Pilotsfor911truth.org: Home Run

 

While the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 involved controlled demolition, pitlotsfor911truth.org has put the final nail in the coffin that the September 11,2001 attack on the United States was a false flag operation.

 

As you read the below information, ponder the depths of evil running our government. In addition to the premeditated murder of those in WTC 1 and 2, plus the destruction of WTC-7 , this information means that the aircraft that were alleged to be hijacked were flown to a location, the passengers and crew were executed and the aircraft destroyed. Pure EVIL.

 

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

These are the 'text' (ACARS) messages in question -

The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here. The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN

;09111259 108575 0543

 

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA 111303/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
HOW IS THE RIDE. ANY THING DISPATCH CAN DO FOR YOU...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111303 108575 0545

 

This message was also sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIYR CH158R
.CHIYRUA 111303/AD
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
NY APROACH LOOKIN FOR YA ON 127.4
CHIDD AD ROGERS

;09111303 108575 0546

 

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

 

If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.

The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messages have been received by the aircraft. According to a another Memorandum For The Record (MFR), four ACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and 9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to United Flight 175. The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating "I heard of a reported incident."
1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic. This is referring to the message noted above sent through MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARS message at top). The second (1259:29Z) and third messages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR were not provided through the FOIA. The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARS message is included above, third from the top. Of course, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if the last message was received by the airplane as that would immediately indicate to anyone that the airplane did not crash into the South Tower at 09:03am.

It is interesting to note that the Commission ignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by Ed Ballinger routed through MDT (second ACARS message printed above), yet claims the 9:03am message sent by Rogers as not being received. Based on sequential numbers of the messages themselves, it is clear Ballinger's 9:03 message was sent before the Rogers message (0545 for Ballinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed on bottom of the message), yet the Commission ignores Ballinger's message. Why would they ignore Ballinger's message, yet acknowledge Rogers? Is it because Ballinger's message was received by the airplane and they realized that an aircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at that distance and such low altitude? This message is more evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity of Harrisburg, and not NY. At least 3 ACARS messages were routed through MDT between 8:59 and 9:03am, and received by the airplane, according to the technical acknowledgement time stamps at the bottom of the messages.

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.

ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Click To Enlarge

Comprehensive List Of ACARS Remote Ground Stations Worldwide - scribd source link - Page 100

If you get on an airplane in say Chicago, headed for NY, you turn off your cell phone and off you go. When you arrive in NY, you turn on your cell phone and see you have a message waiting. Was this message routed through a cell tower in Chicago? No, you would never receive it, nor be alerted that you have a message waiting. It is routed through a cell tower in NY. How does the cell network know where you are?

Although not exactly the same, but similar to how cell phones track your phone based on location, choosing the best cell towers to route messages to your phone, ACARS networks track the aircraft in flight and know where the aircraft is in order to route messages to the aircraft (or vice versa) through the best remote stations on the ground. When a message is sent from the ground or in flight, it is routed through a Central Processing System. This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location. Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process. Category A and B(5).

First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.

The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.

The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.

Some have further gone on to speculate that United Airlines Dispatchers routed the messages themselves based on flight planned route. Flight Tracking protocol as described renders this argument moot as the Dispatcher does not have control over ARINC routing of ACARS messages through remote ground stations. This type of premise is the equivalent of saying that when you call someone from your cell phone, you have the capability to choose which cell tower around the world you want your call to be routed. It's absurd. But for the sake of argument, we will explore this hypothesis.

Dispatch Operations Centers monitor flight tracking of the aircraft in near real time on an Airspace Situational Display (ASD). The United Airlines ASD is refreshed every 60 seconds according to another Memorandum For The Record released by the 9/11 Commission(4)

When asked about the technical capabilities of the ASD (airspace situational display) program used by the dispatchers on their monitors to track planes, all United representatives conferred that the program's display refreshes every 60 seconds.

.....

McCurdy recollected that at the time of the crash into tower 2, the display on Ballenger's monitor still showed UAL 175 at 31,000 ft, having just deviated from the normal flight plan and heading into a big turn back east.

The reason Dispatchers have an ASD is due to the fact the aircraft across the globe deviate from their cleared flight plans daily due to weather, traffic, etc. With an ASD, Dispatchers can keep track of their flights and alert for weather (or other adverse conditions) along the route. Even if Dispatchers had the capability to choose which specific ground station to route a message, why would they choose MDT and then later PIT if the aircraft is diverting back to the east on their monitors? The answer is, they wouldn't. The hypothesis that Remote Ground Station routing is based on original flight plan is completely absurd and usually attempted by only those who obviously are not interested in the facts, instead need to speculate to hold onto their beliefs. As described, the Central Processing System routes messages through remote ground stations based on Flight Tracking Protocol(5).

These are the ACARS remote ground station locations as compared with the flight path of United 175, including the diversion from the flight planned route due to the alleged "hijacking". An overlay of the RADES Radar data, also provided through FOIA, has been included to show the location of the Target Aircraft (TA) for the time when the first message was sent through Harrisburg. PA (MDT) and received by the aircraft, at 08:59:AM.

"Converged with Target Aircraft" radar track showing where the tracks actually converge with "UA175" can be viewed in 9/11 Intercepted, or here based on the RADES Radar Data provided through FOIA
(Click Image To Enlarge)

.

Distances from the Target Aircraft to the relative Remote Ground Stations (RGS) are included.

As you can see, there are many stations surrounding the Target Aircraft which are much closer to the aircraft than MDT out in Harrisburg, PA. Twelve stations to be exact,

1. ABE
2. EWR
3. MMU
4. JFK
5. LGA
6. TEB
7. PHL
8. HPN
9. ISP
10. ILG
11. ACY
12. AVP

All of which are nearly half the distance to the Target Aircraft than MDT is presently at 08:59 AM.

There is no possible reason for the Central Processing System (CPS) to have chosen MDT for routing purposes based on Flight Tracking protocol described above, if this Target Aircraft truly were United Flight 175, N612UA. The twelve other stations would have had to been skipped over, and for some reason the CPS chose MDT way out in Pennsylvania. Another argument (read: speculation) is that all those other stations were "congested" at the time which is why the CPS chose MDT. First, in order for this to be true, all those stations would have to be "congested" at least four times over. As demonstrated by the MFR referenced above, as many as 4 messages were routed through MDT. What are the odds that all 12 ground stations were "congested" each and every time? This argument, if not absurd, is moot as when the CPS determines the best ground station based on flight tracking protocol, the message is placed into a queue routed through the best station and then sent in the order it was received. ACARS messages are not very large in terms of bytes. Multiple messages can be sent in less than a second. It is logical to queue the messages at a remote ground station which is closer to the aircraft than to route a message through a ground station much further away in which the aircraft may not receive based on distance and altitude. Ground stations can send messages up to 200 miles, but this is only guaranteed if the aircraft is above 29,000 feet, as stated in the MFR sourced above.

When asked how the ACARS network chooses a Remote Ground Station for routing messages to an aircraft, FDR, Radar, ACARS Expert and Electrical Engineer Dennis Cimino had this to say,

The aircraft are constantly in contact with whatever ground station is nearest to it, more or less in 'data link' mode, sending acknowledgements back and forth.  In cases where multiple stations on the ground are within range,  the dropped packet numbers decide which ground station gets the priority. not as sophisticated as N.T.D.S. (naval tactical data systems) but pretty close to that.   

On a more 'system' level, the ground stations are more or less in spread spectrum constant transmit mode like cell phones now use, so they won't step on each other continually. when an aircraft receiver's MDS (minimum discernible signal) sensitivity is achieved or reached out of the 'tangential' noise floor level, the aircraft's receiver then begins to try to data frame sync with the ground. then once that happens and two way 'ping pong' as data link persons refer to it, happens, then any queued messages get shipped to the receiving system and data relative to the aircraft's flight get sent back down to the ground.

This corroborates the Flight Tracking Protocol as outlined above based on a July 2002 Newsletter published by ARINC titled The Global Link(5).

Now that it is understood there were many ground stations which should have been chosen by the CPS before routing messages through MDT, why would the Central Processing System ever choose PIT as the next ground station for routing purposes if the aircraft was being tracked by the ACARS network to NYC? The answer is, it wouldn't.

It is possible all messages can be fabricated, but that would attract multiple felony charges as well considering the information was provided through the Freedom Of Information Act and used as evidence to support the claims made by the 9/11 Commission. Pilots For 9/11 Truth encourage readers to contact an ARINC Specialist in your area to confirm or refute the above evidence offered. Contact information for an ARINC office near you can be located through a simple google search. Feel free to direct them to this site and article.

Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at MDT, then later PIT, over the numerous ground stations much closer and surrounding NYC, is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of MDT, and then later, PIT. This means that the aircraft observed to strike the south tower, was not United 175.

"Converging Aircraft " radar tracks showing the targets converging can be viewed in
9/11 Intercepted, or here based on the RADES Radar Data provided through FOIA
(Click Image To Enlarge)

All aircraft converging above can be viewed in the RADES Data or 9/11: Intercepted

This evidence strengthens previous evidence uncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard 767 cannot remain in control, stable or hold together at the speeds reported by the NTSB for the South Tower aircraft(6). So, if UA175 was somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraft was observed to strike the south tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the airplane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower? That is a great question and the reason we are still here after 10 years attempting to get answers for the day that changed our world, and will never go away until those questions are answered.

Send this evidence to your Congress Representative, your Senators, Judges, Lawyers, print it out and hand it to your pilots when boarding a flight (Pilots love reading material while in cruise). Call into talk shows, tell them about this evidence. Grab our DVD's and make copies, hand them to friends, family, co-workers, etc. Demand a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The 9/11 Families, The 9/11 Victims, The American People, The World, deserves to know Truth about what happened on September, 11, 2001.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack along with other information provided by several government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act. The data does not support what we have been told. Government Agencies refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth continues to grow and exist only through your continued support. We thank you!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store to help support Pilots For 9/11 Truth continued operations and research.

Read Part Two of this article here.

(1) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf - 12.9mb pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/t-0148-911MFR-01090.pdf (bottom of page 6) - 1.3mb pdf
(3) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Miles_Kara_MFR.pdf - 681kb pdf
(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/mfr-dispatch-track-asd.pdf - 900kb pdf
(5) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/GLOBAL_LINK.pdf - Use Of Tracker Messages In Category A ACARS Networks, page 6, 174kb pdf
(6) 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

 

PilotsFor911Truth.org) - More information has surfaced which conclusively demonstrates the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, were airborne well after their alleged crashes. This article supplements our last, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH" in which the ACARS system is explained as well as how to determine if a message were received by the aircraft, along with how ground stations are selected through Flight Tracking Protocol based on messages routed to United 175, N612UA. We now have further evidence which places United 93, N591UA, in the vicinity of Champaign, IL, 500+ miles away from the alleged crash site in Shanksville, PA. This information is further corroborated by a (now former) United Airlines Manager of Flight Dispatch Michael J. Winter.

On January 28, 2002, Mr. Winter gave an interview to the FBI at United Headquarters near Chicago, IL(1). During this interview, Mr. Winter reviewed a list of ACARS messages explaining the contents and which messages were received or rejected. The messages provided below are the most significant and fatal to what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Two messages were routed through the Fort Wayne, Indiana remote ground stations (FWA), followed by two more messages which were routed through Champaign, IL (CMI).

The remote ground station used to route the message to the aircraft (FWA or CMI), the time and date in which the message is sent (eg. 111351, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1351Z or 0951am Eastern), the flight number (UA93), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N591UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane. Although the first two appear to be identical, the message number denotes that they are in fact two separate messages, which is highlighted in blue. The messages are as follows -

 

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111351/ED
AGM
AN N591UA/GL FWA
- UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
LAND ASP AT NEAREST --NEAREST AIRPORT.ASP .ASP ON GROND.ANYWERE.
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111351 108575 0669

 

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111351/ED
AGM
AN N591UA/GL FWA
- UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
LAND ASP AT NEAREST --NEAREST AIRPORT.ASP .ASP ON GROND.ANYWERE.
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111351 108575 0676

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111410 108575 0706

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111411 108575 0707

 

As described in our first article on this topic based on Category A and B flight tracking(3), this aircraft would not have had messages routed through the above remote ground stations if it were enroute to crash in Shanksville, PA. Many other stations are much closer if in fact United 93 crashed in Shanksville. In order to follow the messages based on remote ground stations, we have included the Google Earth File used to construct the various stations and associated messages, with an overlay of the United 93 Flight path according to the National Transportation Safety Board(2).

Click Image To Enlarge

 

There are 10 remote ground stations closer to the flight path than FWA, even more if including CMI ground station in Champaign, IL which is nearly 500 miles from the Shanksville crater. However, according to Mr. Winter, United 93 received messages from CMI remote ground station in Champaign, IL more than 7 minutes after the alleged crash(1). Mr. Winter explains -

 

"Printer" and "Screen" indicate the printer on the flight deck and the flight management computer screen, respectively, as is described in the sourced documentation(1). Based on Category A and B flight tracking(3), it can be determined that TOL and FWA are not the best stations for routing messages, however routing through CMI is completely absurd if the aircraft in fact crashed in Shanksville. Furthermore, according to the NTSB animation reconstruction, the aircraft allegedly crashed in Shanksville at 10:03am(4). How can the aircraft possibly receive a message activating an audible signal in the airplane at 1410 (10:10am Eastern)? It can't if it crashed in Shanksville, it can if were in the vicinity of CMI. Finally, there is no possible way that an aircraft can receive a message from a remote ground station which is 500+ miles away. The range for remote ground stations is 200 miles, and that is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet(5).

We now have several levels of corroboration demonstrating the aircraft were still airborne after their alleged crashes -

- From our first article, the logs themselves showing time sent and received based on statements made by Ed Ballinger,
- Ground station routing based on flight tracking protocols,
- Expert statements,
- And now, messages that were received well out of range from Shanksville, PA after the time of the alleged crash.

It is conclusive, the 9/11 Aircraft were airborne long after their alleged crashes.

Send this evidence to your Congress Representative, your Senators, Judges, Lawyers, print it out and hand it to your pilots when boarding a flight (Pilots love reading material while in cruise). Call into talk shows, tell them about this evidence. Grab our DVD's and make copies, hand them to friends, family, co-workers, etc. Demand a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The 9/11 Families, The 9/11 Victims, The American People, The World, deserves to know Truth about what happened on September, 11, 2001.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack along with other information provided by several government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act. The data does not support what we have been told. Government Agencies refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth continues to grow and exist only through your continued support. We thank you!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store to help support Pilots For 9/11 Truth continued operations and research.

 

(1) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf - page 55-57, 2.4mb pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/UA93_RGS_messages_wNTSB_overlay.kmz - Google Earth File, 27kb
(3) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/GLOBAL_LINK.pdf - Use Of Tracker Messages In Category A ACARS Networks, page 6, 174kb pdf
(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/NTSB_Animation_UA93_100307.jpg - Image from NTSB Animation Reconstruction based on Flight Data Recorder
(5) Google Search For "acars 200 mile range" - Click

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ET phone home.

 

In response to a recent petition, the White House issued a statement indicating that there was no evidence of extraterrestial life.

"The White House made the unusual declaration in response to a feature on its website that allows people to submit petitions that administration officials must respond to if enough people sign on.

In this case, more than 5,000 people signed a petition demanding that the White House disclose the government's knowledge of extraterrestrial beings, and more than 12,000 signed another petition seeking formal acknowledgement of an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race.

In response, Phil Larson of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy wrote that the U.S. government has no evidence that life exists outside Earth, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted any member of the human race.

"In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public's eye," Larson wrote."

 

Gee, that's interesting since the NSA, responding to a FOIA request, released the following document: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/key_to_et_messages.pdf

 

This document states : "Dr. Campaigne presented a series of 29 messages from outer space in "Extraterrestrial Intelligence" NSA Technical Journal, Vol. XI, No.2  pp. 101 ff and in the Special Mathematics and Engineering Issue of the Journal, pp. 117 ff."

 Further in the article: " Recently a series of radio messages was heard coming from outer space. The transmission was not continuous, but cut by pauses into pieces which could be taken as units, for they were repeated over and over again."

And.........The concepts used here are the basic ones of number, sets, and physical constants which any cultures must share.....any civilizations capable of sending a message across space must have many things in common."

 

Most of the alien transmissions were able to be deciphered.

 

Just more Obama lies and deception.

 

 

 

Stick a fork in America, we're done.

 

Anyone "up" on U.S. and world economics is aware that, from a financial standpoint, we have been toast for some time now. Human nature being what it is though, we tend to think that in the face of overwhelming evidence that we will soon be in ruin, something will happen to fix the problem.

 

Enter Bank of America Corp. Hit by a recent credit downgrade, (Bank of America’s rating is now four grades below the one Mood& Co. (JPM), the biggest U.S. bank by deposits at midyear, and a level below the rating given to Citigroup Inc. (C), the third-biggest. Bank of America is the only U.S. lender that lacks a rating of A3 or higher among the five firms listed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency as having the biggest derivatives books.) BAC decided to shift 75 TRILLION dollars of it's European derivatives from it's Merrill Lynch banking unit over to its insured banking unit.

 

American taxpayers are now on the hook for 75 trillion bucks worth of European debt.( I find this especially annoying in light of the fact that we spent two thirds of our gold reserves rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan--a lot good that ended up doing us.)

 

More bad news: "Bank of America didn't get regulatory approval to do this, they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties.  

 

This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input.  You will also read below that JP Morgan is apparently doing the same thing with $79 trillion of notional derivatives guaranteed by the FDIC and Federal Reserve."

 

This deal puts us past the point of no return. (For those who have an interest in such things, Google "Illumanati.org" and then hit Ctrl A)

 

"What this means for you is that when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan.  Even worse, the total exposure is unknown because Wall Street successfully lobbied during Dodd-Frank passage so that no central exchange would exist keeping track of net derivative exposure.

This is a recipe for Armageddon.  Bernanke is absolutely insane.  No wonder Geithner has been hopping all over Europe begging and cajoling leaders to put together a massive bailout of troubled banks.  His worst nightmare is Eurozone bank defaults leading to the collapse of the large U.S. banks who have been happily selling default insurance on European banks since the crisis began."

 

/> 

 

 

 

More BAC background:

 

"Guest post by William K. Black

Bob Ivry, Hugh Son and Christine Harper have written an article that needs to be read by everyone interested in the financial crisis.  The article (available here) is entitled: BofA Said to Split Regulators Over Moving Merrill Derivatives to Bank Unit. The thrust of their story is that Bank of America’s holding company, BAC, has directed the transfer of a large number of troubled financial derivatives from its Merrill Lynch subsidiary to the federally insured bank Bank of America (BofA).  The story reports that the Federal Reserve supported the transfer and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) opposed it.  Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism has written an appropriately blistering attack on this outrageous action, which puts the public at substantially increased risk of loss.

I write to add some context, point out additional areas of inappropriate actions, and add a regulatory perspective gained from dealing with analogous efforts by holding companies to foist dangerous affiliate transactions on insured depositories.  I’ll begin by adding some historical context to explain how B of A got into this maze of affiliate conflicts.

Ken Lewis’ “Scorched Earth” Campaign against B of A’s Shareholders

Acquiring Countrywide: the High Cost of CEO Adolescence

During this crisis, Ken Lewis went on a buying spree designed to allow him to brag that his was not simply bigger, but the biggest.  Bank of America’s holding company – BAC – became the acquirer of last resort.  Lewis began his war on BAC’s shareholders by ordering an artillery salvo on BAC’s own position.  What better way was there to destroy shareholder value than purchasing the most notorious lender in the world – Countrywide.  Countrywide was in the midst of a death spiral.  The FDIC would soon have been forced to pay an acquirer tens of billions of dollars to induce it to take on Countrywide’s nearly limitless contingent liabilities and toxic assets.  Even an FDIC-assisted acquisition would have been a grave mistake.  Acquiring thousands of Countrywide employees whose primary mission was to make fraudulent and toxic loans was an inelegant form of financial suicide.  It also revealed the negligible value Lewis placed on ethics and reputation.  

But Lewis did not wait to acquire Countrywide with FDIC assistance.  He feared that a rival would acquire it first and win the CEO bragging contest about who had the biggest, baddest bank.  His acquisition of Countrywide destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value and led to massive foreclosure fraud by what were now B of A employees. 

But there are two truly scary parts of the story of B of A’s acquisition of Countrywide that have received far too little attention.  B of A claims that it conducted extensive due diligence before acquiring Countrywide and discovered only minor problems.  If that claim is true, then B of A has been doomed for years regardless of whether it acquired Countrywide.  The proposed acquisition of Countrywide was huge and exceptionally controversial even within B of A.  Countrywide was notorious for its fraudulent loans.  There were numerous lawsuits and former employees explaining how these frauds worked. 

B of A is really “Nations Bank” (formerly named NCNB).  When Nations Bank acquired B of A (the San Francisco based bank), the North Carolina management took complete control.  The North Carolina management decided that “Bank of America” was the better brand name, so it adopted that name.  The key point to understand is that Nations/NCNB was created through a large series of aggressive mergers, so the bank had exceptional experience in conducting due diligence of targets for acquisition and it would have sent its top team to investigate Countrywide given its size and notoriety.  The acquisition of Countrywide did not have to be consummated exceptionally quickly.  Indeed, the deal had an “out” that allowed B of A to back out of the deal if conditions changed in an adverse manner (which they obviously did).  If B of A employees conducted extensive due diligence of Countrywide and could not discover its obvious, endemic frauds, abuses, and subverted systems then they are incompetent.  Indeed, that word is too bloodless a term to describe how worthless the due diligence team would have had to have been.  Given the many acquisitions the due diligence team vetted, B of A would have been doomed because it would have routinely been taken to the cleaners in those earlier deals.

That scenario, the one B of A presents, is not credible.  It is far more likely that B of A’s senior management made it clear to the head of the due diligence review that the deal was going to be done and that his or her report should support that conclusion.  This alternative explanation fits well with B of A’s actual decision-making.  Countrywide’s (and B of A’s)reported financial condition fell sharply after the deal was signed.  Lewis certainly knew that B of A’s actual financial condition was much worse than its reported financial condition and had every reason to believe that this difference would be even worse at Countrywide given its reputation for making fraudulent loans.  B of A could have exercised its option to withdraw from the deal and saved vast amounts of money.  Lewis, however, refused to do so.  CEOs do not care only about money.  Ego is a powerful driver of conduct, and CEOs can be obsessed with status, hierarchy, and power.  Of course, Lewis knew he could walk away wealthy after becoming a engine of mass destruction of B of A shareholder value, so he could indulge his ego in a manner common to adolescent males.   

Acquiring Merrill Lynch: the Lure of Liar’s Loans

Merrill Lynch is the quintessential example of why it was common for the investment banks to hold in portfolio large amounts of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).  Some observers have jumped to the naïve assumption that this indicates that the senior managers thought the CDOs were safe investments.  The “recipe” for an investor maximizing reported income differs only slightly from the recipe for lenders.

1. Grow rapidly by
2. Holding poor quality assets that provide a premium nominal yield while
3. Employing extreme leverage, and
4. Providing only grossly inadequate allowances for future losses on the poor quality assets

Investment banks that followed this recipe (and most large U.S. investment banks did), were guaranteed to report record (albeit fictional) short-term income.  That income was certain to produce extreme compensation for the controlling officers.  The strategy was also certain to produce extensive losses in the longer term – unless the investment bank could sell its losing position to another entity that would then bear the loss. 

The optimal means of committing this form of accounting control fraud was with the AAA-rated top tranche of CDOs.  Investment banks frequently purport to base compensation on risk-adjusted return.  If they really did so investment bankers would receive far less compensation.  The art, of course, is to vastly understate the risk one is taking and attribute short-term reported gains to the officer’s brilliance in achieving supra-normal returns that are not attributable to increased risk (“alpha”).  Some of the authors of Guaranteed to Fail call this process manufacturing “fake alpha.” 

The authors are largely correct about “fake alpha.”  The phrase and phenomenon are correct, but the mechanism they hypothesize for manufacturing fake alpha has no basis in reality.  They posit honest gambles on “extreme tail” events likely to occur only in rare circumstances.  They provide no real world examples.  If risk that the top tranche of a CDO would suffer a material loss of market values was, in reality, extremely rare then it would be impossible to achieve a substantial premium yield.  The strategy would diminish alpha rather than maximizing false alpha.  The risk that the top tranche of a CDO would suffer a material loss in market value was highly probable.  It was not a tail event, much less an “extreme tail” event.  CDOs were commonly backed by liar’s loans and the incidence of fraud in liar’s loans was in the 90% range.  The top tranches of CDOs were virtually certain to suffer severe losses as soon as the bubble stalled and refinancing was no longer readily available to delay the wave of defaults.  Because liar’s loans were primarily made to borrowers who were not creditworthy and financially unsophisticated, the lenders had the negotiating leverage to charge premium yields.  The officers controlling the rating agencies and the investment banks were complicit in creating a corrupt system for rating CDOs that maximized their financial interests by routinely providing AAA ratings to the top tranche of CDOs “backed” largely by fraudulent loans.  The combination of the fake AAA rating and premium yield on the top tranche of fraudulently constructed (and sold) CDOs maximized “fake alpha” and made it the “sure thing” that is one of the characteristics of accounting control fraud (see Akerlof & Romer 1993; Black 2005).  This is why many of the investment banks (and, eventually, Fannie and Freddie) held substantial amounts of the top tranches of CDOs.  (A similar dynamic existed for lower tranches, but investment banks also found it much more difficult to sell the lowest tranches.)  

Merrill Lynch was known for the particularly large CDO positions it retained in portfolio.  These CDO positions doomed Merrill Lynch.  B of A knew that Merrill Lynch had tremendous losses in its derivatives positions when it chose to acquire Merrill Lynch. 

Given this context, only the Fed, and BAC, could favor the derivatives deal

Lewis and his successor, Brian Moynihan, have destroyed nearly one-half trillion dollars in BAC shareholder value.  (See my prior post on the “Divine Right of Bank Profits…”)  BAC continues to deteriorate and the credit rating agencies have been downgrading it because of its bad assets, particularly its derivatives.  BAC’s answer is to “transfer” the bad derivatives to the insured bank – transforming (ala Ireland) a private debt into a public debt. 

Banking regulators have known for well over a century about the acute dangers of conflicts of interest.  Two related conflicts have generated special rules designed to protect the bank and the insurance fund.  One restricts transactions with senior insiders and the other restricts transactions with affiliates.  The scam is always the same when it comes to abusive deals with affiliates – they transfer bad (or overpriced) assets or liabilities to the insured institution.  As S&L regulators, we recurrently faced this problem.  For example, Ford Motor Company attempted to structure an affiliate transaction that was harmful to the insured S&L (First Nationwide).  The bank, because of federal deposit insurance, typically has a higher credit rating than its affiliate corporations.

BAC’s request to transfer the problem derivatives to B of A was a no brainer – unfortunately, it was apparently addressed to officials at the Fed who meet that description.  Any competent regulator would have said: “No, Hell NO!”  Indeed, any competent regulator would have developed two related, acute concerns immediately upon receiving the request.  First, the holding company’s controlling managers are a severe problem because they are seeking to exploit the insured institution.  Second, the senior managers of B of A acceded to the transfer, apparently without protest, even though the transfer poses a severe threat to B of A’s survival.  Their failure to act to prevent the transfer contravenes both their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care and should lead to their resignations.

Now here’s the really bad news.  First, this transfer is a superb “natural experiment” that tests one of the most important questions central to the health of our financial system.  Does the Fed represent and vigorously protect the interests of the people or the systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) – the largest 20 banks?  We have run a real world test.  The sad fact is that very few Americans will be surprised that the Fed represented the interests of the SDIs even though they were directly contrary to the interests of the nation.  The Fed’s constant demands for (and celebration of) “independence” from democratic government, combined with slavish dependence on and service to the CEOs of the SDIs has gone beyond scandal to the point of farce.  I suggest organized “laugh ins” whenever Fed spokespersons prate about their “independence.”

Second, I would bet large amounts of money that I do not have that neither B of A’s CEO nor the Fed even thought about whether the transfer was consistent with the CEO’s fiduciary duties to B of A (v. BAC).  We took depositions during the S&L debacle in which senior officials of Lincoln Savings and its affiliates were shocked when we asked “whose interests were you representing – the S&L or the affiliate?”  They had obviously never even considered their fiduciary duties or identified their actual client.  We blocked a transaction that would have caused grave injury to the insured S&L by taking the holding company (Pinnnacle West) off the hook for its obligations to the S&L.  That transaction would have passed routinely, but we flew to the board of directors meeting of the S&L and reminded them that their fiduciary duty was to the S&L, that the transaction was clearly detrimental to the S&L and to the benefit of the holding company, and that we would sue them and take the most vigorous possible enforcement actions against them personally if they violated their fiduciary duties.  That caused them to refuse to approve the transaction – which resulted in a $450 million payment from the holding company to the S&L.  (I know, $450 million sounds quaint now in light of the scale of the ongoing crisis, but back then it paid for our salaries in perpetuity.) 

Third, reread the Bloomberg column and wrap your mind around the size of Merrill Lynch’s derivatives positions.  Next, consider that Merrill is only one, shrinking player in derivatives.  Finally, reread Yves’ column in Naked Capitalism where she explains (correctly) that many derivatives cannot be used safely.  Add to that my point about how they can be used to create a “sure thing” of record fictional profits, record compensation, and catastrophic losses.  This is particularly true about credit default swaps (CDS) because of the grotesque accounting treatment that typically involves no allowances for future losses. (FASB:  you must fix this urgently or you will allow a “perfect crime.”).  It is insane that we did not pass a one sentence law repealing the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.  Between the SDIs, the massive, sometimes inherently unsafe and largely opaque financial derivatives, the appointment, retention, and promotion of failed anti-regulators, and the continuing ability of elite control frauds to loot with impunity we are inviting recurrent, intensifying crises. 

I’ll close with a suggestion and request to reporters. Please find out who within the Fed approved this deal and the exact composition of the assets and liabilities that were transferred."

Sickening History: The Radium Girls

 

So, America--Land of the free and home of the brave. We've had it pounded into our heads that the United States has always been the land of opportunity. If you are willing to work you can make something of yourself.

 

If we look at the actual history of the U.S., we see a few examples of those who have made it big, but they did so by exploiting the millions of ignorant folks who came to America looking for the land of milk and honey.

 

The Occupy Wall Street movement that is currently sweeping the U.S. is refocusing our attention on the effects of corporations run by the ultra greedy and ultral selfish. As long as THEIR bank accounts are full, then screw everyone else. There have been countless examples of worker exploitation, but one of the better known is the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory and resultant fire.

 

Lesser known is the story of the Radium Girls. Radium was one of two elements that were discovered by Marie Curie. (If you have the chance, read up on Marie Curie--her history is interesting.) Radium is an element that glows as a result of it's radioactivity. Although the general public was not made aware of it's dangerous effects, the defense industry had a need for glowing dials on aircraft and for use in other applications. It's commercial uses were many, but lets not let public or worker safety stand in the way of making a buck.

 

Enter the U.S. Radium Corporation. 

"From 1917 to 1926, U.S. Radium Corporation, originally called the Radium Luminous Material Corporation, was engaged in the extraction and purification of radium from carnotite ore to produce luminous paints, which were marketed under the brand name 'Undark'. As a defense contractor, U.S. Radium was a major supplier of radioluminescent watches to the military. Their plant in New Jersey employed over a hundred workers, mainly women, to paint radium-lit watch faces and instruments, believing it to be safe.

The U.S. Radium Corporation hired some 70 women to perform various tasks including the handling of radium, while the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves; chemists at the plant used lead screens, masks and tongs. US Radium had even distributed literature to the medical community describing the “injurious effects” of radium. The owners and scientists at US Radium, familiar with the real hazards of radioactivity, naturally took extensive precautions to protect themselves.

An estimated 4,000 workers were hired by corporations in the U.S. and Canada to paint watch faces with radium. They mixed glue, water and radium powder, and then used camel hair brushes to apply the glowing paint onto dials. The then-current rate of pay, for painting 250 dials a day, was about a penny and a half per dial. The brushes would lose shape after a few strokes, so the U.S. Radium supervisors encouraged their workers to point the brushes with their lips, or use their tongues to keep them sharp. For fun, the Radium Girls painted their nails, teeth and faces with the deadly paint produced at the factory Many of the workers became sick. It is unknown how many died from exposure to radiation. The factory sites became Superfund cleanup sites.

Many of the women later began to suffer from anemia, bone fractures and necrosis of the jaw, a condition now known as radium jaw. It is thought that the X-ray machines used by the medical investigators may have contributed to some of the sickened workers' ill-health by subjecting them to additional radiation. It turned out at least one of the examinations was a ruse, part of a campaign of disinformation started by the defense contractor.

 U.S. Radium and other watch-dial companies rejected claims that the afflicted workers were suffering from exposure to radium. For some time, doctors, dentists, and researchers complied with requests from the companies not to release their data. At the urging of the companies, worker deaths were attributed by medical professionals to other causes; syphilis was often cited in attempts to smear the reputations of the women. One of the workers, Peg Loone, died from radiation poisoning at the age of 24.

The story of the abuse perpetrated against the workers is distinguished from most such cases by the fact that the ensuing litigation was covered widely by the media. Plant worker Grace Fryer decided to sue, but it took two years for her to find a lawyer willing to take on U.S. Radium. A total of five factory workers, dubbed the Radium Girls, joined the suit. The litigation and media sensation surrounding the case established legal precedents and triggered the enactment of regulations governing labor safety standards, including a baseline of 'provable suffering'.

The Radium Girls saga holds an important place in the history of both the field of health physics and the labor rights movement. The right of individual workers to sue for damages from corporations due to labor abuse was established as a result of the Radium Girls case. In the wake of the case, industrial safety standards were demonstrably enhanced for many decades.

The case was settled in the fall of 1928, before the trial was deliberated by the jury, and the settlement for each of the Radium Girls was $10,000 (the equivalent of $128,000 in 2010 dollars) and a $600 per year annuity while they lived, and all medical and legal expenses incurred would also be paid by the company.

The lawsuit and resulting publicity was a factor in the establishment of occupational disease labor lawRadium dial painters were instructed in proper safety precautions and provided with protective gear; in particular, they no longer shaped paint brushes by lip, and avoided ingesting or breathing the paint. Radium paint was still used in dials as late as the 1960s, but there were no further injuries to dial painters. This served to highlight that the injuries suffered by the Radium Girls were completely preventable."

 

For most of my life I have favored a capitalist system and the fact is that socialism and communism have failed as practiced, but something needs to change. We desperately need an alternative to what we now have in the U.S.

 

I hope the OWS protests produce some good results--interpret that as you will.

The frustration level is rising.

 

Things just seem to get better every day:

 

===================================

 

 

The Obama Nation or White People are Chumps

 

 

An EBT card is a food stamp debit/credit card.

 

==================================

=======================================

De truff about dem colored folks.

First, we have this bit of inconvenient truth: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t733304/


How Africans may differ from Westerners by Gedaliah Braun

"I am an American who taught philosophy in several African universities from 1976 to 1988, and have lived since that time in South Africa. When I first came to Africa, I knew virtually nothing about the continent or its people, but I began learning quickly. I noticed, for example, that Africans rarely kept promises and saw no need to apologize when they broke them. It was as if they were unaware they had done anything that called for an apology.

It took many years for me to understand why Africans behaved this way but I think I can now explain this and other behavior that characterizes Africa. I believe that morality requires abstract thinking—as does planning for the future—and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

What follow are not scientific findings. There could be alternative explanations for what I have observed, but my conclusions are drawn from more than 30 years of living among Africans.

My first inklings about what may be a deficiency in abstract thinking came from what I began to learn about African languages. In a conversation with students in Nigeria I asked how you would say that a coconut is about halfway up the tree in their local language. “You can’t say that,” they explained. “All you can say is that it is ‘up’.” “How about right at the top?” “Nope; just ‘up’.” In other words, there appeared to be no way to express gradations.

A few years later, in Nairobi, I learned something else about African languages when two women expressed surprise at my English dictionary. “Isn’t English your language?” they asked. “Yes,” I said. “It’s my only language.” “Then why do you need a dictionary?”

They were puzzled that I needed a dictionary, and I was puzzled by their puzzlement. I explained that there are times when you hear a word you’re not sure about and so you look it up. “But if English is your language,” they asked, “how can there be words you don’t know?” “What?” I said. “No one knows all the words of his language.”

I have concluded that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

“But we know all the words of Kikuyu; every Kikuyu does,” they replied. I was even more surprised, but gradually it dawned on me that since their language is entirely oral, it exists only in the minds of Kikuyu speakers. Since there is a limit to what the human brain can retain, the overall size of the language remains more or less constant. A written language, on the other hand, existing as it does partly in the millions of pages of the written word, grows far beyond the capacity of anyone to know it in its entirety. But if the size of a language is limited, it follows that the number of concepts it contains will also be limited and hence that both language and thinking will be impoverished.

African languages were, of necessity, sufficient in their pre-colonial context. They are impoverished only by contrast to Western languages and in an Africa trying to emulate the West. While numerous dictionaries have been compiled between European and African languages, there are few dictionaries within a single African language, precisely because native speakers have no need for them. I did find a Zulu-Zulu dictionary, but it was a small-format paperback of 252 pages.

My queries into Zulu began when I rang the African Language Department at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and spoke to a white guy. Did “precision” exist in the Zulu language prior to European contact? “Oh,” he said, “that’s a very Eurocentric question!” and simply wouldn’t answer. I rang again, spoke to another white guy, and got a virtually identical response.

So I called the University of South Africa, a large correspondence university in Pretoria, and spoke to a young black guy. As has so often been my experience in Africa, we hit it off from the start. He understood my interest in Zulu and found my questions of great interest. He explained that the Zulu word for “precision” means “to make like a straight line.” Was this part of indigenous Zulu? No; this was added by the compilers of the dictionary.

But, he assured me, it was otherwise for “promise.” I was skeptical. How about “obligation?” We both had the same dictionary (English-Zulu, Zulu-English Dictionary, published by Witwatersrand University Press in 1958), and looked it up. The Zulu entry means “as if to bind one’s feet.” He said that was not indigenous but was added by the compilers. But if Zulu didn’t have the concept of obligation, how could it have the concept of a promise, since a promise is simply the oral undertaking of an obligation? I was interested in this, I said, because Africans often failed to keep promises and never apologized—as if this didn’t warrant an apology.

A light bulb seemed to go on in his mind. Yes, he said; in fact, the Zulu word for promise—isithembiso—is not the correct word. When a black person “promises” he means “maybe I will and maybe I won’t.” But, I said, this makes nonsense of promising, the very purpose of which is to bind one to a course of action. When one is not sure he can do something he may say, “I will try but I can’t promise.” He said he’d heard whites say that and had never understood it till now. As a young Romanian friend so aptly summed it up, when a black person “promises” he means “I’ll try.”

The failure to keep promises is therefore not a language problem. It is hard to believe that after living with whites for so long they would not learn the correct meaning, and it is too much of a coincidence that the same phenomenon is found in Nigeria, Kenya and Papua New Guinea, where I have also lived. It is much more likely that Africans generally lack the very concept and hence cannot give the word its correct meaning. This would seem to indicate some difference in intellectual capacity.

Note the Zulu entry for obligation: “as if to bind one’s feet.” An obligation binds you, but it does so morally, not physically. It is an abstract concept, which is why there is no word for it in Zulu. So what did the authors of the dictionary do? They took this abstract concept and made it concrete. Feet, rope, and tying are all tangible and observable, and therefore things all blacks will understand, whereas many will not understand what an obligation is. The fact that they had to define it in this way is, by itself, compelling evidence for my conclusion that Zulu thought has few abstract concepts and indirect evidence for the view that Africans may be deficient in abstract thinking.

Abstract thinking

Abstract entities do not exist in space or time; they are typically intangible and can’t be perceived by the senses. They are often things that do not exist. “What would happen if everyone threw rubbish everywhere?” refers to something we hope will not happen, but we can still think about it.

Everything we observe with our senses occurs in time and everything we see exists in space; yet we can perceive neither time nor space with our senses, but only with the mind. Precision is also abstract; while we can see and touch things made with precision, precision itself can only be perceived by the mind.

How do we acquire abstract concepts? Is it enough to make things with precision in order to have the concept of precision? Africans make excellent carvings, made with precision, so why isn’t the concept in their language? To have this concept we must not only do things with precision but must be aware of this phenomenon and then give it a name.

How, for example, do we acquire such concepts as belief and doubt? We all have beliefs; even animals do. When a dog wags its tail on hearing his master’s footsteps, it believes he is coming. But it has no concept of belief because it has no awareness that it has this belief and so no awareness of belief per se. In short, it has no self-consciousness, and thus is not aware of its own mental states.

It has long seemed to me that blacks tend to lack self-awareness. If such awareness is necessary for developing abstract concepts it is not surprising that African languages have so few abstract terms. A lack of self-awareness—or introspection—has advantages. In my experience neurotic behavior, characterized by excessive and unhealthy self-consciousness, is uncommon among blacks. I am also confident that sexual dysfunction, which is characterized by excessive self-consciousness, is less common among blacks than whites.

Time is another abstract concept with which Africans seem to have difficulties. I began to wonder about this in 1998. Several Africans drove up in a car and parked right in front of mine, blocking it. “Hey,” I said, “you can’t park here.” “Oh, are you about to leave?” they asked in a perfectly polite and friendly way. “No,” I said, “but I might later. Park over there”—and they did.

While the possibility that I might want to leave later was obvious to me, their thinking seemed to encompass only the here and now: “If you’re leaving right now we understand, but otherwise, what’s the problem?” I had other such encounters and the key question always seemed to be, “Are you leaving now?” The future, after all, does not exist. It will exist, but doesn’t exist now. People who have difficulty thinking of things that do not exist will ipso facto have difficulty thinking about the future.

It appears that the Zulu word for “future”—isikhati—is the same as the word for time, as well as for space. Realistically, this means that these concepts probably do not exist in Zulu thought. It also appears that there is no word for the past—meaning, the time preceding the present. The past did exist, but no longer exists. Hence, people who may have problems thinking of things that do not exist will have trouble thinking of the past as well as the future.

This has an obvious bearing on such sentiments as gratitude and loyalty, which I have long noticed are uncommon among Africans. We feel gratitude for things that happened in the past, but for those with little sense of the past such feelings are less likely to arise.

Why did it take me more than 20 years to notice all of this? I think it is because our assumptions about time are so deeply rooted that we are not even aware of making them and hence the possibility that others may not share them simply does not occur to us. And so we don’t see it, even when the evidence is staring us in the face.

Mathematics and maintenance

I quote from an article in the South African press about the problems blacks have with mathematics:

“[Xhosa] is a language where polygon and plane have the same definition … where concepts like triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, hexagon are defined by only one word.” (“Finding New Languages for Maths and Science,” Star [Johannesburg], July 24, 2002, p. 8.)

More accurately, these concepts simply do not exist in Xhosa, which, along with Zulu, is one of the two most widely spoken languages in South Africa. In America, blacks are said to have a “tendency to approximate space, numbers and time instead of aiming for complete accuracy.” (Star, June 8, 1988, p.10.) In other words, they are also poor at math. Notice the identical triumvirate—space, numbers, and time. Is it just a coincidence that these three highly abstract concepts are the ones with which blacks — everywhere — seem to have such difficulties?

The entry in the Zulu dictionary for “number,” by the way — ningi — means “numerous,” which is not at all the same as the concept of number. It is clear, therefore, that there is no concept of number in Zulu.

White rule in South Africa ended in 1994. It was about ten years later that power outages began, which eventually reached crisis proportions. The principle reason for this is simply lack of maintenance on the generating equipment. Maintenance is future-oriented, and the Zulu entry in the dictionary for it is ondla, which means: “1. Nourish, rear; bring up; 2. Keep an eye on; watch (your crop).” In short, there is no such thing as maintenance in Zulu thought, and it would be hard to argue that this is wholly unrelated to the fact that when people throughout Africa say “nothing works,” it is only an exaggeration.

The New York Times reports that New York City is considering a plan (since implemented) aimed at getting blacks to “do well on standardized tests and to show up for class,” by paying them to do these things and that could “earn [them] as much as $500 a year.” Students would get money for regular school attendance, every book they read, doing well on tests, and sometimes just for taking them. Parents would be paid for “keeping a full-time job … having health insurance … and attending parent-teacher conferences.” (Jennifer Medina, “Schools Plan to Pay Cash for Marks,” New York Times, June 19, 2007.)

The clear implication is that blacks are not very motivated. Motivation involves thinking about the future and hence about things that do not exist. Given black deficiencies in this regard, it is not surprising that they would be lacking in motivation, and having to prod them in this way is further evidence for such a deficiency.

The Zulu entry for “motivate” is banga, under which we find “1. Make, cause, produce something unpleasant; … to cause trouble . … 2. Contend over a claim; … fight over inheritance; … 3. Make for, aim at, journey towards … .” Yet when I ask Africans what banga means, they have no idea. In fact, no Zulu word could refer to motivation for the simple reason that there is no such concept in Zulu; and if there is no such concept there cannot be a word for it. This helps explain the need to pay blacks to behave as if they were motivated.

The same New York Times article quotes Darwin Davis of the Urban League as “caution[ing] that the … money being offered [for attending class] was relatively paltry … and wondering … how many tests students would need to pass to buy the latest video game.”

Instead of being shamed by the very need for such a plan, this black activist complains that the payments aren’t enough! If he really is unaware how his remarks will strike most readers, he is morally obtuse, but his views may reflect a common understanding among blacks of what morality is: not something internalized but something others enforce from the outside. Hence his complaint that paying children to do things they should be motivated to do on their own is that they are not being paid enough.

In this context, I recall some remarkable discoveries by the late American linguist, William Stewart, who spent many years in Senegal studying local languages. Whereas Western cultures internalize norms—“Don’t do that!” for a child, eventually becomes “I mustn’t do that” for an adult—African cultures do not. They rely entirely on external controls on behavior from tribal elders and other sources of authority. When Africans were detribalized, these external constraints disappeared, and since there never were internal constraints, the results were crime, drugs, promiscuity, etc. Where there have been other forms of control—as in white-ruled South Africa, colonial Africa, or the segregated American South—this behavior was kept within tolerable limits. But when even these controls disappear there is often unbridled violence.

Stewart apparently never asked why African cultures did not internalize norms, that is, why they never developed moral consciousness, but it is unlikely that this was just a historical accident. More likely, it was the result of deficiencies in abstract thinking ability.

One explanation for this lack of abstract thinking, including the diminished understanding of time, is that Africans evolved in a climate where they could live day to day without having to think ahead. They never developed this ability because they had no need for it. Whites, on the other hand, evolved under circumstances in which they had to consider what would happen if they didn’t build stout houses and store enough fuel and food for the winter. For them it was sink or swim.

Surprising confirmation of Stewart’s ideas can be found in the May/June 2006 issue of the Boston Review, a typically liberal publication. In “Do the Right Thing: Cognitive Science’s Search for a Common Morality,” Rebecca Saxe distinguishes between “conventional” and “moral” rules. Conventional rules are supported by authorities but can be changed; moral rules, on the other hand, are not based on conventional authority and are not subject to change. “Even three-year-old children … distinguish between moral and conventional transgressions,” she writes. The only exception, according to James Blair of the National Institutes of Health, are psychopaths, who exhibit “persistent aggressive behavior.” For them, all rules are based only on external authority, in whose absence “anything is permissible.” The conclusion drawn from this is that “healthy individuals in all cultures respect the distinction between conventional … and moral [rules].”

However, in the same article, another anthropologist argues that “the special status of moral rules cannot be part of human nature, but is … just … an artifact of Western values.” Anita Jacobson-Widding, writing of her experiences among the Manyika of Zimbabwe, says:

“I tried to find a word that would correspond to the English concept of ‘morality.’ I explained what I meant by asking my informants to describe the norms for good behavior toward other people. The answer was unanimous. The word for this was tsika. But when I asked my bilingual informants to translate tsika into English, they said that it was ‘good manners’ …”


An all-too-common problem.

She concluded that because good manners are clearly conventional rather than moral rules, the Manyika simply did not have a concept of morality. But how would one explain this absence? Miss Jacobson-Widding’s explanation is the typical nonsense that could come only from a so-called intellectual: “the concept of morality does not exist.” The far more likely explanation is that the concept of morality, while otherwise universal, is enfeebled in cultures that have a deficiency in abstract thinking.

According to now-discredited folk wisdom, blacks are “children in adult bodies,” but there may be some foundation to this view. The average African adult has the raw IQ score of the average 11-year-old white child. This is about the age at which white children begin to internalize morality and no longer need such strong external enforcers.

Gruesome cruelty

Another aspect of African behavior that liberals do their best to ignore but that nevertheless requires an explanation is gratuitous cruelty. A reviewer of Driving South, a 1993 book by David Robbins, writes:


Victim of Rwandan violence.

“A Cape social worker sees elements that revel in violence … It’s like a cult which has embraced a lot of people who otherwise appear normal. … At the slightest provocation their blood-lust is aroused. And then they want to see death, and they jeer and mock at the suffering involved, especially the suffering of a slow and agonizing death.” (Citizen [Johannesburg], July 12, 1993, p.6.)

There is something so unspeakably vile about this, something so beyond depravity, that the human brain recoils. This is not merely the absence of human empathy, but the positive enjoyment of human suffering, all the more so when it is “slow and agonizing.” Can you imagine jeering at and mocking someone in such horrible agony?

During the apartheid era, black activists used to kill traitors and enemies by “necklacing” them. An old tire was put around the victim’s neck, filled with gasoline, and—but it is best to let an eye-witness describe what happened next:

“The petrol-filled tyre is jammed on your shoulders and a lighter is placed within reach . … Your fingers are broken, needles are pushed up your nose and you are tortured until you put the lighter to the petrol yourself.” (Citizen; “SA’s New Nazis,” August 10, 1993, p.18.)

The author of an article in the Chicago Tribune, describing the equally gruesome way the Hutu killed Tutsi in the Burundi massacres, marveled at “the ecstasy of killing, the lust for blood; this is the most horrible thought. It’s beyond my reach.” (“Hutu Killers Danced In Blood Of Victims, Videotapes Show,” Chicago Tribune, September 14, 1995, p.8.) The lack of any moral sense is further evidenced by their having videotaped their crimes, “apparently want[ing] to record … [them] for posterity.” Unlike Nazi war criminals, who hid their deeds, these people apparently took pride in their work.


Where Amy Biehl was killed.

In 1993, Amy Biehl, a 26-year-old American on a Fulbright scholarship, was living in South Africa, where she spent most of her time in black townships helping blacks. One day when she was driving three African friends home, young blacks stopped the car, dragged her out, and killed her because she was white. A retired senior South African judge, Rex van Schalkwyk, in his 1998 book One Miracle is Not Enough, quotes from a newspaper report on the trial of her killers: “Supporters of the three men accused of murdering [her] … burst out laughing in the public gallery of the Supreme Court today when a witness told how the battered woman groaned in pain.” This behavior, Van Schalkwyk wrote, “is impossible to explain in terms accessible to rational minds.” (pp. 188-89.)

These incidents and the responses they evoke—“the human brain recoils,” “beyond my reach,” “impossible to explain to rational minds” — represent a pattern of behavior and thinking that cannot be wished away, and offer additional support for my claim that Africans are deficient in moral consciousness.

I have long suspected that the idea of rape is not the same in Africa as elsewhere, and now I find confirmation of this in Newsweek:

“According to a three-year study [in Johannesburg] … more than half of the young people interviewed — both male and female — believe that forcing sex with someone you know does not constitute sexual violence … [T]he casual manner in which South African teens discuss coercive relationships and unprotected sex is staggering.” (Tom Masland, “Breaking The Silence,” Newsweek, July 9, 2000.)

Clearly, many blacks do not think rape is anything to be ashamed of.

The Newsweek author is puzzled by widespread behavior that is known to lead to AIDS, asking “Why has the safe-sex effort failed so abjectly?” Well, aside from their profoundly different attitudes towards sex and violence and their heightened libido, a major factor could be their diminished concept of time and reduced ability to think ahead.


Liberian billboard

Nevertheless, I was still surprised by what I found in the Zulu dictionary. The main entry for rape reads: “1. Act hurriedly; … 2. Be greedy. 3. Rob, plunder, … take [possessions] by force.” While these entries may be related to our concept of rape, there is one small problem: there is no reference to sexual intercourse! In a male-dominated culture, where saying “no” is often not an option (as confirmed by the study just mentioned), “taking sex by force” is not really part of the African mental calculus. Rape clearly has a moral dimension, but perhaps not to Africans. To the extent they do not consider coerced sex to be wrong, then, by our conception, they cannot consider it rape because rape is wrong. If such behavior isn’t wrong it isn’t rape.

An article about gang rape in the left-wing British paper, the Guardian, confirms this when it quotes a young black woman: “The thing is, they [black men] don’t see it as rape, as us being forced. They just see it as pleasure for them.” (Rose George, “They Don’t See it as Rape. They Just See it as Pleasure for Them,” June 5, 2004.) A similar attitude seems to be shared among some American blacks who casually refer to gang rape as “running a train.” (Nathan McCall, Makes Me Wanna Holler, Vintage Books, 1995.)

If the African understanding of rape is far afield, so may be their idea of romance or love. I recently watched a South African television program about having sex for money. Of the several women in the audience who spoke up, not a single one questioned the morality of this behavior. Indeed, one plaintively asked, “Why else would I have sex with a man?”

From the casual way in which Africans throw around the word “love,” I suspect their understanding of it is, at best, childish. I suspect the notion is alien to Africans, and I would be surprised if things are very different among American blacks. Africans hear whites speak of “love” and try to give it a meaning from within their own conceptual repertoire. The result is a child’s conception of this deepest of human emotions, probably similar to their misunderstanding of the nature of a promise.

I recently located a document that was dictated to me by a young African woman in June 1993. She called it her “story,” and the final paragraph is a poignant illustration of what to Europeans would seem to be a limited understanding of love:

“On my way from school, I met a boy. And he proposed me. His name was Mokone. He tell me that he love me. And then I tell him I will give him his answer next week. At night I was crazy about him. I was always thinking about him.”

Moral blindness

Whenever I taught ethics I used the example of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French Army who was convicted of treason in 1894 even though the authorities knew he was innocent. Admitting their mistake, it was said, would have a disastrous effect on military morale and would cause great social unrest. I would in turn argue that certain things are intrinsically wrong and not just because of their consequences. Even if the results of freeing Dreyfus would be much worse than keeping him in prison, he must be freed, because it is unjust to keep an innocent man in prison.

To my amazement, an entire class in Kenya said without hesitation that he should not be freed. Call me dense if you want, but it was 20 years before the full significance of this began to dawn on me.


Death is certain but accidents are not.

Africans, I believe, may generally lack the concepts of subjunctivity and counterfactuality. Subjunctivity is conveyed in such statements as, “What would you have done if I hadn’t showed up?” This is contrary to fact because I did show up, and it is now impossible for me not to have shown up. We are asking someone to imagine what he would have done if something that didn’t happen (and now couldn’t happen) had happened. This requires self-consciousness, and I have already described blacks’ possible deficiency in this respect. It is obvious that animals, for example, cannot think counterfactually, because of their complete lack of self-awareness.

When someone I know tried to persuade his African workers to contribute to a health insurance policy, they asked “What’s it for?” “Well, if you have an accident, it would pay for the hospital.” Their response was immediate: “But boss, we didn’t have an accident!” “Yes, but what if you did?” Reply? “We didn’t have an accident!” End of story.


South African AIDS education poster.

Interestingly, blacks do plan for funerals, for although an accident is only a risk, death is a certainty. (The Zulu entries for “risk” are “danger” and “a slippery surface.”) Given the frequent all-or-nothing nature of black thinking, if it’s not certain you will have an accident, then you will not have an accident. Furthermore, death is concrete and observable: We see people grow old and die. Africans tend to be aware of time when it is manifested in the concrete and observable.

One of the pivotal ideas underpinning morality is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. “How would you feel if someone stole everything you owned? Well, that’s how he would feel if you robbed him.” The subjunctivity here is obvious. But if Africans may generally lack this concept, they will have difficulty in understanding the Golden Rule and, to that extent, in understanding morality.

If this is true we might also expect their capacity for human empathy to be diminished, and this is suggested in the examples cited above. After all, how do we empathize? When we hear about things like “necklacing” we instinctively — and unconsciously — think: “How would I feel if I were that person?” Of course I am not and cannot be that person, but to imagine being that person gives us valuable moral “information:” that we wouldn’t want this to happen to us and so we shouldn’t want it to happen to others. To the extent people are deficient in such abstract thinking, they will be deficient in moral understanding and hence in human empathy—which is what we tend to find in Africans.

In his 1990 book Devil’s Night, Ze’ev Chafets quotes a black woman speaking about the problems of Detroit: “I know some people won’t like this, but whenever you get a whole lot of black people, you’re gonna have problems. Blacks are ignorant and rude.” (pp. 76-77.)

If some Africans cannot clearly imagine what their own rude behavior feels like to others—in other words, if they cannot put themselves in the other person’s shoes—they will be incapable of understanding what rudeness is. For them, what we call rude may be normal and therefore, from their perspective, not really rude. Africans may therefore not be offended by behavior we would consider rude — not keeping appointments, for example. One might even conjecture that African cruelty is not the same as white cruelty, since Africans may not be fully aware of the nature of their behavior, whereas such awareness is an essential part of “real” cruelty.

I am hardly the only one to notice this obliviousness to others that sometimes characterizes black behavior. Walt Harrington, a white liberal married to a light-skinned black, makes some surprising admissions in his 1994 book, Crossings: A White Man’s Journey Into Black America:

“I notice a small car … in the distance. Suddenly … a bag of garbage flies out its window . … I think, I’ll bet they’re blacks. Over the years I’ve noticed more blacks littering than whites. I hate to admit this because it is a prejudice. But as I pass the car, I see that my reflex was correct—[they are blacks].

“[As I pull] into a McDonald’s drive-through … [I see that] the car in front of me had four black[s] in it. Again … my mind made its unconscious calculation: We’ll be sitting here forever while these people decide what to order. I literally shook my head . … My God, my kids are half black! But then the kicker: we waited and waited and waited. Each of the four … leaned out the window and ordered individually. The order was changed several times. We sat and sat, and I again shook my head, this time at the conundrum that is race in America.

“I knew that the buried sentiment that had made me predict this disorganization … was … racist. … But my prediction was right.” (pp. 234-35.)

Africans also tend to litter. To understand this we must ask why whites don’t litter, at least not as much. We ask ourselves: “What would happen if everyone threw rubbish everywhere? It would be a mess. So you shouldn’t do it!” Blacks’ possible deficiency in abstract thinking makes such reasoning more difficult, so any behavior requiring such thinking is less likely to develop in their cultures. Even after living for generations in societies where such thinking is commonplace, many may still fail to absorb it.

It should go without saying that my observations about Africans are generalizations. I am not saying that none has the capacity for abstract thought or moral understanding. I am speaking of tendencies and averages, which leave room for many exceptions.

To what extent do my observations about Africans apply to American blacks? American blacks have an average IQ of 85, which is a full 15 points higher than the African average of 70. The capacity for abstract thought is unquestionably correlated with intelligence, and so we can expect American blacks generally to exceed Africans in these respects.

Still, American blacks show many of the traits so striking among Africans: low mathematical ability, diminished abstract reasoning, high crime rates, a short time-horizon, rudeness, littering, etc. If I had lived only among American blacks and not among Africans, I might never have reached the conclusions I have, but the more extreme behavior among Africans makes it easier to perceive the same tendencies among American blacks."

==========================================================

And this: http://www.amren.com/ar/2003/09/index.html#cover


Urban Law 101
What I Didn’t Learn in Law School:
Adventures with black clients

by Donald Williamson

I grew up in a suburb of a large northern city, and had no real contact with blacks until I became a lawyer. After I got my law degree I naïvely looked forward to a rewarding legal career. Little did I realize that 25 years later I would be a self-employed attorney doing domestic and civil litigation for a clientele that is overwhelmingly black.

I didn’t plan it that way. I just wanted to do a lot of work in the courtroom, and the best offer I got out of law school was with a small firm that specialized in bankruptcy. Most of its clients were black. Several years later, I set up an independent practice and many of my former clients came to me for domestic work.


Most people do not realize this, but outside the world of corporate or securities law, in any big city the legal profession is to a large degree fueled by the pathologies of blacks and other Third-World people. Of course, whites hire lawyers, but in any city, especially one with a good-sized black population, most of the people who need lawyers are black. In this respect, lawyers are like police officers or social workers — they rarely deal with ordinary white people.

To a large degree, I became racially conscious because of my black clients, who eventually destroyed all my preconceived notions about race. My awakening did not come from one or even a few incidents, but from the accumulation of thousands upon thousands of small interactions.

Day after day my clients continue to amaze me. There is no racial education quite so thorough and convincing as spending time with blacks, and my clients are far from being the poorest and least competent blacks. They are not indigent criminals for whom I am a court-appointed lawyer. They are people who can afford (or think they can afford) a lawyer to get a divorce, contest a custody judgment, beat a traffic ticket, etc. Some are government employees who make $60 to $70 thousand a year, yet even this group is vastly different from whites.

They Don’t Know

One of the most striking things about my black clients is the things they do not know. Many blacks, for example, do not know their own telephone numbers. They may think they do but they don’t, and the problem has gotten worse with the proliferation of cell phones. At least a third of the numbers they leave with my receptionist or on my answering machine are wrong numbers. Often, a potential client will call several times, each time leaving a variation of the same phone number. I keep calling until they get it right. At first I thought I was taking down the numbers incorrectly, but now I know better. With caller ID, it is clear when what the client says does not match the digital display.

Some callers don’t even leave a number. About a quarter of the messages blacks leave do not include either a name or a number. Needless to say, many calls are not returned.

More than a handful of blacks who have come to my office do not even know their own home address (they move often). Many cannot tell me their own spouse’s names. Now I know to tell clients ahead of time that they will need this sort of information when they come in. Otherwise, if I ask for someone’s address he may look hurt and say, “If I’d known you were going to ask me that I would have come prepared.”

My black clients eventually destroyed all my preconceived notions about race.
Many black men know their children’s names but do not know how to spell them. With the proliferation of unusual names among blacks, I can only guess at how they are spelled. One client who told me he couldn’t spell his children’s names said I would need an encyclopedia to look them up. Many men have admitted to me they are not even sure how to pronounce their children’s names. Black woman, on the other hand, often become incensed if you mispronounce the very unusual names they have given their children.

The most unusual name I ever came across was Iisszzttadda. I have never met a person, white or black, who could pronounce it correctly. To my surprise the name is pronounced, “I seize the day.” Iisszzttadda had siblings named Raheem, Utopian, Desiorme, Sid-Timothy, Kizzma, and Larilaril. I have occasionally asked clients the reasons for such unusual names, but the most common answer is “I don’t know. It just sounded good.” This is the answer I got from a mother who named her child Latrine. (See sidebar for actual names of blacks I have encountered in my practice.)

I once had a client in my office who did not know his own name. He had been called by his nickname for so long he couldn’t remember his given name. This is not as shocking as it sounds. Some black names, like Phe-anjoy or Quithreaun or JyesahJhnai, are so odd, it would be no surprise if they were never used and eventually forgotten.

Names are not the only things blacks do not know. Once when I was filling out a form for a female client I asked if she knew how old her husband was. She told me she didn’t know. I asked her the next question on the form, which was her husband’s birth date. Amazingly, she knew it — and was genuinely surprised when I told her she could figure out her husband’s age from his birth date.

When potential clients call for the first time, often the hardest part is to figure out why they are calling. Usually they begin in the middle of the story. If you let them, they will go on and on, and say nothing. Clients may call about papers they got in the mail, but never have the papers in front of them. They may call for information, but never have a pen or pencil ready to take it down. I have learned to ask direct questions: “What is your name?” “What is the problem?” If a client cannot tell me in three minutes or less what the problem is, I tell him to come to my office and bring a small retainer fee. That way at least I will have to listen to their ramblings only if they are prepared to pay.

Blacks with whom I have already spoken seem to think I should know instantly who they are when they telephone. After I get on the line, a typical conversation may go like this:

“Who am I speaking to?”

“I am your client.”

“I have many clients, can you tell me which one?”

“I am your divorce client.”

“Can you tell me your name?”

“Rufus.”

“Rufus, can you tell me your last name?”

The conversation may go on for some time before I finally figure out who is calling.

I do not take personal injury or product liability cases, but blacks are always asking about bringing suits of this kind: “My vacuum cleaner broke. Can you help me?”

Since appointments mean so little to my clients, I decide each day when I am available, and tell everyone to show up at the same time.
Most of my clients who are not black either show up on time for appointments or call if they must reschedule. Amazing as this may seem, only about five percent of my black clients show up on time, and by that I mean within an hour of the appointed time. Only one in five show up on the appointed day. A few trickle in a day or two later. Most just never show up. Missing an appointment never embarrasses black people. They call repeatedly for new appointments, making four, five or even six appointments and then miss them all. I had one client who called more than 50 times before he finally came to my office. Rarely do I ever get a call from a black client canceling an appointment.

When I first started out as a lawyer I would call clients in advance to remind them of their appointments. They thanked me, but it made them no more likely to show up. Also, I used to call clients and potential clients who missed appointments, and try to have them reschedule. This did very little good. The most common response was, “Why are you calling me?” and it was never their fault that they didn’t show up. They had many different excuses, but I never heard, “I forgot,” or “I’m sorry I didn’t make it.”

Since appointments mean so little to my clients, I decide each day when I am available, and tell everyone to show up at the same time. On Saturday afternoons I can have as many as twenty appointments for the same time. Usually it is not a problem because few show up and even fewer show up on time. Only once in the last 20 years did everyone show up.

Many of my clients are unable to explain even the most basic facts. Often they must take the witness stand, and no matter how many times we have gone over the testimony in advance, I can be surprised by what they say. Some are simply lying and get tangled up in their lies, but most have such low IQs, they cannot describe even the simplest things. Often they seem to say the first thing that pops into their heads. When they are questioned further they cannot remember what they said previously.

I once had a client whose wife was suing him for child support. In discussions before trial he told me he had two children from a previous marriage. This was favorable for him because it meant he would probably owe his current wife less money. At trial, his wife testified that my client had no children outside of their marriage. When I asked him on the stand how many children he had before he married his current wife, he said he had none. Later I asked him why he had answered that way, when he told me before that he had two other children. “Did I say that?” he asked. I never found out which version was true.

Many of my clients have a hard time following simple directions. Once I appeared in traffic court with a client. In lieu of a conviction he was to see a traffic safety movie. The courtroom was on the second floor of the courthouse, and the traffic safety movie was shown on the first floor. The client was to come back to the courtroom with proof — which would be given him on the first floor — that he watched the movie. Both the judge and I explained this to the client. At the designated hour my client did not come back to the courtroom. Later that afternoon I got a call from the judge, who told me my client had completely misunderstood the instructions. He went to the nearest commercial movie house, saw a movie, and brought back his movie ticket stub.

Long ago I stopped asking my clients why they did something. It is not worth the effort. Most don’t know. The ones who know usually cannot give a coherent answer. Even if they can give a coherent answer, it usually changes every time you ask.

For example, one of my black divorce clients tried to hide assets from his spouse — this is not uncommon. Through discovery it came to light that he had secretly bought a piece of property after the divorce had begun. He put his wife’s name on the title, a very odd thing to do, since he was trying to hide the property from her. I made the mistake of asking him why he did that. True to my previous experiences, he could not give an answer that made sense.

Clients sometimes tell me they knew they were being cheated, but signed the papers anyway. I have given up asking why they signed, because I know I will not get an intelligible answer.

My clients make mistakes in written and spoken English that are often comical. One client in a criminal case told me he was telling the truth, and was willing to take a “polyester test” to prove it. Another told me he desperately wanted to see me, and needed an appointment “between Tuesday and Wednesday.” One who bounced a check told me the problem was “insignificant funds” in his account. I have had clients who have “profiteering” plans at work, want an “uncontestable” divorce (or a “detested” divorce, or an “untested” divorce), had “insects” (incest) in the family, need an “annoyment” (annulment), want a free “flirtation” (consultation), ask about my “container” (retainer), want to “consultate” about a divorce, or had to meet with “media people” (mediation counselors). One man told me, “I own a car but it is not mine,” and one who was accused of indecent exposure insisted, “I didn’t take my stuff out of my pants.”

It took me some time to understand certain kinds of black slang. Within the first month of my independent practice a man called to ask if I could “put a suitcase on a cat.” After much inquiry I realized he wanted to know if I could file a law suit against someone. Within the week I got another call asking if I “did luggage.” Since I now knew about suitcases, I said yes, I do luggage.

I pride myself on doing good work for my clients, but I cannot remember even once being thanked or complimented by a black client. They do not observe even the most common courtesies. Also, with rare exceptions, blacks will never admit they made a mistake. When things go wrong, as they inevitably do, it is always someone else’s fault. The most common excuse blacks give is, “They are putting me through the changes.” I have yet to figure out exactly what that means.

Most people tell lies because they think a lie will help them. I have come to the conclusion that most of my clients cannot distinguish between a plausible lie and a wild fairy tale. They are convinced people will believe anything they say. Clients often tell me some fantastic story I cannot possibly defend in court. If I tell them what they are saying is unbelievable the usual reaction is anger and screaming. Typically, they will add, “I’m paying you. You have to believe what I say.”


Cats on a suitcase.
Sometimes, despite my warnings, clients will get on the stand and tell obvious, outright lies. The judge may interrupt the testimony and tell me to go outside with my client to “get your story straight.” They are not going to sit in court and listen to fairy tales. I take my client outside and tell him he has got to tell the truth, or at least say something believable. My client then starts screaming. “Why are you talking to me this way? You’re supposed to be on my side.”

I once had a client testify about his assets in a divorce case, in which the court was to determine whether he should pay his estranged wife temporary support. My client was a store-front preacher, and testified that he lived in the marital residence with his wife, though in separate quarters. His wife testified that he was out living with his “ho.” My client went on and on about how this was impossible because he was a Man of God. I thought he was lying. The judge ruled that if my client was living with his wife he should share household expenses, which he was not currently paying. At this point, my client realized there was a cost to pretending to be a Man of God living with his lawful wife, and changed his tune. “Judge why are you believing me?” he said. “Believe my wife. I am nothing but an old lying nigger.” No one in the courtroom could stop laughing.

Outside Kids

“Outside kid” cases are one of my specialties. For those not in the know, blacks call any child born out of wedlock an outside kid. Black men are good at making children but not at supporting them, and this can be a terrible burden under laws written with white people in mind.

One client was willing to take a “polyester test” to prove he was telling the truth.
In my state, the parent who does not have custody — almost always the father — pays a percentage of net income to the parent with custody — almost always the mother. The mother gets 20 percent of the father’s net income for the first child, 25 percent for two children, and up to 50 percent for five or more children. What if a man has children by several women? Each mother gets 20 percent for the first child, so a man with five children by five different women is supposed to be paying 100 percent of his income in child support. I once had a client who had 12 different children by 10 different women. Theoretically, he owed 250 percent of his income. These laws simply don’t make sense for blacks. Judges have to decide each case as best they can.

Not surprisingly, the average black client will not pay child support unless it is deducted from his paycheck. Many refuse to work, or leave a job to avoid paying. Job turnover is very high among blacks, and the court system has a hard time keeping up with them. Some blacks quit on purpose, and move to another job so as to keep one step ahead of the collections.

Whenever I ask a potential client whether he has paid court-ordered child support he will almost invariably answer with one or more of the following: “I always helps my kids.” “I gives the mother money whenever she asks.” “I am always there for my kids.” “I buys my kids whatever they needs.” It almost always turns out they have paid no support, haven’t seen their children in years, and at best may have paid for some basketball shoes.


Seventy percent are “outside kids.”
Children do not always seem to have the same importance for blacks that they do for whites. I was in bankruptcy court once waiting for my client’s case to be called. A black debtor — not my client — was before the judge trying to convince him to approve his bankruptcy repayment plan. The judge told him he could not afford both his Cadillac and his children, and had to give up one or the other. The debtor immediately said he could not give up his car, and therefore the judge would have to take his kids. The judge threw up his hands and walked off the bench. On another occasion, the same bankruptcy judge told a black debtor he could not afford both his Cadillac and his house. The debtor replied, “You can live in your car but you can’t drive your house. Take my house.” This was many years ago and tastes in cars may have changed, but I learned how important Cadillacs were to blacks.

In one respect my job is very different from that of a policeman or social worker: I have to make sure I am paid. I try to get paid in full before I agree to represent a client. If I am not paid in full before the case is over I know I will never get any more money. Clients have a hard time understanding they are paying for an attorney’s time. Invariably, if a client drops a case before it is over he asks for a full refund. Their reasoning goes something like this: “I paid for a divorce and I didn’t get one, so I should get all my money back.”

Once I sued a client who didn’t pay me. I finally garnished his wages and was paid in full. About six months later he called to ask me to take his next case. I told him I didn’t want a client that doesn’t pay his bills. He became indignant. He said I got all my money, so what did I have to complain about.

To hear my clients tell it, banks are constantly “messing” with their checking accounts. At least that is what they tell me when their checks bounce. Most of my clients do not have checking accounts, and pay cash. The ones who do have accounts have no idea how much money is in them. Many clients have written me checks on accounts that were closed.

Black clients yell and scream at me every day; I have learned that this is normal. They are like young children who don’t get their way. I usually ignore these outbursts, though screaming back at them is usually more effective. I have been threatened with physical violence only twice, and once I had to call the police to escort a client out of my office.

My experience is hardly unique. Most of the lawyers I know have practices similar to mine. Most lawyers therefore are racial realists even if they do not admit it openly. Their actions and comments are no different from mine. People who have daily contact with minorities, who know first-hand that there are racial differences, are likely to be the best prospects for any movement that promotes racial consciousness. They don’t like dealing with blacks, but that is simply part of the business. If they can’t take it anymore they get into some other line of work.


More important than house or kids?

One lawyer I know moved to the country so he would have white clients. He had lived in the big city all his live, but was willing to pull up all his roots to get a different clientele.

Recently the supreme court in my state ruled that a lawyer can be disciplined for communications that racially denigrate litigants. For that reason I cannot write this article under my own name, much as I would like to. I must hide behind a pseudonym for fear of falling victim to our politically-correct supreme court.