CONSTITUTIONAL FREE ZONES

1. The Constitution-Free Zone of the United States – Bill of Rights ...

www.bisbee.net/wp/bisbee-today/the-constitution-free-.

2. Border search exception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

3. Do You Live In The Constitution-Free Zone Of The US? | Techdirt

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130212/0204532194...

100 Mile Constitution Exemption Zone = Loss of 4th Amendment Rights

July 11, 2014 Action Alerts, Agenda 21, Property Rights, Water Rights

We ran across something that greatly disturbed us as we were researching illegal immigration.  U.S. District Judge Korman has decided that the border — the area 100 miles inland from the entire U.S. border — falls under a “border exemption” and is being called a “Constitutional Exemption Zone”… all in the name of “national security”.  People that are in this area are subject to being stopped and searched at random.  So, our Constitutional Rights are being SUSPENDED in the 100-mile Constitutional Exemption Zone?  Does this affect EVERYONE?  What does this all mean, and to what can it lead?  What is being planned for all of us in this ‘exemption zone’?
The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable search and seizure, including arbitrary and random stops and searches.

U.S. CONSTITUTION – AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Within 100 miles of the U.S. border, however, these rules DO NOT apply.
Constitutional Exemption Zones are being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security.  It appears that this federal agency isn’t really securing the borders but are extinguishing the Fourth Amendment Rights of over 197 million people within 100 miles of the border… and the ocean?
Secure The Republic is very concerned about this new “Constitutional Exemption Zone”.  What is REALLY going on?  Most of our metropolitan cities fall within this area.  2/3 of Americans (197.4 MILLION people) will be affected by this.  These people could find themselves WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  If the 4th Amendment can be removed (the one which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures), so can the other amendments!   It appears that our borders are being eliminated and the sovereignty of our country is under attack.
This map from the ACLU is hard to beat because it shows the 100-mile “Constitutional Exemption Zone” visually, including cities which will be affected.  Take a look for yourself!  Pay special attention to the GREAT LAKES area.  We’ll comment more about that in the future…

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map

Border search exception law and legal definition  This is the Border Exception Law that is being implemented.  The power to conduct warrantless search is referenced under 8 USCS § 1357.  This is covered in the link.
Folks, this is not about border security.  Our borders haven’t been secure in MANY years.  This is about losing state sovereignty and our constitutional rights.  This includes dropping national borders. Remember, it’s a well-orchestrated plan that has been slowly coming together and will strip us of our constitutional rights.  You’ll find that proponents of these random searches and seizures make it sound good, but we need to know where their true motivation lies…  It appears to us that we are in a type of police state.
Also, study your state constitution.  You may find that it no longer describes the boundaries of your state, effectively abolishing your state.  At last check, the only states that still lay out their boundaries in their constitutions are:  Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Arkansas’ Constitution has been checked, and their boundary is found in Article I under “Boundaries”.  The description of the boundary for your state may be found in a different location than Article I in your particular state’s constitution.
When the State borders are no longer in the State Constitution, it is the signal that the State has lost its sovereignty.  WAKE UP AMERICA!  Is your state boundary being abolished?  Think about it another way:  would you buy a piece of property that has no legal definition?
In order to better understand this, you will need to obtain a copy of your present state constitution to see if your state legislature has removed the boundaries of your state.  The only way that these changes can be made is to change the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution.  The promoters of Regional Governance and a One-World Government know this.  It looks like STATE BOUNDARIES WILL HAVE TO BE ABOLISHED BEFORE REGIONAL GOVERNANCE and a ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT CAN BE FULLY ENFORCED IN THE UNITED STATES.  Once this happens, there will be a centralization of power.  State boundaries have already been abolished in 33 of 50 states!
We wanted to make you aware of the dangers which we could face if we don’t abide by our U.S. Constitution, but you’ll need to do your own in-depth research on this topic.
So, we’d better beware of a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) / Article V Amendment Convention / Convention of States that could rewrite the Constitution!
Be looking for more information in the future from us, and please forward this email to everyone you know!

Securing the blessings of liberty,

Secure the Republic

SecureTheRepublic.com
Info@SecureTheRepublic.com

CAN'T PINPOINT THE PROBLEM?

"We Just Can't Seem to Pinpoint the Problem"      

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim The Beltway Snipers were Muslims The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim The Underwear Bomber was a Muslim The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims The London Subway Bombers were Muslims The Paris Night Club Bombers were Muslims The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims Think of it: Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem Hindus living with Christians = No Problem Hindus living with Jews = No Problem Christians living with Shintos = No Problem Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem Confucians living with Baha'is = No Problem Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem Jews living with Atheists = No Problem Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem Christians living with Jews = No Problem Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem But: Muslims living with Hindus=Problem Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem Muslims living with Christians = Problem Muslims living with Jews = Problem Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem Muslims living with Shintos = Problem Muslims living with Atheists = Problem MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM **********SO THIS LEADS TO ************* They're not happy in Gaza They're not happy in Egypt They're not happy in Libya They're not happy in Morocco They're not happy in Iran They're not happy in Iraq They're not happy in Yemen They're not happy in Afghanistan They're not happy in Pakistan They're not happy in Syria They're not happy in Lebanon They're not happy in Nigeria They're not happy in Kenya They're not happy in Sudan ******** So, where are they happy? ********** They're happy in Australia They're happy in England They're happy in Belgium They're happy in France They're happy in Italy They're happy in Germany They're happy in Sweden They're happy in Norway They're happy in India They're happy in Canada & They're happy in the USA. They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves, THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy!   ******** So, What are their Major Organizations? ******** Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION ISIS/ISIL : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION AND A LOT MORE! And We just can't figure out who's causing the problem.  But at least President Obama knows it's not the Muslims.  . NOW WE WANT TO BRING IN 180,000 MORE MUSLIM "REFUGEES" INTO OUR COUNTRY!! IS THAT RATIONAL?

9/11 al Qaeda didn't act alone...

From: nypost.com
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words)

blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.
The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
Modal Trigger
The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast:
LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000. One of the advance men, Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, left the LA consulate and met the hijackers at a local restaurant. (Bayoumi left the United States two months before the attacks, while Thumairy was deported back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.)
SAN DIEGO: Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as private meetings with an American al Qaeda cleric who would later become notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki, at a Saudi-funded mosque he ran in a nearby suburb. They were also feted at a welcoming party. (Bassnan also fled the United States just before the attacks.)
WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. Though the Bandars claim the checks were “welfare” for Bassnan’s supposedly ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers’ hands.
Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy — so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.
The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.
“Our investigations contributed to the ambassador’s departure,” an investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington told me, though Bandar says he left for “personal reasons.”
FALLS CHURCH, VA.: In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy. Awlaki was recruited 3,000 miles away to head the mosque. As its imam, Awlaki helped the hijackers, who showed up at his doorstep as if on cue. He tasked a handler to help them acquire apartments and IDs before they attacked the Pentagon.
Awlaki worked closely with the Saudi Embassy. He lectured at a Saudi Islamic think tank in Merrifield, Va., chaired by Bandar. Saudi travel itinerary documents I’ve obtained show he also served as the ­official imam on Saudi Embassy-sponsored trips to Mecca and tours of Saudi holy sites.
Most suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11.
As I first reported in my book, “Infiltration,” quoting from classified US documents, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was briefly detained at JFK before being released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.” A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.
HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel. Did he meet with them? The FBI never found out. They let him go after he “feigned a seizure,” one agent recalled. (Hussayen’s name doesn’t appear in the separate 9/11 Commission Report, which clears the Saudis.)
SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd. FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched.
Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”
Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.
Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.
Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a “coverup beyond belief.” Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.
Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US history.
Granted, it’s not easy to do. It took a monthlong letter-writing campaign by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them access to the material.
But it’s critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White House to let all Americans read it. This isn’t water under the bridge. The information is still relevant ­today. Pursuing leads further, getting to the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.
As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum to their heavily redacted 2002 report, “State-sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more ­lethal attacks within the United States.”
Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.
Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.
Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.”

Filed under9/11, Censorship, CIA, George W. Bush, National Security, September 11, Terrorism

Forced Drugging of US Troops...

Forced Mass Drugging of US Troops an Underreported Scandal

Soldiers being forced to pop pills by exempt officer class
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 19, 2013
The mass drugging of US troops is one of the most underreported scandals of the modern era, with soldiers not only being used as guinea pigs in a brave new world of pharmacological experimentation, but also having their rights stripped as a result.

Sgt. Joe Biggs recently joined the Alex Jones Show to describe in shocking details how he witnessed soldiers in Afghanistan displaying careless ignorance of the threat posed by IED’s because the troops were high on Percocet, a prescription painkiller based on oxycodone, a Schedule II narcotic analgesic which is derived from opium.

While US troops are supposedly guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan (even as opium production continues to hit record highs),increasing numbers of American soldiers are becoming hooked on opiates, some of which are being prescribed to them.

There is now an epidemic of drug use in the U.S. military. Figures show that, “Since 1999, failed drug tests have increased in the U.S. Air Force by 82%, and in the U.S. Army by 37%.”

As Mike Adams documents, the Defense Department notes that “20 percent of U.S. troops are on psychiatric drugs, and that they are often handed as much as a 180-day supply of those pills before being deployed.”

The most underreported aspect of this whole scandal however is that troops are in many cases being forced to take prescription drugs against their will, while those in the officer class are often exempt from both the drugs and the increasing number of dangerous vaccines that are mandatory for new recruits.

“U.S. troops are being forced to take drugs like Prozac and Seroquel for anxiety and depression. Troops cannot refuse to take the drugs without consequences from their superiors. Resistance by U.S. troops to their orders is also running high. Some U.S. military patrols decline to carry out their “search and kill” missions and, instead, return to their bases claiming they carried out their orders,” reported Veterans for America.

Other drugs like Mefloquine are also causing soldiers to go on killing rampages, such as last year’s incident when Robert Bales shot dead 17 Afghan civilians including nine children. Drug abuse is also a core factor behind the shocking rise in soldiers committing suicide. A full third of all military suicides are attributed to side-effects from medication

However, the cycle of drug abuse does not end for US troops when they leave the military. Once hooked on prescription medications, veterans are forced to visit psychologists who diagnose them with mental disorders in order to keep a steady supply of drugs flowing and feed the dependency.

This in turn relegates veterans to become second class citizens, with their right to bear arms stripped as a result of being permanently labeled as having post traumatic stress disorder.

One of the core reasons why the Pentagon is encouraging the mass drugging of US troops is to grease the skids for the Marshal Plan, a long term agenda that will see all soldiers permanently drugged in order to produce “behavior-modifying and performance-enhancing characteristics”.

The mass drugging of US troops is another aspect of government social engineering. It is about creating yet another huge sector of society – just like children in school or foster care – whose dependence on the state is secured via the method of artificially creating a dangerous dependence on drugs.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Monday, August 19, 2013 at 10:07 am

Tags: gun rights, police state

Bible Truths

This was preached in a prominently black church. It takes less than a minute to read.


RECENT VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE-STIMULUS SERMON
Genesis 47:13-27

I would love to give the Pastor
of this predominantly black church in
Virginia a hug and a
high five. This guy is obviously a leader.
Perhaps we should each decide
who our real
leader is.....It is amazing to see that very little has
changed in 4,000 years.
---------------------------------------------------

Good morning, brothers and sisters;
it's always a delight to see
the pews crowded on Sunday
morning and so eager to get into
God's Word. Turn with me
in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th
chapter of Genesis, we'll
begin our reading at verse 13 and go
through verse 27.
Brother Ray, would you stand and
read that great passage for us?
...(reading)....
Thank you for that fine reading,
Brother Ray... So we see that
economic hard times fell
upon Egypt and the people turned to
the government of Pharaoh
to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh
nationalized the grain
harvest and placed the grain in great storehouses
that he had built. So the
people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a
great tax increase, and
gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And
this went on until their
money ran out and they were hungry again.
So when they went to Pharaoh after
that, they brought their
livestock -their cattle,
their horses, their sheep, and their donkey -
to barter for grain and
verse 17 says that only took them through
the end of that year..
But the famine wasn't over was
it? So the next year the people
came before Pharaoh and
admitted they had nothing left except
their land and their own
lives. "There is nothing left in the sight
of my lord but our bodies
and our land. Why should we die before
your eyes, both we and
our land? Buy us and our land for food
and we with our land will
be servants to Pharaoh." So they
surrendered their homes,
their land, and their real estate to
Pharaoh's government and
then sold themselves into slavery
to him, in return for grain.
What can we learn from this, brothers
and sisters?
That turning to the government
instead of to God to be our provider
in hard times only leads
to slavery? Yes. That the only reason
government wants to be
our provider is to also become our master?
Yes
But look how that passage ends,
brothers and sisters! Thus Israel
settled in the land of
Egypt , in the land of Goshen .. And they gained
possessions in it and
were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God
provided for His people,
just as He always has! They didn't end up
giving all their possessions
to government, no, it says they gained
possessions! But I also
tell you a great truth today and an ominous
one
We see the same thing happening
today - the government today
wants to "share the
wealth" once again, to take it from us and redistribute
it back to us. It wants
to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken
control of education, and
ration it back to us, and when government
rations it, then government
decides who gets it, and how much, and
what kind. And if we go
along with it, and do it willingly, then we will
wind up no differently
than the people of Egypt did four thousand years
ago - as slaves to the
government and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama's government is
doing now is no different from what
Pharaoh's government did
then and it will end the same. And a lot of
people like to call Mr.
Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah?
A savior? Didn't the Egyptians
say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves,
"You have saved our
lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"?
Well, I tell you this -
I know the Messiah; the
Messiah is a friend of mine;
and Mr. Obama is no Messiah!
No, brothers and sisters,
if Mr. Obama is a character
from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.
Bow with me in prayer,
if you will...
Lord, You alone are worthy to be
served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the
government
is not our deliverer and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth
chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people
of what a ruler would do,
where it says "And in that day you will cry out
because of your king, whom
you have chosen for yourselves, but
the LORD will not answer
you in that day."
And Lord, we acknowledge
that day has come. We cry
out to you because of the ruler that we have
chosen for ourselves as
a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray
for revival and we pray
for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to
seek You and hands to serve You and protect Your people
from the atrocities of
Pharaoh's government.
In God We Trust...
****************************************************************
You may want to consider sharing this with others

Flight 175 9/11 passengers?

Where the 9/11 Passengers Went after Landing in Cleveland 04/15/2012

30 Comments

Newspaper reports say witnesses saw approximately 200 people walking in direction of NASA building in late morning at the Cleveland airport (pictured above). These people had gotten off a plane or planes that have not been accounted for.

Two writings provide evidence for these facts:

1) An article from researcher “Woody Box” from which I used many of the facts and opinions to form my conclusion regarding the events of 9/11 in Cleveland.

2) My article from September 2010 in which I endorsed the account that passengers landed in Cleveland on 9/11 based in part on the above Woody Box research and my own. Note that I favor United 175 as being the flight that carried them. I now believe it was likely both United 175 AND United 93.

What is the significance of the number 200?

The total number of alleged passengers on all alleged flights associated with the events of 9/11 is also approximately 200. Counting all crewmembers, passengers and alleged hijackers, the total number is 265. Of course, if only United 93 and United 175 flew, it may make sense to discount the crewmembers of American 11 and American 77 (11 and 6, respectively, or 17 total). This would lower the number to 248. Cutting out the number of alleged hijackers, 19, brings the total number down to 229.

Two of the flights were unscheduled and did not fly (American 11 and 77). A check of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics records, in original and in “amended” form, proves this fact.

One of my articles contains both the original and tampered sets of records. It is still ranked over a year later as #27 all-time out of thousands for diaries (articles typically less than 500 words) on OpEd News.

Question:

Who shows up for an unscheduled flight?

Only one who knows about such a flight or fake flight. In the case of 9/11, it could only be someone familiar with the plot (i.e. an agent). Otherwise, to a non-agent, there would appear to be no purpose for being there.

Further hypothesis: We should assume, for the sake of this argument, that the passengers alleged to have gone on the non-existent flights of American 11 and American 77 “passengers” were agents.

Hypothesis:

All “passengers” showed up at Boston or Newark Airports. Those alleged to have flown on 11 and 175 take United 175 from Boston. Those alleged to have flown on 77 and 93 take United 93 from Newark.

Interestingly, there are reasons to believe that Flights 175 and 93 were delayed, perhaps to load additional passengers. I give my reasons for this idea about Flight 175 in Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11 (pages 36-41) and about Flight 93 in my article with Jim Fetzer, “The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What Happened to Flight 93?”

Readers are also encouraged to see Woody Box’ discussion of “Flight 11”:

Both United 93 and 175 land in Cleveland. Again from “The 9/11 Passenger Paradox,” Cleveland is the most likely destination for both flights when one considers ACARS, the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System used to track messages sent from on-ground locations to planes and vice-versa.

ACARS, as explained to us by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others, shows Flight 93 heading west over ILLINOIS minutes AFTER it supposedly crashed in Shanksville, PENNSLVANIA. It also shows Flight 175 to be flying over western Pennsylvania minutes after it allegedly crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

Add to this information the news reports of mysterious people, likely to have been passengers, in Cleveland, and the hypothesis of the planes landing in Cleveland is reasonable.

Question:

Why did the planes go to Cleveland?

Logic: They had agents present who obviously played or role in the plot or their presences makes no sense. With the fake passenger plane crashes having been accomplished, it appears likely the plotters needed help with the cover-up.

So the agents take the passengers to a place where no one would recognize them. Their identification would ruin the plot. The media would soon report, falsely, that United 175 had struck the World Trade Center Building Two and that United 93 had crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. All passengers in each flight were said to have been killed instantly.

The plotters were likely concerned about what the public knew about the two flights. They would have to make sure the passengers did not communicate with the public or have their identities revealed as that would tie the plotters hands as to what to reveal to the public about the flights. So, here is a timeline of the events as they related to United 93 and 175 that day:

(Source: 911timeline.net unless otherwise noted. All times Eastern)

9:03 AM - United 175 allegedly crashes into World Trade Center 2

9:22 AM – United Airlines sends advisory to dispatchers that United 175 was involved in an “accident” in New York (HC)

9:23 AM – ACARS message receipt shows United 175 still flying near Pittsburgh, PA (Pilots for 9/11 Truth)

9:40 AM - Secretary of Transportation Mineta orders all planes to land

10:03 AM – United 93 allegedly crashes at Shanksville, PA

10:10 AM - The FAA orders all planes to land at nearest airports

10:10 AM – ACARS message receipt shows United 93 still flying near Champaign, IL (Pilots for 9/11 Truth)

10:15 AM – United acknowledges to employees that aircraft has landed near Jonestown, PA and “believed that this was Flight 93” (History Commons)

10:45 AM – Mystery plane arrives in Cleveland Airport. (Local Cleveland Media)

11:26 AM - United Airlines publicly reports that Flight 93, en route from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, has crashed in Pennsylvania, southeast of Pittsburgh.

11:53 AM - United Airlines confirms that Flight 175, from Boston to Los Angeles, has crashed with 56 passengers and nine crewmembers aboard.

Question:

So how did the agents cover-up the evidence of 9/11 plot in Cleveland?

As noted above, the group of approximately 200 people, which included agents and non-agents, were seen going to a NASA building at the Cleveland Airport.

To answer this question, one need only to look at the mathematics, again using the Wikipedia statistics:

Number of alleged passengers from American 11 and 77 is (76+53) or 129

Number of alleged passengers and crewmembers from United 93 and 175 is (40+60) or 100.

So, the agents outnumbered the non-agents. They could then easily “persuade” them to go to a “debriefing” at the NASA building. The sheer use of numbers would negate the need for any overt threats or use of public violence, which in turn would have ruined the plot.

What happened to the passengers?

We could first ask what the plotters needed from them. We now know that the plotters would claim to have matched DNA samples from the “crash scenes” with samples given to authorities by the family members. Perhaps DNA samples (hair, blood, etc.) were taken here.

But even more importantly, the plotters needed to keep the passengers and the fact that they did not die in plane crashes an absolute secret. It boils down to how they could best do that.

The obvious solution would have been for the agents to kill the passengers. This would have kept the secret, but one might reasonably ask why none of the relatives have publicly questioned government involvement in the plot.

What could account from this silence? We are talking about people who say they have lost people close to them. The natural thing for those who have suffered a loss through murder is to find out who did it. It is not reasonable to believe that every relative believes the official theory without question, given the obvious holes and discrepancies in it.

Is it possible that the plotters struck a deal with the relatives ahead of time: they would promise to keep the relatives alive in exchange for the relatives’ agreement not to pursue the matter (and perhaps, some money). Maybe after some period of time, after the plotters reason no one would suspect anything, the passengers will be released back to the public.

Some might call this a Faustian bargain, the idea that the families made a deal with the devil. But there is so little we know about the relatives. Are they connected to intelligence or were they otherwise selected by the plotters? Are they just ordinary people whose relatives were victims of the plot?

Conclusion: Finding Falsifiable Assertions

Without cooperation from the alleged relatives, we cannot ascertain the identities or even the true number of passengers. The main problems of getting this conclusion revolve around the fact that there is no way to prove, or falsify, the most plausible hypotheses, while other hypotheses are untenable.

Hypothesis 1: The passengers and relatives are genuine (real people and real names used). The passengers boarded Flights 175 and 93 under their true names and went to Cleveland. The relatives sincerely believe them to be dead.

Problem: They most certainly did not die at the alleged crash scenes. So the authorities have lied to the families and yet we are expected to believe that none of them have figured this out?

Hypothesis 2: The passengers and relatives are genuine. The passengers boarded Flights 175 and 93 under their true names and went to Cleveland. The relatives are told the passengers died in Cleveland.

Problem: It would not take long for any of the family members to realize that the plotters would be responsible for their relative deaths. That they would keep quiet about such an outrage is laughable.

Hypothesis 3: The passengers and relatives are genuine but are also in on the plot. The passengers boarded Flights 175 and 93 under their true names and went to Cleveland. The relatives strike a deal with the plotters – silence in exchange for the promise that the relatives are somewhere, unharmed.

Problem: It is hard to believe that people would accept their relatives’ absence unquestioningly, even for money. Also, how do we prove a deal was made, or even that there is a connection between the relatives and the plotters? If money were involved, how would it be traced?

Hypothesis 4: The passengers use false names and/or false photographs are later used to “identify” them. The relatives are genuinely related and could use false identities themselves. The passengers boarded Flights 175 and 93 under false names and went to Cleveland. The relatives strike the same deal as in Hypothesis 3.

Problem: The same disbelief as to why the relatives would go along with this. The same questions as to proof, which are made more complex because of the use of false identities. The same issues over money linger as well. But the ease in which the passengers could be brought back to society increases as the identities make it harder for researchers to make connections. Fake pictures (see the vicsim pictures on sites like Lets Roll Forums and September Clues) provide even more cover. The issue of proof involves the ability of researchers to find the fake identities and trace the people to find out if they had any history before 9/11. Some have noted this is an issue with Lady Booth Olson, who married Ted Olson after Barbara Olson’s “death.”

Hypothesis 5: Variation of Hypothesis 4. The passengers could have all been agents using fake names and fake pictures. They could have gone to Cleveland and then checked in with a new identity after 9/11. But how can this agency be proven and why waste so many agents on these flights?

I refuse to give up. On a personal note, my parents are both computer programmers. One of the first words I learned as a child was “debug,” or clear errors out of a program. I would watch them make guess after guess as to what was keeping their program from succeeding until they found the correct one. It was very much like the idea of generating and testing hypotheses until one worked.

So I took another look at pictures on Let’s Roll Forums and September Clues. I re-read an article on the latter as to how a picture of one alleged victim, Honor Elizabeth Wainio, could be used to make several pictures of her. With her and with other alleged passengers, there are different pictures with the same lighting and facial expression, which would be highly unlikely of real people.

If even one picture and corresponding identity were faked, I reasoned, any or all of the others could be faked as well. So I came up with a new hypothesis based on Hypothesis #5 in narration form:

Early on the morning of September 11, 2001, approximately 200 intelligence agents showed up, some of them at Boston Airport and others at Newark Airport.

Upon orders from a connection to the plot, they take their false identities and board Flight 175 (Boston) and Flight 93 (Newark). In both cases, separate groups of people arrive late and fill the plane with more passengers than officially indicated.

Photographs and false identities have already been created for all of the alleged passengers. Some names of real people, like Barbara Olson, are used as well to create the impression that only real names are used. These photographs are kept handy until time to release some of them to the media.

The two flights clear the area and head toward Cleveland, where they land after the orders are given by the FAA for all airplanes to land as soon as possible. Flight plans are altered and images on screens are tampered with to create the impression that Flight 175 came back and went to New York and that Flight 93 came back and went to Pennsylvania. Similar trickery is done for the fake flights of 11 and 77.

The agents/passengers land in Cleveland and, after a short time of detention on their planes, they head quietly to the NASA building. There some of the plotters de-brief the agents as to what has happened on the East Coast.

The agents wait in Cleveland for further instructions. During this time, some of the agents work with the plotters to knock down stories in the media, such as the one in which Cleveland Mayor White stated that United 93 landed in Cleveland. They write disinformation to steer the public away from this idea and feed it to the media.

The plotters release the names of some of the passengers over the next few days and some of the “relatives” get clearance from the plotters to speak to the media. They create a narration of hijacked passengers who died as part of the “War on Terror” against Islamic fundamentalists. The relatives are so loyal to the official theory that one may reasonably wonder if they are themselves agents, perhaps even the same ones!

After a delay, the agents go to their new assignments. Can you falsify this