NIST LIED. AGAIN.

For anyone who has accepted the hairball of an explanation sicked up by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) as regards the demise of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11/2001, please watch the following video. It clearly illustrates that NIST lied to the public. Yet again.

However, consider: NIST is a government agency, a part of the US Department of Commerce. The multi-trillion dollar question that we are obliged to ask is:

"Is it likely (or even possible) that a US government agency (NIST) is capable of releasing an honest, unbiased, scientifically rigorous report IF the contents of that report are politically incendiary (punintentional), and which implicate persons and/or other agencies within that same government of committing serious crimes... such as playing a part in, or being accessory to the murder of almost 3000 people?

Another version of that same question goes as follows:

"Is it likely (or even possible) that a US government agency (NIST) is capable of releasing an honest, unbiased, scientifically rigorous report IF the contents of that report are politically incendiary (punintentional) enough to demonstrate that the parties who were universally blamed by the government, with their lapdog media in tow, were only partly responsible, or perhaps even *not responsible*, for the attacks of 9/11?"

No and no.

It must have been anticipated (by the Bush Administration and other elements within government) that an investigation would be opened, as to why a massive 47 story building suddenly imploded, in full view, without historical precedent. What are the best ways of compromising a trial or an investigation in order to divert or detach blame? (The same goes for the Twin Towers, of course).

*First, restrict media coverage. The demise of WTC7 became quickly an item of "curiosity", an "anomalous aside", deemed not very newsworthy or significant by the corporate media. Furthermore, it was not easy to link this aspect of the attacks directly with Arabs and Muslims - the neoconservative mandate. As a result, a large proportion of the public either forgot about it, or even had no clue that a 3rd large building was destroyed that day. Then:
*Restrict access to evidence,
*Clamp down on photography and videography,
*Remove evidence - ASAP and under armed guard,
*Bury the evidence, under heavy security,
*Destroy the evidence,
*Misrepresent the evidence,
*Ignore the evidence that weakens a case
*Manufacture false evidence, and
*Exaggerate this "evidence" in favor of a preordained conclusion.

All of the above happened, not only as regards actions by officials and agencies at Ground Zero, but also subsequent "investigations" undertaken by parties within that same government. This neatly contrived "lack of data" allowed NIST to come up with a conclusion that was politically acceptable, and took advantage of the broad ignorance, as regards the scientific method, that exists within the public at large - which cannot seem to tell the difference between proof and speculation. NIST's conclusion is no better than conveniently speculative.

Actually, NIST's conclusion is an unscientific sham, the quintessential example of "dry-labbing". They claim, without an iota of proof, that a local failure was the cause of the collapse of the entire WTC7 - in perfect symmetry at near free-fall acceleration. However, as illustrated in the video above, NIST cooked the books. Common sense tells us that the motivation was to conform with a pre-ordained POLITICAL - not scientific - mandate. This WTC7 explanation was acceptable to the public because it did not dilute the government's 9/11 story with anything awkward, facts that would have, as Cheney famously quoted, "taken away from America's war against terrorism".

Can we blame NIST entirely? Probably not *entirely*... they were not responsible for the criminal activities (tampering with the crime scene etc. etc. etc.) that resulted in (NIST's) having to rely on the virtual world, in the lack of hard evidence. Did Sunder and Gross etc have the freedom to pursue an open inquiry with what little they had to work with? I do not know... but I would bet the farm that they were coached, and guided within very strict boundaries...in the same way that so-called 9/11 Commission was hijacked by Philip Zelikow, NORAD, the DoD, the White House and others? Both NIST and the 9/11 Commissioners probably had little choice in the matter... or else! Both the 9/11 Commission and the investigations conducted by NIST were cases of the "Gambino family investigating the Mafia" or the "fox looking after the henhouse".

The fact remains that we tend to believe (a) what we want to believe, and (b) what has been repeated often enough, regardless of accuracy or veracity. Violating the laws of classical physics? No problem - mention "conservation of momentum" or Newton's laws of motion, or the law of entropy to Joe Public, and the chances are you'll get a glassy-eyed stare. And - people implicitly believe in all kinds of equally wild and wacky stuff - big-business religion is built on such!

Is the US a mature enough society to be able to deal with painful issues like 9/11 in a rational way, with informed discussion? In certain limited circles, absolutely so. In mainstream or mass culture, absolutely not. The subject has been rendered a strict taboo in our corporate media - unless parroting the official version.

*

Because the glove clearly never fitted, we threw it away and buried it.

Osama bin Laden: A modern "grim" Fairy Tale

This Osama bin Laden story is a total and complete fairytale, a fabrication of the most incredible proportion. How can the corporate media print this shit? Because they can, and in the total absence of evidence as a result of the events at that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, they have the freedom to invent anything that reinforces the government's story of "bin Laden's demise" in the public psyche.

All the neighbors who knew the residents in that house claim that OBL had never been there and no relative of OBL's ever lived there. There is NO hard evidence that OBL lived there, apart from single sourced DoD and intelligence claims, and that is NOT reliable news or acceptable method of disseminating news. There was no body, no photos with a reliable chain of custody, and all other "evidence", such as his personal effects were destroyed in a fire.


If OBL had been who the government claimed, then they would have made damned sure that they took him alive for questioning, and made sure his belongings were not damaged - as they could have been a vital source of intelligence on al Qaeda operatives - that is - of the governments long held claims about Osama bin Laden held any water. The public have been stroked, and most of us eagerly lapped up the Obama koolaid. Most people believe it because that is what they *WANT* to believe....

Even if the team conducting the raid had found the real Osama bin Laden there, then the orders were obvious: "Kill him under any circumstances, do not capture him".  Capturing him alive and bringing him to a real civilian trial in the US to have faced charges would have caused all manner of problems for the authorities - not just the curiosity seeking, or revenge-baying public eager to get their own back, but the fact that there is not a shred if hard evidence linking him to 9/11 Nothing. Zip. A properly conducted court case with subpoena power would have brought all manner of people to the stand to be cross-examined, under oath. The official pronouncement that OBL was responsible for 9/11 would have collapsed neatly into a pile of rhetorical rubble.

OBL was not wanted by the FBI for 9/11. He was not indicted by the US DoJ for 9/11. His money was not used to fund 9/11, according to CIA. Bush said "I am not concerned about Osama bin Laden". OBL twice denied involvement in 9/11. The "smoking gun" videotape found in Jalalabad, Afghanistan was a proven fraud, debunked as a Pentagon manufactured  fake by experts worldwide. In other words, the entire bin Laden story is a tall tale, a cock and bull fable with as much substance and sincerity as a john telling a hooker "I love you babe" as he has an orgasm.

According to CIA (and other national intelligence agencies, as well as his doctors), OBL had Marfan Syndrome and a terminal renal disorder. He would have required constant medical supervision from a resident doctor and/or nurses, much expensive and bulky equipment (for kidney dialysis several hours each day) to maintain his vital functions. None of this was in evidence at the house in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Obama lied to us   all. Again.

There is NOTHING that would be have been admittable as evidence in a real US court of law, should OBL have been brought to trial, re. 9/11.

He was reported, all over the Middle East, to have died in late 2001 (late November or early December), and was buried in Pakistan within 24 hours of his death in a simple burial ceremony, in keeping with Islamic customs.

Katrina: Another national disaster which went uninvestigated and unpunished

This sounds like a case of severely misdirected blame. Even though there might have been some corners cut in construction work (which happens everywhere)  the Army Corps of Engineers did NOT deliberately build the levees to fail.

In contrast, personnel at the Department of Homeland Security, especially the conduct of then head honcho Michael Chertoff, should have come under extreme scrutiny, for deliberate acts of sabotage, criminal negligence leading to needless deaths, and accessory to murder. It is known and PROVEN, via multiple witnesses, that FEMA deliberately severed landline connections after the storm passed, severely hampering efforts by New Orleans officials to communicate with state and federal emergency services and agencies elsewhere in the state of Louisiana and in neighboring states. It is KNOWN that heavily armed thugs from the Blackwater mercenary (read terrorist) company were patrolling streets, shooting at people as if for 'target practice': some reports suggested many of the those recovered in the wake of the storm had died from bullet wounds to the head, and *not* by drowning.

The storm was forecast by the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center to hit the Louisiana-Mississippi coast for several days in advance, with almost pinpoint accuracy, thanks to some excellent forecasting work and computer model evaluations. Despite the advance warnings, and dire warnings from forecasters of mass casualties for those left behind, very little or no provision was made to help these unfortunate people, many who could not afford to leave and had no transport to do so. After the storm, thousands were left abandoned at the Convention Center and the Super Dome in the most horrendous conditions with no food, no water, and no toilet and medical facilities, for up to a full week.

When the Army and the National Guard finally showed up, after almost a week, rather than trying to help, they herded the refugees around at gunpoint, as if they had been deemed "the enemy". Credit goes to General Honoré for injecting some common sense into a situation which was threatening to become an even more appalling disaster for those left behind in New Orleans.

It is not known why the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security turned on the people of New Orleans, lending a hand to Nature in the virtual obliteration of large parts of a major American city, the deaths of over 1500 people (several hundred are still missing and unaccounted for), and the rendering of nearly half a million people homeless. Nobody was called upon to answer for these crimes against the nation.

The war of terrorism came to the USA on August 29, 2005, and it was black folk and working class whites who got targeted.

Wikileaks, a Limited Hangout scenario.

What has Wikileaks done that has exposed a scandal, big enough that the corporate media can't ignore? Which major criminals within the powers-that-be have been outed on account of Wikileaks' evidence? Nothing. Nobody. Zilch. Not a soul. In Monty Python parlance, "Bugger All".

The corruption and crime that is endemic within the US power structure has become, without a doubt , even more widespread than it was during the Vietnam war. We *know* that $2.3 Trillion disappeared from the Pentagon without explanation, or investigation. We *know* that some $15 trillion was extorted to rescue a bunch of corrupt banks and corporations and, supposedly, criminal investigations are still ongoing, but nobody has yet been brought to trial. We *know* about the lies and corruption that led to Iraq. We *know* about the missing 10s of $billions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We *know* about the huge corporate crime wave of the first decade of the 21st century (Enron, WorldCom et al)... and were are aware of thousand and one other outrages in recent years... it is the insider details that have remained concealed. It is not exactly as if Wikileaks is starved of potential material (!!!!!!!!) And... then there is 9/11.

If we *know* about all these scandals, just imagine how much corruption that has remained hidden, on account of the method by which government operates, ie "compartmentalization", a tried and tested way of keeping things secret. This is the classic "tip of the iceberg" situation. Where's the New Pentagon Papers story? Where's the new Watergate?

Wikileaks' efforts in "whistleblowing" have at the most, caused a few red faces. That's about it: IMHO, it has been an ersatz effort considering the quantity of potentially explosive material that could be publicized, *IF* Wikileaks had the reach, or the will. Evidently, they don't have either. In terms of "leaking secrets that the public deserve to know in a supposedly "free society", Wikileaks is an abject failure. Meanwhile, Wikileaks has enjoyed a truckload of corporate media coverage to the point that Julian Assange has become somewhat of a folk hero. However, the three factors, in parallel, that raise suspicion that Wikileaks is different to what they claim, are (a) this free and unexpected corporate media coverage, (b) the blandness and relative innocuousness of the material released, and (c) the fact that the huge majority of Wikileaks' material was not exactly "secret" anyway, being known by hundreds of thousands of government employees prior to publication.

What does this spell? Two words: "Limited Hangout". To quote a published definition here:

"A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details. It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones".

I would hazard a guess that Wikileaks is far more a part of the ongoing psychological warfare program against the people, than a genuine attempt by a group of concerned citizens who are committed to "freedom of information". If Wikileaks was genuine, and could potentially release material damaging to the security of people in positions of power, or the public image and credibility of agencies and organizations within the power structure, then I was also hazard a guess that Julian Assange (and others) would have been promptly removed from the gene pool before the public were even aware of who he (they) were.

Selling the upcoming war against Iran...

Despite the continuous hatred, bile and propaganda aimed against the Iranian people, spewing from the US conservative corporate media and directed by the mega-powerful Israeli lobbies (AIPAC, JINSA, AEI etc), current polls indicate a consistent majority of the public opposed to war against Iran. (For those who don't realize, most reports from Iran (and the rest of the Middle East) as well as statements from their leaders, are routinely mistranslated by the Israeli oriented organization MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, which provides English copy of mid east news.....)

However, it still remains that the president is unlikely to commit to war against Iran without broad public support. 

The $multi-trillion question: How will the Obama Administration get the war that his administration, his Israeli backers, the military/industrial/security/prison/entertainment complex, and the corporate media crave? US involvement in Iraq has run its course, bar the fall-out, operations in Afghanistan are due to finish in 2 years, and the other world's hot spots don't cut the cake as regards weapons usage or selling TV footage and news stories. The war machine now requires a brand-new, bigger, meatier, juicier target in order to maintain profits; politicians historically use war to stay in office, and the permanently jingoistic sector of the public can look forward to a new episode of video-game mass killing on their TV sets to whoop along to.

Either:
(a) the media and government's continued bile-spewage will manage to sway a majority of the US public into supporting a war against Iran, but will that be quick enough for Israel? Or,

(b) we can expect some type of incident (perhaps a false flag terrorist attack), or a faked story with wide media coverage, designed to enrage the public enough to support war. A classic example of this was the "Kuwaiti babies dumped out of incubators" fabrication, which worked wonders for George Bush Sr. in bringing the public around to support Operation Desert Storm in 1991. If (a) doesn't happen fast enough for Israel's needs, then (b) is a certainty.

War with Iran is pretty much a guarantee some time during this election year. Obama's popularity is questionable and he likely needs a new war to stay in office - presidents tend to get public and Congressional support when the country goes to war;  we all know that. We must also be aware that when the Israeli hardliners click their heels, the US snaps to attention, by default. Will they use nukes and "annihilate" the Iranian people and their land? Will Tucker Carlson, Fox News pundits and the rest of the "neo-brownshirt" brigade that infest the US corporate media be able to indulge in the predictable jingoism, their mutual masturbation-fest with the usual batch of retired Pentagon brass, defense experts, security specialists and the like?

Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers of US flags can look forward to a bumper season. 

So, this is what it has come down to. Tucker Carlson on Fox News (of course) has now publicly called for the "annihilation of Iran", because "they are all evil". 


What kind of media does the US have? Is this the standard of dialog that now considered "acceptable discourse"? Will Fox fire him for that? Of course not... he's more likely to get an award in the good old US of A, 2012, than a carpeting. The DC neocon organized crime cartel are probably laughing like drains about it as well.

What kind of sick individual, and what kind of mindset calls openly for a new, 21st Century Holocaust, involving the massacre of 10s of millions of people? The short answer: Psychopaths like Stalin, or imbeciles like Carlson. Aha... but Iranians (Persians) are Muslim... and to wipe them all out - thats OK, isn't it, Mr. American Conservative! Iranians have the wrong skin color, they worship the wrong god, they speak the wrong language, they're all terrorists, and goddammit... our oil is under their fucking mountains.

Fox News is watched by millions of American conservatives, and is a hugely influential opinion-maker, alongside the rest of the corporate media, which follows a generally rightwing set of opinions, but not as far out in Looneyland and Hate Ville as Fox. How many doe-eyed right-wingers, who view the world in black' n' white, non-relativistic terms.... are now going to be baying for war against Iran, that is if they are not already doing so?

What has Iran done, as regards the United States, that would warrant even waging war against them, let alone "annihilating" the entire nation, along with its "evil people"?

Goebbels would have wet dreams listening to Carlson (and O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh etc)

The Sun Newspaper. Last "journalist" to leave the building, turn off the light.

Murdoch's terminally corrupt media empire was responsible for the endless, parrot-fashion repetition of the Bush Administration's LIES, without asking a single question, about Iraq's KNOWN-TO-BE NON-EXISTENT weapons of mass destruction. Now his little British toilet-paper rag is in trouble. However, the crimes that certain staff of The Sun are accused pales in comparison with what Murdoch had a huge hand in promoting, in 2002 and 2003:

As a direct result of Murdoch's cowardly, weasel media, the United States lost 4700 troops by lied into a war for corporate profit. 25,000 have been maimed for life, spent $3 TRILLION of taxpayer funds were squandered, the war killed over 1.2 million Iraqi civilians, and our nation, courtesy of some criminally corrupt powerful officials, gained disrespect and hatred throughout the entire world. 

"The Sun" is a gutterpress rag, full of garbage, trivia, lies and cheap sensationalism. It typifies everything about Murdoch and his character. If "The Sun" newspaper ceases to exist (one can only hope), the UK would be a  better place. The Sun, at the very best, is excess baggage. In reality, it is a mirror for the evil that is clearly resident within the character of its owners.

As far as the Bush Administration officials are concerned - the Neocon gangsters who designed and planned the current series of wars, now being expanded wholeheartedly by Bush's understudy, Barack Obama - they should all be arrested and charged with lying to Congress and the people in order to start a war... several wars in fact. The charges would include treason. 

I am no fan of the death penalty, on account of the knowledge that throughout history many innocent people have been killed on account of railroading, false witness, planted evidence incompetent lawyers and more. But in this case, there is little doubt of guilt... it was known that all WMDs in Iraq has been destroyed, under supervision, by 1992. This information was public domain. If we the people knew in advance of the Iraq war, then the Bush cronies knew it as well, all along. A court hearing for all these uber-corrupt gangsters, in a fair and just world, should return sentences of life in prison with no chance of parole.

As far as the US corporate media is concerned, with Murdoch's Fox News being the primary culprit, they not only failed in their duty to inform the American people, but knowingly and culpably were complicit in the crimes of the Bush Administration; they were "accessory before the fact" to treason.

Finally, let us remember how America used to regard war profiteering: people who were found guilty of such activities were usually given capital sentences, ie hanged. How times have changed.... Those who made out like bandits as a result of the current series of wars which they promoted are now on the lecture circuit, or writing their memoirs, their bank accounts fat and healthy. In a just world, these people should be, at the least, rotting in jail cells, objects of derision and disgust, on a par with sex offenders, rapists and serial killers.

Rupert Murdoch is one of the leading names on the roll of shame and dishonor. 

Only 17% of Americans want to use military action against Iran. That is *extremely* scary. Obviously, since US mid-east foreign policy is dictated to by Israel, and Israel  is itching to attack Iran, the US will be looking to start a war, and somehow convincing the huge majority public to support such... ie a massive turn-around in public opinion.

The tried and tested method, is to launch a false flag event. There are many variations of such: a home-grown terrorist attack against our own interests at home, or an allegation of an attack by our designated enemy somewhere else, or spreading false accusations/false witness in the media about the target of intent, or some other method to enrage and outrage the public to support war. 

A largely dumbed down public is very easy to convince, as we have seen on numerous occasions in modern history  - examples being the Lusetania sinking, Reichstag fire bombing, Gulf of Tonkin attack, Operation Northwoods - (canceled by JFK), Kuwaiti incubator babies, WMDs in Iraq, the Madrid and 7/7 bombings, and the grand-daddy of the "false flag operation", the 9/11 attacks.

Why does this method work so well in the US, especially today? The corporate media, which furnishes the public with most of its "education" and "information" as regards current affairs and political "awareness", in particular reports out of the mid east, are now an uber-consolidated group of mega corporations, largely owned by the military-industrial-security-prison complex, and war for these media companies means profits for the parent companies.

And we all know that *profit* is the preferred religion in the United States. And when Israel clicks its heels, the US snaps to attention.

Anonymous® hacks FBI-Scotland Yard calls.....

The reaction to this is pretty rich. These peeping-toms and bozos spy on us all the time, citing the notion that "if you're not breaking the law, you got nothing to be scared of".

Now someone spies on them, and they get all pissy. Oh, my heart it bleeds. Yes, Scotland Yard and FBI, if you've got nothing to hide, you got nothing to be scared of. Here's the rub: most major terrorist attacks attributed to 'al Qaida' and others are aided and abetted by FBI informants, who are paid by rogue elements within the FBI. The FBI, in turn is likely answering to elements even further up the chain of command One of these days, a hacker WILL pick up on a new terrorist plot, prior to it being carried out, and broadcast it for all the world to see. Then the facts will come out: that the top people in organizations which are SUPPOSED to be upholding the laws, are in actuality, responsible for much death and destruction. If this ever happened, it would be a major coup for civilization, that is, if the corporate media could grow a backbone and broadcast such a story.

In a free society, We the People must have some mechanism in which we can monitor the activities of these mega-agencies, to make sure that flagrant abuses cannot happen, or are less likely to succeed. In three of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil, FBI informants were an integral part of the success of each plot: these being the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 (Emad Salem), Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, and most notoriously, the attacks of September 11, 2001, in which two of the alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant. There are many others in which the FBI's role is suspicious, including the Lockerbie plane bombing of PanAm Flight 103, the alleged "Underwear Bomber" of Christmas Day 2009, and the likely assassination of prominent anti-war Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone shortly before the illegal invasion of Iraq. On that occasion, FBI agents were on the scene of Wellstone's fatal "plane crash" 5 minutes after it happened, despite having driven from the Minneapolis St. Paul, over 150 miles away (!). 

Parallel events happen on the other side of the Atlantic in the UK; for example, Dr. David Kelly, one of the UK's most notable biological weapons experts who knew the deal with Saddam Hussein's lack of WMDs and threatened to expose the Bush and Blair Administration's lies about Iraq, was conveniently "suicided" in early 2003. To anyone with any pretense of medical or scientific qualifications, this was obviously a hit, and most likely by persons contracted to either the US, UK (or perhaps even Israeli) Governments; Scotland Yard was plainly complicit, as was the British establishment, which ran a bogus inquiry (the Hutton Report), and subsequently ordered all details of the case be kept secret for at least 75 years. Yes, if you've got nothing to hide and nothing to be scared of, then lets see the details.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a free society; far from it. Our western industrial society has the trappings of freedom, but the underpinnings of totalitarianism, and the as each month goes by, the velvet gloves are being slipped off the iron fist. We have no way of controlling, or monitoring how our law enforcement and intelligence agencies behave; they know that when they are not independently policed, then they can do whatever the hell they like, whenever they like. Cue the Gestapo. Cue the Stasi. Cue the KGB. Cue the South African Bureau of Security Services, aka B.O.S.S… coming to a town near you at a time of their choosing.

When challenged on their insistence on "one way transparency" , they always hack up those old weasel words: "National Security". That's the excuse that military dictators cite, alongside non-democratic regimes, or totalitarian states, to justify their enmity and mistrust towards the peoples of said countries. One may well ask "what is the true meaning of "national security"? A "nation" is primarily its people, so therefore, the "security" is, by extension, the wellbeing and safety of those people. Period. Unfortunately, the phrase "national security" has been redefined in order to instill fear into populations, via the media, and the "security" that is referred to is more likely to be (in the real world), the personal security of corrupt and criminal, well-placed and influential people within those agencies, and those in privileged positions in private corporations with whom these agencies have business contracts.

Having said that, the reality is that the huge majority of employees within (Scotland Yard. the FBI, and other agencies) consist of professional men and women who are doing a job, and trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, these are another group of "99 percenters" who are just passengers on the bus;  they have nothing to do with where that bus is going and they have no say in bus's route. The driver of the bus is told where to go, how fast to drive, and where to stop every now and then.

Yes, the lunatics are running the asylum, and the terrorists are in the House.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta leaks the next installment of the war OF terrorism, against ordinary people.

To the largely racist hardline pro-Zionist US establishment in Washington DC, the Muslim faith is an unacceptable religion, and Arabs/Persians and other ethno-types who follow this faith are by extension "unacceptable people". This is the same, poisonous, Hitlerian-type Islamophobic propaganda (Eugenics) that the US population as a whole has been bombarded with, from the corporate media, Hollywood and government agencies, since the establishment of Israel in 1948. 

It's no wonder that 9/11, the wars against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan (and shortly to be Iran) have been such an easy sell, for the neoconservative (US-Israeli) designers of this agenda.

Striking the civilian infrastructure of a nation, for example nuclear power research establishments, is an act of international terrorism. Israel would be guilty of such, and Panetta equally so, by supporting the Israeli thugs and its criminal Likud cartel. Iran would be fully within its rights to strike back in self defense, or even before, by employing the  Bush and Obama Administrations' (US) doctrine of preemptive military action, against Israel. For agents of Israel to do this would be the equivalent of the much touted explanation, by the US government, of "al Qaeda" striking civilian targets in New York and Washington DC.

WMDs in Iraq? The intelligence that there were NO WMDs in Iraq had been public domain for years. The ONLY contrary source was "Curveball", a well-known opportunist, liar and fraud, and his "information" was the "justification" for the Bush Administration's obsession to invade and occupy that country.

The spineless shills that call themselves "Democrats" - Hillary Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Clarke etc. etc. - also KNEW there were no WMDs, but said NOTHING. Why? Because in the wake of 9/11's shock and awe effect on the US public, everyone in DC was too scared to say what needed to be said.. They did not have the FREEDOM to represent the electorate, or their own common sense.

The only people who were patriotic enough to call the traitors and weasels in Washington DC, were the legions of protesters, name-called by the Fox News set as "morans" (!), who came out to warn people about the upcoming disaster, and the needless loss of life on both sides, including 4500 dead and 10s of thousands of maimed US troops, sent there to fight for a multi trillion scam.

To lie to Congress to start a war is treason. The penalty for treason can be the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty as a rule (on account of the possibility of executing an innocent person), but in this case, there are no innocents. Those who engineered that war are guilty, and they should pay the ultimate penalty. Yes, they should have a fair trial in a real US court of law, which is more than what can be said for those unfortunate people in Gitmo; after 10 years, only ONE has been charged with a crime, and that was for a "visa violation".


A pox on the two party treachery.

Falklands Flareup? Meddling in the Malvinas?

An old conflict rears its head.

Deja vu, 1982. Does anyone remember the war in the Falkland Islands? A few weeks prior to that war, a group of "Argentinian scrap metal dealers" landed on South Georgia, a remote  British ruled uninhabited island in the S.Atlantic, 1000 miles east of the Falklands. They raised the Argentine flag, and started to dismantle the old whaling station at the abandoned port of Gritvyken for the scrap iron and steel. Their activities were reported back, from the small UK garrison stationed on S. Georgia, to the governor of the Falklands, who in turn passed the information back to the UK government.

Thatcher did nothing. This was seen by the Argentine government as a clear signal that the UK wasn't interested in the Falklands. This was pretty much true - there had been virtually no support from London for years, and the islanders got most of their goods and services from neighboring Argentina. The Argentine military junta, led by Army General Galtieri started preparing an invasion. The US provided the Thatcher Administration with intelligence pertaining to the upcoming invasion, yet the Thatcher Administration did nothing... they sat back and waited until things got boiling, right up until the Argentinian invasion. The war could have gone either way, but the UK prevailed, and Thatcher remained in power (sadly for civilized society) for another 9 years.

The Falklands war was a tough one for the Reagan Administration, diplomatically. Reagan and Thatcher were the next thing to lovers. The Reagan Administration was also very supportive of the vicious Argentinian military junta, alongside numerous other South American fascist dictators and thugs who were coerced by the US into supporting the "Chicago School" economic model, which caused a 25 year humanitarian disaster throughout S. America.

The British Government never gave a rat's kidney about the people of the Falkland islands. That war was all about natural resources in the South Atlantic, and maintaining a presence in the region. This is also all about the ability to access potential mineral wealth in Antarctica, when the eventual demise of the 'no development' policy in Antarctica will allow for the exploitation of that continent.

Cameron's take is utterly bogus, with zero merit. I understand the islanders' desire to remain British, being well aware of Argentina's bloodstained past, courtesy of Kissinger's thugs, when people were disappearing by the thousand every year. But today, Argentina is far more of a democracy than the UK...  which. largely as a result of false flag terrorist attacks both sides of the Atlantic, has turned into a maximum- security Big Brother obsessed, paranoid, peeping-tom surveillance society.

The islanders are under a smoke and mirrors impression, still shell shocked by the events of 30 years ago.

If problems flare again, there will be no doubt as to whom the US will support. Perhaps a false flag terrorist attack in the UK, blamed on the Argentinians, will be a method by which the UK government could enlist support from a skeptical public, either side of the Atlantic.

WTC Building 3 unable to find tenants

My heart bleeds for Larry Silverstein, Bernie Madoff's buddyboy..

Story here: 

Larry Silverstein bought the lease on the World Trade Center from the Port Authority of New York shortly before the attacks. The buildings were in violation of NYC codes and it was estimated that the mandated asbestos removal/treatment from the seven buildings in the complex would have cost several $$Billion. Many of the offices in the Twin Towers were vacant and the entire complex was losing money. Then he insured each building against separate terrorist attacks some 6 weeks prior to the attacks.

When asked as to why he bought the lease on the site, he said "it felt like the right thing to do". (?/!!)

If *I* had a business which was failing, which had several premises, then I insured each premises against arson attacks, and each building was burned to the ground shortly afterwards, I think the FBI would be quite interested, to say the least. Lucky Larry never was the subject of any inquiry; he is too well connected. He "Madoff" with some $4.5 billion in insurance money, no questions asked.

Imagine if the lease-holder had been an Arab?

Oh my.

Freedom Fries? Yes it does.

While the petty bickering and squabbling continues about whether its better to elect a Democratic or Republican "Neville Chamberlain" in November 2012, the very essence of what America prides itself is being discarded, at a pace that accelerates each passing year.

If people are unaware of the trends...is it out of lack of interest, or lack of time? Too much stress? The concept is too nebulous? or the belief that "it can't happen here"is king? Those who do know may be in denial, or don't care, being generally skeptical that any negative consequences could affect them: The "maximum security" oriented society that is gradually evolving is directing its energies away from we law abiding citizens, towards "those" against whom have been indoctrinated. Then, of course, there are always those who say "if you obey the law, you have nothing to be bothered about"....  the attitude that paves the road upon which dictators and henchmen strut

We may still be under the impression of living in a "free society". We get up, we go to work, watch TV, choose to drive or take public transport, we can start a business, go outside after dark etc. ... but isn't that true of pretty much anywhere else on Earth, barring a few anomalies, like North Korea?

If we really think we are that free, consider this article in the Washington Post. Yes, it's written by Jonathan Turley, a man hated by right wingers on account of his passionate "civil libertarianism"... but here he is sounding the warnings.

--- extracted below ---

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.


Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?


While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.


These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.


The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

The list of 10, as quoted by Turley, are the following:

* Assassination of U.S. citizens
* Indefinite detention
* Arbitrary justice
* Warrantless searches
* Secret evidence
* War crimes
* Secret courts
* Immunity from judicial review
* Continual monitoring of citizens
* Extraordinary renditions

No matter which position one occupies in the political spectrum, it is impossible to reconcile the notion of a nation that prides itself on freedom and justice, when the powers-that-be are acquiring such draconian authority, when there is no demonstrable justification for it.

Shortly after 9/11, George W. Bush told Americans and the world that "America was attacked because they hate our freedoms". Even though that statement - as it was intended to be understood by those who told GBW what to say - was utterly bogus as a motivation for the attacks, the decay of America that started on 9/12/2001 and is accelerating under the Obama regime, is ironically what the legendary/mythical attackers "wished to be foisted upon America". They got exactly what they wanted....

Remember "Freedom Fries"? It appears that freedom is frying in the skillet of big, intrusive "heavy manners" government. What's sizzling away in the pan is still recognizable, but the edges are getting curled up and browned off. We're not even a quarter of the way down that road yet - the fact that the Washington Post published this article demonstrates such - but if the current trends maintain, give it another 15 years and the notion of America as "land of the free" will be but a memory.

Guest Entry: "Conspiracy Theory", by Wing Cdr. Douglas Manley (RAF Ret'd)

Thanks to Douglas Manley for sending me the following essay. Bravo!

*****

Recently, marketing "guru" Seth Godin wrote a piece on “The Marketing of Conspiracy Theories”. In his blog post Godin defines conspiracy theories as “a complex, alternative explanation for the truth” and he goes on to say - "and by definition they are not true.”

A conspiracy by definition is “an agreement to perform together an illegal, treacherous or evil act.” This implies a criminal or evil act planned and carried out by more than one person. By association of absurdities which have also been labelled conspiracy theories- such as the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs - conspiracy is redefined as something which is not to be believed. Since when did alien invasions involve a crime? This is an obvious psychological trick to cause people to reject all so-called “conspiracy theories” on the basis that they are irrational, suspect, unbelievable,” i.e. too silly to deserve the effort of a serious refutation.”

“For the idea that conspiracy theories as such are intellectually suspect helps conspirators, quite literally, to get away with murder (of which killing people in an unjust war is an instance). -- Charles Pidgen (who is referenced by Cass Sunstein in his report on conspiracy theories).

There have been many instances of conspiracies in our government, corruption, coverups, banking crimes, election fraud, which have gone un-investigated, unsolved and no one has been held accountable. These conspiracies are more than a simple lack of transparency or deception. When it comes to major crimes, the huge majority involve conspiracy.

The Iran Contra affair was a huge conspiracy, involving many high level officials. All government coups, the Nazi death camps, Watergate, "MKULTRA" are proven conspiracies. Did anybody doubt the guilt of Charles Manson? Or the Great Train Robbers? Many of these conspiratorial crimes are solved when the “theory” becomes a set of facts, and then there is no controversy.

What is being sold is doubt, not proof. Doubt is something people often want to buy, particularly if it gives them comfort. Seth Godin

It may be that “doubt” is being sold because there are a lot of questions without answers, but doubt does not give much comfort; people who “buy” conspiracy theories do not do so because they wish to “buy” doubt. They are hoping for proof. People do love a good story; they love a good mystery, and they want it solved. People also like revelations; they like the “Aha!” moments of truth revealed. People prefer closure to doubt. Consider those who lost family members in the 9/11 attacks who have not had that closure: Would they prefer uncertainty, anger, frustration and fear over closure?

In a court room trial, the job of the prosecution is to cast doubt upon the story of a witness, or vice versa. Casting doubt is an important part of fact finding. If one story proves to be full of holes, one continues the search for solid evidence elsewhere. Scientific method begins with a hypothesis (theory) which is then tested for veracity. If one hypothesis doesn’t bear out through rigorous and peer reviewed fact finding and experimentation, a new one is suggested, only then is the old discarded.

Some theories and hypothesis are obviously silly. It is probably not worth much effort to investigate a theory that pigs can fly if you feed them enough beans. Crimes as big as 9/11 need to be investigated properly. The 9/11 Commission which was tasked with finding out the truth of 9/11, with “no stones left unturned” was deemed a failure even by its own two co-chairs and the majority of the Commissioners. Yes, there are some absurd and unbelievable theories being posited about what happened on 9/11 - space weapons, no planes theory, etc. When looking at the available science, and treating 9/11 as a crime, there is compelling evidence which still needs to be examined, evidence which the original Commission omitted or refused to evaluate. Cherry-picking the evidence, a.k.a. "dry labbing" is the worst form of bad science.

The government’s own “conspiracy theory” about the towers' collapses actually defies several laws of physics: the second law of thermodynamics, Newton’s third law of motion and the law of conservation of momentum. N.I.S.T. (the National Institute for Standards and Technology) quietly altered their report when it was pointed out that they had given false information regarding the acceleration of the fall of Building 7 for the first 2.3 seconds, when it was in absolute free fall - later admitting it was so. They did not examine how or why this could have happened.

“People don't embrace them [conspiracy theories] because they're true, they embrace them because they are more satisfying, they show agency and intent, and they provide a level of solace by implying external causes to significant events.” Seth Godin.

Some people may have embraced the Government’s Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 because it provides some comfort “by implying external causes to significant events.” These are people who refuse to look at the evidence because they do not wish to doubt their government and their media, and are afraid to look at the facts. They prefer to maintain their comfort zones rather than face uncomfortable realities. To do so might shake their foundations. Labelling something as a “conspiracy theory” puts it neatly in a box where it can be easily dismissed. Life can go on - put a lid on it and move on. But this means that those who need to be held accountable have got away with their crime and are free, at large to continue with their criminal behaviours.

Besides the shock and awe of 9/11, the corporate media repeated a story over and over again which, in light of the facts which have been revealed over the past ten years, does not gel with reality. The discovery of military grade nano-thermite in the dust samples is just one possible smoking gun which needs to be investigated thoroughly. Without even testing for explosive residue, the original N.I.S.T. report claims there was no evidence of explosives and when questioned said that that there was no point in testing for it.

The original 9/11 “imprint” wrapped in fear remains in the public psyche enabling an agenda of pre-emptive wars thousands of miles from our shores, an endless war on terror, infringement of civil liberties at home, and the creation of a paranoid, maximum security type mentality. “Terror, terror, terror, all the time...”

Besides the fear factor, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 was an easy sell because the alleged perpetrators belong to a religious faith against which the American public has been programmed for up to 50 years to distrust and even hate on a broad scale.

All 9/11 “conspiracy theories” will come to a close when there is a real investigation with true subpoena power and the truth is revealed -- and more importantly, the real culprits are held accountable.

The Government’s premiere witness - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - gave testimony derived from being tortured - which is not admissible in a proper US Court of Law. Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based on this inadmissible “evidence”. It is possible that some people don't want KSM to be tried here in a court in the US because KSM might actually spill some real beans, if his brain hasn’t turned to jelly from all the torture. KSM has claimed that he conspired to kill Presidents Clinton and Carter, the Pope, blow up the Sears Tower and the Empire State Building; he was responsible for the Bali bombings, the 1993 WTC bombings, the shoe bombing plot - at least 28 terror attacks around the world. What would you do if you were water boarded 183 times? After the first 20 seconds most people would confess to killing Jesus, Lincoln and Kennedy.

There are viable - and most likely provable - alternative narratives of what really happened on 9/11, if there is a criminal investigation. A real investigation will follow the money, examine the motive, review all the facts without prejudice, include independent analysis and full subpoena power. However, this investigation will not see the light of day and the perpetrators will get off without consequence - as long as those who have the power to influence continue to bandy the word “conspiracy theory”. Not only is our mainstream corporate media feeding this lie, but also intellectuals are being targeted in a form of cognitive infiltration by a variety of respected and credible sources.

What people want to believe is really the key to how the official story is maintained. No one really wants to believe their government or elements within their government might be so corrupt that they would allow or be complicit or part of something so horrific as 9/11. We want to have trust, to believe that our government has integrity, that it is here to protect and serve the people. Isn’t that a basic premise in our Western society?

For those who have not taken the time to look at the facts of 9/11, I highly recommend looking first at the 9/11 Commissioner's own book, After that take a good look at the way Building 7 came down; this was not even mentioned in that original report. Building 7 was not hit by a plane. There were only a few small fires in the building. There are several other buildings nearby which also suffered damage from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. They were still standing. The Deutsche Bank Building right next to the towers was damaged when the South Tower collapsed; it was still standing and is currently being torn down.

Then consider this. In Madrid a steel frame building burned for 24 hours. The building was still standing, and even though the media tried to tell us that it might collapse, as if to reinforce the post 9/11 reality, it did not. Repeat a lie long enough, then drop the story when the building doesn’t collapse; this is how the media has used its coercion to manipulate our minds into believing the collapse of Building 7 was possible because of the fires. It was not a raging inferno like the steel structure in Madrid. Yet Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration.

Regarding the Twin Towers, destabilizing the buildings by jet impact might have caused the topmost portions of the buildings to partially collapse, asymmetrically - as in an earthquake, but not explosively, in near free fall. The fire from the jet fuel did not burn hot enough; the black smoke shows an inefficient, low temperature fire. According to radio reports from FDNY logs from the North Tower just prior to the collapse, the fires were virtually burned out by the time the firemen reached the impact area, and the areas of the steel beams nearest the fires would have been cooling.

Compare pictures of failed demolitions, where floors actually do pancake and buildings tilt, with what was left of the World Trade Towers. Why have more than 1,630 accredited architects and engineers who have studied all the available evidence, put their careers in jeopardy because they believe that the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down as the result of some form of controlled demolition. NIST, and other government and independent agencies have disproven the “pancake theory”, yet this idea is still used to discredit so-called “conspiracy theories”.

And there are hundreds of other facts, coincidences and impossibilities enough to fill dozens of books. There is the elimination from the 9/11 Commission Report of the financial trail, and important testimony from credible witnesses. The Bush administration made a concerted effort to prevent any form of investigation. When Bush and Cheney appeared before the Commission, they would not do so under oath, and their testimony was secret, citing “executive privilege”. Why? They should not be afraid of a real investigation, unless of course there is something to hide.

As I watched the towers fall on 9/11, as they disintegrated into dust, I felt there was something else going on besides the impact of two planes. The explosive cloud first billowed upwards and out. Some large pieces of the building were jettisoned at high speed and landed in buildings blocks away. This is not how a gravity collapse works.

In addition, several documentary films have been made about the environmental disaster aspect of 9/11, which exposed a trail of lies by various officials, all the way up to James Connaughton in the White House.

There was a cover up and conspiracy; Connaughton told the EPA to doctor the press releases. He and others in the White House obviously made some decisions, as did Mayor Giuliani's Office in New York to cover up the fact that the dust was toxic. Environment Secretary Christie Todd Whitman went along with it in her announcement that the "air was safe to breathe and the water was safe to drink". Now thousands of people are ill and more than a thousand have died as a direct result. It took 6 years for the Zadroga Bill to be passed, and it doesn't cover cancer, even though there are now studies which show that cancer is a major factor. Hello? Asbestos and mercury are known carcinogens. Why did it take a comedian, Jon Stewart, to shame Congress into passage of that bill? Hopefully, he will continue to shape the dialogue as this comes up again in January - March 2012.

At the time, in the early months when it really mattered to the health of those who were exposed to this toxic dust, agency officials who questioned the official story got fired, removed from their job or the story, or moved to another position. Corrupt people in our government would never do anything bad to its people, would they? Are you so sure?

“Marketers of conspiracies.... always lead with the doubt, always reinforce the doubt that we can't help but feel about just about everything.” Seth Godin.

Seth is absolutely correct. We need to awaken people by first getting them to doubt, to be sceptical, to question. And then we need to back it up with real facts, not some fictional accounts filled with pseudo science and obvious gaping holes.

Why are those who study conspiracy theories considered kooks, and why are ideas counter to the status quo considered taboo? Critical thinking, questioning, healthy scepticism (not pseudo-scepticism) are important in a society aspiring to be democratic. Every investigative journalist is a conspiracy theorist. Every historian. Every political scientist, every judge, every jury, every detective. Without our conspiracy theorists, conspirators will have a field day.

What kind of world do we want to live in? What kind of world do we want to create? Until we can approach these taboo subjects without mockery, and until we can solve the greatest crimes of this century (9/11, the Great Bank Heist of 2008) and bring the perpetrators to justice, we are headed more towards fascism than freedom.

D. L. Manley, 6th November, 2011.

*******************************************************

1 Cass Sunstein's paper on ‘Conspiracy Theory” sounds a lot like Orwell - speak.

2 Check out David Ray Griffin’s “Cognitive Infiltration”.

3 Pseudo scepticism refers to arguments which use scientific sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific scepticism, i.e., poor scientific reasoning.