Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation
By Stephen Webster, Investigative Reporter
Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’
SFC DONALD BUSWELL (left) received the Purple Heart
for injuries sustained on the battlefields of Iraq.
FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.
But if one were to ask Buswell’s Commanding Officer what he thinks of the Sergeant, the response would likely sound a little bit more like, “No comment.”
Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell of the United States Army has been accused of using “his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States …,” had his security clearance revoked and may be facing dishonorable discharge, court martial “or worse.” What despicable, traitorous act did this Gulf War veteran and Purple Heart recipient commit to create this kind of furor? He suggested that “a new independent investigation into 911″ should be undertaken.“I say Occums razor is the best way to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones and 3 day old newspapers! . . . We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day, and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous theories must be examined.”
SFC Buswell has done nothing more than suggest that we ask questions, yet is under investigation and under threat of possible court martial. 911Truth.org encourages all readers to follow this story closely, disseminate it widely, and be prepared to assist SFC Buswell in whatever manner possible. We will immediately post further information as it becomes available, to keep you abreast of developments. 911Truth.org has confirmed this story with the reporter, and will attempt to contact SFC Buswell and Ft. Sam Houston personnel for comment.
Such were the words given to The Iconoclast by Lieutenant Colonel Jane Crichton after inquiring why SFC Buswell is the focus of an investigation initiated by Colonel Luke S. Green, Chief of Staff at Fifth Army in Ft. Sam Houston.
According to unnamed military sources contacted by The Iconoclast, SFC Buswell “used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States . . .” Because of these statements, SFC Buswell could soon find himself dishonorably discharged, court marshaled, or worse.
It all started as a simple response to a common, unsolicited mass email, sent to 38 individuals at Ft. Sam Houston on Aug. 2, 2006. The message, as well as Buswell’s response, is among documents obtained by The Iconoclast. The sender of the first message is identified as “Anderson, Larry Mr JMC”. It reads:
This is being sent more as assurance for what happens when a plane hits a nuclear site more so than in response to that German website alleging a government conspiracy related to the 9/11 Pentagon plane crash (though the website does present an interesting perspective) — LarrySubject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall
Take a look at this clip [not included] and you’ll get a good feel for what happens to an airplane when it hits a concrete wall. Many of you have seen the produced (but not factual), Michael Moore-esque website that asks the question; “If it’s true that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon, what happened to all the parts of it? Why do we not find more pieces of it?
Where did all that mass GO???” (Therefore, the paranoid loony liberal reasoning, 9-11 must have been a US gov’t conspiracy!) Well, for those who question what happened to “all the mass of that airplane”…….watch this clip.
It’s the old Air Force engineering tests of the concrete barrier that surrounds nuclear reactor domes –tests to see if it will indeed survive an aerial attack. With the hi-speed cameras rolling, they accelerated an F-4 Phantom to 500mph and………
Recall: “What happens when an ‘Unstoppable Force’ meets an ‘Immovable Object’???” (Remember, as you watch in slow motion as the F-4 turns to vapor, the Phantom was one of the toughest airplanes ever built).
SFC Buswell responded later that day, saying:
Subject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall Hello,
I receive many unsolicited e-mails daily, this one I chose to respond to. The below mentioned premise that an F4 Phantom fighter jet hitting that hardened concrete barrier is akin to the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon is like oil and water; they don’t mix, and they serve to muddy the issue. The issue is 911 was filled with errors in the ‘official report’ and ‘official story’ of that day, and, what happened that day. We all know and saw 2 planes hitting the WTC buildings, we didn’t see the 757 hit the Pentagon, nor did we see the plane crash in Shanksville PA. Both the PA and Pentagon ‘crashes’ don’t have clues and tell-tale signs of a jumbo-jet impacting those zones!
The Pentagon would have huge wing impacts in the side of the building; it didn’t. Shanksville PA would have had debris, and a large debris field; it didn’t.
Getting back to the F4…The Pentagon isn’t a nuclear hardened structure, so I can’t follow your weak logic that since an F4 vaporized itself in a test impact on a nuclear hardened structure that the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon should have exhibited the same characteristics!
I say Occums razor is the best way to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones and 3 day old newspapers! I mean how are Arabs benefiting from pulling off 911? They have more war, more death and dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer: It didn’t. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is sad, but simple; The Military Industial [sic] Complex.
It’s not a paranoid conspiracy to think there are conspiracies out there…and, it’s not Liberal Lunacy either, nor is it Conservative Kookiness! People, fellow citizens we’ve been had! We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day, and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous theories must be examined.
Upon returning to his office the next day, Buswell discovered the locks had been changed, his security clearance was revoked, and an investigation had been launched. Buswell’s commanding officer, Colonel Luke Green, drafted a letter assigning Major Edwin Escobar to the investigation. According to sources, Colonel Green has asserted that SFC Buswell failed to obey Army regulations when he used his government issued email account to send what have been termed as messages disloyal to the United States with the intent of stirring up disloyalty, in a manner that brings discredit upon the United States Army.
It has been reported that Colonel Green also wrote that SFC Buswell claims to have information proving a conspiracy on the part of the United States Military Industrial Complex to attack targets within the United States, e.g., The Pentagon. Officials have suggested that the email response sent by SFC Buswell may be in violation of CFR 2635.705(a ), DoD-R 5500.7, and Joint Ethics Regulation paragraph 2-301b. These rules SFC Buswell is said to have perhaps violated regulate how soldiers utilize government resources, how they use their off-duty time, and how they use their official time.
The Iconoclast attempted to establish a dialogue with Colonel Green and Major Escobar, but calls were not returned as of press time. SFC Buswell declined to comment on the investigation, but noted that he spoke with his parents about the matter for a period of two days before he was ordered to not disclose any further information.
“My son spoke with me about [the investigation],” said Winthrop Buswell, SFC Buswell’s father. “There was an unsolicited email. My son, without divulging anything, without usurping anything, without doing anything to discredit anyone in any way, simply responded to that saying ‘Yes, there are what if’s. And maybe there is something that is being covered up.’ That’s all that I know. He responded to it, but it was unsolicited. I think — of course, I’m dad, being very much in love with his son and wanting to praise him — because he is a low man on the totem pole, of course he’s of pretty high rank but not quite an officer, that maybe . . . Maybe an investigation might be the scapegoat for whomever.”
“That is so ridiculous,” said Winthrop Buswell. “[To say he is disloyal to the United States] is totally ridiculous. And the discourtesy was, ah, very apparent at that particular time. . . . I’ve always thought the American way is this: to disagree is important. To dissent is important. And my son simply said, without any fanfare, ‘Look, let’s take a look at the whole picture. If you want to take a look at that, maybe there are a few paragraphs that a Michael Moore might want to emphasize.’ That is all that my son has said. Never, however, to at all disparage the country and the patriotism that is so necessary for all of us. But, patriotism, as suggested by FOX News’ [Bill O'Reilly], is following the line of George W. Bush and cohorts completely! All my son is saying is, ‘Hey, maybe there’s a what if.’ Never, though, did he get sidetracked from the fact that [he loves his] country.”
“What disturbed him more than anything else, I think, was the fact that the Iraqi citizens suffered so much and are suffering so much now,” said Winthrop Buswell. “The time that he was injured, there were several Iraqis burning to death in front of him. He tried to put out the fire. It was a traumatic experience for him. . . . He spoke about that a number of times, and how terrible that was to see the citizenry being killed and suffering so much.”
“One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln,” Winthrop Buswell continued. “And Abraham Lincoln said many things, but one of the things he said – and I’m paraphrasing – was, ‘I may disagree with the fellow who’s speaking, but I will stand and defend his right to speak.’ That’s my son’s position. He does look at the what if’s. But that doesn’t take away from his dedication and his patriotism. I don’t know a fellow who gets more chills running up and down his spine when he sees the flag flying.”
“As a boy, [Donald was] always a very curious fellow,” he added. “Very daring, but never risking anything or stepping over the line. He loved motorcycles, but was always very cautious about it, always wearing proper clothing, always wearing a helmet. Also, he was very active in little model racing cars. He was in Cub Scouts. I remember walking to the gymnasium with him and having wonderful conversations with him years ago. His mother and I went through a divorce, and that is never easy for anyone. My son was also very close to his grandfather on his mother’s side, and also his grandfather and grandmother on my side. Donald loves railroading, and my father has the best job that anyone could ever have. He’s a locomotive engineer, and my son related to that. My son also has a strong belief in a power greater than ourselves.”
“But one of the things that stands out . . . is his love and his caring,” said Winthrop, choking back tears. “He loves children. He’s just the greatest guy, as far as I am concerned. He walks into a room with a big smile on his face. . . . He’s like my dad — he makes you feel like, you know . . . I . . . I care for you. Ah, he’s . . . He’s my son . . .”
The Iconoclast will continue reporting on this story as new details become available.
Source article here.
Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.