Charge sheet against accused 911 "terrorists" mostly circumstantial

www.defenselink.mil...

Typical:

CHARGE II: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(2), ATTACKING CIVILIANS
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin `Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Mohamed al Kahtani, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, on September 11, 2001; while in the context of and associated with armed conflict; engage in attacks at the World Trade Center (New York, New York), the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, by intentionally crashing four civilian aircraft; to wit: American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93, intending the object to be, and the object which was, a civilian population as such, and individual civilians not taking direct or active part in hostilities; knowing or having reason to know the factual circumstances that established their civilian status, resulting in the deaths of 2,918 civilians. (See Charge Sheet Appendix A for a list of the names of civilians killed).

CHARGE III: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(3), ATTACKING CIVILIAN
OBJECTS
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin `Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Mohamed al Kahtani, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, on September 11, 2001, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict, engage in attacks at or near the World Trade Center (New York, New York), the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, by intentionally crashing four civilian aircraft, to wit: American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93, the object of which was civilian property, that is, property that was not a military objective; intending the object to be, and the object which was, civilian property; knowing or having reason to know that such property was not a military objective.

CHARGE IV: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(13), INTENTIONALLY CAUSING
SERIOUS BODILY INJURY
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin `Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Mohamed al Kahtani, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, on September 11, 2001, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict, intentionally cause and inflict serious injury to the body or health of one or more persons, with unlawful force or violence, in violation of the law of war by intentionally crashing four civilian aircraft, to wit: American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93.

CHARGE V: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(15), MURDER IN VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OF WAR
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin `Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Mohamed al Kahtani, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, on September 11, 2001, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict, intentionally and unlawfully kill 2,973 persons in violation of the law of war by intentionally crashing four civilian aircraft, to wit: American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93. (See Charge Sheet Appendix A for a complete list of victims killed in the attacks).

CHARGE VI: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(16), DESTRUCTION OF
PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin `Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Mohamed al Kahtani, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, on September 11, 2001, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict, intentionally destroy property belonging to another person without that person’s consent, in violation of the law of war by intentionally crashing four
civilian aircraft, to wit: American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93.

CHARGE VII: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(23), HIJACKING OR
HAZARDING A VESSEL OR AIRCRAFT
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih MubarakBin `Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, on September 11, 2001, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict, intentionally seize, exercise control over, and endanger the safe navigation of aircraft that were not legitimate military objectives, to wit: American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93.

CHARGE VIII: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(24), TERRORISM
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih MubarakBin `Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Mohamed al Kahtani, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, on September 11, 2001, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict, intentionally kill and inflict great bodily harm on one or more protected persons and engage in an act that evinced a wanton disregard for human
life, in a manner calculated to influence and affect the conduct of the United States Government and civilian population by intimidation or coercion, and to retaliate against United States Government conduct, by intentionally crashing four civilian aircraft, to wit: American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93.

So what I want to know is how is the prosecution going to prove that 93 crashed in Shanksville, when all that was there is an empty hole? The more likely case is that it was shot down because of the debris field, found up to 8 miles away.

I don't suppose the federally appointed, secret clearance (must have in the case of classified evidence) defense attorney is going to be asking these types of questions?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
www.defenselink.mil...

Typical:

CHARGE II: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(2), ATTACKING CIVILIANS
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin `Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Mohamed al Kahtani, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, on September 11, 2001; while in the context of and associated with armed conflict; engage in attacks at the World Trade Center (New York, New York), the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, by intentionally crashing four civilian aircraft; to wit: American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93, intending the object to be, and the object which was, a civilian population as such, and individual civilians not taking direct or active part in hostilities; knowing or having reason to know the factual circumstances that established their civilian status, resulting in the deaths of 2,918 civilians. (See Charge Sheet Appendix A for a list of the names of civilians killed).

That is an odd way to word that charge. Exactly in what armed conflict and where was the defendent engaged against the US prior to or on 9/11/2001? That is the date for which the defendents are being charged for "armed conflict".

Obviously, there was none going on in the US, in which the defendents could have been engaged on or before 9/11/2001. With what were the defendents alleged to be armed when allegedly engaging in alleged armed conflict against the US? They obviously were not armed with any planes. What were they armed with and engaged in doing, to be considered engaging in armed conflict on or before 9/11/2001?

It does not say conspiracy to commit, or collusion to commit, or acting as accomplices to commit. It says engaged in doing in context of.

No wonder they do not want trials in civilian court. An honest judge would have to throw out the charges, based on the way they are worded.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Couple things, the charge sheet is not going to cover all the evidence. Second, there was enough Flight 93 evidence for the Mossoquoi jury to convict him. Third, other than some papers....what aircraft debris was found 8 miles away to indicate that Flight 93 was shot down. Four, numerous posters have posted literally dozens of links to stories, pictures and eyewitness accounts showing that Flight 93 did crash in Shanksville.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

numerous posters have posted literally dozens of links to stories, pictures and eyewitness accounts showing that Flight 93 did crash in Shanksville.

You mean,No one has been able to prove that a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on Sept 11th, 2001.

Everyone knows that NO PLANE CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE.

It was all part of the Mock Hijacking, Mock Shoot down, Mock Crash sites exercises scheduled for that morning.

Nice try swamp, THe myth that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville has been easily debunked.


[edit on 12-2-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


I was under the same impression, Ivan. At least from from what I have seen. We've got the coroner saying there were no body parts at the "crash site", and the clear pictures showing and indent in the ground with some burned grass. What, the plane hit there intact, and BOUNCED 6 to 8 miles away?

That whole incident with 93 is similar to the Pentagon 77 flight- there was just not enough debris left at the site to accept the official story.

As to this charge sheet, I realize that it does not include evidence. My point with the post is to show what the charges concentrate on- large amounts of financial transactions, not things to do with the actual event itself that would bring the investigation closer to the main questions we all have about the official story.

But if these trials are going to proceed anything like the 911 commission, with crucial issues left uninvestigated, then these suspects can most definitely kiss their assess goodbye.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


No, he said there were no bodies...body parts were another matter. It doesnt matter how many times Ivan posts his pictures or his assertions, the facts remain that all the proof shows that Flight 93 did crash in Shanksville. Pictures of the wreckage, statements from the first responders, statements of the recovery workers (who spent a lot of time on their hands and knees sorting wreckage/body parts out of the crash site), statements of the witnesses to Flight 93's last minutes, radar tapes etc....

And the "truthers" have..."there is no burnt grass".........

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Well, the Pilots for 911 Truth present evidence from the Flight Data Recorder that would tend to contradict the official story:

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 200 1 . However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.

The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of United Flight 93 and the events observed. .As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information and in depth analysis please visit pilotsfor911truth.org.

Point 4: No traces of jet fuel found at the crash site? That alone is enough to cause serious concern and more suspicion.