This Forum is Closed
July 21, 2018, 04:59:11 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home: http://forum.globalgulag.com
 
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

O'Bummer signing NDAA is all the proof I need to say Beverly Eckert was murdered

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: O'Bummer signing NDAA is all the proof I need to say Beverly Eckert was murdered  (Read 381 times)
Jonnie Goodboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


The Gulag Archipelago, - had 'Paradise Islands'.


View Profile
« on: January 01, 2012, 02:35:35 pm »

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens ...."
      — O'Bummer

I'd say her own & 9/11-Families for Peaceful tomorrows, all the other 9/11-Families' work was underlined and emphasised, then metaphorically thrown in the Trash-can, as the Economic Crisis began to take precedence.



Because her last meeting a week before her highly significant death on Colgan flight 3407, spoke to this illegitimate President asking specifically about closing Guantanamo and maintaining the Dignity and Values of the American Constitution.

My thoughts on this are that she was got rid of so that she wouldn't have to see this disgrace being carried out in the name of the many principles she struggled for during the years following the attack on the World Trade Center.

 AND then there's the stuff this person did, as a Torchbearing 9/11-Family Member and staunch campaigner, that I don't even know about ...

1)

Context of 'August 15, 2002:
9/11 Victims’ Relatives File Lawsuit Against Alleged Saudi Al-Qaeda Financiers'


http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a081502saudisuit#a081502saudisuit

(TINY SHORT EXTRACT ONLY HERE)

Q. How many families are involved in the Saudi suit?

Oh, thousands. You know there are roughly 3,000 families involved in Sept. 11, but other family members are plaintiffs as well, so it's I think 4,000 or so.

Q. So they've all signed on, all the families -

Oh, sure. Like I sent the suit papers to my husband's mother, she could sign on as a plaintiff as well as me. It doesn't have to be just one person.

Q. And in this case it's not prohibited by taking the compensation.

Correct. That's right. You could not sue anybody, but you could sue the terrorists, is the provision in that law.



2)

Interview with Beverly Eckert - Stamford, CT, March 3, 2004.
Submitted by Joe on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 3:05pm

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090213154220896

Thanks to "truthoverprofit" for finding this interview. (TINY SHORT EXTRACT HERE)

Q. No doubt you are aware that around the world, many people have begun, already long ago, to wonder whether there is something behind all this than merely incompetence, whether there are actually more sinister motives. It's been a big story in Europe, though it hasn't been here, here it's officially unthinkable. I'm wondering if you're aware of the lawsuit by Ellen Mariani (who is suing members of the Bush administration under racketeering laws for intentionally allowing the attacks).

Sure. Sure.

Q. Can you tell us what you think about that?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I have not gone that far I guess in my analysis of the situation. I know that incompetence can be very great. I work in a field of insurance where I handle claims, accidents, negligence, and it's downright stupidity at times, what people do and causes harm to others. It can seem, there's something called willful, reckless, wanton. It is just so close to intentional, yet it is not intentional, reckless wanton behavior. So I guess I'm used to the distinction: that it can be so bad, and seem like they actually wanted it to happen (but it's not).

I think the most sinister thing that I ever read was the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, and the fact that they alluded to the need in some way for a Pearl Harbor event to happen, before the American public would be mobilized in supporting some of their agenda. That's a very frightening thing to say, and to hear, and to know that those people are in this current administration. I think that is something that they need to explain. I think everybody who participated in that at a high level, in PNAC, need to be called by the Commission and asked to explain their line of thinking and their expectations, given the suggestion that this would be a good thing. This would be a good thing!

Q. Of course if they were to call the leading members of PNAC that would be Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Jeb Bush...

Yes.

[...]

Q. What's interesting is that in the German press, it came out at an early stage, already in Sept. 2001, that the Hamburg Cell was under observation by the German authorities. They also revealed that the CIA had been tracking the cell prior to their coming to the United States, but without informing the Germans, who only found out later. The Germans didn't know that the CIA was following the Hamburg cell around in Germany before June 2000.

"There's so much information that all of us who are members of the steering committee try to keep up with, but when it comes out every day, it's -- I mean, that's what the Commission is supposed to do, it's supposed to sort through all this information - they have a staff of 60 people - and make some sense out of it, and make a timeline and connect the dots, if you will. That's a huge job because their mandate covers a lot of areas, but if they don't do it, I hope the press will, I hope investigative reporters, writers, think tanks and whoever else is interested in this will some day sort through all this and figure it out. I really don't think the Commission's report is going to be definitive. I think they don't have enough time. I don't think they've had enough cooperation, and perhaps the time right now is just too soon

Q. After Sept. 11, how did you see what began to happen in the public, with the country and the world?

I think any time anyone is attacked, and there's a threat and you feel threatened, there is an obvious reaction, which is to react the same way, to fight back. I saw this situation immediately as one which could degenerate into a cycle of violence. We would retaliate and there would be more killing, more death. I immediately had the feeling and hoped that this would not happen, that there would be a different reaction, that we were living at a time and a place, at least in this country, that we would have a more rational reaction than just to kill in response. And as you know, we went into Afghanistan with bombs and I did not support that. I do support stopping terrorists, but I do not think that is the most effective way to stop them ultimately. It's a short-term solution. Yes, we've contained them, but I also think in the process we've created more terrorists. I thought there would be a worldwide effort to really address the terrorism problem. But instead I think that we've polarized the world, we've isolated the United States, we've isolated ourselves from potential allies. That's been really sad for me to see, how this whole thing evolved."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And of course as you may remember, Colgan 3407 became the ultimate 'Gross human neglicence' accident of which Eckert spoke of in the latter interview, recorded above. ¡ How fitting ¿ And that accident went on to become known by the FAA as "The Watershed accident which should never have happened". And after another year or so of family members, once again campaigning for deregulated airline industry reforms, O'bummer signed another document that passed those legislative reforms, - everything, including Airline Pilots' hours, training and accomodation ...

But how convenient she should die that way. Statistically the odds were always against it, — that she should die in a plane crash at all, after her husband died along with 3000 others at the WTC airplane impacts, and explosions, is, probably in the hundreds of millions to one against. And that's why I question the official explanation, too.

— Not because I find it wierdly entertaining or morbid in some way. I wish she was still alive doing wonderful work.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 11:24:24 am by Jonnie Goodboy » Report Spam   Logged


"When the righteous become many, the people rejoice; but when anyone wicked bears rule, the people sigh".
— Prov 29:2

Social Buttons

Jonnie Goodboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


The Gulag Archipelago, - had 'Paradise Islands'.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2012, 07:11:17 pm »


 Eckert had worked professionally and at a managerial or similar level in Insurance and Assurance.
 She would be familiar with the terminology, "An act of God" and as a Christian girl, it's inappropriateness perhaps when describing events such as suspension bridges collapsing or planes falling out of the skies for reasons of 'Gross Human Negligence'.

 This in no way mitigates the extreme unlikelihood of a new plane, with turbo props, fully operational 'de-icing  boots', and what other pilots (even of the same model of aircraft) described as only marginally icy conditions in that area, at the same time, succumbing to what I estimate statistically is probably a 1 in tens of Millions against odds accident.

Start out from the official figures from the more accident prone last decade of the previous century, on which airlines officially based the 1 in 2 million against odds of any one civilian dying in a civilian air accident. Try ot estimate the odds of a husband and spouse both dying in air-related incidents, whilst factoring in the figure of 3000 dead at the WTC complex.

Unfortunately I bummed out of statistics, at school, wanted nothing to do with the subject, preferring calculus and so forth. So I have no basis on which to start a calculation. But my intuitive guesstimate always led me to believe it must be in the high order Millions against.

Statistics IS another field that GOVERNMENT are particularly insistent on, that their agencies work towards gathering; therefore forming a basis for future policy decisions based on performance etc., a particular case in mind of this being of the British NHS or National Health Service; as so I was told by an ex-NHS worker recently enough.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 07:14:13 pm by Jonnie Goodboy » Report Spam   Logged


"When the righteous become many, the people rejoice; but when anyone wicked bears rule, the people sigh".
— Prov 29:2
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.126 seconds with 11 queries.