few dozen feet into the building.”

As previously noted, these wings were not found outside the Pentagon!

From the preceding it is clear that the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” — prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute, and released by the U.S. government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology — contradicts the official account of 9/11.

‘Arlington County After-Action Report’

The “Arlington County After-Action Report” describes the occurrence of an event at the Pentagon minutes before the alleged strike of Flight 77, and the presence of Fort Myer Unit 161 at the Pentagon prior to impact.

Annex A, Page A-4 of this report states: “Captain Dennis Gilroy and his team were already on station at the Pentagon when Flight #77 slammed into it, just beyond the heliport. Foam 161 caught fire and suffered a flat tire from flying debris. Firefighters Mark Skipper and Alan Wallace were outside the vehicle at impact and received burns and lacerations. . . . Captain Gilroy called the Fort Myer Fire Department, reporting for the first time the actual location of the crash.”

Did Fort Myer Unit 161 go the Pentagon following an explosion — prior to the alleged strike of Flight 77?

It is consistent with the reporter’s question at the September 12 News Briefing, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”?

It is consistent with April Gallop’s sworn complaint that “she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

It is consistent with military affairs journalist Barbara Honegger’s account of “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . .  stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.”

Fort Myer Unit 161’s arrival at the Pentagon to put out a fire prior to the strike by “Flight 77” is not consistent with the official account of 9/11.

‘American Airlines’ Flight Data Recorder

Pilots for 9/11 Truth state: “video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder data released by the NTSB” (National Transportation Safety Board) pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. The “Pentagon Building Performance Report” states (page 14): “A Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photographs (figures 3.3 through 3.7), taken approximately one second apart, show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.”

On page 35 of this report we’re told, “The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab.”

However, the NTSB animation (January 2002), according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, shows an aircraft flying north of the Navy Annex, not leveling off, and being too high to have hit the Pentagon.

When confronted with this discrepancy, NTSB Chief Jim Potter said: “I have no comment on the existence of the discrepancies.”

Two Pentagon security officers state categorically that a plane (which they believed was Flight 77) flew north of the Citgo gas station (now the Navy Exchange) located west of the Pentagon on South Joyce Street at Columbia Pike, rather than flying south of the gas station as stated in official reports.

G-Force Would Have Destroyed the Boeing 757

Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclude: “Arlington’s unique topography and obstacles along American 77 ‘final leg’ to the Pentagon make this approach completely impossible”.

Flight 77 is alleged to have flown over Columbia Pike and the Virginia Department of Transportation communications tower located 1143 yards west of the Pentagon before striking the Pentagon at “530 miles per hour”.

The antenna on the VDOT tower has been determined to be 169 ft above the ground with a ground elevation of 135 feet (FCC Registration Number 1016111). The ground elevation of the Pentagon is 33 feet according to USGS.

This path would have taken Flight 77 south of the gas station at the intersection of Columbia Pike and S. Joyce Street, and over the intersection of Columbia Pike and Virginia Route 27.

Flight 77 would then have been over Pentagon grounds with about 500 feet remaining to level out and to strike the Pentagon “slightly below the second floor slab” at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees.”

The Columbia Pike and VA-27 intersection presents a roughly 20 feet tall barrier in the alleged path of Flight 77.

According to the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” (page 14), “The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon. Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.”

Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder (which NTSB refuses to answer), Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34 times the force due to gravity, at the point that it would have to transition from its downward flight to level flight.

With a virtual weight of about 8.5 million pounds, Flight 77 could not have leveled off before striking the Pentagon. It would have crashed at the intersection of Columbia Pike and VA-27. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of “Flight 77” — Flight 77 cannot have violated the laws of science.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth did another calculation by lowering the height of “Flight 77” below that shown by the FDR. They lowered it to the top of the VDOT antenna.

With this very conservative case, they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 11.2 Gs. “11.2 Gs was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 Gs would rip the aircraft apart” they wrote.

Impossible: Damage Path and Flight Path Aligned

With Flight 77 alleged to have struck the Pentagon at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees”, the flight path and the damage path cannot possibly form a straight line.

Flying at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees” the Boeing 757’s starboard wing would have struck the west wall of the Pentagon before the port wing. This would cause the aircraft to veer to the right, and the damage path would be in line with the aircraft’s new heading — not with the aircraft’s heading prior to impact (assuming — miraculously — the plane was able to penetrate the C Ring).

However, the “Pentagon Building Performance Report” Figures 6.2 and 6.6 show that the flight path and damage path (damage path also illustrated in the “Arlington County After Action Report”, page 23) do form a straight line extending from the center-line of the fuselage of the aircraft to where the “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”.

The flight path and damage path depicted forming a straight line in Figures 6.2 and 6.6 violate the laws of science. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of “Flight 77” — Flight 77 cannot have violated the laws of science.

Therefore, what looks like a puff of smoke — labeled “Approaching Aircraft” in the security camera video, cannot possibly be a Boeing 757.

Conclusion

To conclude, the official account of Flight 77 — supported only by one frame from a security camera showing a puff of something approaching the Pentagon — is contradicted by the transcripts of Pentagon News Briefings conducted on September 12 and 15; by the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”; by the “Arlington County After-Action Report”; by the FBI’s exhibit on phone calls from Flight 77; and by the Flight Data Recorder provided by the NTSB.

The official account of Flight 77 contradicts the laws of science. Flight 77 could not have withstood the calculated G-force when it would have had to level out — about 100 yards before striking the Pentagon — with “the top of the fuselage of the aircraft . . . no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground”. The flight path of a Boeing 757 traveling at “530 miles per hour”, striking the Pentagon at “an angle of approximately 42 degrees”, and the resulting damage path inside the Pentagon cannot possibly form a straight line as depicted in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

On September 10, 2001, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the Pentagon “cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions”. It is alleged that the section of the Pentagon destroyed on September 11, 2001 housed records of DoD spending, and the personnel for monitoring that spending.

13-36

Shariah 101

August 4, 2011 by · Leave a Comment 

By Enver Masud

Shariah-Council-Logo-green-star-with-logo-copy2-1-300x300The definition of justice, according to Dr. Robert D. Crane, founder of the Center for Civilizational Renewal, is respect for human rights, which were formulated six centuries ago by Islamic scholars. These rights, says Dr. Crane, are: “the right to life and personal integrity (haqq al haya), to family and community existence and cohesion at all levels of human society (haqq al nasi), to equal opportunities in accessing ownership of the means of economic production (haqq al mal), to political freedom for self-determination both within and among nations (haqq al hurriyah), to human dignity (haqq al karama, including freedom of religion and gender equity), and to education, knowledge, and freedom of expression (haqq al ilm).”

Regarding separation of Church and State, according to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, author of Islam, a Sacred Law, Islamic jurists recognized this concept centuries before the Europeans, and divided the body of Shariah rules into two categories: religious observances and worldly matters. The first they observed to be beyond the scope of modification. The second, subject to interpretation, cover the following:

1. Criminal Law: This includes crimes such as murder, larceny, fornication, drinking alcohol, libel. 2. Family Law: This . . . covers marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, inheritance. 3. Transactions: This covers property rights, contracts, rules of sale, hire, gift, loans and debts, deposits, partnerships, and damages.

“One of the most sensible definitions of the purposes of the Shariah,” according to Imam Feisal, was given by Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah who said:

“The foundation of the Shariah is wisdom and the safeguarding of people’s interests in this world and the next. In its entirety it is justice, mercy and wisdom. Every rule which transcends justice to tyranny, mercy to its opposite, the good to the evil, and wisdom to triviality does not belong to the Shariah . . .”

According to Imam Feisal the sources of Shariah are, in order:   1. The Quran – God’s Word revealed to Prophet Muhammad (s); 2. The Sunnah – practice and teachings of the Prophet; 3. Ijma – consensus of those in authority; 4. Qiyas – reason, logic, and opinion based upon analogy.

Imam Feisal describes seven other methods for deriving Islamic laws. These seven, plus ijma and qiyas, are collectively known as ijtihad or interpretation, and/or opinion based upon reason and logic.
Several schools of Shariah have evolved: Shafii, Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki – the orthodox schools, and Jafari – the Shiite school. The Zaydis and Ibadis also have their own schools.

“Classical international law, reputedly invented by the Spaniards Vittorio and Suarez, borrowed the concept of inalienable human rights from Islamic law,” according to Dr. Crane.

Wisely implemented, Shariah can better nurture and protect society than does Western law which is subject to the whims of lawmakers.

13-32

Report: Killed in Pakistan?

May 12, 2011 by · Leave a Comment 

By Enver Masud

SUGGESTION: Read the FREE ebook “9/11 Unveiled”

On May 1, President Obama reported that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by U.S. Navy SEALS in a house in Abbotabad, Pakistan. In the following we present what we know, and do not know, about the killing of the alleged mastermind of 9/11. In the interest of brevity, the presentation is in outline form.

9/11: The Evidence Against Bin Laden

To this day, the FBI page states: “Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.”

In June 2006, when asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI’s web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

On September 22, 2001, the Bush administration said that “it would release evidence that Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden masterminded the attacks Sept. 11 on the United States, part of an effort to convince the world that a military response is justified.”

“I am absolutely convinced that the al-Qaida network, which he heads, was responsible for this attack,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Ten years on, we’re still waiting for this evidence.

On March 29, 2006, on the Tony Snow Show, Fox News Radio, Vice President Dick Cheney stated: “We’ve never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming.”

Bin Laden Denied Responsibility for 9/11

• Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 Septem- ber attacks in the United States.”

Experts dismiss the videotape “discovered in a private home in Jalalabad, Afghanistan” which allegedly shows Bin Laden confessing to the September 11 attacks.

In a December 20, 2001 broadcast by German TV channel Das Erste “two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House’s translation not only to be inaccurate, but manipulative.”

In a radio interview with Kevin Barrett, Prof. Bruce Lawrence, editor of “Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden”, called the video “bogus.” (“The 9/11 Commission Report is ‘Fatally Flawed’,” The Wisdom Fund, January 21, 2009)

Taliban Offered Bin Laden to U.S.

• The Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence. (“U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden,” cnn.com, October 7, 2001)

• . . . The offer yesterday from Haji Abdul Kabir, the Taliban’s deputy prime minister, to surrender Mr bin Laden if America would halt its bombing and provide evidence against the Saudi-born dissident was not new. (Andrew Buncomb, “Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden,” Independent, October 15, 2001)

Reports of Bin Laden’s Death Since 2001

• Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. . . .

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some “Taliban friends,” attended the funeral rites. (“Report: Bin Laden Already Dead,” foxnews.com, December 26, 2001)

• . . . former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is telling reporters that the Bush administration may already have captured Osama bin Laden and will release the news just before next year’s presidential election. (“Madeleine Albright: Bush Planning Bin Laden October Surprise,” newsmax.com, December 17, 2003)

• Angelo M. Codevilla, who teaches international relations at Boston University, is a former U.S. intelligence officer who studied Soviet disinformation techniques during the Cold War. He says a close examination of all the alleged bin Laden tapes, including the videos, have convinced him that Elvis Presley is more alive than Osama bin Laden. . . .

The last credible intercepts of bin Laden’s voice were made by overhead satellites in early December 2001 as he was escaping through the Tora Bora mountain range . . .
Bin Laden was suffering from a kidney ailment, and some experts say he died Dec. 13, 2001, four days after his escape from Tora Bora. (Arnaud de Borchgrave, “Man or myth argument is alive and well online,” Washington Times, July 26, 2010)

• In April 2002, over nine years ago, Council on Foreign Relations member Steve R. Pieczenik, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, and James Baker, told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months”. (Paul Joseph Watson, “Inside Sources: Bin Laden’s Corpse Has Been On Ice For Nearly a Decade,” Infowars.com, May 2, 2011)

• The leaked documents also claim that Osama bin Laden, who was reported dead three years ago by the late Pakistan candidate Benazir Bhutto on BBC, was still alive, conveniently keeping the myth alive for the Obama Administration War on Terror at a point when most Americans had forgotten the original reason the Bush Administration allegedly invaded Afghanistan to pursue the Saudi Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks. (F. William Engdahl, “Something stinks about Wikileaks,” vheadline.com, August 11, 2010)

• Preeminent 9/11 author, Prof. David Ray Griffin, examined purported messages from bin Laden since 2001 and found little evidence that they in fact came from bin Laden himself. (David Ray Griffin, “Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?,” Olive Branch Press, May 20, 2009)

Report: OBL Assassinated in Abbotabad

• U.S. officials said the helicopter raid in Pakistan was carried out by CIA paramilitaries together with the elite Navy SEAL Team Six. The U.S. team took custody of bin Laden’s remains, which American officials said were being handled in accordance with Islamic tradition. . . .

In August, 2010, intelligence officials found what they suspected to be bin Laden’s residence in Abbotabad, Pakistan, an affluent area with lots of retired military. (“Osama Bin Laden is Dead,” CBS/AP, May 1, 2011)

• The release of a photograph purporting to show bin Laden’s corpse – which was later confirmed to be a fake – added to the confusion. (“Can US Offer Final Proof Of Osama’s Death?,” yahoo.com, May 2, 2011)

• Sources confirmed to CBS News national security correspondent David Martin that his body was released into the sea from a U.S. Navy vessel on Monday, likely into the Indian Ocean.

Bin Laden was a Saudi national, but officials tell CBS News that the Kingdom was unwilling to have his remains repatriated. (“Osama bin Laden’s body buried at sea,” CBS/AP, May 2, 2011)

Islam does NOT require burial within 24 hours. Why not bury him in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Guantanamo . . . or let the locals bury him?

• US officials have now conceded that Bin Laden was not armed during the assault, did not fire back and that his wife was only injured in the assault. (Peter Foster, “Osama bin Laden ‘Was Not Armed and Did Not Use Wife as Human Shield’,” Telegraph, May 3, 2011)

Conclusion

• In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro. (“U.S. policy on assassinations,” cnn.com, November 4, 2002)

Section 5(g), entitled “Prohibition on Assassination,” states: “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”

• “China holds that the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of any country should be respected,” said Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, according to Xinhua news agency. (“China blasts US government for operation that killed Osama,” ibtimes.com, May 5, 2011)

More than a year ago, I wrote: “We suspect that when bin Laden is ‘killed,’ we’ll just have to trust the folks that lied us into war to confirm they got him.”

Is Bin Laden dead? Probably. Was he killed in Abbotabad, Pakistan? We don’t know. Was he the “mastermind” of 9/11? No.

The Wisdom Fund

13-20