|Note: At the time this article was published, all external links were alive and functioning. But the Internet is a dynamic forum. Webmasters sometimes change or remove pages, and entire web sites sometimes disappear. Whenever practicable, we have cached copies of the originals.|
March 3, 2004 — If you have any way of contacting the 911 widow who has filed a RICO suit against George W. Bush, warn her right away. The complaint filed on behalf of Ellen Mariani by Philip J. Berg, Esquire, is booby-trapped.
In short, Mrs. Mariani's case against the government has been hijacked by a suicide lawyer.
Here is an overview of some of the problems we found with the complaint Berg wrote for Mrs. Mariani. You may find other problems. Because the analysis is lengthy, we have created a Table of Contents for quick navigation.
Table of Contents
Mariani/Berg Suit — In A Nutshell
Mrs. Mariani's late husband, Louis Neil Mariani, was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, the airplane that is alleged to have crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
As a 911 widow, Mrs. Mariani was entitled to receive money from the government's 911 Victims Compensation Fund. Families who accepted money from the fund were required to waive their rights to sue for damages, and with that, of course, the right to conduct discovery. It is through the discovery and subpoena process that the real facts about 9-11 might be brought to light.
Mrs. Mariani, a 65-year-old grandmother who lives on Social Security, refused to participate in what she called the government's "hush fund." Instead, she is suing. "I am a person who wants to know what happened," said told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "Money is great, but not when it comes to a loved one being murdered." (1)
On September 12, 2003, lawyer Philip Berg filed a RICO suit on behalf of Mrs. Mariani in the federal court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (3)
A RICO suit like Mrs. Mariani's is always an allegation of nefarious conspiracy. Lawyer Berg alleges that George Bush and a number of others knew about an impending attack and failed "to act and prevent" it to benefit financially from the follow-up wars. Berg also charges that Bush et al. have failed to cooperate with the Bush-appointed 911 Commission and are obstructing justice.
The following critique will show that Philip Berg has contrived a legal complaint that flagrantly betrays Mrs. Mariani's stated goals. Berg's Complaint is a booby trap set up for ulterior purposes.
What Berg Is Really Doing
As you read this critique, please refer to the Complaint and do your own searches. (3)
Too Many Jewish Names?
As you read the Berg filing, you may be put off by the disproportionate number of players who have Jewish surnames. But depend on it: we will discover that many of Berg's helpers who have Jewish names are really "Episcopalians."
It is also important to remember that many Gentiles — particularly "Judeo-Christian" Gentiles — support the Jewish Supremacy movement. These folk willingly betray America and its laws and traditions to advance the Nation of Israel and its laws and traditions. (4)
How Berg Protects NORAD Commander Eberhart
Berg claims "… plaintiff asserts perhaps the single most damning indictment of Defendant GWB and all Defendants who failed to protect our nation on '911' was the failure of Defendants DOD/NORAD to follow normal military protocol …" (5) It is undeniable: In the real world, NORAD was a more immediate and proximate cause of Louis Neil Mariani's death than any of the named defendants.
What is the effect of omitting Eberhart from the list of named defendants while indirectly naming NORAD, the organization, as a defendant? NORAD is a US-Canada treaty organization. The US Department of Defense does not have jurisdiction over organizations formed by treaties between the US and other counties.
NORAD could voluntarily send some slick mouthpiece to answer any questions Berg might submit. But Eberhart and his entire command chain on duty on 9-11-01 could be kept safely out of reach. Had Berg named Eberhart individually, that dodge would have been impossible; Eberhart is a US citizen.
Later in the Complaint, Berg tells us that Eberhart "admitted that NORAD had practiced responding to such a scenario where terrorists hijack a plane and attempt to crash it into a target in the US." (6) Hidden in Footnote 20 is this lament: "To date, no NORAD member has been official [sic] charged with dereliction of duty, a court martial offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Berg seems to be wringing his hands that they have escaped justice.
Well, all right! If Berg thinks Eberhart & Company have escaped justice and should answer for their actions, why isn't Berg administering justice with this RICO suit? Bring on Justice, Mr. Berg. Name Gen. Eberhart as a defendant "Officially and Individually" right in the caption of your Complaint. Use the discovery process to unravel the mysteries of the NORAD no-show.
Berg Shuns First-Hand Evidence Against NORAD
Real lawyers arguing real cases for real clients observe the rule of "best evidence" to convince the jury or judge. Best evidence is first-hand evidence. If Berg wants to establish the facts concerning NORAD's failure to perform on 911, he should subpoena:
The NORAD commander on 9-11, Those advising the NORAD commander on 9-11, Officers in the chain of command on 9-11, Dispatchers on duty on 9-11, Officers responsible for routine NORAD interception drills, NORAD pilots and officers who had successfully intercepted wayward jets, etc.
A real lawyer arguing a real case would also subpoena: The original NORAD 9-11 logs and records.
But according to Berg's Complaint, he has no plans to do any of this. Nor does he plan to subpoena FAA workers who communicated with NORAD that day, nor air traffic controllers who interacted with the "suicide pilots" and watched the blips on the radar.
State Your Name
Now here's a person we'd like to see on the witness stand, examined and cross-examined: Berg describes this FAA employee as "an unidentified employee at this time" who, at 8:24 a.m., heard a terrorist say over Flight 11's radio: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move." (7)
From context, it seems the terrorist is addressing the passengers in the cabin, in perfect Hollywood idiom. Yet these are the very terrorists whose English was so weak they had to use Arabic-language flight manuals. (8) Inquiring minds are puzzled by this.
Realize that the intercom system, not the radio, is used to address passengers. How could Berg's "unidentified employee" hear the terrorist speaking these words on the radio? It seems unlikely that the suicide pilots, mindful enough to turn off the transponders, were not mindful enough to turn off the radio. Such terrorists risked being overheard in the air traffic control center and intercepted by the ever-watchful NORAD. Inquiring minds are puzzled by this, too. They begin to suspect the "Nobody move" remarks were not mouthed by real people but scripted during a "Wag the Dog" bull session.
Step Up To The Microphone
Remarks such "We have some planes … Nobody move," are an unmistakable indication of a hijack in progress. The remarks were allegedly made at 8:24 a.m.. However, NORAD claims the FAA alerted them to the hijacking at 8:40 a.m. (9)
Berg should force the unidentified employee to step up to the microphone. By doing so, Berg may unravel much of the 9-11 plot. But Berg throws away precious opportunities for real discovery. It seems Berg does not want us, Mrs. Mariani, or anyone else to know the truth.
Berg Has Sinister Motives
Judges attribute sinister motives to those who don't use best evidence. If the lawyer is not using best evidence, the suspicion is that best evidence will not support the case. The following is excerpted from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition, "Evidence."
"It is a rule that the best evidence, or that proof which most certainly exhibits the true state of facts to which it relates, shall be required, and the law rejects secondary or inferior evidence, when it is attempted to be substituted for evidence of a higher or superior nature. This is a rule of policy, grounded upon a reasonable suspicion, that the substitution of inferior for better evidence arises from sinister motives; and an apprehension that the best evidence, if produced, would alter the case to the prejudice of the party." — John Bouvier (10)
Berg Knows Value of First-Hand Evidence
Berg surely knows about the superiority of first-hand evidence. In his "Statement of the Case," Para. 15, Berg states that "Plaintiff will call to trial former federal employees with first-hand knowledge of and expertise with military intelligence and other duties" to support his charge that "Defendants have engaged in a pattern of criminal activity …"
Meet Berg's Clueless Civilian Experts
How will Berg establish the facts concerning NORAD's failure to perform on 9-11? Search for the names "Mindy Kleinberg" and "Mark Elsis" in Berg's Complaint. Those are the names of the two clueless civilians upon whom Berg relies and will rely upon for his NORAD facts.
Mark and Mindy weren't working on flight control desks on 9-11, and they weren't working on the NORAD desks, either. Mark and Mindy are people who could not have, and don't pretend to have, first-hand knowledge. Their expertise relies upon facts/factoids gleaned from third and fourth-hand "evidence."
Let's Welcome Mindy Kleinberg
Mindy Kleinberg is a 911 victim family member. She testified about NORAD's responses on 911 before President Bush's 911 Commission, and Berg quotes 14 paragraphs of her testimony in his "Summary of Facts." (11) (These principles of best evidence apply to Bush's 911 Commission, too. By taking Mindy's "testimony," the Commission makes it clear it is not a body to be taken seriously.)
Mindy has no first-hand knowledge of NORAD's responses on 9-11. "Mrs. Kleinberg has also voiced her support for Plaintiff in this cause of action and will be called as a favorable witness on behalf of Plaintiff at trial." She might be a nice lady, but Mindy is not a person that a real lawyer who is looking for real facts and arguing a real case would use.
Let's Give a Big Hand to Mark Elsis — Doh!
Berg's other expert on NORAD's 9-11 performance is Mark R. Elsis. Who is Mark Elsis? Berg tells us Mark is an "American Citizen." Now that's a good start!
Berg also tells us Mark has written what is "believed to be one of the 'most comprehensive minute by minute accounts of the events of '911' …" Who believes Mark has written one of the most comprehensive 911 timelines? Berg doesn't say, but on January 7, 2004, as established by a Google advanced search, there were no links to Mark's famous minute-to-minute account from the following web pages:
We also surveyed these well-known Internet 911 websites and looked for links to Mark's famous page. There were none.
We searched the Internet for information on Mark R. Elsis. We found that talk show host Meria Heller describes Mark as "Executive Director of the Lovearth Network with over 1000 Eco-Humane-Political websites."
If Mark has 1,000 websites and opened one a day, it would have taken him almost three years to do the job. If he'd opened 10 websites a day, it would have taken him about three months to do it. Prices for buying a domain name range between $35.00 and $100. So Mark has spent somewhere between $35,000 and $100,000 for 1,000 domain names, and spent a whole lot of time putting up these websites. That's dedication. What makes Mark tick?
In February, we did a "whois" search on "lovearth.net." and the listing contained the following domain servers:
Those names sound mighty Christian, so we figured Mark might be an Episcopalian. Curious, we accessed http://god-almighty.net and found a webpage containing a single word, followed by an exclamation mark. That word was: "Doh!"
Then we accessed http://prince-of-peace.net and found a webpage containing a single word, followed by an exclamation mark. That word was "Doh!"
Finally, we accessed http://holy-ghost.net and found a webpage containing a single word, followed by an exclamation mark. That word was "Doh!"
We now begin to suspect that Mark may not be an Episcopalian, that he might have a little contempt for Christianity …
When we checked through Google back in January, no website outside Elsis's own network was linked to http://911Timeline.net. Mark seems to be a legend in his own mind. So that is the expert, and the level of expertise, Berg demands for the Mariani lawsuit. To see the Mark's famous time line, go to:
Public Action's cached copy of the NORAD release can be found at:
Now let's have a closer look at the source of Mark's (and Berg's) basic NORAD information, the NORAD press release. Let's see how it comports with the statements made by the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Gen. Richard B. Myers.
Gen. Myers Contradicts Berg Testimony
On September 11, 2001, Gen. Richard B. Myers (a former NORAD commander) was Acting Chairman of JCS. He had been selected to replace Gen. Hugh Shelton as Chairman of JCS, and was scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearings on September 13. Remember, the Chairman of JCS is the President's principal military advisor, and we've just had one of the worst military disasters in our history, right under the watchful eye of NORAD.
The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee was Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich). Now let's hear what Myers told Levin and the other senators when asked if the military shot down Flight 93:
According to CNN, the Pentagon was struck at 9:38 a.m. It took NORAD's press office five days after Myers September 13 testimony to cobble together its official version of events. That press release contradicts Myers' September 13 statements. (9)
Here is a summary of the conflicting accounts:
Myers, September 13, 2001: NORAD sent interceptors up AFTER 9:38 a.m.
— Myers' and NORAD's statements differ by (at least) 52 minutes.
During his October 17, 2001 Armed Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) interview, Myers spoke of what he did after learning the Pentagon was hit:
There it is again: After the Pentagon hit (9:38 a.m.), Eberhart was still talking about "the actions he was going to take."
When were the NORAD jets launched, and why is there at least a 52-minute discrepancy between Myers' and NORAD statements? Someone's lying. Who?
That is exactly the kind of information Berg will NOT be discovering. He's not calling upon first-hand witnesses and he's using third and fourth-hand "evidence" that has already been rehearsed in public by people of limited knowledge. Thus Berg's tactics ensure we'll get only the answers that have been scripted, without any chance that the truth may be blurted out accidentally.
Mark and Mindy can take an oath and swear to tell the truth. But what truth? That the NORAD press release states what it states? That's true. But the unknown figures who wrote the press release will not be sworn in, nor will the people who supplied the facts/factoids to those unknown figures.
No real lawyer, arguing a real case before a real judge, would argue a case like this. And no serious magistrate or judge would accept or agree to hear such a case. That fact that Bush's lawyers have not already secured its dismissal is surely a testimonial to the collusion between Berg and those in control of Bush's America.
Berg Must Know About Myers
Berg knows, or should know, about Myers' testimony before Levin's committee. Yet he does not inform the court about that testimony, nor does he warn that the statements in the NORAD press release are likely false.
Myers Not Named in Complaint
As Acting Chairman of JCS on 9-11, Myers was the second most senior military advisor to the President. Because he is a former NORAD commander, he knew exactly what actions are routinely taken when aircraft go off course or the transponder falls silent. By his own account, Myers was a confidante and consultant to Eberhart on 9-11.
Thus Myers was surely more responsible for the failure to "act and prevent" the murder of Mrs. Mariani's husband than many of the other named defendants. But Berg does not name Myers as a defendant, nor does he name him as a witness.
Myers May Have Committed Truth
It may be that Myers is telling it like it was: NORAD acted only after the Pentagon was hit, sometime after 9:38 a.m.
According to Berg, the hijacker's words "Nobody move," were heard at 8:24 a.m. NORAD should have been notified immediately. The Pentagon was hit at 9:38 a.m. and sometime after that, defensive jets were sent aloft. Thus there is at least 1 hour and 14 minutes between the 8:24 am "Nobody move" directive, and the jets being sent aloft.
That 1 hour and 14 minute vacuum had to be explained. Factoids were created — plausible factoids of government incompetence and fumbling. First the FAA fumbles (fails to tell NORAD promptly) and then NORAD fumbles (sends jets from far-away airports) and fumbles some more (jets fly at one-third their maximum speed) until the 1 hour and 14 minute vacuum is filled. (15)
The public's attention is then focused upon the same old cover story: The Muslims did it, luckily assisted by government incompetence. Do your own search of the Berg Complaint to see how much ink Berg devotes to this theme.
Berg As Vishnu — With A Hundred Hands
Berg's statements on one page often conflict with statements that appear a few pages later. A real lawyer arguing a real case before a real judge writes a pleading that is internally consistent. The lawyer wants everything in his Complaint to lead the judge in one direction — a decision in his favor. Not so with Mr. Berg. Like the Hindu deity Vishnu, Berg seems to posses a hundred hands that point in all directions at once.
On one hand, in Paragraph 5, Berg alleges Bush's actions were purposeful.
Plaintiff reasonably believes Defendants knew or should have known the attacks on "911" would be carried out and intentionally and deliberately failed to act and prevent these deadly attacks leading to the untimely death of her husband. Plaintiff believes, Defendant GWB et al, allowed the attacks to take place to compel public anger and outcry to engage our nation and our military men and women in a preventable "IWOT" for personal gains and agendas.
The plain English meaning of this statement is clear: Bush et al. knew the attacks would occur and Americans would be murdered. They deliberately allowed the murders to occur to gain a pretext for wars and the personal advantages those wars would bring.
On the other hand, in Paragraph 11, Berg alleges Bush was negligent:
Plaintiff asserts, Defendants acting in their official and individual capacities were grossly and criminally negligent in failing to act and prevent the attacks on "911" resulting in the wrongful death of her husband and attacks against her country.
So that we may understand the distinctions between Berg's two charges against Bush, let us set up a hypothetical situation. Suppose you fail to fix your brakes and lend your car to your mother-in-law and as a result, she has a fatal accident. You are guilty of criminal negligence.
There is a world of difference between these two scenarios, and there is a world of difference between the charges Berg makes in Paragraph 5 and Paragraph 11. In Paragraph 5, Berg describes Bush et al. as people guilty of premeditated murder. That is NOT criminal negligence. Yet in Paragraph 11 he charges Bush with criminal negligence. Get it? On the one hand, Bush et al. are murderers, on the other hand, they aren't.
Let us turn to Black's Law Dictionary for confirmation:
Negligence is the failure to use such care as a prudent person would use under similar circumstances … Criminal negligence … [is] such a flagrant and reckless disregard for the safety of others, or wilful indifference to the injury liable to follow, as to convert an act otherwise lawful into a crime when it results in personal injury or death …
Berg expects us, and the court, not to notice the contradictions inherent in his Paragraph 5 charges and his Paragraph 11 charges. Let's watch Berg play Vishnu in another example:
On one hand, Mrs. Mariani doubts Osama did 911:
Plaintiff deserves her day in court in this matter for many reasons, most specifically to challenge Defendant in this matter for many reasons, most specifically to challenge Defendant GWB's purported fact that the "terrorist" responsible for the "911" attacks and its mastermind is "OBL."
On the other hand, Berg would have us believe there is overwhelming evidence of Muslim guilt. (17)
Conspiracy Smorgasbord: Where's the Beef?
Berg has obviously trawled the Internet for 911 conspiracy theories. His Complaint is a 911 conspiracy smorgasbord that offers conspiracy appetizers for all palates. For the Democratic palate, there's a lot of Bush-bashing. For the Republicans, the inclusion of the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations on the list of named defendants has a certain appeal. Tid-bits on the smorgasbord can be selectively quoted to a broad array of people suspicious of 911. Most of these people will not read the entire Complaint, and they will not realize that Berg's smorgasbord serves no beef. Some of those people will flock to Berg's support.
When Berg's conspiracy theories get laughed out of court, the mainstream media will report to the general public: "Berg, a top lawyer, put his best case forward, but it failed. See, there's no beef in their silly 911 conspiracy claims." The general public will never learn about the convincing evidence indicating that 911 was an inside job because Berg excluded this evidence from his Complaint. The public will never know that the steak and potatoes is still in the kitchen, hidden from public view.
Thus, it is hoped, the 911 truth movement will be contained: Members of the broader, unaware public will be inoculated against the spreading truth, and the activists who supported the Mariani suit will see their efforts wasted and their suspicions held up to public discredit. That's how protest neutralization works, a la the civil lawsuit. To see how another lawsuit was used to neutralize the outrage of the Waco Holocaust, see "Waco Suits for Waco Suckers." (18)
The Truth Is Leaking Out
In March last year, for example, the New York Times reported that Mel Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, did not buy the "suicide pilots" story: he believed the 911 jets sent into the WTC were remote-controlled. And in December, Newhouse News ran an article on 911 conspiracy theories. The very first paragraph contains these words:
One theory … says a missile fired by the US military, not a hijacked jetliner, struck the Pentagon. Yet another: The Israelis orchestrated the attacks to force the United States into a war against the Arabs. (19)
Berg Is Not Working Alone
Assisting Berg is The 9-11 Visibility Project. It scours the Internet looking for skeptics and urges them to support "the 9-11 families struggle for the truth" — and Berg's lawsuit. Skeptics are urged to contact the media, circulate petitions, donate money, and create or join local 911 action groups. This statement is displayed on the website:
We are an action-oriented 9-11 website. Many good websites already exist offering research and analysis of the events of September 11th, 2001. Our purpose is not to duplicate these efforts, nor to prove or disprove what really happened. Rather, our goal is to support the 9-11 truth movement itself, led by the victims' families' efforts to obtain full government accountability for the unprecedented intelligence and air defense failures that took place before and during the attacks. What you will find on this site are information and tools designed to help build this movement. (20)
How can the Project support the "9-11 truth movement" without taking a position on what the truth is? The answer is no surprise. The 9-11 Visibility Project does take a position on the truth — it slyly peddles the Bush suicide-pilots fable in language so blunted you'd hardly notice. There were "air defense failures." That is, The Muslim Did It and — oooops! — NORAD wasn't around when they should have been.
Several weeks ago, the Project's webmaster, Bill Douglas, wrote to Public Action asking us to link to him. We wrote back, suggesting a mutual link. (21)
But Public Action's documented and reasoned articles shoot holes in the suicide pilots, and offer serious analysis of 911. (2) Those articles indicate that Israel had the motive, means, and opportunity for 911 and that Israel is its chief beneficiary. Douglas never wrote back, and never gave us a link. Thus we can see that the 9-11 visibility Project DOES have a preferred version of the truth, and it is remarkably close to George W. Bush's. All together now: "THE MUSLIMS DID IT." Like the Berg lawsuit, the 9-11 Visibility Project is part of the cover-up.
The 911 Mantra
Berg alleges that Bush et al. permitted 911 to occur so they could profit from the 911 wars, but Berg never questions the comspiracy theory that justifies those wars. Berg alleges and implies that Bush is utterly corrupt and enabled the murders of thousands of Americans in order to enrich himself and his friends. On this one point, however, Berg wants us to believe Bush is telling the truth: The 911 planes were flown by Muslim suicide pilots.
That's right. The Muslims flew the jets into the WTC. The fuel spilled and splashed and started fires. The fires got so hot they melted the steel skyscrapers. But one of the hijacker's passports was found safe and sound in the streets below … and other fantastic yarns. (22)
Inside Job? Don't Even Think It!
The failure of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to perform its duty on 9-11 was absolutely vital to the success of the alleged suicide pilots. The official story of 9-11 is completely dependent on it. NORAD's no-show enabled 911 to take place.
In order to have a reasonable expectation of success, the suicide pilots would have to know that NORAD would not intercept them. But that would be a strange assumption. In the ten months prior to September 11, 2001, NORAD had intercepted 67 wayward planes over US airspace. (23)
That's seven interceptions a month. Given that past performance, how likely is it that NORAD would fail on 9-11, not just once, but four times?
Most investigators and law enforcement professionals suspect that the enablers of a crime — people who play an essential part in its success — are likely participants in its planning and execution. Not so Lawyer Berg. Despite his background — Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania — he never considers the possibility that 911 was an inside job.
"Suicide Pilots" Were Just Plain Lucky
Berg, by means of quotations from the 911 Commission witness Mindy Kleinberg, even goes so far as to attribute "luck" to the suicide pilots. He quotes Mindy: "Lucky for the terrorists …" and "So the hijacker's luck had continued." (24)
Berg Twists Logic To Protect NORAD
Berg's strategy of turning the spotlight off NORAD and onto Bush encounters some insurmountable logical problems, however. Let's follow the chain of reasoning.
Berg asserts Bush knew a 911-type event was being planned but allowed it to happen in order to gain. That is, Bush DELIBERATELY — with consciously formulated purpose — allowed the attacks to succeed. (25)
For the attacks to succeed, Bush would have to reach down into the command chain of NORAD to tell them not to do their job. If NORAD complied, that means NORAD must have DELIBERATELY failed to defend against the 911 attacks. But Berg does not go THERE. Instead, he trots out a well-worn cover story used to explain away government atrocities everywhere: incompetence and bureaucratic bumbling.
It wasn't all NORAD's fault. No Sir. The FAA was late telling NORAD about the hijacking. Berg is not quite sure when what that happened: In Para. 28, NORAD was told at 8:36 a.m. and in Para. 59, NORAD was told at 8:40 a.m. Whatever. After that, NORAD failed to respond "expeditiously." (26)
Footnote 20 of the Complaint captures Berg's posture towards NORAD:
If proper procedures were followed by the Defendants FAA and NORAD, the horrific events of "911" could have been very well avoided. Defendant NORAD had approximately twenty-two (22) minutes from the first notification of Flight 11's hijacking, until it crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. to intercept, thus raising serious questions of "dereliction of duty" at a minimum …
Notice the phrase "dereliction of duty at a minimum." A prosecutor's job is to bring the best evidence to the table and prosecute for the maximum conviction, not the minimum.
Berg's Complaint continues. No accusation that NORAD actions (or FAA actions) were deliberate, anywhere. So if Bush did not issue the order to NORAD to hold back during an attack, how did Bush carry out his diabolical 9-11 plot? Berg does not say.
FAA Excuse Won't Fly
Author William Thomas shows NORAD's "The FAA notified us late" defense is no defense at all. (15) Writing of events on 9-11, William Thomas states:
But at the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace over the northeastern seaboard would have caught that first hijacking when Flight 11's identification transponder stopped transmitting at 8:20 — automatically triggering a radar alarm.
So according to Thomas, a former US military man and a pilot, the National Military Command Center knew everything as the story was unfolding. But Berg does not mention the National Military Command Center in his Complaint.
Berg's Suit Will Lock Up 911 Truth
Berg wrote his Complaint as a class action lawsuit. (27) If the court certifies Berg's claim, he will represent all those who, like Mrs. Mariani, refused to participate in the government's 911 hush fund. If the suit fails, it will fail for Mrs. Mariani and all the others. If the suit is dismissed with prejudice, 9-11 plaintiffs will never be able to bring another suit for that cause of action against the defendants. Berg could ruin every plaintiff's potential case forever.
If, on the other hand, Mariani is awarded damages, the results will be the same: there will be no more 9-11 plaintiffs to bring suits and no more chance for honest discovery. The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories, the suicide pilot fable, will be set in stone.
Gross Errors and "Quotation Marks"
Competent lawyers are sticklers for details. They like to have their facts right. Competent lawyers have competent paralegals, law clerks, and secretaries double and triple-check their work for errors of fact, typos and poor English usage. Why? Because the lawyer who wants to win his case doesn't want the judge to lose confidence in him, his command of the facts, or his scholarship.
But what of lawyers who don't want to win? In the suit Ramsey Clark filed on behalf of the (alleged) Branch Davidian survivors, Clark couldn't even get the victims' names right. In this case, Berg can't even get the date of Louis Neil Mariani's death right. The Complaint states:
That, on September 10, 2003, Plaintiff and her husband Louis Neil Mariani spent their last day together as husband and wife on this earth.
Berg sabotages Mrs. Mariani's case in less obvious ways as well. Poor English usage is evidence of incompetence and is confidence-shaking. Berg continually uses "quotation marks" inappropriately, as though he were a "semi-literate high-school dropout." Please "search for examples." You'll find Berg's Complaint "littered" with them.
Hopping Down the Nazi Bunny Trail
Berg likes bunny trails. Of George W. Bush's alleged war profiteering, Berg states:
A pattern of this financial war profiting and the 'Bush Family' goes back to their dealings with Nazi Germany during World War II. Plaintiff understands this assertion will be a shock to her fellow Americans …
A real lawyer would be less interested shocking the public and more interested in convincing the judge; less interested in airing stories about what Bush's ancestors may have done 60 years ago and more interested in the here and now. A real lawyer would be issuing subpoenas to the entire NORAD command chain on 9-11, not looking for Nazis under the bed. Berg's Complaint is not written for a judge. It is a protest neutralization effort that plays off the credulity of the public. It's a tawdry effort, aimed at the cheap seats.
Presidents and RICO Suits
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was passed in 1970 and we note that since its passage, US presidents and cabinet members have not spent much time in the civil courtrooms defending themselves from RICO suits. Why not?
Judges have inquiring minds. It is the lawyer's job to predict obvious questions and include the answers in the brief — competent lawyers don't leave the research to the judge. Yet Berg's complaint cites no precedents of RICO suits being used against a president and cabinet members; he cites no precedents showing the similarities or dissimilarities between those RICO suits and the present case. If Berg's RICO suit is the first ever against a US president and cabinet members, he does not mention that, either.
From what deck of cards is Berg dealing? (65)
It's A Fertilizer Bomb!
Plaintiff's Complaint is historical in nature as our Constitutional way of government has been attacked and the following quote of Justice Louis Brandeis is very relevant to this cause of action: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)).
Note Brandeis' view of government: "Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example." Brandeis assumes that the government occupies the high station of a master who can teach those in a lower station, the subjects. It is reminiscent of the Old Testament prophet-king who is closer to God than the rest of us.
Brandeis' concept is directly opposed to the principles upon which our country was founded. Our Founding Fathers embraced John Locke's social contract, the notion that the government is merely a servant, created by an agreement among "we the people."
If Brandeis' words seem familiar to you, don't be surprised. Timothy McVeigh used those very words in court during his sentencing hearing. McVeigh told the court:
If the court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example." That's all I have.
Recall that McVeigh was described as a member of the "patriot" movement, someone associated with white supremacists, racists, and "anti-Semites." Now who was Justice Brandeis, and why would McVeigh quote him?
Brandeis asserted there was no conflict between being an American and a Zionist. Neff quotes Brandeis: "There is no inconsistency between loyalty to America and loyalty to Jewry."
While sitting as a Supreme Court judge, sworn to uphold the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment of religion, Brandeis worked quietly behind the scenes to secure American approval of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish state. Neff states: "It was from Brandeis' time that American Zionists began a concerted effort to link American ideals and interests with a Jewish state and thereby establish a mutual identity … the fact is that Zionists have been successful in selling in the United States Brandeis' preposterous claim that the Zionist state and America are basically the same." (29)
Consider McVeigh's admiration for Brandeis again, and remember that McVeigh was allegedly sympathetic to white supremacists, racists, and "anti-Semites." How likely is it such a person would quote Brandeis?
McVeigh was clearly other than presented — he was a synthetic character, a puppet. Whether putting words in the mouth of Timothy McVeigh or in the mouth of Ellen Mariani, the puppet masters leave their fingerprints.
911 Scenario Was Brainchild of USrael
The Muslim suicide pilots conspiracy theory presumes the strategy was the brainchild of the Muslims. Not so. The strategy was the brainchild of USrael.
Berg refers to "[e]vidence that, prior to 9/11, US intelligence had knowledge that terrorists might use commercial airliners as weapons." (Count IV, Para. 61(D)) Here is one report Berg cites:
So the results of the study were "not published"? Berg misleads us again. The results of the study were published — in novelized form, and sold at bookstores and supermarket checkout counters across the US. Once in 1994, and again in 1996, American novelist Tom Clancy wrote best-sellers in which a pilot deliberately crashed a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol building, killing the President and top leadership (Debt of Honor, 1994; Executive Orders, 1996).
Clancy works hand in glove with the Special Operations Command to develop his novels. He is especially close to their retired four-star General Carl Stiner (sometimes "Steiner"). It was Special Operations people who brainstormed the 911 scenario Berg that cites in his Complaint.
Clancy and Gen. Stiner/Steiner collaborated on a book, "Shadow Warriors: Inside the Special Forces." Warren Berger of Bookmagazine.com writes:
Shadow Warriors … provides an inside view into the military's clandestine Special Forces-who were among the first soldiers sent into Afghanistan. Talk about timing: Just as Americans have begun wondering who'd be capable of tracking down Osama bin Laden, Clancy is releasing a book that answers that very question. The author has no doubt that the elite warriors he has studied closely will prevail in Afghanistan and beyond.
Is Clancy's timing due to luck, as review Berger suggests? Not likely. It's more likely Clancy works from scripts given to him by Special Operations.
Tom Clancy is the Special Operations' advance man, tasked to create public approval for military actions that have already been planned and are about to be staged. It's obvious Special Operations gave Clancy the 911 plot that lawyer Philip Berg says was such a secret, and Special Operations had no "fear" potential terrorists would use it.
See No Jews, Hear No Jews, Speak of No Jews
Although Berg alleges the motivation for the 911 wars is to benefit the defendants "both financially and for political reasons," he fails to mention that the biggest benefactor of the 911 wars is Israel. He fails to mention Israel had the motive, and its agents had the means and the opportunity to do the job.
Of course Israel loves the 911 wars, and that is understandable. What could be more efficient than having American Gentiles wipe out Middle Eastern Gentiles who stand in the way of Jewish world-wide ambitions? What could be finer than handing over control of Arab oil wells to corporations controlled by Jews and Episcopalians?
It is hard to believe that a man who ran for political office in Pennsylvania — state governor and US senator — is blind to international geopolitics. Berg's omissions are glaring. As writer James Baldwin eloquently instructs:
When I began to think about it, I realized that I had been doing what every writer, unconsciously, is always doing: a writer is never listening to what is being said, he is never listening to what he is being told. He is listening to what is not being said, he is listening to what he is not being told, which means that he is trying to discover the purpose of the communication.
Making the Jewish Connection
The Jewish connection to the 911 wars may be invisible to Berg, but many have noticed that the most strident proponents of the 911 wars are Jews and their fellow travelers in the Jewish Supremacy movement.
Search for the names "Wolfowitz" and "Perle" in Berg's Complaint. You'll find them, but Berg hasn't noticed they're Jews who are using America to fight wars to benefit Israel. He hasn't noticed other politically powerful Jews are doing the same. Poor Berg can't seem to connect the dots.
Israel Was Only Trying to Help US
Berg does mention Israel, but in this regard: Israel's Mossad wrote intelligence reports warning us about the Muslims. But greedy Mr. Bush ignored them, planning to fatten his wallet. See how much ink Berg devotes to the heroic efforts of the Mossad by searching for "Mossad" in Berg's Complaint.
Gordon Thomas is the author of "Gideon's Spies: Mossad's Secret Warriors," which purports to be an expose of the Mossad, the Israeli spy agency. As a child, Gordon Thomas went to school in Tel Aviv, and as an adult, he has a cozy relationship with the Mossad. He boasts they gave him "unprecedented access to Mossad's key personnel" when he was writing his expose. (41) Gordon Thomas is one of Berg's favorite sources of Mossad "evidence."
When talking with the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs about writing "Gideon's Spies," Gordon Thomas said: "… I got a lot of cooperation in Israel." Of the Mossad director, Efraim Halevy, Gordon Thomas says: "Halevy's a smoothie. He comes over as the nice old grandfather type." (42)
According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002) of Global Intel, the original source of information actually came from Israeli Mossad agents operating in the US who had infiltrated al Qaeda. According to this account the Mossad also informed British and Russian intelligence about the attacks, who in turn notified the CIA. Gordon Thomas's sources are allegedly informants within the Mossad itself.
According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002), Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy warned both the CIA and FBI of the possibility of near term attacks..
From a practical standpoint, listen to what we are being told. Mossad discovers that the Muslims are planning a terrorist attack on the US. That attack would justify US retaliation against the Muslim nations, and that retaliation against the Muslims would, in turn, serve Israel's best interests. Yet the Mossad acts against Israel's best interests and warns us.
Berg alleges George W. Bush was bright enough to see his personal advantage in the war, and played negligent; the Mossad, however, was too dim to see Israel's advantage, so they warned us. And to warn us, they had to admit they had Mossad spies operating on US soil. How realistic is all this?
From a legal standpoint, notice that Berg is presenting Gordon Thomas's reports — fourth or fifth-hand hearsay written in a book — to the magistrates and judges. This is hearsay evidence at its worse — it is one step above quoting Ann Landers.
Besides, what conclusions can be drawn about those who have prior knowledge of crimes? Suppose Joe walks into his local police station and says that City Hall will soon be bombed. The next day, City Hall is bombed. The police realize that Joe had foreknowledge, and then discover Joe had a motive, the means, and the opportunity to do the job. Joe becomes the prime suspect.
But Berg assumes we won't suspect the Mossad prophets in Israel. He hopes we'll accept fourth and fifth-hand evidence in a book written by a Mossad sweetheart without questioning a word, without noticing the reports serve Israel's interests, and without understanding that an integral part of any intelligence agency's job is to plant false evidence and lie.
What Would Judge Judy Say?
In all fairness to Berg, he does not totally rely upon the Mossad. Berg also relies upon a website he refers to as "Online.ie." He relies on the "From the Wilderness" website and Internet conspiracy theorist Mike Ruppert. He also relies upon facts/factoids he gathered from a variety of other casual sources — from the International Herald Tribune to "a French magazine," to "a Moroccan newspaper"
The Zionist Roadmap — Yesterday & Today
We have already reviewed in "The Jewish Connection" (above), rock-solid documentation that Jewish interest groups have been the leading agitators for the 911 wars against Muslim nations. Most people — even those with obviously Episcopalian names like "Berg" — can understand why. Most people have at least a passing acquaintance with the Old Testament.
Eretz Yisrael includes all of Lebanon, much of Syria, Jordan, and Sinai, according to Wright. Wright states that the founder of secular Zionism, Theodore Herzl, agreed with Old Testament territorial imperialism. Wright wrote that Herzl's ideas were "all ideas taken from the Old Testament, but dressed up in modern language."
Wright could see how US political support of Israel's expansionist aims was manipulated by religious doctrines. He pointed out:
… Zionists and Christian Fundamentalists have frequently used the Hebrew Bible as an authority for justifying a Jewish State. As late as summer 1976, Candidate Jimmie Carter stated, "I am pro-Israeli, not because of political expediency, but because I believe Israel is the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy." (43)
To see a contemporary expression of the Eretz Yisrael belief system, see "The Divine Zionist Roadmap," by Rabbi Eliezer Waldman.
We have our own biblical roadmap that has been guiding the Jewish people from its very inception by the divine plan revealed to our father Abraham. The Almighty calls upon Abraham (Genesis 12 :1) and tells him "Get thee out of your country … unto a land that I will show you." These words created the roadmap along which the Almighty led the People of Israel. "For all the land which you see, I will give you and to your children forever." (Genesis 13:15) These words of G-d bound together the eternal destiny of the people of Israel with the Land of Israel. (44)
Like Orthodox Jews, George W. Bush thumps the Old Testament: Jews are "God's Chosen People" and have a unique historical and political role to play. (45)
Thanks to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, we now know that the Bush Administration began laying plans for an American invasion of Iraq from "day one" — in January of 2001 — not after the 911 attacks, as was previously reported. In his interview on CBS, O'Neill describes Bush's zombie-like qualities. At cabinet meetings, O'Neill said of the president:
"[He was] like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," and top officials were forced to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."
In his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush, O'Neill said: "I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage … I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening — As I recall, it was mostly a monologue." O'Neill also described Bush as "disengaged." (46)
Yes, Bush is a zombie. It is no wonder that, even before Inauguration Day, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center was able to state:
I have never heard any American president, from Reagan to Clinton, ally himself so closely with the Israeli position. (47)
The photograph accompanying the article shows Bush, wearing a yarmulke, standing next to Rabbi Heir.
Jewish Prophesy and 911
Religious Jews look forward to the time a redeemer ("Moshiach" or the anointed) comes. Moshiach will restore Jerusalem to the Jews, establish a world government in Israel that will govern both Jews and Gentiles, build the Third Temple, restore blood sacrifice rituals to Judaism, and establish the Jewish court system throughout the world. (48)
There is more … .much more! … afoot in past, recent and present world events than first meets the eye. Since 1840 Orthodox Jewish Bible scholars have been aware that world events were (then) and are (now) fulfilling Messianic Era Prophesies found in Sacred Jewish Teachings. The return of the Jews to the Holy Land, the Gulf War, global terrorism and the WTC disaster … all have references in Judaic Holy Literature. To give you an idea of just how precise this "Jewish Biblical lock-on" is to world events … one Sacred Jewish Literature Source uses the Hebrew, (plural ending) word "Taliban-eem." (50)
This is startling material. That Jewish holy men predicted "global terrorism" and the WTC disaster is remarkable. But that the Taliban Afghani Muslim patriots — actually named themselves with a Hebrew word in Sacred Jewish Literature — "Taliban-eem" — is more than remarkable. It enough to make you see the writing on the wall.
Now Rabbi Yess tells us Rabbi Schneerson prophesized the 2003 Iraq war, and that the conquest of Iraq is a benchmark of the Final Redemption:
Two days after a ceasefire had already been declared by President Bush regarding the Gulf War of 1991, Rabbi Schneerson publicly stated:… may G-d grant that country [America] success in its war against Basra [Iraq] and may we soon merit the fulfillment of the Prophecy, "Who is that coming in soiled garments from Basra?" with the coming of [the Final] Redemption.It therefore is blatantly obvious from the immediate above citation that this present 2nd war against Iraq … in 2003 … was foreseen via Prophecy by Rabbi Schneerson in 1991 … and furthermore this 2nd Iraqi war is demonstrably the historic benchmark heralding the imminent Final Redemption of world Jewry and all of mankind. (50)
Prophesies Designed by Men?
Do prophesies reveal the plans of God, or the plans of men? In his novel "Dune," author Frank Herbert explained how prophecy can be used as a tool of political control. That novel should be required reading for anyone who wishes to understand contemporary events. Consider that Rabbi Schneerson didn't exactly "prophecy" the second war against Iraq, that he and Chabad Lubavitch knew exactly what the gameplan was. Chabad is here to herald in the new world order; they're part of the team.
In 1998, three Jews, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, went to the American heartland to sell war with Iraq to the American people. At Ohio State University they were met with fierce resistance. The speakers were shouted down with chants like "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war." CNN reported:
But if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein doesn't allow U.N. arms inspectors to have unrestricted access to all weapons sites in Iraq, they [Albright, Cohen, Berger] reaffirmed that a U.S.-led coalition will respond with military force. (51)
Two years later, the Project for the New American Century, chaired by William Kristol, published "Rebuilding America's Defenses — Strategy, Sources and Resources for a New Century." It is a plan for American (read "Jewish") world domination. The authors state that in order for their plans to be realized in a timely fashion, America will need a new Pearl Harbor.
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world … Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets … Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor. (52)
911 was surely the very Pearl Harbor Kristol's group would welcome.
Why Iraq Is So Significant to the Jews
Iraq has enormous significance for the Jewish religion. It is thought to be the location of the Garden of Eden, the birthplace of Abraham, and home of the Babylonian Talmud (the basic book of Jewish law).
That the conquest of Iraq has enormous religious significance is confirmed by this December 19, 2003 article in The Jewish Week, "Chanukah At Saddam's Palace: Iraqi Jew's menorah heavy with symbolism."
The Jewish Week informs us that America's head chaplain at Saddam's Palace is Col. Frank E. Wismer III. Wismer, whose surname appears in Jewish genealogy records, is an Episcopalian minister. (66) He requested that a special menorah, belonging of the great-granddaughter of one of Baghdad's chief rabbis, be flown from New York to Baghdad for a Chanukah ceremony at Saddam's palace.
Col. Wismer conducted a Christmas Eucharist service to which the attendees wore military fatigues and pistols, and carried rifles in their hands. (66)
Wolfowitz "A Prophet"?
If Rumsfeld is the face, mouth and strong right arm of the war in Iraq, Wolfowitz — the intellectual godfather of the war — is its heart and soul. Whereas Rumsfeld talks about Iraq like a technician, Wolfowitz sounds more like a prophet.
Time Magazine named Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz "Person of the Year" in 2003. (54)
Berg Perverts History of 911 Cover-up
Berg questions why Bush "took two years to establish the 911 Commission," and charges that Bush has obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with it now that it established. But he omits from his statement of facts that on September 11, 2001, the appropriate 911 investigatory body was already in existence, already staffed and already empowered. That body was the Senate Armed Services Committee under the Chairmanship of Sen. Carl Levin, who, coincidentally, is a strong supporter of the vanguard of Jewish Supremacy, Chabad Lubavitch. (55)
Levin's committee not only aided and abetted the 911 co-conspirators by making sure they escaped justice, but the committee applauded them for their 911 performance. Instead of giving this outrage the attention it deserves, Berg assigns Levin's treasonous actions to the memory hole. He focuses on the Bush-appointed 911 commission instead.
Those Magnificent Shoulders
On September 13, 2001, two days after 911, Levin introduced Myers with these remarks:
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, assured the nation two nights ago that America's armed forces are ready. General Shelton has served in the demanding position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the past four years with great distinction. The nation and every man and woman who wears our country's uniform owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. And now, General Richard Myers is ready to assume the duties that General Shelton so magnificently shouldered … (12)
Praise for "Mordecai" Myers
Sen. Jean Carnahan was appointed to the Senate after her deceased husband (illegally) won the Missouri senate seat over John (now Attorney General) Ashcroft. She was also lavish in her praise of Myers. She called him "a military leader of our time."
Carnahan thus compared Myers to the Jewish hero Mordecai, cousin of Queen Esther. Mordecai, you will recall from the Biblical Book of Esther, used the power of the Gentile Persian king, Ahasuerus, to slaughter tens of thousands of powerless Gentiles. That slaughter is celebrated during the Feast of Purim.
If Myers is a "military leader for our time," the question to be asked is, "whose time"? Myers and his colleagues laid our countryo pen to a savage attack that could only benefit Israel, and he sat back comfortably and watched it all happen. Certainly 9-11 was not America's time, it was Israel's time.
Fools vs. Traitors
Yes sir, The first flight I think was American Flight 11 …
I think it's 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
Now the last flight was a little bit different. I think it's flight 93 — United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
So Eberhart pretended to be clueless about the disaster over which he presided. What was the attitude of Levin's committee? Senator Allard (R-Colorado) told Eberhart:
OK. Well, I just want to thank you and your people for, I know, I think a tremendous effort in light of some totally unexpected circumstances. And at least, I, for one, appreciate, you know, the readiness that was displayed. (emphasis added) (56)
Allard was not speaking for himself of course. He was in the Senate committee room, on the Senate payroll. And Levin remained silent, allowed the remark to pass unchallenged, and by doing so, endorsed it.
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.
Establishing Worldwide Jewish Law
The 911 wars herald Jewish Redemption, and Jewish Redemption heralds the Noahide Laws. Those are a set of seven laws that, according to rabbis, apply to Gentiles. Among other things, "idolatry" is forbidden. What is idolatry? Practicing Christianity is idolatry, according to the Noahide Laws. Gentiles who stand accused of breaking those laws will appear before one Jewish judge. If found guilty, there is only one punishment: death by decapitation. (49)
As Jews demand expansion of the 911 wars, they also want the Noahide Laws applied world-wide. Why? To bring peace, of course. Rav. B. Horovitz, the director of Yeshivat Dvar Yerushalayim (the Jerusalem Academy of Jewish Studies), recommends that the United Nations enforce the Noahide Laws. (57)
Will the Noahide Laws bring peace? Perhaps. There is no place more peaceful than a graveyard.
The Third Temple and the Return of Blood Sacrifice
Jewish prophecy holds that at the time of Jewish Redemption, the temple on Temple Mount, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., will be rebuilt. With the Third Temple, the Jewish rituals of blood sacrifice will be restored. (58)
Temple Mount is now the site of Muslim shrines. Plans are underway to remove these shrines. (59) Israelis have excavated "archeology" tunnels under the Muslim shrines, weakening the foundations. They claim to be looking for the tombs of the kings of Israel. (60)
Additionally, the stage is being set for earthquakes to occur on Temple Mount. On January 16, 2004, Haaretz reported the very first geological survey of the Temple Mount area:
The Temple Mount at the Old City would be the worst hit parts of Jerusalem if a serious earthquake were to strike the capital, according to the first geological survey of [its] kind … The survey was commissioned by Jerusalem municipality and carried out by the Israel geological Institution. (61)
Should the predicted seismic event occur beneath the Muslim shrines, weakened as they are by the tunnels beneath them, the shrines might collapse, of course.
Now could a seismic event beneath Temple Mount be engineered by Moshiach architects? Certainly seismic events occurred under the World Trade Center towers on 911, at the beginning of each collapse. (62)
On February 11, 2004, the Jerusalem Newswire reported an earthquake in Israel which "left a crack in the ceiling of the Knesset plenum, Israel's parliament, just minutes before lawmakers were scheduled to take their seats for the day's debates …"
It seems that "a people without a Temple" will soon find "a Temple Mount without a Temple." Get ready for the fulfillment of another prophecy.
This article updated March 16,2004