Letters to the Scottish Press

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Friends for 911 truth,

A) I see with some outrage that NATO 'Defense' Ministers are due in Craigiehall near Edinburgh airport/Barnton/Queensferry on Friday for a Summit about Afghanistan.

I think this gives us an opportunity to highlight the fact that the official reason for going into Afghanistan is to get OBL, the alleged perpetrator of the 'attack on America' [which incidentally is a biased phrase as we should refer to the 'Manhattan murders of Sept 11th' - requiring good domestic police work not armies rampaging round the world.]

I have written a (too long) letter to the Herald and would encourage other folk to seize this chance to expose 911 as the racist fable it is, and as the equivalent of the missing WMD for Iraq and Iran. Two war pretexts down, one to go. The more of us who have a go, the more likely one or two of us get to make another little chink in the media's wall of silence.

I append my letter with some additional material I sent in in case the Letter Editors think there is no evidence behind my assertion. (The Herald's Letters Editor in 2005 was already a David Griffin fan, and published three of mine about 911 and the need to arrest Bush at Gleneagles!)

I will also append information from Scottish and Edinburgh CND, in case you would like to join this protest in person.

LETTER TO HERALD
Now that the Downing Street memo about the US adminstration's intention to frame Iraq with forged WMD data has been matched by the astonishing volte face by the US National Intelligence Estimates, even the most credulous should now know that the neocons have also been lying for years about Iran's WMD preparations.

With Nato 'Defense' Ministers set to meet outside Edinburgh on Friday, the question arises: what about Afghanistan? Was UN approval for war in October 2001 also secured on a pack of lies?

Or is this perhaps a 'good war' so that when British troops have completed their Basra mission (of defending themselves from being attacked because they are there) we should all be happy for them to be thown into Afghanistan, where the Russians came to grief and numerous invaders before them, not least the various opium-grabbing expeditions of the nineteenth century, launched so as to furnish our gun-boat backed 'traders' into China with at least something those pesky Orientals would crave for as much as we lusted after their porcelain, silks and tea.

Although on the breakdown of their Berlin negotiations with Big Oil in July 2001 the Afghan government had been told to expect an attack by October, the official reason given for going into Afghanistan was the refusal of the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden, the designated Muslim patsie for the Manhattan murder wave of 9/11, aka 'attack on America'.

There are so many problems with this official 'conspiracy theory' that one hardly knows where to start, but here goes.

1) It took Fox News only 40 seconds to pin 9/11 on Bin Laden. Yet the man himself always denied responsibility: 'killing innocent people is not an appreciable act in Islam .... you must look to elements within the administration itself'.
2) What about OBL's own boast, recorded on a home movie miraculously 'found in an abandoned Al-Qaeda office' in Khandahar? No one in the Arab world gave the 'fatty Bin Laden' video any credence, and as for subsequent productions relying on JFK-meets-Forest Gump video fakery, if any readers still think they are real, then they may like to contact me as I have a bridge to sell them.
3) In any case the Taliban had all along condemned the 9/11 terrorism and had always indicated readiness to extradite or try Bin Laden as soon as prima facie evidence might be provided. No matter, bomb them anyway.
4) To this day the FBI admit that they have 'no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11'.
5) As ex President of Italy Cossiga recently revealed, it is 'common knowledge' in the security services of the world that 911 was an inside job. Mind you, doubts about 911 are endemic throughout the US, with only 16 percent believing that the adminstration is telling the truth, acccording to a New York Times/CBS News poll of Oct 2006.

Ancillary reasons for NATO to occupy Afghanistan prove equally weak. Laura Bush proclaimed solidarity with the women of Afghanistan, but as in Iraq, so long as the occupation lasts, then any association with the civilian-murdering, DU-poisonous West can only discredit outspoken Afghani women and their male allies.

As for the War on Drugs, it was the Taliban who bore down on opium production prior to invasion. After six years of war Helmand province alone now produces a huge proportion of the world's heroin, much of which finds its way into Western markets (some doubtless in CIA planes normally linked to 'rendition').

What price a pro-independence government if we can't develop independence of mind from the fog of Anglo-American mythology? The invasion of Afghanistan was built on a 'juicy' racist frame-up featuring 'Islamic hijackers' for which there is simply no good evidence. Continuing occupation is futile.

Unless the Craigiehall Nato communique announces rapid withdrawal, I urge Lothian Police to help peace protesters like myself to arrrest these 'Defense' Ministers on conspiracy to commit war crimes, spread poison and perpetuate a grievous crime against peace.

Keith Mothersson
Co-ordinator, 911 Truth Scotland
Perth


[07815 653389 or 0845 456 4779
2b Darnhall Cres, Perth PH2 0HH ]




N.B. ABOUT THE NATO PROTEST
Arrangements for the protest are:
If going from Edinburgh.
Meet 7am at Rutland Square next to Caledonian Hotel and across Lothian Road from the Peace and Justice Centre. There will be a bicycle contingent but if you can bring a car and offer lifts please do so. Everyone else will take the 43 bus which leaves nearby and goes close to Craigiehall. If on the bus get off at the Riverside Road stop which is marked as Army Barracks.

If travelling direct:
Meet up with the bus contingent at Riverside Road just off the A90 at 8am.

Google maps reference
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q= craigiehall&sll=54.162434,-3.647461&sspn=11.463319,22.456055&ie=UTF8&l l=55.967026,-3.334866&spn=0.010688,0.02193&z=15&om=1

Bring placards and banners.

Accommodation available in Edinburgh, on Thursday night.

There will be a banner making and organisation session at the Peace and Justice Centre 6pm on Thursday 13th.

For further details and leaflet to download contact Edinburgh CND.
edinburghcnd@yahoo.com

[Mackelroy]

Good letter. Did the administration in the U.S. know the attacks were set to happen?

I am not able to answer that question in any first-hand, factual way, but I can say this in a first-hand, factual way---I DID KNOW.

I remember vividly telling law enforcement about it in detail in South Korea, in China and in Florida in the U.S.A. Talk about being rebuffed. Believe me, they were not interested and still aren't.

In all I told about 130 persons about what was coming. Many said I was delusional, crazy, and did not know any such thing. So much for human prejudice and biased perceptions.

I have written a manuscript of about 54,000 words detailing the entire experience. In my opinion, the pentagon should have been smashed in completely on all sides. I do not care if it was a missile or a jet aircraft that hit the pentagon. It was not enough. They are terrorists and murderers and they had it coming.

9-11 Sic semper tyrannis.
Trains in Europe.
8-1-80 Ireland
8-2-80 Bologna
8-8-80 Frankfurt
8-8-85 Frankfurt
9-11-93 US
9-11-94 Kiev
9-11-01 US
911 days later Madrid
77 The number of a jet used on 9-11. London

What comes around goes around.

If you do not want to be attacked, stop attacking others. Personally, if people are allowed to terrorize me, hurt my babies, and threaten my children for all times to come, with impunity, I am for anyone and any organization that will smash the aggressors to pieces. 9-11 Sic semper tyrannis. Praise Osama bin Laden. Praise to the brave men of 9-11, the Magnificent Nineteen.

Tell me, why did an American whose ancestors were among the founding fathers of America plea to people in Saudi Arabia for justice and retribution against criminals in the United States? That was what I was doing in 1997 when the agreement was made to launch the attacks with commandeered, fuel-laden, aircraft in the U.S.A.

It is not important that you believe what I am telling you, for the facts have been completed. What is done is done.

[Keith Mothersson]

Sorry, but NO.

911 is about the violation of our civilian immunity from attack. The people were killed by the destruction of the buildings by either controlled demolition or High-tech fireworks/Directed energy weapons.

All this advance warning stuff is perfectly compatible with the seeding of the 911 legend in advance, (1993-1995 period and subsequently), to be retrospectively analysed as the time we missed the clues/ who is to blame for not taking action on these warnings?, etc, big yawn spook stories, when the spooks tell us obvious lies about what killed our fellow civilians in New York that day, so why do we give this stuff the time of day?

If you are genuine, please Mackelroy, stop sounding like a phoney Islamic radical plant raving on about: 'Praise Osama bin Laden. Praise to the brave men of 9-11, the Magnificent Nineteen.'

I suggest we shouldn't tolerate such inflammatory stuff on this website, which can only get us into disrepute, and lay the foundations for US to be branded terrorists. What do others think?

[paul wright]

[paul wright]

Aw yes, I still could but that would make nonsense of the thread.
These oppositional sequestrators of the OCT need a voice I suppose

[Mackelroy]

Keith Mothersson:

Thank you for your input. I guess I was coming across rather strong. But I too have been the victim of terrorism, and it has left me with a need for justice and retribution.

I respect your point of view.

The story about my having known about the attacks of 9-11 is true. It is stranger than any fiction, but true. I contacted people blindly in Saudi Arabia in 1997. The correspondence turned to my suggesting how a successful attack could be carried out inside the US. The attack was commandeered, fuel-laden aircraft. I had it written on paper in 1989 and have it still. Incredible as it may seem, they agreed to it. I learned the specific targets, and began telling others.

Of course there is much more to it than that. I told people in law enforcement in China, and was told to keep quiet about it or be fired.
I told law enforcement about it in Florida. One detective made fun of me and sort of mocked me. Another got up, walked away, and forgot all about it after he promised he would remember it and do what he was supposed to do about it. An investigator in Korea listened, agreed it could happen, and I am not sure who, if anyone, he might have contacted. Most all of the other 130 people I told were really incredulous, even offensive in some ways.

I have a manuscript of about 54,000 words explaining the entire ordeal in detail, along with letters from some of the people I told about the coming attacks.

[Mackelroy]

Keith:

It is fine with me if you want to believe invisible weaponry took down the towers and killed the people, but as for myself, I am quite sure I saw what happened, as did many millions of others. The conspiracy theorists have been hashing and rehashing these far out scenarios for six years now, and noboby but nobody has produced one tiny scintilla of real evidence that any such demolition charges ever exploded or existed. Not one single witness to the planting of the charges has ever been produced.
Not one single person who could have planted such charges has ever been produced. Explosions leave residue which are traceable.

What happened to the jet that supposedly did not hit the pentagon? There sure were a lot of funerals for those people who were not killed. Where is the high tech weapon you speak of? What about all those people in Florida and elsewhere who met, socialized with, and knew the commandeers when they were taking flight lessons there? What about the phone calls from the people on the jet that went down in Pennsylvania? What about my call to 911 in Stuart, Florida early in 2001 telling that they were in Florida, planning attacks and using airplanes? What about the photos of the commandeers in the airport? There is so much evidence it is pathetic to argue without evidence.

I cannot really believe you are serious. I mean, you are joking, aren't you?

You call this a truth forum. I have some truth concerning 9-11. I know without question that law enforcement and persons in government were told in detail about the attacks before they happened. That I know. It is not an idle belief I picked up from a bunch of nut cases on an internet forum. It is information I know without any question whatsoever to be true and factual. I know it as a primary source. I am not interested in theories about demolitions that cannot ever be proven. Nor am I interested in secret weapons theories. I am concerned with proven, unquestionable, verifiable, facts about 9-11.

I have not seen a so-called truth forum on the internet, or any other forum online that is interested in the real truth about anything. But they do seem to be interested in exploiting the fact that they are anonymous and at a distance.

How can you be expected to be taken seriously about seeking the truth about 9-11? I come here with the only information of its kind that I am aware of, and one person starts arguing about some crazy, far-fetched conspiracies that wereossible to have out successfully in the first place. Someone else starts arguing that I should not advance or advocate a part of human nature that has been with us since the beginning of time, and which all societies must rely on to maintain the social order. If you suppprt any government, whether it is the US or the UK or both, you support the use of terrorism. You just do not want it used against yourselves. The US supported the most brutal, bloody, terrorist regimes known in Central America. So, they can fund it and arm it, but if I so much as say or write something, I am the bad guy. Is that he wayit is?

Look at your own attitudes. You would have been the first ones to denounce me and what I was warning about before 9-11, and the first to deny I had ever told you any such thing after 9-1 actually took place.

Terrorism was condoned against me. I condone it back. If you have a problem with that, let's see what you think about it after your family has been threatened and your babies injures with impunity. Let's see how you think about it after you have been terrorized and blasted through a wall, and all of it condoned by military and government. I say * them. I say hit them back.

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Mackelroy, So how is killing 2,700 or more people on 911 going to be hitting back at the ones who did those things? And how does spreading hatred help us to bring peace through truth?

I am sorry but it would take forever to reply to your letter, time I do not have. (some have suggested that distraction is your motive, but I do not know this). You talk about onoy being intersted in 'demonstrable facts'. I think it is a demonstrable fact that after the towers were destroyed, they (95 perccent of the matter) were no longer lying around at the bottom, but had been dustified and spewed upwards.

I think this is more demonstrable than what you believe. At no time do you consider the Tarpley thesis that it is necessary to spread rumours of big attacks and position peoploe in flight schools etc if you want to crry out a FFT event (NOT Let it happen on Purpose IMO).

I know this will disappoint you but I do not propose to engage in detail.

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Editor,
Shame on you for leading on the latest alarmist nonsense to emanate from the lucrative 'anti-terror' industry, about its being merely a matter of time ('not whether but if') before Edinburgh is struck by terrorism. (Festival is key terrorist target, Jan 30th)

A recent article in the New York Times Science section drew attention to findings of much greater cardio-vascular vulnerability among people in most fear of terrorism, and asked 'Which is more of a threat to your health? Al Qaeda or the Department of Homeland Security?'

It went on to equate the risks from terrorism to 'comparable to the risk of dying from eating peanuts, being struck by an asteroid or drowning in a toilet'.

Domestic violence, rape, bullying and industrial injuries are each a hundred times more relevant problems to lay before the people of Scotland than the risk of another fire crash by a car in which there were no bombs.

Keith Mothersson
911 Truth Scotland,
2b Darhall Cres,
Perth PH2 0HH

01738 783677

start of article below:

Lving in Fear and Paying a High Cost in Heart Risk

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15tier.html
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published, NY Times, Science Section: January 15, 2008

Which is more of a threat to your health: Al Qaeda or the Department of Homeland Security?

An intriguing new study suggests the answer is not so clear-cut. Although it’s impossible to calculate the pain that terrorist attacks inflict on victims and society, when statisticians look at cold numbers, they have variously estimated the chances of the average person dying in America at the hands of international terrorists to be comparable to the risk of dying from eating peanuts, being struck by an asteroid or drowning in a toilet.

But worrying about terrorism could be taking a toll on the hearts of millions of Americans. The evidence, published last week in the Archives of General Psychiatry, comes from researchers who began tracking the health of a representative sample of more than 2,700 Americans before September 2001. After the attacks of Sept. 11, the scientists monitored people’s fears of terrorism over the next several years and found that the most fearful people were three to five times more likely than the rest to receive diagnoses of new cardiovascular ailments. .....

I also found the following stats from WHO's Dept of Medical Information for 2002.

UK deaths from Unintentional injuries in 2002: 13.900 of which
Road traffic accidents 3,900
Poisonings 1,200
Falls 5,600
Fires 500
Drownings 200
Other unintentional injuries 2,500

Deaths from Intentional injuries: 5,600
self-inflicted 5,000
Violence 600
War - blank

Alchohol use disorders 1,000
Drug use disorders 1,500
Aids and STDs 300
TB 500