Scholars Call Moussaoui Trial a “Charade;?
See Constitutional Rights on Trial; Describe Accused as Patsy
Witness tampering, faked evidence, inflammatory testimony display political motives and confirm Charlie Sheen’s concerns, experts claim.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 22, 2006 ? The trial holding Zacarias Moussaoui responsible for the horrors of 9/11 has all the marks of a political charade, according to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a society of experts devoted to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of that day. “Even the most basic elements of due process have been violated,” according to James H. Fetzer, its founder and co-chair, “by failing to prove that the accused had anything to do with 9/11. What we are seeing here tends to substantiate Charlie Sheen’s allegations.”
Fetzer insists there has been a clever ruse to confuse the jury by using a confession to one plot as though it were evidence of complicity in another. As The New York Times (April 27, 2005) reported, Moussaoui “confessed? to having been involved in a plot to fly a plane into the White House to free Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for terrorist acts. He denied that he was part of the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.
A Judicial “Shell Game?
The mentally instable Moussaoui has now “confessed” that he and shoe-bomber Richard Reid were going to hijack a fifth aircraft and fly it into the White House, which was not the plot of which he was convicted. The Scholars believe government prosecutors have been playing a deceptive “shell game? by tying him to 9/11. Even the FBI has expressed doubts about Moussaoui’s new version of events, since Reid left a will naming Moussaoui as his beneficiary, which was very odd if they were going to participate in a suicide mission together.
The government claims Moussaoui should be put to death for failing to report everything he knew about 9/11, which it claims would have saved lives. “This is blatantly unconstitutional,” says 9/11 Truth Scholar Webster Tarpley. “Under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, nobody can be prosecuted for a failure to incriminate themselves.”?
“This entire trial has been a farce,” says Fetzer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota. “Government prosecutors have contaminated witnesses, elicited testimony they cannot corroborate, and ? according to multiple reports ? even forced Moussaoui to wear a “stun belt”. 50,000 volts should be enough to keep anyone from straying from the script,” he said. “It is very difficult to imagine how testimony taken under duress is admissible.”
The 9/11 Truth Movement
The fast-growing, over 200-member strong society is only the tip of an iceberg of a ?9/11 Truth? movement which has produced dozens of books and scores of websites assailing the official version of 9/11. According to those involved, it’s an uphill battle. John Leonard, a member of S9/11T and the publisher of several books on 9/11, including one by Webster Tarpley, insists that at least one basic element of the ?9/11 Truth? idea can be conveyed in less than a minute, but he finds most Americans have psychological barriers to it.
“When we hit a fact that contradicts our world view, we usually pause, rationalize it and keep going. But sometimes we stumble onto something and want to dig deeper. That’s where 9/11 researchers get started.” Psychologists describe the resistance to ideas that threaten our sense of security as “cognitive dissonance”, which can occur when, for example, a mother discovers evidence her husband has been molesting their daughter.
To demonstrate his position, Leonard asks people to consider three points:
First, as the video-clip on this page (wtc7.gif) reveals, when WTC-7, a 47-story building that was not hit by any airplane, collapsed at 5:20 PM on 9/11, it displayed all of the signs of a controlled demolition, including sudden and complete collapse at virtually the rate of free fall into its own footprint, precisely as old casinos and hotels are brought down in Las Vegas.
Second, the collapse of WTC-7 is not even mentioned in The 9/11 Commission Report and has yet to be explained by the government. When Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, wanted the video of the collapse played on Tucker Carson’s MSNBC program, only a single frame was shown, which is typical of the attention it has drawn from the national media.
Third, for WTC-7 to be brought down by controlled demolition implies the existence of previously positioned explosives. That raises the possibility there were previously positioned explosives in WTC-1 and WTC-2 as well. Jones? own physics research, archived on the Scholar’s web site at st911.org, suggests that all three must have been brought down by controlled demolition.
Appeals to Fabricated Evidence
The most stunning example of government mendacity in the Moussaoui trial, Fetzer explains, came with the inflammatory recordings, allegedly the last moments of Flight 93, which went down in Pennsylvania. “Not only should they not have been admitted into evidence,” he said, “but Allen Green has noted that much of the conversation is from the passenger cabin ” which would not have been picked up in by the cockpit voice recorder, even through an open door. Yet the cockpit door was supposed to be closed before it was finally broken open using a drink cart.”
Another blunder was noted by a Muslim member of S9/11T. The last words of the “hijackers” that the tape are “Allah is great! (Allahu akbar!?). Muhammad Columbo says, “The last words of a Muslim cannot be these! They are used in the call to prayer, or in an attack at war. On the moment of death, a Muslim must confirm that “There is but one God, Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet!? The government’s own evidence proves either the tapes or the Muslims are fake.
Fetzer has also been struck by the use of phrases that appear to come from Hollywood scripts. “It’s not enough that he talks about “making his day? as though he were a fan of Dirty Harry, but he also parodies “Born in the USA? with his rendition of “Burn in the USA” and has described his trial as a “cyberlynching”. We are so used to movies that we may not notice this is supposed to be real life, where this trial appears to be following a script.
Patsies and Moles
Another perception of the events taking place in Alexandria, VA, comes from Webster Tarpley. “Moussaoui represents the classic case of the patsy ?- part double agent consciously working for the government, part psychotic, part fanatic, part dupe,” Tarpley observes. “His lawyers tried to save him by suggesting he is a delusional paranoid schizophrenic, and this may be accurate.” (See www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041700637.html.)
“Like shoe bomber Richard Reid, Moussaoui is a product of Finsbury mosque in London, long notorious as a British intelligence recruiting center for expendable patsies”? In his book, ?9/11: Synthetic Terror,” Tarpley explains that, “Again and again, terrorist groups with US-UK backing have intervened against progressive nationalists in the Arab world, in favor of fundamentalists.”
Of “false-flag? operations (a term from sailing ship days, when a war could be begun by raising an enemy flag and attacking one’s own side), Tarpley observes, “The patsies ultimately have three vital functions. The first is that they have to be noticed. They must attract lots and lots of attention. They may issue raving statements.” That description does seem to fit Moussaoui.
Secondly, they must stay out of jail, not to carry out the terrorist attack ” that is a job for the professionals ? but only to be blamed for it. Keeping them out of jail is a job for “the moles.”
After the terror act is complete, the moles turn on the patsies and destroy them. In this case, the situation may be more complex, since Moussaoui has expressed the belief that he is going to be pardoned by President Bush, possibly in exchange for Americans captured in the war in Iraq.
Painwashing and Propaganda
On March 21, 2006, CBS reported the prosecutors? allegation that Moussaoui’s lies to FBI agent Harry Samit had prevented the FBI from thwarting or at least minimizing the 9/11 attacks. Samit himself, however, in one of the most embarrassing twists of the trial with regard to the government’s case, testified that he had already “warned higher-ups and others in the government at least 70 times that Moussaoui was a terrorist.”
This nullifies the entire prosecution, Fetzer observes. “Ignoring five or six reports of this kind might reflect incompetence. Twenty or thirty, criminal neglect. But ignoring 70 reports has to be a matter of deliberate policy.” Samit’s testimony proves that, even if Moussaoui had come forward to incriminate himself in a plot in which he was not involved, it would not have helped. “Which means,” Fetzer adds, “that this trial is simply an exercise in propaganda.”
Jerry Mazza, Online Journal (April 14, 2006), has described the trial as a “painwashing,” which he defines as repeating the same painful stories over and over again until the audience’s resistance to questioning their authenticity is overcome. Leonard adds, ?9/11 was what Pavlov called “traumatic conditioning,” a way of reversing your normal characteristics by deep shock.”
“If our findings are correct,” Fetzer observed, “then the American government has been using acts of violence to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate us for political purposes. That, however, is the definition of “terrorism?; which means that the American government has been practicing terrorism on the American people. That may be difficult for many Americans to accept, but the evidence is clear and compelling. Charlie Sheen was right!?