UQ Wire: Army Int Analyst Fired For 9/11 Questions
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .
UQ WIRE LINK:
Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation
Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’
Monday, August 21, 2006 - By Stephen Webster, Investigative Reporter
SFC DONALD BUSWELL (left) received the Purple Heart for injuries sustained on the battlefields of Iraq.
SEE FULL STORY:
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=
FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.
But if one were to ask Buswell’s Commanding Officer what he thinks of the Sergeant, the response would likely sound a little bit more like, "No comment."
Such were the words given to The Iconoclast by Lieutenant Colonel Jane Crichton after inquiring why SFC Buswell is the focus of an investigation initiated by Colonel Luke S. Green, Chief of Staff at Fifth Army in Ft. Sam Houston.
According to unnamed military sources contacted by The Iconoclast, SFC Buswell "used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States …" Because of these statements, SFC Buswell could soon find himself dishonorably discharged, court marshaled, or worse.
It all started as a simple response to a common, unsolicited mass email, sent to 38 individuals at Ft. Sam Houston on Aug. 2, 2006. The message, as well as Buswell’s response, is among documents obtained by The Iconoclast. The sender of the first message is identified as "Anderson, Larry Mr JMC". It reads:
Take
a look at this clip [not included] and you’ll get a good
feel for what happens to an airplane when it hits a concrete
wall. Many of you have seen the produced (but not factual),
Michael Moore-esque website that asks the question; "If
it’s true that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon, what
happened to all the parts of it? Why do we not find more
pieces of it? Where did all that mass GO???" (Therefore,
the paranoid loony liberal reasoning, 9-11 must have been a
US gov’t conspiracy!) Well, for those who question what
happened to "all the mass of that airplane".......watch
this clip. It’s the old Air Force engineering tests of
the concrete barrier that surrounds nuclear reactor domes
—tests to see if it will indeed survive an aerial attack.
With the hi-speed cameras rolling, they accelerated an F-4
Phantom to 500mph and......... Recall: "What happens when
an ‘Unstoppable Force’ meets an ‘Immovable
Object’???" (Remember, as you watch in slow motion as the
F-4 turns to vapor, the Phantom was one of the toughest
airplanes ever built). This is being sent more as
assurance for what happens when a plane hits a nuclear site
more so than in response to that German website alleging a
government conspiracy related to the 9/11 Pentagon plane
crash (though the website does present an interesting
perspective) – LarrySubject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall
SFC Buswell responded later that day, saying:
I receive many unsolicited e-mails daily, this one
I chose to respond to. The below mentioned premise that an
F4 Phantom fighter jet hitting that hardened concrete
barrier is akin to the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon is
like oil and water; they don’t mix, and they serve to
muddy the issue. The issue is 911 was filled with errors in
the ‘official report’ and ‘official story’ of that
day, and, what happened that day. We all know and saw 2
planes hitting the WTC buildings, we didn’t see the 757
hit the Pentagon, nor did we see the plane crash in
Shanksville PA. Both the PA and Pentagon ‘crashes’
don’t have clues and tell-tale signs of a jumbo-jet
impacting those zones! The Pentagon would have huge wing
impacts in the side of the building; it didn’t.
Shanksville PA would have had debris, and a large debris
field; it didn’t. Getting back to the F4...The
Pentagon isn’t a nuclear hardened structure, so I can’t
follow your weak logic that since an F4 vaporized itself in
a test impact on a nuclear hardened structure that the
alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon should have exhibited the
same characteristics! I say Occums razor is the best way
to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all
options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was
clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones
and 3 day old newspapers! I mean how are Arabs benefiting
from pulling off 911? They have more war, more death and
dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer:
It didn’t. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is
sad, but simple; The Military Industial [sic] Complex.
It’s not a paranoid conspiracy to think there are
conspiracies out there...and, it’s not Liberal Lunacy
either, nor is it Conservative Kookiness! People, fellow
citizens we’ve been had! We must demand a new independent
investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day,
and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous
theories must be examined.Subject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall
Hello,
Upon returning to his office the next day, Buswell discovered the locks had been changed, his security clearance was revoked, and an investigation had been launched. Buswell’s commanding officer, Colonel Luke Green, drafted a letter assigning Major Edwin Escobar to the investigation. According to sources, Colonel Green has asserted that SFC Buswell failed to obey Army regulations when he used his government issued email account to send what have been termed as messages disloyal to the United States with the intent of stirring up disloyalty, in a manner that brings discredit upon the United States Army.
The Iconoclast will continue reporting on this story as new details become available.
….snip…
SEE FULL STORY:
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org
does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the
above article. We present this in the interests of research
-for the relevant information we believe it contains. We
hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us
further, in helping to build bridges between our various
investigative communities, towards a greater, common
understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie
before us.