Probably. When I first heard the news on the radio regarding the tragic ending of the Columbia and the death of all the fine men and women aboard the anger of NASA seemed thick. In the announcement something was said to the effect Little George had heard the news from his Chief of Staff & I nearly feel out of my truck when the announcer continued, it was the Chief of Staff which gave Little George the news of September 11. Since it is all but certain that September 11 was a Big George New World Order conspiracy, was this Columbia connection to Mr. Card a hint NASA feels Columbia is a conspiracy also? It is also interesting Ms. Rice called Little George minutes before September 11 and Ms. Rice was with Little George when he received the Columbia news.

Here is my take as to what downed the Columbia and why I feel it was probably a conspiracy. *At 7:53 a.m. temperature measurements in the hydraulic system on Columbia's left wing, were lost.* The conspirators had turned off the heat sensor and lowered the left landing wheels. *Four minutes later an increase in temperature was measured by sensors on the left main gear tires and brakes.* The conspirators did not turn off these sensors because it would have signaled the problem so they left these sensors on. Because the left side landing wheels were down heat was building up in the tires and brakes and left wing. *Other problems began surfacing, including loss of tire pressure...* The tires had burned up and lost all air pressure. *Columbia replied, Roger, ...* The conspirators had terminated the transmission between the Captain and ground control in the middle of a sentence in an un-natural manner. One of the key clues to a conspiracy is the shut down of communication between the pilot and ground control earlier than is natural in a disaster. There should have been at least 20 seconds or more time for the pilot to communicate to ground control, critically important time for the pilot to give clues and information which would have proven a conspiracy.

We live in a remote control world. High tech conspirators can lower landing wheels by remote control, cut off gauges, and shut down communication links. Lowering the landing wheels during this time of the landing process would destroy the Columbia. Parts of the shuttle were found out side of Dallas. Lowering the left wheels would pull the left wing in the direction of Dallas. It is my guess the left wing and left wheels were flung in the direction of Dallas. There was word on the news announcing anyone stealing parts would get in a lot of trouble. Also the debris photo today did not show any debris away from the normal debris path. Is a cover-up under construction? Is NASA worried someone might find a part of the left landing gear that would prove the left wheels were lowered and the reason the shuttle broke to pieces? There should be evidence to prove what I say is true. The action of the motor lowering the left wheels should be recorded. Also the auto pilot would have to compensate for the left pull of lowered wheels and this should be a matter of record. A computer simulation of what would happen to the shuttle if the left wheels were lowered early should also prove that lowering the wheels early was the cause of the shuttle break up.

The motive for deliberately lowering the wheels & destroying the Columbia are numerous. One would assume the destruction of the Columbia may generate support from the UN & the US Congress to allow the US to attack Iraq. The destruction of the Columbia may have been taken from the 1986 Challenger play book and going to school on the motives behind the deliberate destruction of the Challenger may lead to the motives behind the deliberate destruction of the Columbia. Back in 1986 Reagan wanted Star Wars started and now Little George wants the Missile Attack System. Will the downing of the Columbia help supply funding for the Missile Attack System & if so would this be a motive to deliberately down the Columbia. It is said the Columbia is not what is needed now in the space shuttle program. As Little George makes war on our present economic system he may want to increase the size of government to take up slack on the many free enterprise businesses he is in the process destroying daily. Would this be a motive to deliberately destroy the Columbia? The destruction of Columbia is too high tech for any & every country in the world to carry off except for the US, the country Big George's New World Order gains its high tech dirty tricks.

Actually this conspiracy looks as if Little George may have even had prior knowledge. Big George's New World Order does a lot of dirty tricks and does not tell Little George what they are up, probably. But this may be different. Take Friday and Saturday's newspaper headlines. Friday. *Bush gives Iraq weeks to disarm* Saturday. *Bush would OK second U.N. vote*. A complete change in direction in 24 hours. Had Little George been given the plan to down the Columbia and his handlers wanted him to sound like a good guy on Saturday because they knew his Dad's thugs had the Columbia's destruction planned for Saturday & everyone felt the destruction of the Columbia would make going to war with Iraq an automatic? Congress is more apt to give Little George war powers again because of the Columbia tragedy. Big George"s NWO manipulated the DC sniper murders as a hammer to get Congress to give Little George war power to attack Iraq and now Big George's NWO burned up the Columbia as a hammer to get the UN and the US Congress to give Little George war power to attack Iraq? The problem is the hammers Big George's NWO are using to manipulate war with Iraq are so Hitler type dirty we know the Iraq war is going to be much worse than the world ever dreamed.

Did you hear of a tile problem after Columbia took off? Not I. Not until it was destroyed. Did Columbia even have a take off tile problem or is this a rumor? Certainly a starting point in trying to solve what really happened is to find the origin of the tile story. Also what else is unusual about this flight? Any change in schedule? Any crew changes? How long has this Israeli been on tap to fly this mission? Is he a problem? Are there any people at NASA who will loose their jobs over Columbia and could getting rid of people at NASA be a motive to deliberately destroy the Columbia? Let's put ourselves in the shoes of a conspirator? Who and why would some force want the Columbia destroyed? Who kept track of the lowering of the left wheels?

As I said after the DC sniper murders the best spies in the world need to get on the DC sniper case and certainly the best spies in the world need to get to the truth behind the Columbia. Which reminds me. Last week the media gave information on a spy case. Was this spy case a warning to clandestine agents to keep your mouth shut on anything you find out about the Columbia?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

On December 19, UNMOVIC head Hans Blix declared that Iraq's final, all-inclusive weapons report had "obvious and serious omissions." A mere few minutes later, the Bush administration declared that Iraq was in "material breach due to material omissions," but stopped short of calling for war. Many "experts" claimed that the U.S. was giving Iraq one last chance. Some even accused the White House of soft-pedaling. In the past few weeks, the U.S. public, the Iraqi government, and world public opinion at large has called on the U.S. to release the evidence it claims to have implicating Iraqi duplicity.

That call was further buoyed on December 20 (and again on January 10, 2003) by Blix and IAEA head Baradei who implored the U.S. to share its so-called evidence with UNMOVIC to empower the U.N. inspectors in their weapons hunt in Iraq. The media has even begun to question whether the Bush administration has any such evidence and is instead looking for a Cuban Missile Crisis smoking gun to make the case to the American people. By mid-January 2003, the U.S., and the U.K. for that matter, had not released vital information. Although technical information was passed on to UNMOVIC, more substantial data has not been forthcoming. Several suspect sites both the U.S. and U.K. has indicated were areas of illicit weapons activity turned up empty when UNMOVIC investigated them. Phil Donahue, Chris Matthews, and Michael Coren have joined the chorus of U.S. military personnel (MSNBC and TIME Magazine report that one in three top U.S. generals do not favor current moves towards military conflict citing lack of visible evidence) in asking for evidence first, military action later. They will likely have a long wait; should the U.S. possess such evidence, it is likely never to release it. An examination of current U.S. moves in the U.N. Security Council and the relationship between Iraq and the U.S. during the 1980s will provide telling reasons. By now, most of the viewing public, thanks in no part to Western media, is well aware that it was general U.S. government policy to support and arm Iraq during the 1980s. Iraqi scientists were given free rein in major research and development facilities throughout the U.S. and were often privy to classified chemical weapons research. U.S. firms, with the blessing of the Reagan administration, supplied Iraq with anthrax spores, as well as the capacity to further develop its bio-chemical capabilities. Why was the U.S. so supportive of an Iraq it now claims is, and was, run by a "brutal regime that gasses its own people and tortures thousands"? The decision was made to support Iraq as much as possible, without appearing to support Iraq. When Iraq began a massive military campaign and used arms provided by the U.S. to curb Kurdish dissent, the voices of reason and morality we hear today were ominously silent. When Iraq gassed the overwhelming Iranian human tidal wave of soldiers (a tactic gleaned from the Korean War -- some Iranian soldiers were barely armed), the voices of reason and morality we hear today were ominously silent. When Iran gassed Iraqi soldiers and both countries tortured each other's POWs, the voices of reason and morality we hear today were ominously silent. So strong was support for Iraq in the late 1980s that the U.S. renewed full diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1986, and helped temper the storm after an Iraqi fighter plane nearly sunk the U.S.S. Stark with an Exocet missile in 1987, killing 37 U.S. naval personnel. The voices of reason and morality we hear today were ominously silent. Iraq's Knight Takes Queen When Iraq handed UNMOVIC its 12,200-page report on weapons research and procurement, it knew fully well that the U.S. would seize the document from the U.N. and proceed to censor it. Why the censorship? Weapons proliferation, we are told. While that is partially true, Iraq hinted early on that its massive document would list each and every government, private and public firm and/or institution that helped Iraq in its 30-year weapons program. The U.S. had to remove the document from the hands of the international community because it contained vital information that could undermine the current administration. The other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council did not object much to this U.S. move because they knew that their names and their firms also helped arm Iraq. It listed names of individuals and organizations that would come under intensive public scrutiny and embarrassment should the contents of the document be made public. Several prominent U.S. firms and universities are complicit, and, in particular, so are several high-ranking U.S. officials who were members of the Reagan administration and went on to become national leaders themselves. The point man? George Bush Sr., former head of the CIA, Vice President under Ronald Reagan, and President of the U.S. during the Gulf War. How does the current Bush administration know Iraq may or may not be lying? They have in their possession documents detailing all sales and support given to the Iraqis in the bio-chemical weapons domain. They have invoices and spreadsheets of everything that was shipped from various U.S. departments and federal institutions to Iraq directly and indirectly (through U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia). However, these documents also have the final approval of the CIA, who, under George Bush Sr., encouraged ties with Iraq. Does it not seem the least bit ironic that the U.S. was funneling bio-chemical information to Iraq up until 1990, the year Iraq invaded Kuwait? The German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung has claimed that it has obtained a copy of the Iraq document and will soon publish a list of these suppliers. The list purportedly includes Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating, the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture. According to Democracynow.org (http://www.democracynow.org/Zumach.htm), "U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia trained traveling Iraqi nuclear scientists and gave non-fissile material for construction of a nuclear bomb." If this list of arms suppliers (and supporters) to Iraq were released to the public, scandal would rock the White House. In a timeframe that has seen the Enron scandal, and may yet see Vice President Dick Cheney questioned by the SEC over Halliburton, President Bush would likely see his re-election hopes buried. As a result, the non-permanent members of the Security Council received a meager 3,000-page abridged version of the original 12,200 pages. The list of legal and illegal support afforded to Iraq in the past 30 years was not included in the abridged version. [Firas Al-Atraqchi, B.Sc (Physics), M.A. (Journalism and Communications), is a Canadian journalist with eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry.] Firas Al-Atraqchi encourages your comments: firas6544@rogers.com YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

For the past year or so, a lot of Americans were concerned that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network might have helped Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein develop weapons of mass destruction. With the release of previously classified U.S. government documents, however, we now know that Saddam's accomplice was not Osama. It was Donald Rumsfeld. Along with other members of the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the man who now serves as defense secretary for another Bush administration aided and abetted Iraq. Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, Rumsfeld, traveled to Baghdad on Dec. 20, 1983, to tell Saddam that the United States was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations with Iraq. In interviews this year, Rumsfeld claimed that he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq fight Iran in the 1980s, and that he "cautioned" Saddam about the use of chemical weapons. But State Department records suggest otherwise. According to recently declassified State Department documents, Saddam and other Iraqi leaders pronounced themselves to be "extremely pleased" with Rumsfeld's visit, which they said had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."" So why is Rumsfeld now spending billions of U.S. tax dollars to prepare for a war with Iraq? That's a question members of Congress should ask him. And, while they're at it, they should inquire as to why U.S. citizens should now trust the judgment of a man who played such an integral role in strengthening Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi military. Published: 7:03 AM 1/03/03

Saddam is owned by Little and Big George & the plan is to attack Iraq on the theory of removing Saddam and then the US will steal Iraq's oil, which will greatly increase the price of oil and help destroy many US businesses which high oil prices will destroy, and then the US will attack the rest of the Arab world to steal their oil. Little and Big George and the communi$t$ can't loose when the US attacks Iraq because Little and Big George will be commanding both sides at the same time. Actually the enemy of the United States is Little and Big George and their communi$t collaborator buddies like William Safire, and the NY times zioni$t types.