Friday, September 08, 2006

License to Spin

Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew
Come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do
- Bob Dylan

Have you seen the "revelation" that Anderson Cooper interned for the CIA during his sophomore and junior summers away from Yale? "Soon after" his post-graduate time in Hanoi studying Vietnamese, says the Radar report, "Cooper apparently gave up his Bond fantasy to pursue a career in journalism."

Bond fantasy. You hear that a lot from people who either don't know better or who know much worse. Sure, there are plenty of whoring dipsomaniacs on the company payroll, but I bet even James Angleton's car didn't have an ejector seat. Most so-called intelligence work - and especially that of media assets - is better suited to a cubicle than a jetpack.

The Bond conceit has been played by hooked-up lone-nutter Gus Russo, who says his initial skepticism of the Warren Report "was fueled by the naivete (perhaps it was the arrogance) of a seasoned teenager who had read all the James Bond novels. I knew about spies, and fake defectors, and sharpshooters, and patsies. The government couldn't fool me!" As soon as he'd finished consulting on Oliver Stone's JFK, Russo began speaking highly of an up-and-coming debunker named Gerald Posner, and in a 1993 symposium in Chicago he shocked fellow researchers by ridiculing the notion that Oswald was associated with US intelligence. "How many of you think Oswald was some kind of James Bond?" he asked. "I thought this was an oddly posed question," writes investigator Jim DiEugenio. "Nobody had ever reported Oswald owning an Aston-Martin, or leading an army of underwater scuba divers in a spear-gun fight, or employing all kinds of mechanical gadgetry to disarm his enemies. Far from it." Oswald was simply too marginal and unstable a character to be a player, claims Russo, ignoring the fact that it's on the margins that the unstable characters get played. (Though in recent years he's refined his position to allow that Oswald actually did figure in a conspiracy. A communist conspiracy.)

Cooper, of course, has more of the Bond, or Blofeld, about him than Oswald. Never has a patsy been both a Vanderbilt (and though most of the family squandered their inheritance, mother Gloria did alright for herself) and a Yalie. "Yale has influenced the Central Intelligence Agency more than any other university," says historian Gaddis Smith, "giving the CIA the atmosphere of a class reunion." The spy slang "spook" initially referred to a member of a Yale secret society. (See also "Spooks in Blue" and "For God, Country, Yale and the CIA" by the Yale Daily News.)

Cooper's internships nearly two decades ago don't imply that he's "on the payroll." But the payroll isn't very long. It's the assets, not the agents that predominate in the media, and his summer work is a strong indicator of affinity: something the Agency would not be inclined to forget as it follows the progress of his career, even as Cooper's viewers remain in the dark.

This is something to be remembered by 9/11 truthseekers who are ready to settle instead for heroes, and uncritically embrace longtime intelligence veterans as sudden "converts" and spokespersons. Like 28-year CIA analyst William Christison, whose "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" was widely astroturfed last month. His leading points, that an "airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon" and "controlled demolition" brought down the towers, are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity. As with "former Bush insider" Morgan Reynolds' triple-dog-dare-ya that there were no planes at the World Trade Center either, more sensible observers need to ask why certain people with certain backgrounds are advancing certain positions, rather than be gratified that persons of a certain stature are saying something, anything, even when it's wrong or uncertain or foolish.

Briefly, thanks to "pepsified thinker" on the RI board for this update on The Massacre of the Innocents":

Belgian neo-Nazis in 'terror plot'

Belgian police yesterday arrested 17 alleged neo-Nazis, mostly serving soldiers, who were said to be planning to destabilise the country's institutions in a series of terrorist attacks. In simultaneous raids on five army barracks and 18 private addresses across the northern Flanders half of Belgium, police uncovered a homemade bomb and numerous weapons.

The raids by 150 police officers in East Flanders, Antwerp and Limburg were the most dramatic breakthrough in a two-year investigation into far-right activists allegedly operating inside the armed forces.

It seems as though Nazis turn up in the last place you look - like America - and it seems to be the case especially when you're not looking for them. Some Belgians, at least, are looking.


Blogger Sounder said...

Everybody wants to be somebody, but the techniques used mostly make us into co-opted fools.

9/08/2006 06:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had a girlfriend whose sister was an analyst for the CIA. Both of them were former Yale students, but they followed different paths.

From my conversation with them, I think I recalled the most important positions at the CIA were held by former Yale students who were also members of one of the several "secret" Yale societies -- Bonesmen being the most important group. Rich pricks helping other rich pricks and all that.

This being said, the Belgium story was also interesting. The GWOT does not seem to frighten the vulgum pecus anymore, including the recent british plots to blow airliners. So a string of real bombings in Europe may be just the ticket to keep the unwashed masses in line.

You did post on the massacres in Belgium, that were perpetrated (according to some serious theories) by ultra-right-wing "gendarmes" and paramilitaries -- probably stay-behinds recruited by the CIA -- to keep european governments in line. This is just another case in a long series.

Another case may be the article published yesterday by the French daily "Libération", predicting a high risk of Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in France. Seems to me the compliant European elites are raising the pressure, in coordination with extremists manipulated by the CIA and the US government.

For what it's worth, according to some friends I contacted through IM, military jets have been heard roaring over Paris this very morning. Why would military jets fly fast and low over a city which strictly forbids low-altitude flights is left as an exercice for the reader.

Add to this the classic pedophile rape, torture and abuse case of Belgian Marc Dutroux and friends, the many recent pedophiles and serial killer cases in France -- complete with possible political links -- and the picture gets very dark indeed. The octopus has long tentacles.

9/08/2006 07:19:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Speaking of journalism assets; Who follows Al Jazeera around and knows when they are going to post a Bin Laffable tape? Will someone please confirm or deny that Al Jazeera is an "asset" of the BBC? It's my understanding that this press box was once owned, lock stock and barrel by the BBC. I wonder who could find the internet source for the other "terrorist" sites other than CNN. They never give a link..hehe.

Maybe David Frost knows more than he is telling. He works there.

9/08/2006 09:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth once again is that the CIA (a thorouhly Nazi contaminated organization at the top) and their "assets", as with the cover up of their assistance in the murder of JFK, are engaging in a well orchestrated disinformation campaign against the 911 truth movement, to attempt to set it up to subject it to ridicule as this is the most tried and true psychological device to end inqiry. To that end their "assets" have/will infiltrate same to destroy same as was done with all progressive groups during the 60s and 70s to today's date. You will not hear Mike Ruppert's "Crossing The Rubicon" mentioned as it deals with facts, you will hear about phoney magic plane issues etc. that can then be debunked . . . How about the stand down order and who gave it to the United States Air Force, why a trillion dollar defense system failed, and why supposed ringleader Atta was down at an airport in Venice, Florida known as a CIA location used for covert operations in Latin America - - while running around snorting coke with a stripper and associating with other spooks - - won't hear much about that, but you will hear all about phantom planes and controlled demoliton . . . The people of the United States were completely betrayed by the CIA and their government long ago with plent of "assets" in the media and elsewhere betraying their fellow citizens for money and status, as Judas sold Jesus don't ya know . . . dire ramifications for all just ahead with the approaching train wreck . . .

9/08/2006 10:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to admit that, personally, I think there really is something to the controlled demolition idea. However, I agree that at this point, it's pretty much still in the realm of speculation (If someone has the proof, please let us know), and even if it is prooved at some point, I'm sure the PTB already have a spin plan worked up. You know, something along the lines of "There were plans already in the works for the demolition of the towers, they were in danger of collapsing in an uncontrolled manner, so, in the end, we actually SAVED lives by bringing them down." It's already an acknowledged fact that the buildings had outlived their profitability, so there'd be traction for that kind of fairy tale.

Anyway, my point being that as a group already marginalized in the public view (and based on recent comments by Generalisimo Bush soon to be criminalized), we tin-foil-sporting folks can't really afford to take a stand on anything that isn't rock-solid. Not that we should stop asking uncomfortable questions, but we need to really think twice before claiming to know what 'really' happened on that day.

9/08/2006 10:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeesh. And I really need to keep an eye on the number of times I use the word 'really'. Ack!

9/08/2006 10:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is exactly why I have moved away from the 911 Clusterfuck. Sorry for being crude, but that's what it is at this point....and by design.

You know the dogs will come sniffing, so you create a web of endless trails through seeded disinfo that have the dogs sniffing about, chaotically, but never finding the pursued.

The Fox knows what The Hound doesn't.......911 Truth & Justice is a road to nowhere and a waste of precious resource.

9/08/2006 10:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't need "controlled demolition" proof or questions about what hit the Pentagon to prove that Atta was linked with U.S. Intelligence and was "training" at a flight school in Venice, Florida that has very "spooky" contacts . . .

There was no real investigation into the murder of 3,000 people but there was an almost complete cover-up in our corporate media, again controlled by the same families who run our "intelligence" networks . . . the bottom line for anyone with half a brain is that 911 was an inside job done by elements of the intelligence community for a number of purposes (including destruction of documents as to ongoing criminal cases concerning billions of dollars that were inside offices in the towers as well as the end of civil rights in this country and, of course, the endless war on the "terrorists" who are broadly enough defined so as to include anyone who opens their mouth to point out that the real criminals are now those who are fully in control of our government, its police agencies and military . . . who have no problem with mass murder, overseas or here . . . Let those with eyes see . . .

9/08/2006 10:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do hope that everyone who comments here realizes that there will be a dear price to pay for our sacriledge. They will be coming for us in the not too distant future. Perhaps we will meet at last, in person, under less than ideal circumstances, and share some parting words before we take our first and last waterless shower.

It is then that you will regret not taking me up on Whistler, but I won't say I told you so....I'll give you a parting hug, instead.

9/08/2006 10:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would seem impossible to watch a video of WTC7 collapse and not think it was controlled demolition. Damage to one side of a building, which didn't appear to affect the central weight-bearing core, would result, if anything, in partial angled collapse, due to conservation of momentum. The entire structure wouldn't fall straight down, and WITHOUT DOUBT the structure wouldn't fall straight down at near free-fall speed, as if there were no steel support columns.

I am appreciative of Jeff's many posts regarding the other odd "coincidences" that occurred around 911, but the general public will NEVER grok to that stuff. But showing WTC7's collapse to people wakes them up, at least for a few minutes. Watch their eyes glaze over if you start talking to them about Pakistani intelligence or Atta's double life, or failed air defense. A friend of mine, dyed-in-the wool skeptic, fan of Posner, had never seen or heard of WTC7, but admitted to me after watching a Youtube link that "it seems convincing."

Try building a structure out of any material, then produce any variety of lateral injuries to the structure, and see if it ever falls straight down. It simply won't happen.

The collapse of WTC7 is irrefutable proof of controlled demolition.

9/08/2006 11:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I do hope that everyone who comments here realizes that there will be a dear price to pay for our sacriledge. They will be coming for us in the not too distant future."

Disinfo tool.

9/08/2006 11:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "no plane" at the pentagon theory always seemed weird to me, particularly in light of the "MASCAL exercise", a drill conducted about a year prior that simulated, in great detail, an airliner hitting the pentagon.

9/08/2006 11:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I worked as a prosecutor in the Sarasota/Tampa Bay area in the 80s it was known in law enforcement that CIA related entities operated out of the Venice Airport (a former military airport). Thus when it came out that Atta had "trained" there I found it rather impossible to believe that this was some sort of amazing coincidence . . . The bottom line is that these days the average U.S. citizen is a moron who can barely read at an elementary school level, drinks lots of beer, and watches many hours of porno while spending most of his time thinking about sex as programmed . . . the PTB know this, in fact they wired it this way, and thus have no worries in carrying out "intelligence" operations, including mass murder, against the people in this country that are trasparently false flag operations that dove tail to facilitate their political ambitions as to creating a totalitarian society with no human rights for all but the tiniest fraction of "elite" citizens, all of which are basically interrelated to each other by blood or money . . . A significant portion of our fellow citizens do not even know what year 911 occurred in and, of course, are busy getting their "news" from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O"Reilly . . . The country is doomed, the only question is when does the ax come down and the dollar become known as the worthless piece of paper it is in actuality resulting in a total economic crash followed up by a full out in public formation of the Fourth Reich that currently controls things but has not completely revealed the iron fist that is now only slightly hidden in the ever disappearing velvet glove . . .

9/08/2006 11:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Thermate Breath' writes-

!What are you saying, Jeff?!
You wrote:

"His leading points, that an "airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon" and "controlled demolition" brought down the towers, are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity."

Jeff, the thermate evidence at the Twin Towers as analyzed by physics professor Steven Jones is the MOST damning evidence of controlled demolition, especially when reinforced by the optical evidence and the first-hand eyewitness oral histories of the emergency personnel who were there!

Why do you keep steering us away from controlled demolition at this late stage in the game?

This doesn't make any sense to me.

9/08/2006 11:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

911 has become a religion. It's now a National Holiday, for all intents and purposes.

How freakin weird. It's not like Hiroshima, where an entire city evaporated in a matter of seconds. It was 3,000 people, for Christ's Sake. Sure, that's tragic, but so was the Comair Crash recently, yet it's old news now, and it happened just last week.

Or, how about the Earthquake in Pakistan, recently. Nearly 100,000 persished, or more, yet it's old news.

Let's put things in perspective, shall we?

9/08/2006 11:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous prosecutor,

You are so right on.

And Hopsicker's continues to be the stuff that serious-minded people should focus on when discussing 9/11.

His reporting is solid and the implications are quite stark.

We are doomed. That is correct. And the slow revelation of the iron fist is an agonizing process for those of us who full conscious of it. (At some level, everybody knows what's going on -- in most cases though it's a croc brain kind of knowing.)

Others have drawn attn to Steven Jones' work about demolition. Jones is interesting -- but he also has some serious credibility problems. See his Wiki page -- that paper he wrote trying to "prove" by archeological evidence that Jesus came to America. Batsh*t crazy.

So... my vote would be to lead the 9/11 debate with Hopsicker's evidence...

9/08/2006 12:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

---Jeff wrote: "Belgian police yesterday arrested 17 alleged neo-Nazis, mostly serving soldiers, who were said to be planning to destabilise the country's institutions in a series of terrorist attacks."

This is not the first time Ultra- Right terrorists have infiltrated the Belgian Defense forces (as w/ the "Red' Brigade in Italy). If you remember the Gladio Program in the eighties, that was pretty much the same thing. An open secret spanning at least from 60s - 80s. And it worked! We need to keep an eye out for this in North America. I believe it is coming.

9/08/2006 12:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anybody ever see the original Poseidon Adventure? Remember how they divided into groups after the crash and each group had their idea on how to get out?

That's the 911 Rabbit Hole, in a nutshell. Which way do we go, George, which way do we go? This way, son, why it's this way.....and watch your step, my dear boy, watch your step.

I don't like cruises just for this very reason, so I don't take them.....and I strongly advise you don't, either.

9/08/2006 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shrubageddon you are dead wrong. 911 may have been 3,000 people, not many given your comparisons (I hesitate to put "only" - - "only" if you weren't one of the murdered, burned alive, crushed . . . ). However, the reason for 911 was to start the "War On Terrorism" without end which has already killed several hundred thousand worldwide and more than likely will end up killing millions, if not billions of us, and which has been carefully calculated and planned by a network of intelligance agencies and "elites" to do just that as all human rights are flushed in above stated phoney "war" . . . "The War On Terrorism" is a war on everyone but the elite interrelated group that owns almost all the assets in the U.S. and elsewhere and has decided there is too much freedom for the rest of us and they used 911 to bring about a complete fascist state which has just about arrived, just one more "911" away . . .

9/08/2006 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Cooper:
As a man who had a job that started at 5 in the morning, I've seen Mr. Cooper move from riding Aaron Brown's coattails at World News Now, (he tried to give a nice proto-Jon Stewart to it), then follow him to CNN, where now it seems as if Aaron has dissapeared. It's a small piece, I know, but......

9/08/2006 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

During the Katrina Crisis, I told my wife that Brown and Cooper won't be around in several years. They poked their finger a bit too deep.

Whatever happened with Bill Hemmer? Did he fondle Solidad? Did he piss her off? Something went down.....cuz now he's nothing more than roustabout reporter for Fox News.

9/08/2006 12:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daniel Hopsicker with his website and books and Mike Ruppert with "Crossing The Rubicon" and alot of his From The Wilderness web site stuff are where people not following disinformation trails should be . . . how they took down the towers is irrelevant, who took down the towers is the question for criminal prosecution that they, the elites running the CIA and the corporate media which is basically little more than an "asset" of the CIA, do not want people to focus on . . . thus videos of pod planes and endless arguments over demolition leading nowhere . . . that is why you will never see a review of "Crossing The Rubicon" in the NY Times or mention of either of these two and the research they have done . . . a total blackout b/c they are scared of this direction of investigation and will not touch it . . . they have no problem dealing with pod planes and demolition arguments as you can see with the press they give those areas, but Atta's stripper girlfriend was never interviewed, other than by the FBI, I understand, who threatened her to shut up or face the consequences . . . 911, as the German intelligence folks have pointed out, was a high level intelligence operation carried out by cooperating intelligence agencies . . .

9/08/2006 12:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shrubageddon said...

I do hope that everyone who comments here realizes that there will be a dear price to pay for our sacriledge. They will be coming for us in the not too distant future. Perhaps we will meet at last, in person, under less than ideal circumstances, and share some parting words before we take our first and last waterless shower.

It is then that you will regret not taking me up on Whistler, but I won't say I told you so....I'll give you a parting hug, instead.

Congrats Jeff! It looks like you've been assigned your own paid government operative! Now we all know for certain you are over the target.
Note the intent of the post--to create paralyzing fear in the reader--something the PTB have been effective in creating in many forms and guises for the last 51/2 years.

Shrub--please quit. Or in the alternative, give us a little background. Thanks.

9/08/2006 12:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Tom Chartier's excellent piece, some indisputable observations:

"When will "The War on Terror" end? Never, as long as George W. Bush and the Neocons rule.

When will America be an admired and respected nation again? Never as long as George W. Bush and the Neocons rule.

When will Americans be "safe" again? Never, as long as George W. Bush and the Neocons rule.

When will the lives of American citizens no longer belong to the owners of the Government? Never, as long as American citizens allow George W. Bush and the Neocons to own them.

When will George W. Bush stop lying? Never."

The GS-5 moron calling himself "shrub" will not respond to requests to leave. He is paid to do this. Soon his pal IC will chime in with some inane bloviation. IC is probably higher up the food chain, maybe GS-8. They work in teams. For those who haven't read it, here's the link to "Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist."

"1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength..."

Live Free or Die.

9/08/2006 01:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Shrub just make your comment about the posting and then move on. Its annoying to read your comments when they're cynical or empty.

9/08/2006 01:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sofla said:

anon 12:07:

Professor Steve Jones teaches at BYU, and is a Mormon. That Jesus visited the New World (America, somewhere) is a major dogma of the LDS, explaining his 'batshit crazy' effort.

Isaac Newton spent the better part of his last years on earth calculating the exact day of creation (I think it was in June of 5000 BC or so), because he was a Christian of sorts, and this short lifetime of creation was then a major dogma of Christianity. That's not to mention his strong beliefs and massive work product in the fields of astrology and alchemy. However, most people don't consider these odd details of Newton to discredit his scientific work in optics, inventing a version of calculus, and his theory of gravity, which stand on their own merits.

9/08/2006 01:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thing about Mormons is that allegedly they are highly sought after recruits for intelligence services. Just thought I'd add that for a lil info...

Also there were plenty of Christian theologians who "calculated" the "exact date" of creation to approx 6,000 years ago. MANY of whom were before Isaac Newton's time- St. Aquinas, etc. Considering all that would have to be involved in "calculating" it is adding up all the begets in the bible, it wouldn't be out of the reach of a non-mathematician.

I guess I have no point to this post. Just that I have grave suspicions about Jones.

9/08/2006 01:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok. getting pissed again...

Jeff, why the insistence that the CD theory must be wrong?

Please explain. You and Cannonfire bring this up at least once a month implying that to have an open mind on it is being overly speculative.

Why is this such a crazy idea? You do know that official sources say that the same guys who planned the '93 bombing also had a part in 9/11(not that official sources always tell the truth). But there appears to be a connection. So WHY are we so contentious and speculative for considering that these guys actually tried it a second time and pulled it off????

Please, just tell me the clincher about why CD is disinfo. I'm open minded on it but just don't see how you guys come to this conclusion. Or if you already explain ed this, then point me to the link.

Ok. This is the last time I will ever post this question because I don't appear to ever get a good answer. Either I get one or I don't.

9/08/2006 01:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anderson Cooper is a homosexual - and yes there is something wrong with that - not too shocking that he has CIA connections.

9/08/2006 01:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Bush was interning for the CIA too. Remember the missing time when he wasn't in Yale or the National Guard. I am sure his daddy could pull a few strings since he was head of CIA......Just a little reprogramming for the Manchurian candidate puppet and the planned future Military/Industrial coup could take place as planned.

9/08/2006 01:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is my last comment:

As to annonymous' comment, I agree. Jeff you have some explaining to do.

9/08/2006 01:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a polite request:

I know that it's not my business and all, but could the various Anons that post here regularly please at least adopt a signature sign-off or something? Or, better yet, just check the 'other' identity option and pick a name? It doesn't require that you register or anything, if it's the paranoia that's holding you back. Not that 'they' couldn't figure out who you are if 'they' wanted to regardless. It's difficult to address someone in a coherent way when you don't know which statements made upthread belong to whom. FWIW

9/08/2006 01:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To those you think Jeff has some explaining to do regarding his stance on controlled demolition:

1. Don't be like the sheeple that we condemn for not looking up easy-to-find information. If you have such questions about Jeff and this stance, perhaps you should read some of his earlier 9/11 writings. There is even a section on the right side that is labeled '9/11'

2. Here: I found it for you!:

3. Read with accuracy. Jeff never said he doesn't believe controlled demolition was a possibilty. This is what he wrote: "...are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity"

Please understand he is simply saying there is other, irrefutable evidence, and that we should be sure to keep the focus on those points as well. I had trouble at first understanding this point at first also... because I do believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that there was no plan at the Pentagon. He's just saying we shouldn't just be using these points to make the case.

9/08/2006 01:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see the Penitentiary Boys have lifted Charles Manson's Web Surfing Restriction.

Helter Skelter, Baby!!

He's back....but not as anonymous as the label indicates.

Riddle Me can someone characterize someone else as cynical at a site like this? Think about tha that real hard without blowing a circuit.

9/08/2006 02:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also there were plenty of Christian theologians who "calculated" the "exact date" of creation to approx 6,000 years ago. MANY of whom were before Isaac Newton's time- St. Aquinas, etc. Considering all that would have to be involved in "calculating" it is adding up all the begets in the bible, it wouldn't be out of the reach of a non-mathematician.

Not only was Newton very into alchemy, St. Aquinas was a master of alchemy as well, and is quoted very favorably by more well-known alchemists.

9/08/2006 02:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's Shrubageddon, back with more Avoidance & Selectivity!!

Shrub: I believe you were asked to leave or give some background.

why are you avoiding?

9/08/2006 02:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Shrubageddon was indulging in a bit of black humor.

Whistler? Is that a reference to Microsoft's name for Windows XP before it was released? XP is known to have some pretty bad security protection, which adds to the evidence for black humor.

Two signs of people who don't know what they are talking about:

1) Deficient or non-existent sense of humor.

2) Assuming that anyone who disagrees must be in the pay of (fill-in-the-blank evil agency/conspiracy).

9/08/2006 02:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anon 2:27:

Some people have a problem with Shrubaggedon not because he disagrees, but because of posts like this:

"I do hope that everyone who comments here realizes that there will be a dear price to pay for our sacriledge. They will be coming for us in the not too distant future. Perhaps we will meet at last, in person, under less than ideal circumstances, and share some parting words before we take our first and last waterless shower."

This kind of post is not about a disagreement, and certainly not something to find humor in.

9/08/2006 02:33:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

The importance of 9/11 is that it's an icon, an emblem and a symbol for the divergent and competing belief systems that have grown, fungus-like in the deep manure of Ground Zero. It's the modern sacrifice of Isaac that was somehow not called off at the last minute, because this time our faith, our credulity, really did need to be tested. The results, five years after the novo-Abrahamic split, are not not in any way surprising.

That Bush scored 90% approval ratings in the immediate aftermath is merely the hysterical response of a populace which was so shocked at being thrown off the couch, their reality show "life" interrupted by something so "real," that all they could think to do was to pick their fat asses up and rally 'round the president while they drove around town, circling the stationwagons with hastily mounted flagpoles proudly (defiantly?) flying the imperial banner, in search of turbanned Sihks that could be dragged out from behind the slurpee machines and summarily executed for being ragheads. Once the fighter jets went back to the hangars, things went back to normal pretty quickly. Normal being the erosion of liberty, accelerated by the Enabling Act maybe (oh, sorry, that was after the Reichstag Fire--make it the "Patriot Act," in the interest of historical accuracy), but this slide was well on its way anyway.

The ascendancy of the Right was very nearly complete, with or without 9/11. Sure, they still felt more comfortable having a pretext for the New Crusade, but they didn't really need it. They own the political landscape (not to mention the computer-generated election results and the money-laundered candidate-and-issue selection process) so completely that even the 9/11 conspiracy movement spouts rightwing propaganda. Hell, the Left (hah!) thinks socialism is evil! I don't think that Loose Change or Crossing the Rubicon (I tell them how noble it would be to kill themselves in chapter 13, Mr. Cheney) either changed anyone's mind or discredited any popular movement. That 36% in the Scripps poll is about the same segment who don't trust the government because, well, who in their right mind would?

People know they're being lied to; if they're not angry about it, it's because they either don't care and/or have despaired of last-minute rescue ("we're all going to die!"--Glum, Gulliver's Travels cartoon), or because they believe in the moral justification of the lie, like Katharine Graham, owner of the Washington Post, speaking to thre spooks at Langley in 1988:

"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."

And that's not just the sentiment of the ruling class, either. The brownshirts grunting in their reactionary trenches know that their leaders are lying, to them as well as to the pinkos, but that's okay, 'cuz it's war and they're dedicated little Nazis. They're on a mission to silence that liberal 36% once and for all, just as their namesakes had it out for the Social Democrats in Germany 75 years ago--there is very little difference at all because we don't know our history and the propaganda campaign of New Rome is unrivalled, anywhere, anytime.

Which is not to say that it can't be undone. Discontent is rising; income disparity and the lack of health care and suspicion and anger over seeing sons & daughters maimed in the War On Drugs is finally starting to force the bigger question of who suffers and who profits and from War On Terror? Once this discontent is stronger than the fear that's being manufactured by loyalists like Anderson Cooper (and every other "journalist" in whatever media), then things will finally take an interesting direction.

9/08/2006 02:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes Assets Abound up here....but it aint Shrub....maybe all these black ski masked bloggers up here that I would look to first. Ya know, the ones we don't see here until now....hmm.

9/08/2006 03:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ANON 120

BTW I only count 4 characteristics....isnt that disinfo itself?

9/08/2006 03:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"An attempt to make oneself seem important by creating the impression of an association with the CIA, the FBI, and other similar official bodies is a feature of many marginal groups; it is also one of the signs of delusion among UFO investigators, who automatically assume that their work is so important that it is bound to attract the attention of countless government agents."
Jacques Vallee

9/08/2006 03:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spin this:

9/08/2006 03:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"His leading points, that an "airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon" and "controlled demolition" brought down the towers, are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity."

(pretend that quote is in italics as it won'd accept my html tag)
Mr. Wells, you are always careful in your wording and in reading your blog it is easy to trace your assiduous steps about CD and the Pentagon impact. But there are sometimes I wish you would poke a flag in the ground and say “I stand here.” I guess I can only lend my opinion and depend upon the gathered evidence. Suffice to say I disagree with your cautious stance on CD. I'm looking at this from the other side of the coin, that is to say the confluence of evidence gathered clearly points to a greater conspiracy within US government agencies (and some external assets i.e. Mossad). Therefore, my analysis is base upon an assumed ‘ptb’ conspiracy. Would the American public have been goaded into war if the towers did not fall? The spectacle was necessary to prod the populace (worldwide) towards military action. I can tell you, most Americans have little memory or concern of the first attack on the WTC, which now seems like a stage setter as do the civilian flights that nearly hit the Whitehouse during the Clinton years (down the ‘ol memory hole!). These events do apply to the narrative and should be added to the gathering evidence. I don’t think anyone has supplied any cogent reason for the collapse of WTC 7 (save for CD). I don’t believe fire alone could collapse a concrete and steel structure and as is often quoted no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire.

Hey Shrub, LET THE COME! Let them come to get us/me. To paraphrase Tolstoy, the only place for a sane person in an insane society is prison. Let the enemy show its cruel and aberrant face. Though I’m sure any en-masse imprisonment will be shielded from the general public and our guilt will be as tractable as the orange suited ‘enemy combatants’, let them come. I care for this charade no longer! I am already bound; the walls might as well be visible.

Who was it that quoted PE’s Prof. Griff yesterday?! “Armageddon has been in effect! Go get a late pass!” Thanks for that one!

9/08/2006 04:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

StareDare said,

I honestly don't know what to think of this..
I've been reading every single post here since i came across this site more than a year ago ,read most of the theories concerning 9/11 and other manipulations of our common reality and while there's much disinfo and many pitfalls in the 'conspiracy jungle' there are some aspects
that cannot be denied, imho..
NO ( and i mean that in the most
absolute way ) way did those towers fall down due to the impact from the planes, the fires and gravity alone. You can cast doubt or ridicule CD theories all you want but there's just no argument that anyone can put forward that can convince me that the two towers (and the WTC7 building) fell down precicely straight, at free-fall speed, crumbled to dust almost, without the help of explosives.
Implications of that ? A preparation time of weeks, necessarily involving a lot more people than the assumed 19 hijackers and their accomplices.
This together with the fact that all the WTC debris was shipped to Europe and Asia within days, evading reseach of evidence and the mass suppression of further data (videotapes, flightlogs,info concerning National Obscurity.etc..) has led me to the firm belief that CD was seemingly
needed as a mega shockeffect to terror us into a holy war.

The fact that i still come back to this site is because of the continuity of it. Not just the high standard of the articles, also the humor, insights, and moral support i find in the forum keep me rigorously intuitive.
The sometimes offtopic posts from some of the regulars here, and i am refering here to TWHN (Those Who Have Names), make them more real for me which enables me to place their comments in a broader perspective. Not that i know you,
and realizing i live in Europe (Amsterdam ,to keep it real) i probably never will.

9/11 is a keypoint in history and the catalyst of many of our current worries. The confusion created by colliding conspiracy
theorists , controlled by fear, blackmail and money will cause it to remain clouded by uncertainties.

That's why i am also honestly interested in hearing why CD is so
'out there'.If you acknowledge the existence of high power networks of satanist pedophiles, multidimensional universes and massive mindcontrol, why is it so hard to believe that most of 9/11 was staged. We're mostly spectators to a Hollywoodlike production of 'New World Order 2, The Sequel. Again no Happy End to this one i fear..

Pfff, sorry..


9/08/2006 04:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See, it's not the CIA or the "elites" or Assholederson's those goddamn liberals.

I always suspected as much.

"In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America’s cultural left.

D’Souza shows that liberals—people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore—are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy—including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror—contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

The cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D’Souza shows that they are one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries."


Here's how it America you're free to do as you please as long what you please to do involves "traditional values."

Otherwise, you'll just piss off the Muslims who will then blow you up.

So, America, let freedom ring...just don't let it ring too loudly....& whatever you do, don't use any pink frilly decorations on your ringing bells & don't, under any circumstances, let birth-control using sexually active vagina owners anywhere near your ding-donging bells..

It's also an apparent huge cultural faux pas to point out any mistakes your elected leaders make unless they're "liberals."

In that case, a swift lynching followed by a public immolation would probably be sufficient to appease any irate Muslims that spring up wearing TNT corsets.

Also remember that it isn't the actions of our government that piss folk off, it's only the criticism of those actions that do the deed.

Now that I've been enlightened I think a tongue & finger-ectomy might be in order.
I wouldn't want to inadvertantly say or type anything that may inflame an already broiling hot barbeque.

I suggest you all do the same.

9/08/2006 04:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Richard, thanks for setting me straight (and narrow) on that. All this time I thought it was our foriegn policy that was pissing off the foreigners. I'll get myself to church (or a GOP rally) post-haste.

9/08/2006 04:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the truer than the truth dept:

Bush: 'History Cannot Judge Me If I End It Soon'

September 7, 2006 | Issue 42•36

WASHINGTON, DC—Despite, or perhaps because of, rising fuel prices, the unpopularity of the U.S. presence in Iraq, and mounting legal problems surrounding his administration, President Bush informed his Cabinet Monday that he is unworried about his place in history, White House sources said. "I'm telling you, pretty soon some things are going to develop so that I won't have history to worry about any longer," Bush said. "History may be written by the winners, but it doesn't get written at all if all of human language is lost in, say, fire storms, right? So I can still get off the hook." Although troubles faced by his presidency have been relatively recent, sources said they believed Bush's plan had been put into motion long before he had even taken office.

9/08/2006 04:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's nothing like the Dallas Skyline on an August Friday afternoon.

9/08/2006 04:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if "best-selling- author D'Souza outsells Pratchett?:) Or even "god-forbid" Dan Brown...Yeah better get my burkha together and aquire a few more male relatives to escort my irresistably sexy booty all over town...Why is it women are blamed for men's sexual frustration? Maybe if some men weren't so misogynist, insisting we don't really have souls, thanking god daily they aren't one of us, and insisting on our virtual slavery maybe they'd get some now and again (that aren't children or prostitutes, I mean...)

9/08/2006 05:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any time luposapien...

like Bill Hicks said, "Just planting seeds...just planting seeds. i don't know if any of them will grow or not."

Actually, typing that was a hair-raising adventure due to my p-poor typing skills. I kept inadvertantly typing "balls" instead of "bells."

I already know that vaginas are b-a-d....can balls be any less of an icky appendage.

I mean, it's obvious that Muslims have no problems with right-wingers . & , if you look at prominent right-wingers like Limbaugh, Bush & O'Reilly, it's equally obvious that right-wingers couldn't muster a ball-sac amongst them. Therefore I think that any mention or allusion to the "dangling duo" just might make me a target for the unwanted advances of a human missile.

Christ. I just realized that I typed "balls" 4 times in this post.

Oh me oh my, I'm a dead man, aren't I?

Look, I think it's best I immerse myself in a tub of invisible ink until this whole "balls horror" blows over.

Shit. I did it again. I even used "blow" in the same sentence as "balls"....

Fuck. I did it again.

I'd better go. My knees are starting to knock together.

9/08/2006 05:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wtf is up with trying to get shrub off this blog? one anonyfuck said, "Shrub--please quit. Or in the alternative, give us a little background. Thanks." you post under ANONYMOUS, dipshit! who the hell are *you* to demand any 'background' info from anyone? i wouldn't give you directions to the nearest KFC--god only knows who the fuck YOU are...

and that isn't to say that i agree with shrub on everything, shit; i still take what he has consistently posted over the last few *months* and can pretty much say he remains on topic: we are fucked, he says. yes, we are, we answer. and THATS why you bullshit artists want him to bugger off? talk about batshit crazy...

9/08/2006 05:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reminds me of that "Knights Who Say Nigh" section of 'Holy Grail'.

9/08/2006 05:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree Luposapien. Please anyone who really has something to say, adopt a name...I would hate to miss your erudite and signifigant post because I have tuned out the nasty anony's...Terminally shy as I am, I've even managed to find a handle that warns people I'm coming:)...
BTW, who stays and who goes is really Jeff's perogative and his only, so if yer tryin' to bump someone just 'cause YOU disagree, yer really dissing Jeff, and that ain't nice to do to the host...
Thank you again Jeff for this place...

9/08/2006 05:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I was replying to jon's post...looked at the browser wrong, sorry

9/08/2006 05:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really, who cares if someone posts as Anonymous at a certain time stamp or w/some made up name - - if it is a worthwhile comment vs. some moronic statement. The whole made up name thing is way too clubby and gets to the point of just useless commentary back and forth instead of anything substantive and interesting i.e. we're regulars - - who are you? type comments, what you say is who you are,not some stupid handle . . .

9/08/2006 05:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shrub's "they're coming to take us away, oh boy" post got me thinking about a bunch of things I normally take for granted.

Truth is, what Shrub's expressing is a fear I've been carrying around with me since 1959. And no, that is not a typo. Contrary to cultural myths, 1959 was not one big Happy Days era of rock-n-roll frivolity. It was the post-Sputnik nadir of atomic brinksmanship, the rise of the military-industrial complex, and the John Birch Society. And even as a kid, I was acutely aware that the fact that I did not approve of what my government did and stood for might at some future point get me into big trouble.

That awareness has shaped my life. Even though the Big Crackdown -- the one where they start tossing people in jail just for speaking their minds -- hasn't ever actually happened, every personal and moral decision I've made has been colored by a sense that it eventually might.

Paranoid? Maybe. But I don't think I'm either delusional or self-aggrandizing. I've never believed they were after me personally -- just that I'm definitely on the list if the shit ever comes down.

As to why it hasn't come down yet, I've got a couple of ideas. One is that in the wake of the Cointelpro experiment, they found it was simplest just to keep dissidents marginalized. 60's troublemakers in general have lived out their lives always financially and socially on the edge -- poor, disreputable, and with a range of charges from drugs to sex to the tired old commiesymp thing available to slap them down if they ever started to become influential.

Another is that keeping people nervous is just as effective at stilling their voices as actively suppressing them -- at least, as long as the country isn't in active revolt. For example, I've thought for years that if the US government ever did start detaining people just for dissidence, it would simultaneously spread rumors that the disappeared were being tortured while also issuing public denials that they were. It's the uncertainty of not knowing how bad things might get that really messes up people's heads.

A third factor is the systematic destruction of the black community as a reservoir of revolutionary ferment. The civil rights movement was both the instigator and the continuing foundation of all the other 60's protest movements, just as the inner city riots of the middle 60's -- no matter how misguided and self-destructive in certain ways -- were a source of general courage and self-confidence.

All that's gone now, destroyed by drugs and jail and whatever the hell else it is they've been doing to black culture. And without that as a backup, lame-ass white kids don't have the guts to stand up and take the heat alone.

So, one way and another, I'm less certain than I was in 1959, or 1970, or 1986 that the Big Crackdown is really on the horizon. But it's certainly there if they need it -- all those prisons, all those prison camps, all those terror laws. It's a continuing ghost at the feast that isn't going to go away just because we ignore it.

So maybe we ought to be talking about it seriously, instead of accusing Shrub of sapping our will and turning the discussion back to less anxious topics.

9/08/2006 06:16:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

The value of acquiring some sort of post-CB "handle" (clubby, dorkish, off-putting or not) is that it allows for a discourse, since it's awfully difficult to distinguish between anonymities. It has often happened that I'll allude to something "Anonymous" has said, only to have another anonymous Anonymous scream about my arrogance in assuming that this unknown was that unknown. We don't Mr. Rumsfeld here to adjudicate in these uncertainties, so...well, maybe we do, but he's keeping quiet about it so far.

Including the time stamp doesn't really help much, either, as it doesn't stick in the mind over any span of time longer thab the average attention span.

Richard, I told you those liberals were to blame for everything...and you tried to butter me up with those cows, sheesh! But who's to blame if the many parallels between the islamofascists and the christofascists are brought to the public's sluggish attention? Does one earn the orange jumpsuit for pointing out the symbiotic nature of the relationship between the Leader and his terrorists?

Just like 9/11, the string that could unravel this noose-knot is asking, not how the false flag was accomplished in some quixotic attempt to proove the bastards did it, but instead to what use has Terror been put? (Okay, maybe who's instigating the attacks could play some role, but that's only going to appeal to those of us who already believe the government's capable of such stuff...)

In any case, watch out for those liberal trouble-makers! Afterall, if they weren't exercising their freedoms, the government wouldn't have to take them away so that the "terrorists" wouldn't be upset by them. You know what they say about the best way to save a village...Christ almighty--what if the Decider decides to save the Earth?!

9/08/2006 06:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok Ok no more anon for me.

I noticed today that NASA can't seem to get an important sensor to work. Shuttle delayed again. They can't seem to get those pesky heating tiles to work properly either. BUT I do remember watching a perfect moon landing in 1969, with what might be called antiquated technology today. I think my family bought our first color television set that year. We were able to watch The Wizard of Oz in color!

9/11 falls into the bubbling vat of all the other lies that have been perpetrated on the population over the decades. Communists = Terrorists = Islamo-fascists.

The Mayor of this N. Calif. town attended a 9/11 remembrance gathering yesterday. He enlightened the audience and everyone who read the paper this morning by calling Shiite Muslims "wing nuts". The District Attorney commented that, "As long as I have faith in God and submit to his will, all that happens... will be for the best". He added that victory can even come in death. "Jesus saw to that", he said.

9/08/2006 06:39:00 PM  
Blogger Sounder said...

Welcome cattins.
I enjoy many of the anons, each in their own way. When I see substance I see a person trying to live an authentic life. The positives of living an authentic life are far greater than the negative threat of removal of liberties or even your life. (Or the derision of constipated social conformists; secular or religious) Ones personal existence, because one was ‘careful’ will not amount to a hill of beans if everything else is fucked up all around you.

So please, all you anons find a handle, work your voice and lets have a party.

I'll be the one standing off in the corner having an animated conservation ----with myself.

9/08/2006 07:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Video of Jones Interview on the Thermate finding process:
You can watch it on Google Video (about 45 minutes)

Jeff's just flat out wrong to cast suspicion and (without his typical rigorous evidence at all) claim that there is no evidence for controlled demolition.

Watch the WTC7 video collapse for ****sake.

Watch Silversteins public admittal that he took his WTC7 down via controlled demolition, on his order, on 9-11.

And look at the thermate sample that the physicist Dr. Stephen Jones found from WTC7, one of the co-founders of 9-11 Scholars for Truth.

That ties together the thermate dots, or drops as it were that Silverstein was using thermate in his building WTC7 when he gave the order to "pull it."

Thermate samples from other WTCs steel as well.

I don't really expect Jeff to respond as he never has before risen to this occassion instead of slurked from it and I have never ever seen him eat his well crafted set in stone topical viewpoints, except to edit spelling errors or name attributions...

...though that fails to mean everyone else has has a blind spot of bias here to the evidence at hand.

This is the smoking gun. Bush and Silverstein and related financiers collaborated to take down the World Trade Center on 9-11 through controlled demolition. They have been planning this since 1976 actually, attempted it in 1993 (failed), and then attempted it in 2001 (succeeded).

The cat's out of the bag, there's really no debate or question about inside job controlled demolitions anymore, though and some people are busy hoping to convince people the cat's still hidden in the empty bag, though it's rubbing against your leg begging to be petted and recognized.

I would agree with this statement of complaint elsewhere:

I have to admit that, personally, I think there really is something to the controlled demolition idea. However, I agree that at this point, it's pretty much still in the realm of speculation (If someone has the proof, please let us know),

As someone else already mentioned the thermate, check out these video links and below text links for information and timelines.


- given the thermate recipe found

- the fact that it was the FBI, that ON TAPE, was caught attempting to tell their agent to blow up the WTC1 in 1993 using that group of mentally retarted patsies he had recruited for the FBI as the later public media scapegoat.

- and that Michael Chertoff pops out of nowhere in 1993 (current Bush pick of "homeland (in)security") to DEFEND, i.e., to be defense laywer, for an Al-Queda financier suspect Magdy El-Amir IN THESE 1993 WTC BOMBINGS.

- Chertoff defends El-Amir once more as late as 1999--when he was attempting to give "Al Queda" nuclear technology. (Operation Diamondback)

- Interesting that Bush appoints defense layer for Al-Queda(Al-CIAda) Chertoff to head of 'homeland (in)security'--because in addition to Chertoff coming out of the woodwork showing his 1993 WTC attack connection, right after the failed 1993 FBI vetted attack the Bush family comes in and takes over WTC security.

- and the same people around Silverstein who majority financed the purchase to get control of the WTCs to blow them up seven weeks later are planning to take down the Chicago Tower RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE.

- On 9-11, they were likely going to ram the Chicago Sears Tower with that plane that almost made it to Chicago then was 'aborted' and turned around; something went amiss there--because another Mossad cell in a moving van was filming the Chicago Tower. It seems a simultaneous multi city Mossad linked operation, simultaneous to the 9-11 filming crew that was placed in NYC.

More on the thermate first below, then more on the Chicago Tower issue.

The same "(in)security" company, Kroll, that was helping out Marvin Bush's Securatec at the 9-11 controlled demolitions site, is currently placed (after the recent ownership change of the Sears Tower) to be there as well. Kroll is connected to Goldman Sachs which provided equity for the Silverstein WTC purchase (Kroll security there), and Goldman Sachs has bought up the Sears Tower (and put Kroll there as well):

17.Jun.2006 14:50
BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.

Prof. Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for "cutting" the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below.

Dr. Jones is a co-founder of Scholars for 911 Truth.

Dr. Jones in earlier work pointed to thermate as the likely explosive that brought down the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 skyscrapers.

But only recently was physical material analysed in the lab and the presense of thermate announced. The samples were provided Dr. Jones team from redundant sourses.

Both BYU and Prof. Jones have been offered additional grants if he would "change the direction" of his research. In addition, there have been threats made by an individual who "is taking action" to stop Steven Jones' research, specifically his experiment with thermites (aluminothermics), on the [false] grounds his work may be helpful to "terrorists". [instead of what he is really doing, helping to catch the terrorists in the Pentagon, the White House, the CIA, and NORAD.]

Jones notes that much more detailed information on both thermite and thermate is readily available on the internet.

summary of 10 recent thermite/thermate posts 17.Jun.2006 15:59

COMMENTARY: in time order of article theme on thermite at WTCs, videos, discussion, pictures;

[1] since thermite/thermate can be made of basic industrical chemicals, it can be made "tracerless"--i.e., avoid all signature tracer chemicals that the U.S. Govt requires be mixed in very small amounts in all highly powerful and highly monitored explosives to keep track of every batch's origin.

[2] Moreover if he has found it in WTC7, as he says, then with Silverstein admitting that he conducted a controlled demolition on 9-11 of WTC7 around 5:30 p.m., then Silverstein is admitting that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all are thermate controlled demolitions.

"Et tu, Jeff?"

[3] And who was in charge of WTC security? Why, Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Bush, on the board of Securatech from right after the failed 1993 FBI directed attack on the World Trade Center. Then they pulled in 'the big boys.'

[4] And written up in their mom's (ghostwritten) autobiography, Barbara Bush drops the other bombshell that it's just a coincidence that Marvin's security contract at the WTCs was up on September 11, 2001 anyway. She wrote about it in the book!

[5] The Bush family through Marvin Bush have been in charge of security of the WTCs since immediately after the first failed terrorist attempt to knock down the WTCs one month into Clinton's Presidential tenure in 1993.

[6] The FBI is on record giving the order to conduct terrorism on the WTC in 1993, via their hired gun Salam, who didn't want to carry out the attack 'for real' since he was told by the FBI that he was hired simply for a sting opreation to arrest some perpetrators in a terror cell he infiltrated for the FBI.
two minute video summaryon this

[7] When the FBI instead told him to both suggest the WTC as a target for the 1993 attack, as well as teach them how to make bombs, as well as FBI allowing him to provide live explosives--their agent started taping everything covertly that he was ordered to do in reference to FBI ordering him to carry out the 1993 terrorist attack on the WTCs.

[8] Immediately after the failed attack on the WTCs, the Bush family, through a corporate shell vehicle owned in part by the royal family of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti/American Corporation, was put in charge of security at the WTCs, with Marvin Bush on board.

[9] Seven weeks before the controlled demolitions of 9-11, the towers change hands in their first (rushed) sale, being all bought up by Silverstein, who introduces a huge terrorism insurance appendage.

[10] Despite later admitting publicly that HE gave the order (in the PBS special "America Rebuilds") to blow up his own WTC7 on 9-11, the whole thing is so corrupt that he still collects 500 million dollars on the "terrorist destuction alibi" of WTC7, and has already collected several billion dollars on the 'terrorism clause' in the WTC1/2 insurance.

[11] and We already know that the anthrax that was sent to congress and which killed several postal workers in the process (sent to Senator Daschle and to Senator Leahy), was weaponized under a covert CIA only contract, and it was a domestic Ames strain of anthrax coming from one of three or four of the U.S. bioweapons labs.

[12] The "Patriot Act" was already written up before 9-11, just required a whiff of domestic anthrax to force passage with a bit more bio-terrorism on the Congress itself by domestic terrorists;

[13] Bush and his whole Cabinet of course were out of danger: they were taking an anthrax exclusive drug to counter it, from September 11 onward, so when the anthrax hit in early October in DC, Bush's staff would be immune to the domestic-in-origin anthrax terrorism. The interesting point of course is Bush's whole team all psyched up and anticipating an anthrax attack one month in advance--which just so happens to be the incubation time for the anthax bacilli--I could go on ad nauseum.

The whole U.S. government is a terrorist unit, operating under the guise of its counter terrorism squads.

For those who really want the nitty gritty that they plan to continue to blow up the Sears Tower (JUST AS THEY CONTINUED TO MANEUVER TO BLOW UP THE WTC from 1993 onward, keep in mind):

Thus, below, there's a lot of proof that the same American financial criminals in NYC on 9-11 are indeed maneuvering to blow up the Sears Tower.

Title: 9-11 #2: Goldman Sachs (did WTC equity) buys another symbolic 110 fl. tower, Sears/Chicago
Author: deja vu
Date: 2004.03.13 10:33

[1] The buyers, the source said, are Lloyd Goldman, Joseph Cayre and Jeffrey Feil. They are New York investors who held the lease on the World Trade Center. Goldman and Cayre joined with Larry Silverstein in buying the trade center lease for $3.2 billion months before the twin towers were destroyed in attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. All are prominent but secretive Manhattan landlords.

[2] The Sears Tower, which is 88 percent occupied, has struggled with sagging demand for office space and tenants' lack of enthusiasm for high-profile buildings after the terror attacks of 2001.

[3] So why buy it then? Particularly if you are the very same networks of criminals who financally pitched in with Silverstein to conduct 9-11 in NYC?

[4] Many Chicago brokers were astonished by the swiftness of the sale, which OCCURRED WITHOUT METLIFE TAKING COMPETING BIDS.

[5] If you read the fine print, a lack of an actual bid taking process is what happened between Bush Pioneer/fundraiser Eisenberg (of the Port Authority that owned the WTCs) and Silverstein in the WTC purchase. First, Eisenberg rejected all higher purchase price deals submitted, and attempted to scare others away. He kept attempting to scare them away by adding in other things they would have to take over like back taxes, etc. until they were suitably uninterested. Then, Eisenberg turns around and gave WTCs away to his friend Silverstein. Silverstein had submitted the lowest price. Silverstein was not required to take over back taxes!)

[6] Seven weeks later Silverstein and company blow up the WTCs, and he even admits (after he got the corrupt deal on the insurance for 500 million dollars for his WTC7), that instead of it being terrorism that destroyed his building, which is what he claimed to get the insurance funds, months later he tells the PBS special that he gave instead an order to blow up his WTC7 on 9-11, that was already pre-rigged with explosive charges waiting for the day....

[7] Goldman Sachs & Co. (which did equity for Silverstein WTC purchase!) is a leading tenant in Sears Tower, with a lease until 2011,...ARE THEY GOING TO STAY! NO!


[9] Trizec [administrators] said it doesn't know if the new owners will retain its services. WATCH FOR ADDED SPECIAL INSURANCE FOR TERRORISM... WATCH FOR SECURITY DETAIL CHANGES... WATCH ASBESTOS ISSUE...

[10] Police investigated and ARRESTED people slowly filming up and down the Sears Tower IMMEDIATELY AFTER 9-11. The people doing so were found to be carrying multiple,contradictory passports and identity cards and were Israelis connected to a "moving company" that didn't have any contacts where they were going to take their furniture or phone number of their client. In other words, a Mossad Moving van cover was filming the Sears Tower likely on 9-11 waiting for something to happen that never did. MetLife said the sale should close by the end of June.

[11] Mossad of course were filming and celebrating pulling off the 9-11 attacks as well, in Liberty Park where there were filming from yet another "white moving van" cover. The owner of that "moving van company" fled the United States after 9-11 in a panic. The people who run Israel are sheltering these 9-11 criminals to this day.

[12] Like WTCs, Sears Tower has had OR currently has an asbestos problem - (I have not been able to find out if this has been resolved to date).

[13] Ta da! Present Sears Tower security is done by Kroll. Kroll restructured Enron after its bankrupcy. Moreover, Kroll security, which "did the WTC" as well, has been moved to the Sears Tower.

[14] Kroll ties into what Mr. Andrew Grove said about linked to the 9-11 murder shenanigans:

Title: 9-11 & Sears Tower Plot of Goldman Sachs,Kroll,& AIG: NO bomb, infiltrate,Silverstein link
Author: big picture links for you
Date: 2006.06.23 04:58
Description: IS THE SEARS TOWER FILLED WITH THERMITE, RIGHT NOW, PLANTED BY KROLL (WTC INVOLVED AS WELL) THAT STATE TERRORISTS ARE DESPERATE TO USE???? With double Goldman Sachs and Kroll links to WTC and the Sears Tower, you should take note. Evidence below that the Sears Tower was MEANT to be hit on 9-11, though it failed to be....or evidence that it is soon planned to be hit by the U.S. Government. And the high level link of Goldman Sachs to everthing from Bush Senior's private terrorism slush fund moneylaundering, to helping Silverstein buy up the towers to destroy evidence of Goldman Sachs own financial criminality with Bush Senior, to now buying up and owning the Sears Tower, the "other 110 story tower" they own. Goldman Sachs were big residents themselves in the Chicago Sears Tower, though as soon as they buy it, they quickly plan to move out! Looks like "they" are trying to topple another Silverstein-group connected property for profit and terror scares. Who knows what is going on, though what the Bushes say is totally at odds with their own evidence. Seems like another FBI directed terrorist incident was going on... AIG and Marsh & McLennan were focused on participating in both short and long-term money laundering schemes during 9-11 events, while Kroll and Goldman Sachs aided AIG and Marsh and McLellan on the demolitions side of the operation: Goldman Sachs gave finances to buy up WTCs for a song and then destroy them, with Silverstein as front man. WTC demolitions additionaly destroyed Goldman Sachs high U.S. currency financial fraud of their own in the process--in the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, linked to Poppy Bush. --- Links below, citations, and analysis with 23 OTHER ZIONIST/MOSSAD SIGNS OF THEIR IMPLEMENTATION OF STRIKES OF 9-11.

more Chicago terror issues

and touching bottom:

Title: Project Throwing Star: 150 points that specific Israelis and Bushes responsible for 9-11
Author: grouping
Date: 2006.07.21 01:09
Description: Bracked numbers indicate individual complicty of particular Israelis --- 150 EVIDENCE POINTS show Bush family/Israel CONDUCTED TERRORISM ON WTC hit from 1976-2001 --- Project Throwing Star: 150 evidence points that specific Israelis are responsible for 9-11 with Bush family, built from serious treasonous infiltration by an Israeli double agent fifth column in the U.S., connected with infiltration by Jewish organized crime and Mossad drug dealing; this is a list of ISRAELI NAMES who can definitely be implicated either as ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT or ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT in the 9-11 strikes. However, the list has nothing to do with "Israel the state" or "Zionism" or "anti-Zionism." Ideologies or whole states in abstract are unable to have legal cases built against them. Only people can. --- All specific Israelis mentioned below are accused of facilitating or carrying out the 9-11 attacks. --- This list concentrates on particular interlocks between Israeli and U.S. citizens individually responsible for 9-11 events. Individual Israeli citizens are hardly the only group involved in 9-11, because it depended upon high treason of the Bush family, most of Bush Administration, high treason of U.S. military, and espionage by NATO. Other key institutions on U.S. side of operation would be Committee on the Present Danger, CSIS, and Team B. Avoid throwing collectivist guilt trips; go after invididual criminals. See an int'l organized crime, drug-running, terrorism network of both Israel and United States for what it is--a separate, parasitical, self-destructive, self-interested cabal eroding both these states, instead of loyal. The evidence is overwhelming, and the death penalty is too good for them.

The CIA invented Al-Qeda.

The U.S. conducted terrorism on itself from 1993 to attempt to take down the WTCs by various forms of demolition.

The Bush family is connected with both of these area directly.

It happens the moment that the Bush's are in charge of U.S. military (non)response with the Presidency.

Bush Senior's CIA in 1976 was sitting in on U.S. Army "terror drilling" when they were ordered to "discuss the security loopholes--for correction of course" for hittng the WTCs with planes armed with people with boxcutters. That plan was made up as early as 1976.

Title: US DoD McNiven RICO SUIT! BUSH SENIOR, CIA head, & his 1976 state terror plan to hit WTCs!

Date: 2005.03.20 06:18
Description: A LIVE COURT CASE! DEAL WITH IT! WELCOME TO REALITY. Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC...McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target.....publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers. However, McNiven claims the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off the perfect terrorist attack using the exact same 9/11 scenario. The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army, stationed in Strassburg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even plastic box cutters to bypass security. To silence critics, McNiven has successfully passed a credible lie detector test regarding his participation in the study as well as other specific orders given to him by his superiors in case of a real attack on the Twin Towers.

The head of the 1976 mock terrorist plan was Lt. Michael Teague of Long Island, who McNiven says was given specific orders by higher-ups in the military to use the Twin Towers as the terrorist target. McNiven said he has been unable to contact Lt. Teague, but was interested in his opinion now that "the 9/11 attacks happened the way we planned them in 1976."

You connect the thermate drops.

9/08/2006 08:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was surprised to find that AK Dewdney, a computer science and mathematics writer whom I've enjoyed for years, is an active 9/11 skeptic.

9/08/2006 08:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"[8] Immediately after the failed attack on the WTCs, the Bush family, through a corporate shell vehicle owned in part by the royal family of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti/American Corporation, was put in charge of security at the WTCs, with Marvin Bush on board."

Later, after 9/11, the Marvin Bush family's live-in nanny was freakishly killed while she was in the driveway on the property. A car mysteriously had it's brakes release and it rolled into the nanny, crushing her between the car and a small building nearby.

9/08/2006 09:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heh, heh, never mind 'follow the money' with these guys it's sometimes more like 'follow the body count'...

9/08/2006 10:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's stop playing the game of "separate categories of evidence" once more.

The controlled demolitions are the biggest money trail. (and yes, biggest body trail...)

These points about controlled demolition aren't "contentious". Instead, all the evidence points that way and there is zero evidence that points any other way. Silverstein admits controlled demolition even. There's the molten steel even in basement of WTC7 that no useful plane struck, to provide an alibi about its origin either. Same thermate samples found in WTC7 and other WTCs steel.

Even FEMA reports on WTC7 note the strange sulfured steel, though quickly passes up comment on it. Thus, even from the point of view of 'official truth,' of which there is very little of the latter (truth) and much of the former (official), there is sulfured steel where it should only be if a controlled demolition took place.

Thus, these points aren't "speculative" And, Jeff, you don't have any support for your suggestion that it is.

And thus, your claim they are "the least profitable arguments" is a fascinating "license to spin" yourself.

Instead, it's really easy to see how they are the most profitable arguments. First, there's the physical evidence. Second, there's the WTC7 video. Third, there's Silverstein admitting he lied to get 500 million dollars of insurance out of WTC7.

This is very easy to see. Exactly how are they speculative, contentious, and "least profitable"? Remember, it is most profitable to some in another use of that word: Silversteal--I mean Silverstein--already stole several billion dollars off it so far, and the money trail connected with it has given Halliburton and Bush Caryle corporation about a quarter of a trillion dollars (250 billion) to pocket themselves. You like them money trails, remember Jeff? That's what you claim is the most profitable research agenda. Well, guess what? The controlled demolitions ARE THE BIGGEST MONEY TRAIL.

Remember it's more than Silversteal and billions of money for Halliburton and Caryle Corporation. It's a gold heist as well in the basement of the WTCs even as the attacks were taking place. And its a huge money laundering scam simultaneously out of Marsh and McLellan and AIG, WTC tenants who set up that special world's first completely paperless financial transaction node between them, with a completion date of September 11, 2001 they told their programmers...

And let's follow the money a bit more.

Remember Convar? That German company that said that it gathered lots of hard drives from the collapsed buildings and was able to actually recover some things that indicated massive amounts of digitial money laundering was occurring right before the buildings were demolished? Well, guess why we haven't heard any more about that?

Kroll bought up Convar soon after that announcment. Case closed. Kroll was security of WTC (and now Sears Tower).

Kroll is connected to Marsh and McKlellan and AIG and Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs just put Kroll in charge of its Sears Tower purchase.

Goldman Sachs was the backing behind Silverstein at the WTC purchase.

Follow the money eh? Thus controlled demolitions are the most profitable focus for both 9-11 activists because of the money trail--and because of the physical evidence. Even Silverstein's public testimony is there that he blew up WTC7 (where thermate samples are found where they should only be if there was a controlled demolition, which Silverstein admits there was).

Follow the money, Jeff recommends. Well, we did. And it leads to controlled demolitions separate from the people you were mentioning in the original post.

There's more holes than (Swiss) cheese in the Bush Admin any more. Even the mousy petulant eternal 14 year old George W. Bush is starting to understand--and it seems for the first time at that. The Bush psycho completely melted down in his latest quickly called press conference.

Watch it here or here.

Jon Stewart dissects Bush's latest 'desperate soundbites' (6:39 min)

or here

VIDEO: Bush says 9-11 has nothing to do with Iraq; tell the U.S. troops, 90% still believe it (Zogby poll)

85% [of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite a majority wanting to come home immediately] said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

[However, Bush of course says is was never true, despite months of propoganda to the effect of attempting to (falsely) tie 9-11 to Iraq. He's said "no link" before, at a White House Cabinet video session, though here he's all alone at the podium, and starting to ramble like Nixon, though with a hostile edge. See this video.. Unsurprising that it's Nixonesque: since, GWB's grandfather Prescott Bush sponsored/invented Nixon into politics.]

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize,

I seem to remember Dick Cheny, Condi and Bush trying link Iraq to 9/11 way back when: so do 90% of the troops...somebody better let them know.

Well! That link seems to have mysterious vanished already.

Here's another version where you can watch the Bush meltdown:

One one comment on the blog comments of the latter link, it's sounds like he's attempting to make sense of it himself for the first time, and he is getting terrified he can't make it "strange terrorists attacked us" sound believable anymore.

K. Ron Silkwood said,

August 21, 2006 at 18:41

Stupidity, incompetence, and arrogance are not a good mixture. Jeebus.

The Velvet Blog said,

August 21, 2006 at 18:43

Wow. I mean … wow. He’s gone way beyond the breaking point.


Ginger Yellow said,

August 21, 2006 at 18:46

Woah. Leaving aside the bit where he lies three times in one sentence - Saddam didn’t have the capacity to make WMD, he wasn’t funding “suiciders”, he was making payments to their famillies after the fact, and he didn’t “have relations” with Zarqawi, who was in the no-fly zone in the North - what the fuck is going on near the end when he’s talking about how to defeat “resentment” and he starts mumbling under his breath?

kingubu said,

August 21, 2006 at 18:48

He was already a travesty of a statesman, now he’s becoming a parody of himself. Jesus.

Seitz said,

August 21, 2006 at 18:49

“Last question. Stretch!”
Hey, just because he’s coming unglued doesn’t mean he still can’t be completely unprofessional!


peter ramus said,

August 21, 2006 at 18:49

My word.

I’d have to disagree; I think he sound like he’s battling desperately to stave off the reality that keeps poking through the bubble of unreflective confidence that’s served him so well all his life until now, and losing ground. If he had no doubts, his words would sound like blather. Instead, they sound panicky.

---- [that link is broken now though to me]

Elsewhere, neocon pundit Christopher Hitchens gives up and shoots a bird to a TV audience:

Christopher Hitchens gave Bill Maher’s audience the middle finger and shouted, “Fuck you, fuck you.” To the Ole Perfesser, this is then interpreted as "evidence of the audience’s unseriousness."

Back to the money trail. What do they have to launder so quickly? Well of course Bush networks just were caught connected to the largest cocaine haul ever found: 5.5 tons of it, connected to Mr. Rainwater, who is a major Texas funder of George W. Bush's campaigns.

JULY 28, 2006--Venice,FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker

Court documents obtained by the MadCowMorningNews shed new light in the murky tale of an American-registered DC9 caught carrying an astonishing 5.5 tons of pure cocaine in Mexico in early April.

The company which owned the seized "Cocaine One" DC9, SkyWay Aircraft of St. Petersburg FL, leased a 70,000 square foot “repair” facility at DFW Airport in Dallas for more than $20,000 a a building owned by a man called “George W. Bush’s biggest supporter” and “the power behind the throne” during Bush’s first Presidential campaign.

SkyWay, a company with no products, and thus nothing needing "repair," nonetheless announced in July 2003 “their newly established Part 145 repair station” [i.e., cocaine transhipment warehouse in Dallas] in a building owned by LIT Industrial Texas Limited Partnership, a venture of Texas real estate giant Trammel Crow, the flagship corporation in the far-flung empire of billionaire speculator Richard Rainwater.

Ranked among the 100 wealthiest Americans, Rainwater backed George W. Bush in four separate business ventures, including the Texas Rangers baseball team from which Bush, who had been drilling “dry holes” until then, profited handsomely. In a heated 1994 Governor’s race, Texas Democratic Governor Ann Richards charged Rainwater “owned" her Republican opponent Bush.

SkyWay "TV repair shop" rent: $20,000 a month

Court documents in the SkyWay’s Federal bankruptcy proceedings in Tampa reveal that SkyWay signed a lease costing $21,000 a month in base rent and operating expenses.

Why would a start-up company which doesn’t (and never will) have any products, spend $20 grand a month to rent a facility to “repair” them?

“We were told we were going to use the facility to service monitors and video equipment which airline’s use to provide onboard entertainment,” an ex-employee explained. “But when you think about it, fixing TV monitors on planes in a facility costing more than 20 grand a month doesn’t seem real economic, does it?”

SkyWay shared the facility with another firm, Airbase Services Inc. A month after the DC9 was seized in Mexico, Airbase filed for bankruptcy.

The registered owner of an airliner caught with more than five tons of cocaine had been leasing, for no easily-discernible purpose, an expensive airport property owned by George W. Bush’s biggest backer.

An amazing discovery. We thought: Eyebrows will be raised.

It seems to confirm our suspicion that tracking the parties involved in the massive cocaine shipment "might could" lead to top officials in the Bush Administration or the CIA.

But we never thought it would lead to them so quickly...

We think its a fair question to ask: What was the nature of SkyWay’s connection to Richard Rainwater, and to George W. Bush?

Scandal figure shows extra-Judicial initiative

Court documents in the SkyWay’s Federal bankruptcy proceedings also provided more detail on the DC9’s ownership, which has been hotly disputed.

At the time of the bust, April 10, it was registered, not to SkyWay, which had already gone bankrupt, but to a SkyWay insider who had somehow wrested control of the planes for himself.

In an example of ‘extra-judicial initiative,’ Frederic Geffon of Royal Sons Inc. registered the plane, N900SA, first in the name of his own company, Royal Sons Inc., and then in his own name.

Bankruptcy trustees are currently negotiating a settlement with Geffon. They told us that SkyWay creditors had to date received no money from this beneficial (to Geffon) change of ownership.

Also last week, a second group of investors, mostly from Kentucky, have filed a lawsuit against Sky Way in in Hillsborough County court, accusing the company and its principals of fraud, civil theft and conspiracy to defraud, among other charges.

The company "shamelessly used the tragedy of 9/11 to concoct an elaborate scheme of fraud designed to prey upon the vulnerable mind set of the American public," the lawsuit states.

Dinner with Bush a "brief encounter"

The lawsuit states that investors were told that “Sky Way's management team was invited to dinner with President Bush to discuss its operational status.” But the "dinner and talk was nothing more than a brief encounter along with a host of other political contributors," the lawsuit states.

The investors appear to have a reason to feel bitter. They, and their money, never stood a chance.

SkyWay Aircraft appears to be a classic example of a “dummy front company.” The purpose of the firm was not to make money. They had nothing to sell. Even if they did no one would buy it. In their self-proclaimed niche market, the main competition of this barely-there firm was... Boeing.

Here we recall that terror flight school Huffman Aviation wasn’t in the business of being a flight school. Nothing about the actions of the two principals there made any business sense.

They were losing $40,000 a month at their Naples location when they blithely decided to pay twice what it was worth in cash to buy a second flight school in Venice.

“When things don’t make business sense, sometimes its because they do make sense... just in some other way.” one former Huffman executive told us darkly. (He insisted on anonymity, because “I have a family, and I don’t want anything bad to happen to them,” he told us.)

"Murky is as murky does"

In exactly this same way, now-defunct SkyWay Aircraft was never a real business either, in the sense of being a corporation set up to make money for its shareholders, a fact which angry investors have now begun to realize.

While burning through $40 million of investor’s money in three years, the bankrupt firm’s only accomplishment was amassing a mini-fleet (actually, just two) DC9’s, one of which was painted to impersonate an aircraft belonging to the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security.

And SkyWay’s resident “boy genius,” Brent Kovar is no Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. People willing to go the extra mile to steal from widows and orphans aren't troubled by much. Kovar's neighbor lent him $300,000, one former exec told us, for a few days as a personal loan, without even bothering to write it up. His chances are slim to none, apparently, of getting his money back.

SkyWay Communications Holdings Corp., a “holding company” that “held” only one company, SkyWay Aircraft, lost nearly $40 million between 2002 and its last annual report in January 2005.

Skyway, "has left a trail of tangled litigation and angry investors, including 24 Kuwaiti and Saudi nationals," said an article in the August 26, 2005 Tampa Business Journal.

Investors "poured money into a company that promised to protect airplanes from terrorism and provide high-speed Internet at 30,000 feet.”

In a bankruptcy hearing, federal Judge Paul M. Glenn called the case "murky." "I have a great deal of concern about this case," Judge Glenn said. "There's a great deal we don't know."

How come we don't got no drug lords, Daddy?

When an American-registered DC9 airliner was caught red-handed, or red-winged, with 5.5 tons of cocaine, researchers into the murky world of international narcotics smuggling—the number one industry in the world in terms of foreign trade—were excited about the prospect that the case would reveal, at long last, the identities of the industry’s titans, figures heretofore shrouded in mystery.

In a nation of entrepreneurs whose globe-trotting verve is the envy of the world, it has been a puzzling oversight that the United States of America officially has no authentic native-born Drug Lords.

We seemed to do okay in other areas of organized crime…Our stock swindlers and fraud merchants, for example, are the envy of the underworld. John Gotti could hold his own with any Russian Mobsters. And the Yakusa wasn’t kicking sand in anybody’s face.

Yet it seems we have neglected to nurture any home-grown American Drug Lords.

What does this say to ambitious American youngsters, looking for role models for future careers? Were we fated to import them forever from South America, like we do with junior welterweights?

The hope of course was that at long last we would now learn the names of Drug Lords whose first names weren’t “Pablo” or “Juan..." that the massive seizure in Ciudad del Carmen, in a remote corner of Mexico’s Yucatan, would give American youth role models from their own culture.

'Meth for sex' trades no longer real big news

Alas, our elation was short-lived. The FAA accepted back-dated documents stating the plane had been exported before the bust. The registered owner wouldn’t say to who. The FAA claimed it wasn’t their problem. They didn’t care what you did with the planes. They just registered them.

The DEA was even worse. They deliberately undervalued the amount seized by a whopping $400 million dollars. Asked if they were investigating the American side of the 5.5 ton bust, the Tampa DEA office issued a terse no comment.

The DEA website has press release’s issued at about the same time as the cocaine bust… “7 Arrested and Thousands of Marijuana Plants Seized in East Bay Area,” heralds one.

“38 Members of a Palm Beach County Crack Gang Face Federal Charges,” another announced. A third release headlines this less-than-amazing fact:

“Meth Sold For Sex On Wind River Indian Reservation.”

In a world where they're already re-making Miami Vice, this seems a little tame. We wondered: did the DEA have to go undercover to see the "Meth Sold for Sex!" Were there secretly-recorded video of the transactions?

"Half a billion here, half a billion there, and pretty soon you got a Congressional Majority"

But there is nothing from the DEA—not one peep—about an American registered plane carrying more than a half billion dollars worth of product destined for the U.S.

In the lobby of the CIA there’s an inscription on the wall which reads: “Ye Shall Know the Truth, and the Truth Will Set You Free.”

If the DEA puts one up in their lobby it should say: “Mum’s the word.”

The chief shared characteristic of the people involved seems to be the ability to act with impunity and without regard for legal consequences. Their actions regularly make a mockery of the concept of “Equal Justice Under Law” which schoolchildren are taught is the basis of American government.

Call them what you will. We call them, a little melodramatically perhaps... the Masters of the Universe... people able to do things for which ordinary people ordinarily pull Federal time.




9/08/2006 10:30:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Truth 911 is a gathering at ground 0 that will be hosting the toast of the town for the 5th anniversary and it is doing it as we speech.
I agree with Shrubwagon. It's a dead letter. In fact, it's an icon of their power and it belongs to them just like a badge of courage.

9/09/2006 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Follow the money.

Follow the thermate.

And follow the radiation.

Turns up the same network of people.

49 points here on this topic:

More Than Thermate: 49 Points of Evidence for Micronuke Basement WTC Demolitions, & Radiation at Pentagon

summary of the additional radiological evidence for WTC controlled demolitions and Pentagon hit.

And while some still are still attempting to ghostdance "skepticism" that AA77 might indeed have hit the Pentagon, there's no way. Even American Airlines inadvertently provided proof that one of their planes wasn't at the Pentagon.

One of internal links has nine points alone for radiation at the Penatagon hit. Why is that interesting?

Just an excerpt

[5] 33 miles northwest: After a week from 9-11-01, still there were high radiation levels noticed even further from the Pentagon. In Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighborhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm. "That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washington-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington. The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and "detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the [very short lived] alpha." This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter. "The question is, why?" Folkers said. If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, as the EPA confirmed on the scene, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft the federal government alleges hit the building. Why is that?

[6] Because Boeing said so! "Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or
the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product
spokesperson for Boeing's 767, told AFP. The "official story" of 9-11 is
thus contradicted once more--since the federal allegation is that the
Pentagon hit was a Boeing 757. Boeing confirms the federal allegation is
untrue since such a plane hit would not produce the radioactivity. []

[7] Rumsfeld even talks about a missile hitting the Pentagon a month and a
day after 9-11-01, despite contradicting his own administration's official
story about the Pentagon hit: "It is a truth that a terrorist can attack
any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to
defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique.
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines
flight filled with our citizens, and the MISSILE to damage this building
and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way
to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists,
wherever they are, and dealing with them." --- Donald Rumsfeld answering
Parade Magazine reporter Lyric Wallwork Winik in Pentagon Press Conference
Oct.12, 2001. (Posted on the Pentagon website)
Jeff himself has even pointed this out, so why the spin change above, as :

This is something to be remembered by 9/11 truthseekers who are ready to settle instead for heroes, and uncritically embrace longtime intelligence veterans as sudden "converts" and spokespersons. Like 28-year CIA analyst William Christison, whose "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" was widely astroturfed last month. His leading points, that an "airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon" and "controlled demolition" brought down the towers, are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity.

Which personality wrote the first Jeff article on Rumsfeld's quote about shooting down the Pennsylvania plane and the missle that hit the Penatagon and which one wrote the above? :-)

[8] Media pictures of radiation scrub down exist for first responders to the
Pentagon on 9-11-01.

[9] Instead of a witness per se, an expert ex-Pentagon official on DU: Regarding the missile theory, it is also backed up by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert banished from the Pentagon after the military failed to follow regulations regarding the use, clean up and medical treatment regarding the use of depleted uranium. "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile," said Maj. Rokke from his Rantoul, IL home this week.
"And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile. Also, if you look at the WTC and the disturbing flash hitting the tower right before the impact of the airplane, it also looks like a missile was used."

9/09/2006 01:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone remember Anderson Cooper when he was a "Anchor" on the Channel One station that was beamed into high schools to give developing minds mandatory lite current event interpretation interspersed betwixt the sprite and skittles commercials? It seems he is just moving up the ladder from Little Brother Programming to Big Brother Programming.
Cooper does project more then most in the media I think the Bond legacy which moves from cool sharper image catalog gentleman killer/fucker to Get Smart, to artificially endowed Inspector Gadget, to the emotionless machine eunuch.
I think Gary Wills and Hoberman talked about the Kennedy fascination with James Bond and the "secret agent of history" appeal to carrying out the powers that be's agenda, the problem I guess is what good is power if people don't know you have it? Of course Attention is Power, so while you can't tell people what really happened you can explain the version you want them to believe. You get to control events and get attention through the events, all the aclaim and none of the blame.
So when Cooper felt he had to go to all the conflict ridden parts of the globe to mirror the conflicts he felt inside, maybe we should ask how responsible was he in making those conflicts "happen" on the the other side?

9/09/2006 01:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon1am, that link was to jeff's dec04 comment on rumsfeld's off-the-cuff comment about flight 93 getting shot down, *not* about a missle hitting the pentagon. so i don't quite see where RI has backtracked...

on another point, your constant goading is exactly why jeff has said in the past that he doesn't 'do' conversations about noplane/pod/CD theories--there is plenty of evidence available to any and all of gov't involvement WITHOUT getting into the parlor-game of HOW it happened, a game that has only been used as a club against individuals who have *real* evidence (like sibel edmonds) and *real* questions (like the 9-11 families). the rest is window dressing, and it has probably already sunk the whole 'truth movement' anyway, thoroughly infiltrated as it is with disinfo-ists.

i mean, shit, man--how many 9-11 posts does RI have to have on it in order to convince you that no one here thinks that the official cover story is anything but that? fuck! your kind are harder to please than someone who won't believe anything BUT the 9-11 Commission Report! you're nothing but a two-bit provocateur, hell-bent on making RI exclusively about your 9-11 hobbyhorse, and you've already highjacked a number of RI comboxes attached to posts that have NOTHING to do with Sept. 11. when did you last comment on what the post was about, you hack?

9/09/2006 02:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Later, after 9/11, the Marvin Bush family's live-in nanny was freakishly killed while she was in the driveway on the property. A car mysteriously had it's brakes release and it rolled into the nanny, crushing her between the car and a small building nearby.

Not that this surprizes me.....but can you source this, please.

Also, Cooper's Father and Brother both allegedly offed themselves....his brother, apparently, jumped out the window.

Remember, Anderson has Oligarchic Blue Blood running through his veins, so it is quite probabable he has been involved in, and been witness to some deep occult rituals. He made it through the crucible, physically....only to have his soul permanently brandished on the other side...his bro wasn't so lucky.

That is why I mentioned him several months prior to Jeff posting this, if anyone remembers. It was an obtuse reference to him considering the topic under discussion at the time.....but now we see it's not so obtuse, afterall, because obtuse statements in an obtuse world, really aren't obtuse, are they, just as cynical statements made at a blog that immerses itself in cynical material is really not cynical, afterall, are they?

9/09/2006 08:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see people like Jeff, Cannon and Xymphora (also surprisingly anti-CD) as people who have no (or very little) scientific or technical education, and also have never had to solve problems or manage environments of some complexity when these were concrete, physical, material, such as planning a building or running a farm. Their thinking is highly sophisticated (thanks for the blog, Jeff) but it is convoluted, and sets the real world somewhat aside or transmutes it into other realms, planes..odd on the part of Xymph though, who is, I intuit, fascinated with ordinary crime and crime scenes; and odd for Jeff, too, as we know that he knows that a picture, even television pictures, and an accompanying description are not evidence of the ‘real’. For Cannon it is more understandable, he is standard-left and will only go part way in the questioning of the official 9/11 scenario. (?)

Therefore, in a way, all of them obscure or by-pass the normal criminal procedure that should have been used. Mary is found dead in her living room with a knife in her back. There are clues, there’s the precise forensics - was the killer left handed or right handed? Etc. One can’t leap to the conclusion that Joe killed Mary because he hated her, or the CIA killed her, or whatever. Motive, shady connections, confusions, character analysis, and most important ulterior events (Joe marries Mindy) are either beside the point or vigilante justice - and on many occasions will not identify the true perps.

Yet - for these admirable bloggers, one might interpret, the apocalyptic nature, the high weirdness, the bowel-gripping drama (planes flown by people into buildings that then vaporise, pancake or fly to heaven to, well, not meet Jesus) must be preserved, must stand. The atrocity is materially as described, the pain is horrific, the perps (assumed to be linked to the US Gvmt., to be a foreign power, a High Cabal, or greedy opportunists pretending ignorance, etc.) will probably never be caught..

It is a submissive posture, a way of accepting and reinforcing a modern myth. Ignoring reality - as Bush does.


9/09/2006 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

So Sheila,
did you drop by to drip your disdain all over the rug here, or do you in fact possess the "forensic truth"? I have known people who ran farms, by the way, as well as people who supervised extremely complex environments at a large international business machines sorts of companies, and while they were the salt of the earth and I repected their opinions immensely, they never claimed to be in possession of any truer picture of the world than I had. They also didn't paint themselves in such a supercilious light that observers had to cover their mouths to keep the laughter from spilling out. So what is the real truth that only folks like you with their forensic complex environment experience could possibly piece together? Stun us with your insight; slay us with your modesty (but don't be too self-effacing, because then we're liable to think you've lost your mantle of cocksuredness, and who would believe anything from someone who didn't know everything?)

9/09/2006 11:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

speaking of mike ruppert's facts, remote controlled planes figure in his scenario. and what the hell is the problem with controlled demolition? all of the fire-fighter and other eye-witness testimony that has been collected demostrates a solid case for controlled demolition. what is the goddamned problem? please stop harping on it like its impossible. there is no justification for the ridicule this position receives.

9/09/2006 11:36:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Sorry to be back so soon, but I just dug up some stuff that might be pertinent to this "revelation" of Anderson and the CIA.

In the Radar article, sources say that Anderson Pooper kept his CIA past a secret "out of concern that, if widely known, it might compromise his ability to travel in foreign countries and even possibly put him at greater risk from terrorists." The author of the Radar piece, Jeff Bercovici, toes the Mockingbird line pretty closely, telling us that "American journalists are already prime targets in the world's conflict zones, and are typically accused of having CIA ties even where none exist". Typically? So, the press is not controlled by the CIA, right? Of course not. Such allegations are merely typical. Typical of what? The liberal bias of the media, the unpatriotic distrust that those people have of our fine institutions?

Now we come to the really interesting part of the Radar story, where Bercovici reveals his mysterious sources: the big, stinking clue? Walter Isaacson, current head of the Aspen Institute and former boss at CNN, has this thing for the word smelly. Bercovici introduces the puppetmaster as a "former CNN official who knows Cooper" who asserts that Pooper's secrecy about his own Mockingbird training "creates the appearance of something smelly there."

Isaacson assures us, in much the same way that Bercovici does, that it's merely the appearance of smelliness and therefore nothing to worry (or even think) about: "I think what he did was probably fine and cool, and I've got no problems with it." Well, if Isaacson has no problems with it, why should we? Case closed. Except that it turns out that Isaacson has other fish to fry, which is probably why he's so concerned about things being "smelly".

When the small bubble of discontent erupted over James Risen's book, State of War, in which it was revealed that the NSA was spying on everyone without a license (as if such things applied to them) and that the Times had suppressed this information (until after the 2004 elections) in separate articles that Risen had written, it was Isaacson who was sent out by the liberal side to do damage control in his NY Times book review, Spys & Spymasters. Isaacson sets out all the traditional arguments for the spinelessness of the press and adds a few new twists and one happy conclusion: that there is no truth out there anyway. Defending the Times for suppressing Risen’s NSA revelations for over a year, Isaacson says:

The Times probably acted in what was actually a prudent manner. The information in ''State of War,'' like that reported in the newspaper just before the book's publication, appears to take care to avoid revealing (although I fear that we cannot be sure) any technical procedures or details that would be useful to Qaeda operatives…

Do you really fear, Walt, that we cannot be sure that we haven’t helped the terrorists (who have reason to suspect that they’re being monitored) by informing the public that the government is spying indiscriminately, on everyone? Is that why you go on to plant the seeds of doubt as to anything that comes from whistle-blowers and then, in a masterpiece of obfuscation, tell us there’s no way to really know anything?

So what are we to believe in a book that relies heavily on leaks from disgruntled sources? We are in an age where the consumer of information has to make an educated guess about what percentage of assertions in books like this are true. My own guess is that Risen has earnest sources for everything he reports but that they don't all know the full story, thus resulting in a book that smells like it's 80 percent true. If that sounds deeply flawed, let me add that if he had relied on no anonymous sources and reported instead only the on-the-record line from official spinners, the result would very likely have been only half as true.

There's that sense of smell again that we're forced to rely upon, our most primitive, unthinking faculty, since there's just nothing to be done about this quandary of disgruntled sources vs. official spinners. No possibilty is mentioned, naturally, for adequate protections for the press and for sources who would trade their anonymity for security. Nope, no solutions for this tough problem--you just have to trust your nose. The thing is that when you do, there's something kinda smelly about Isaacson and his breed of insider loyalists. When Isaacson waxes philosophical about the role of the press, it's starts to stink but good:

At its heart is one of the great questions of the post-9/11 era: how far should we Americans be willing to go, in terms of permitting things like wiretapping and torture, to fight terrorism? Risen doesn't seem to think it's his role to probe too deeply into this. Instead, he appears to feel that if something is secret and interesting, it should be exposed. That raises some more parochial but still important journalistic questions. When should the press censor itself in deference to national security concerns?

Well, obviously Walt, the press should "censor itself in deference to national security concerns" whenever something "secret and interesting" is discovered: it should never be exposed.

In his conclusion, Isaacson gushingly tells us about the ambivalence of truth, how relative it really is, and how swimming in this uncertain sea is what democracy is all about:

So welcome to the new age of impressionistic history. Like an Impressionist painting, it relies on dots of varying hues and intensity. Some come from leakers like those who spoke to Risen. Other dots come from the memoirs and comments of the players. Eventually, a picture emerges, slowly getting clearer. It's up to us to connect the dots and find our own meanings in this landscape.

Because whether BushCo blew up the towers, and why the liberal and widely-esteemed/vilified newspaper of record does just exactly what the CIA wants it to is self-evident, afterall: there's no objective truth to be found, and if there were, it would smell so bad that we'd have to defer to national security concerns and censor ourselves in the proud tradition of Mockingbird journalism. Well smelled, Walt, well smelled. But Bercovici gets the last word here, since he "broke" the Cooper/Bond story: "Soon after (the period Anderson spent studying Vietnamese at the University of Hanoi after college), Cooper apparently gave up his Bond fantasy to pursue a career in journalism—except for a brief period when he starred as host of ABC's reality show, The Mole."

Isn't he still, really, doing that in this reality show in which we live? And aren't Bercovici and Isaacson and all these other whores who can so glibly plug their noses and their consciences? It still smells.

9/09/2006 01:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of coy disinfo dudes...found an interesting couple of links, sorry if any of these have been posted...the posting I found was recent but the story itself is several months old, but apparently Fintan Dunne thinks RI is a CIA outlet...along with:


What no NYT? USA Today? CNN? NO MAJOR MEDIA WHATSOEVER? Jeez just us disinformation spouting bloggers (hey! where's my CIA check?)

Here's a link to his original article

and some rebuttals, article at:

9/09/2006 02:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marvin Bush family nanny death:¬Found=true

9/09/2006 02:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My goodness the hostile name-calling posts have increased in time for 9/11 season. Why, I wonder?

As to anonymity vs name, I've tried to log-in to post name-attributed comments but it doesn't work.No idea why since I post on the discussion board all the time.

And if I merely typed my name, anyone else could do the same thing as false-flag posting to muddy the waters even more so I've no choice but to comment anonymously and I even see the value of keeping focus on my actual content.

Just thought I'd clarify that issue for the name-callers looking for more names to call.

Prof. Steven Jones' has a paper on thermate was peer-reviewed three times and is about to be released online this week.

Hence all the online pre-emptive discrediting because he's got the pin to pop the 9/11 myth.

9/09/2006 02:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The name feature on blogger is confusing... had the same problem when I started. The 'blogger' identity is for those who are registered and generally have their own blogs. If you simply wish to leave a name, click 'other', then do the alphabet-soup scramble and you should be on. i suppose someone caould hijack your screen name, but this doen't happen much (if at all, I don't remember anything worse than say, two 'bobs' posting concurrently and usually they work it out and become "bob1" and "bob2") Personally, I think 'anony' is just as hijackable, probably more so, since we've never associated a 'personality' with the name.

9/09/2006 02:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As to anonymity vs name, I've tried to log-in to post name-attributed comments but it doesn't work.No idea why since I post on the discussion board all the time.

Well, then, you shouldn't be ashamed to tell us who you post as on the discussion board, should you? So how about you tell us.

Interesting you should mention the false flag.....someone did it to me once......I wonder if it was you?

Whoever it was, they are a pitiful coward.

9/09/2006 04:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was paid to distract people but not about 9/11... I was told to post things that get anger started, that disrupt and force people to pay attention to me rather than things that are damaging to me and my companies aims. I was told that it was sort of similar to what Britain did during WWII when they attacked German cities in order to piss Hitler off and get him to turn his bombers away from the industrial sites in England and back towards the cities- where he proceded to piss off and seal the resolve of English citizens. If he had continued to bomb the factories of England, he might have increased his chances in the war.
I wish only to be helpful here in saying, pay attention only to evidence and what is important about continuing to make your case, ignore the threats and the bullshit or your are doing exactly what someone who works for the govt. would want you to do. Also realize that sometimes, the person reacting to a guy like shrub is also part of the game... to pull you in on one side or another.

9/09/2006 05:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a surprise that the most "intelligent" here are also in possession of massive egos. Geez, couldn't have seen all this coming.

Pursue truth for truth's sake, not to convince others (which convince yourself), that you're really worth something.

No matter how far anybody's come, they're always a step away from the most primal instincts of the need for validation (survival) and the protection of "self" (even if the "self" has taken a larger cause as a proxy) above all else. What a shame.

9/09/2006 05:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymy 5:44 -

Would it hurt to tell us whom you're talking about? Since you're posting anonymously, it's not like you're going to get into a fight or anything. And it would help the rest of us to know whether your vague accusations are meant to apply to a specific poster or are merely intended to sow self-doubts among us, along with doubts of the sincerity of others.

9/09/2006 09:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having read thousands of articles, the most logical scenario seems to be this:

1. Remote-controlled plans with duped hijackers aboard, doing it as either a drill, or believing they were working for al qaeda; perhaps they didn't know it was a suicide mission. Who cares, the planes were probably remote controlled, because there's no way someone could hit the Pentagon with so little experience, while they are scared out of their mind. And if the Pentagon was remoted controlled, then they all were. I personally don't care what the exact mechanics were, but come on, they NEVER show anything hitting the Pentagon ever; nor do they show WTC 7. It's all about misdirection. They do show WTC 1 & 2 over and over and over and over and over again . . . to terrorize the public, just like terrorists.

2. Controlled demolition was the back-up plan. Those buildings had to come down, for whatever reason, no matter what. Who knows what all the reasons were? I'm sure many people gained from it. Nevertheless, if the jets brought them down great; if not, then the CD will and you can spin it away until the cows come home because the concepts are so abstract and difficult to grasp for most people with grounding in the natural sciences.

Regardless, WTC 7 most likely came down from controlled demolition. How else did it collapse? Some barrels in the basement? It was protected by WTC 4 & 5 so it had minimal splash damage. Also, NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT ON THE MSM. What does that mean? They don't want people to think about it.

Here's a litmus test: to the believer of the government story, ask them how many buildings collapsed in NYC. How many of them say two? At least half. The more informed numbers say three. But see, many people still say two? Why, because like in 1984, perception becomes reality. We repeat the lie, by omission mind you, that only two buildings collapsed in NYC, and for most people, it becomes the reality. Do most people have time to ferret out all of the facts? Not unless they have internet access, two hours a day to spare, and will to look.

Bottom line, there is still no "official explanation" for what collapsed WTC 7. The first one was debunked, and now they work on a second. Good luck, I have eyes to see, so I don't need experts to explain away what I can see with my own eyes and reason with my own mind.

And another thing, they can't put us the waterless showers without our permission.

9/09/2006 09:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The need for names is puerile. I use to post on the pre-Y2K Timebomb2000 forum (Mr. Decker, where are you?)and the whole thing was just one giant inane circle-jerk (but a wonderful way to waste time--ah, youth) (and why on earth Lew Rockwell, an otherwise sensible and gentlemanly libertarian, still publishes Gary North, is a rather different and continually bothersome question). But nowadays, I tend to look more closely at the "anonymous" posts, often written by intelligent passersby, and look somewhat askance at the "personality" posts, which are quite frequently agenda-driven and of less merit.

Having said that, I will allow that the best moniker is "Attack Ships on Fire." Is that from Bladerunner? Evocative.

But really, what does it matter what people call themselves? Do you need to judge a person by the color of his skin? This ain't the freakin' Junior League! If the comments are useful, good. If they're not, they're not.
All this cult of personality crap is denervating, and creates a false, and somewhat eldritch, sense of community. You think these people are your psychic soulmaties? Good for you. I come here for the info, not for the clubby chitchat.

Are we supposed to remember who the players are by their names? Who on earth cares? "Hey, that's Dreams End, and he's a little anti-this, anti-that, so I need to keep that in mind when I read his stuff..." (not picking on you, Dreams End, just a name I've seen) To me, that's absurd. If you have an agenda, the reader can glean it from the words on the page. It's compelling or it's not, and I don't need fake names (or fucking emoticons) to help me figure that out.

To illustrate: I'm reading a book called "A Century of War," about Anglo-Yank oil politics. It hardly matters to me what the author's name is; the book is very good, and sheds light on how WWI was about control of oil. What if it had been written by Sigmund Freud? Or H.G. Wells? Or Evelyn Waugh? Or Dr. Seuss? Would that invalidate the information? Words stand alone, and that's particularly true on an internet blog. That's why the .gov would like all internet users to be tagged, so that there would no longer be anonymous contributions. How many of you currently use Onion Routers to mask their IP addresses?

Information is tested in the marketplace of ideas. If you think someone's idea is awful, cut and paste a bit of it, then eviscerate it. Attack the idea, not the person. Ad hominem attacks should have no purchase whatsoever in this forum, and a desperate need to assign "personalities" is, at best, false consciousness.

Is Jeff Wells Jeff Wells? Probably he is, but Edgar Box was Gore Vidal, and if Jeff's name is really Ignoblub Bomblenoof, it wouldn't matter. Does a post under his byline have more credence? Sorry, Jeff, nice blog, but it doesn't. The post rests on its merits. You start yakking about skinwalkers or whatever, and I click out. And that's true for anyone writer, whether (I betray my biases) it's Billmon or Raimondo Stephen Hand or Cockburn. Good writers write cogently, and when they don't, it's easy to tell: the words are in front of you. Writers are naked. See much written by George Bush? He doesn't even pretend to amanuensis, like Kennedy did, because his handlers wouldn't dare. If today Cockburn disses the 911 truth movement, that doesn't mean I didn't love his Tuesday column reminiscing about escaping as a lad with his father to Ireland, with Special Branch goons alongside (Will Bush Bomb Teheran? What the Fortune Teller's Parrot Taught Me--Sept. 5). It's not the writer, it's what they write.

That's what information is.

9/09/2006 09:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juno Jones -

Fintan came out with that stuff a while ago but has never, ever given any justification for any of the names. In fact his opinion on most things seems to be it's a hoax, which seems very interesting but he never backs it up. He also thinks PO is a hoax (seems to believe in abiotic and profiteering) and he thinks HIV/AIDS is a hoax too.

Of course, with the number of names in his 'shit-list' he must have got some right just through chance. I'm not saying he's completely wrong just that he hasn't proved anything as far as I can see.

On this topic the internet personality that most interests me most is Alex Jones. He seems to be heavily funded and really only preeches fear to the people. When he has important guests on his radio show he tries to talk all over them and frequently diminshes the strength of what they are saying. There's something fishy there I'm sure.

9/09/2006 10:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good writing from, um, well, if you must know, Joe Bageant:

"As my late friend Timothy Leary put it, "An enormous industry, similar to the national projects of pyramid-building in Egypt, cathedral-building in medieval Europe, and prison-camp building in Stalinist Russia has emerged in America -- the production of political martyrs, fallen heroes and concept outlaws. ... The essence of 'news' is, of course, the modern version of Roman coliseum shows and gladiator combats." And like clockwork, there is the nightly ritual bloodletting through televised wars and domestic murders, with detective Lenny Briscoe finding the corpses at seven, eight and eleven PM weekdays.

The hologram that is our cathedral of consciousness and our national mind is an ever-darkening one. The average American, if he even thinks about the mind, thinks of it in the obsolete "mind-contained-in-the-brain" way. A few intellectuals and a handful of old dopers like me understand that reality is consensus based and is an interconnected network consisting of many minds operating along a theme. And the theme seems to be pathological.

America suffers from a psychosis, a psychosis being nothing more than an insistence upon staying in an untenable state of consciousness, despite the normal modeling of those around you. This is not out of meanness, but rather an indifference so profound as to be a sickness. The hologram IS the psychosis made manifest. Psychotics love to play ominous games with those around them, just as America does with the world today.

It always comes down to the one thing we never study in school, the one thing we cannot learn about in this country without a great deal of personal extracurricular effort -- consciousness. As we have known at least since the Sixties, the core issue of our existence is consciousness, which our corporate state is compelled to control at all times. That’s why drugs are illegal; that’s why we have hundreds of television channels; and that’s why you will never find anything much resembling the truth in U.S. newspapers and magazines. But there are still those of us who remember our consciousness experiments in the Sixties. Remember what it is like to peer into other realities, not to mention observe the inherent folly and frequent horror of our own war-profit-driven, animal murdering, death-and-sex-without-love obsessed culture. There are those of us who know that when a thrush cries out from the branch it echoes throughout the galaxy. All things are connected and ownership of things is meaningless. The purpose of life is to know this. Lao-tsu knew it, just like Einstein knew it. But you and I are not allowed to. It would shatter our revered hologram, the one that threatens to shatter the world.

To even begin to dissolve this dangerous hologram we would have to examine the biggest lie of all -- that technology is neutral and that people determine its ultimate effects. What divine horseshit! Consider what even the best use of nuclear energy leaves in its wake over the long haul an uninhabitable planet. No matter who is in charge we end up with millions of tons of waste with a half-life in the tens of thousands of years. But the hologram we revere asks us to judge the technology at its heart in strictly personal terms -- cars, vacuum cleaners, and digital amusements. Pay no mind to the toxic rivers and a sky turning red. Science and technology are our religion and all philosophical decisions are made in the corporate world whose function is to sell commodities. Easily the most terrifying aspect of the industrial/media/political hologram is that we are trapped. There is no way out of a technological industrial machine where you need at least a car, a phone, etc. to function, to participate at all.

Thanks to the hologram, American culture, as such, is nearly over. It is not sustainable. It is not reformable. Not only are TV and all digital media unreformable, but they are sure to accelerate our demise more rapidly because of the technological capitalist paradigm of growth at all cost. We cannot eliminate the generators of the hologram, television and electronic media. They are the glue of the hologram, the mediators of our human experience. We will all die without them, now that they have replaced all other previous forms of knowledge, the ancient forms, and have colonized our inner lives like a virus. The natural world is not only boring but does not even exist, as we sit mesmerized, while the hologram sells our very feelings back to us. Are we adequate? How are we supposed to act? Did you phone someone you love today? What and whom are we to fear? You are rendered numb by a hypnotic medium, react to your own feelings which have been stolen and doled back out to you, and pay money to do so. Brilliant! The commodification of human consciousness is probably the most astounding, if ghoulish, accomplishment of American Capitalist culture.

Meanwhile, there is the omniscient "one voice that speaks out to the many," the disembodied military/corporate voice, that all but guarantees an authoritarian political scenario. Unlike the humans who constitute their living innards, the corporations animating the hologram are themselves deathless. The citizens cannot harm them. Under U.S. law corporations have all the rights and protections of individuals, and they cannot be regulated because corporations are "fictional persons" and have the same right to free speech as persons. Of course, given that the media are corporations, their speech is a helluva lot more impactful and significant than any one person’s. "But," as the brilliant author of In the Absence of the Sacred, Gerry Mander puts it: "They have none of the commensurate responsibilities. Communities cannot control them because they can always move to other communities. They do not have corporeality; they can't be executed. You can imprison certain people within a corporation if they engage in criminal acts. The corporation itself, however, lives beyond the people in it."

The light of the hologram plays on material reality and remakes it in its own image, destroying all connection with the natural world. Malls and suburbs and hyper-real surfaces and speed -- meaningless but dazzling technology. The earth gets a makeover in the image of Disneyland and becomes inhabited by humans who are commodified versions of themselves.

It is difficult for people to grasp that we are in an age of corporate dominion just as we were once in an age of domination by royal families, kings and warlords. Somehow it is hard to equate our tribute rendered to the credit card companies, the insurance companies, the IRS, the power cartels, the mortgage banks, with the kind of bondage it is. Yet we must do these things to be allowed to live in society. The only other choice is to sleep under a bridge. And these days, whether due to an on-setting depression or creeping wisdom, I often contemplate just that. I really do. Of course I understand that even under a bridge one cannot escape the hologram’s blue flicker issuing from a hundred million encroaching suburban windows. But like I said, there are still a few of us old bastards out here who remember. And we can still hear the cry of the thrush echoing, still out there shattering galaxies. Freedom is possible."

9/09/2006 11:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol, staroute, what am I, a Spook? Boo! Only the guilty will be accused, and similarly defended, in their own conscience, so no names are necessary.

9/09/2006 11:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting stuff. I think the problem with emphasising CD above other elements of 9/11 is that it just sounds wacky to the general public. Even without reading through the longish CD reprinted stuff above I'm inclined to believe CD, as it generally makes sense and the NeoCons would have wanted things to run smoothly that morning. It becomes more problematic though when folk start digging up pages of physics related info that proves the point. Try whittling it down to a soundbite and see how far it gets you.

I think key points to bring people towards 9/11 truth are:

Wargames on the day and a history of prior war/terror/assassination related stuff on days with various drills and games (see Tarpley).

Insider trading, amply documented and discussed in portions of the mainstream press.

Building 7, not even mentioned in the official report.

Northwoods and other 'lets attack ourselves' activities among US and Israeli political administrations.

Pentagon - why so secretive about the footage?

1001 things that don't quite add up - passports conveniently found etc. See 4 years of Xymphora archives for much of this.

Bin Laden / CIA ties - Peter Dale Scott covered this in depth on 9/11blogger recently.

On target books - RUBICON (whatever your feelings of Peak Oil), Tarpley's SYNTHETIC TERROR, Ahmed's WAR ON TRUTH, the new PD Scott-edited volume and so on.

Bringing controlled demolition to the forefront is an issue for me simply as I think the likelihood of controlled demolition makes more sense AFTER you've generally read / digested / considered the above. Anyone who encounters controlled demolition first prior to the above will probably have trouble putting it into immediate context. Secondly, getting Joe sixpack to buy the idea of it means (a.) getting them to rewatch with new eyes footage that they've seen 1000 times over ("See those puffs of smoke? ), and to read and consider lengthy articles that they'll put in the too-hard basket. It's easier to put the NeoCons on the defensive if you ask questions like "Why wasn't building 7 mentioned in the official report? Quite a coincidence about the wargames - any OTHER coincidences you'd like to tell us about?" and so on.

To repeat - I DO buy the likelihood of controlled demolition being the cause of the building's collapse, I just (same as Jeff) think it's a tactical mistake to foreground it ahead of everything else. If somebody finds this argument bewildering and thinks it demands further justification beyond what I've said, I don't really give a fuck and really suggest some people would be better off exposing hologram theorists like Nico whatsisname as the damaging disinfo peddlers that they are, rather than demanding everyone in the 9/11 truth movement get behind a section of evidence that is likely true, but VERY easy for the mainstream media to dismiss as sheer nuttiness to folks that haven't digested the full evidence. Many people still haven't likely heard about all the wargames or perhaps heard of WTC7. EVERYONE has seen the footage of the buildings collapsing hundreds of times, and will at first pass discount CD with a "What do you believe, me or my own lying eyes" dismissal simply as they've solidified their viewpoint of what those images mean. There's already a (disinfo) doco out there titled 'Why the Twin Towers Collapsed' (telling in retrospect that they put it out there so quick) but so far I don't think I've seen similar docos on topics like 'Why the terrorists got lucky on a day of multiple wargames' or 'Why September 10th Insider Trading was just one of those random things'. Attack the official story where it's weakest, defend yourself where YOU'RE weakest, and we should have something to move forward with. All the above said - I think the folk that have made factual analysis of CD a top priority are doing a favour to the rest of ius folks who will eventually get to where they are, if that makes sense.

Jeff, what type of book are you writing for TrineDay? I hope it's 9/11 / deep politics/ assassination related, and not completely about child abuse and evil portents of Lovecraftian gods flipping in and out of this dimension. Just my opnion!

9/09/2006 11:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anony 11:21 -

Guilty? No, none of us are guilty here. There are no crimes being committed in this place. We are all neurons in the great mind, adding our unique notes to the universal symphony, and as such we are without sin.

Introducing the idea of guilt is an attempt to break that primal innocence, to rend the web, to introduce discords into the music. On the level of the music itself, that attempt is at most a trivial interruption. The nature of discords is to be resolved into harmonies, and the nature of flaws is to become gracenotes in larger patterns of art. But to the extent that there are individuals here who can be hurt or discouraged from speaking, it is certainly an unkindness.

Anonymous 9:57 -

Names might be irrelevant if all that was going on was an exchange of information and analysis. But what we have here is also an interplay of personalities -- not egos, but unique individuals with unique vantage points and unique contributions. And to "know" those personalities both deepens our appreciation of their singular perspectives and enhances our ability to follow their more extended and multi-faceted arguments.

9/10/2006 12:02:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Fintan's done this before--accusing people of disinfoing, which is itself disinfoing--and there's some funny chat about it over at Bradblog.

Namegoeshere/Joe Bageant's post was fun (gotta like any perspective from an old doper), but it ends on a real bummer: we're all gonna die! Why is Glum the voice of choice these days? I mean, I know it's bad and all, but the fat lady isn't warming up yet, and there are all sorts of interesting ideas out there. Take NGH/JB's post. He/It/They start out with this promising gem:

A few intellectuals and a handful of old dopers like me understand that reality is consensus based and is an interconnected network consisting of many minds operating along a theme.

But then, just as they're coming down, it turns into this:

We cannot eliminate the generators of the hologram, television and electronic media.

I thought it was consciousness that was making reality, dudes, not teleprompters. If you look at the first notion, it would at least seem possible to co-opt regularly scheduled programming with our big fat brains, no? (I still say my Be-In concept has potential...)

Look at it this way: if it were really all over, we'd be dead or worse right now. We're not guys. Really. If they came up your street with a wagon calling, "Bring out yer dead!" wouldn't you still try to avoid collection by lying through your teeth, saying, "I feel happy"?

9/10/2006 12:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WTC7 sure looks like controlled demolition to me. I have been in the construction trades for 25 years and to me there is no question. Buildings do not collapse like that without explosive help. Weak argument? I think not.

9/10/2006 02:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. To 8:59 Anonymous/"Sheila" yes. (Sort of a Shrodinger Cat are you, anonymous and not anonymous? :-) Just kidding. hee hee. I totally second you comments. I would third them if I could though I'll lead the vote rigging to Diebold and the fake right wing that attempts to hide it is fascist...

2. And to the other Anon of 11:36, yes.

3. And (I loathe getting into this) to "Cuttlefish", I love your beautiful prose though please summarize. and I'll let you know that when you start to sting people instead of provide information all I can think of is I wish you were back in the ocean. When you start doing that, I don't typically read your thick purple prose attack strategies. You do a really good impression of spurned intellectual neocon lefty Christopher Hutchens, or however you spell his name when you start attacking people. Please stop.

Truth is not served by badgering people into submission, whether your name is Jeff, jon, cuttlefish or anyone attempting to encourage people to think for themselves.

We can all see those willingly exploring here--just as we can equally see those who have hostile intent to stop it.

And it seems that well over 50% of the U.S. now doesn't believe anything Bush says regarding 9-11. Previous more random sampled polls have shown anywhere from 42% to 36% believing in "Bush did 9-11."

That means that Bush lacks a majority believability anymore among the others. Probabaly why the 5 hour fake film on ABC-Disney "Path to 9-11" attempts the oldest trick in the neocon book, "er, well, let's blame Clinton! Clinton did it!" Though that's false as well:

Even FBI consultant quit ABC film "Path to 9/11", saying "they were making things up."

The soon to be aired "9-11 Path to Truth" film of lies is so rife with falsehoods that an FBI agent (surely someone who has swallowed a lot of lies before to keep his pension) who was brought in to consult on the docudrama quit because, he said, "they were making things up."

ABC is now ORDERING its stations to air a five hour propoganda film! "Local stations have been instructed by ABC -- and its corporate owners at Disney -- to air "The Path to 9/11"..."

BUSH PROPOGANDA LIE TO BE FORCED INTO U.S. COMPULSORY SCHOOLING CURRICULA: "ABC/Disney also planned to distribute the historically false "Path to 9/11" to more than 25,000 American classrooms, via lesson plans created by Scholastic -- the world's largest publisher of children's books." However,...

"The docudrama's scriptwriter -- a noted conservative -- admits that the film's most controversial scene -- where a Clinton administration official passes up an opportunity to kill Osama Bin Ladin -- was based on nothing at all, telling a right-wing radio station that the scene was "improvised."

And the film entirely leaves out the real crucial events of the day--the Rumsfeld and NORAD standdown, and the 15 minute Bush "sit down" where he failed to react and acted as if merely being updated on the status of the ongoing pre-planned terrorism and its pre-planned standdown activities. More here.

Perhaps that is being aired because 9-11 Loose Change has been on the top of Google Video worldwide for solid months now!

A 9-11 documentary no less, in the heart of the digitized porn distraction oriented world we live in is top of Google Video!

That's sort of nice--given the Jeff Gannon White House sex scandals on down. In the midst of sex, catfights, women punching each other, talking dogs and cats, and crazy things like people jumping off a roof with another person carried on their back to land on a table (they thought they WOUND'T get hurt??!--rolling around on the ground in what looks like serious back injuries) that provide endless entertainment if you go looking for it, PEOPLE AREN'T LOOKING FOR THAT.

They seem instead willing to sit through 80 minute mental;y stressing documentaries to get some facts to work with. To all those people who watched this film, I salute them AND YOU. (Just to show I'm human I do like those talking cat videos to tell the truth... "Oh Long John, Oh Long Johnson, Oh Don Piano..."...I wish I had that cat that had the strange gamma ray hit it to make it start actually attempting to realize that it might start making human sounds if it wanted to practice on its voice--sorry, I got's the Japanese sake I guess..)

Back to global fascist coup attempts:

There is a steady viewership of 9-11 Loose Change that has stood out from the white noise for months now at Google Video, despite talking cats and talking monkeys like bush.

Even though the Avery/Rowe film studiously avoids

- evidence of substitution planes for 9-11 or

- evidence for substitution for Pentagon hit, (that don't deserve the mocking Mockingbird call against them),

the point is how embarassingly EASY IT IS to make a case for complicty even without these issues, sort of the same motif of "I could topple Bush with one hand tied behind my back" so to speak. Which they do.

That's pitiful for the Bush league.

Dylan/Rowe show it is easy with one hand tied behind your back to topple Bush.

On the one hand, Jeff's right, in a sense though I expect for a different motivation. We "aren't required" to look into these major issues, because there's enough damning issues elsewhere.

BECAUSE there is only evidence for Bush complicity. It's an embarrassment of riches to choose from!

So even if 9-11 Loose Change can tie one hand behind it's back, and explore a "diet 9-11 truth" version, the point is that it is still damning to hell for the liars in the White House that never won an election in their life. They are occupiers. Bush is an occuption force in Occupied America.

That's the sad truth about the fascist criminal network running the U.S.--that has stolen billions, killed thousands of U.S. residents of many countries working in the WTCs, and killed hundreds of thousands overseas who never had anything to do with it. Bush is a mass murderer.

Korey Rowe (one of the other co-producers of 9-11 Loose Change with Dylan Avery) and his ilk are the heroic filmakers of the 21st century so far.

As for Korey Rowe, some may want to see this little heartbreaking interview on his motivations for making the film: it will break your heart to see how he got into this: particularly his almost Vietnam-flashback like attempts keep "going back" and analyzing particularly traumatic events of his mobilization into Iraq and him firing on innocent civilians--until he understood how screwed up his thinking was that he was there in the first place on false pretenses.

Rowe's little sad diagrams he drew-- redrew, and redrew once more--about 5:30 min inshows how much effort he put into understanding how he became evil, and how much he wants to get out of it.

9-11 Loose Change seems a part of the way he dealt with the demons and crimes that Bush put into his mind falsely. It was a purge so to speak.

His little diagrams and the tone of his coldly analytic voice attempting to stave off emotion for "why" he killed children led to the 9-11 Loose Change it seems.

As you can see he has played this thousands of times over in his mind, he broke my heart in that interview. Rowe went on to build up the research behind 9-11 Loose Change into a presentable film with Avery.

The second film that I think has probably awakened more audiences than 9-11 Loose Change is the less watched film In Plane Site ( have no data on that, I'm guessing only becuse there is more hatred built up for Loose Change artifically than the othr one).

In Plane Site dditionally shows how strange the lambasting position of Jeff's post above is concerning WTC and Pentagon hits.

Watch In Plane Site here and see if Jeff's position is rather strange...

The only thing I thought was silly about that linked film was the introduction montage, bear with it please. When I first saw it I thought, "oh no. What the hell is this.." particularly when it started showing the false flagger guys of 9-11 that were never on the flight rosters of the planes. Howeer, that was just some kind of overly geeky intro, and the documentary that follows is completely different.

9-11 Loose Change is in high rotation at Google Video, at least among the people who bother to think. I'm sure everyone has seen both these films already? If not, do see them and continue to puzzle at the spinning here--since controlled demolitions, substituted planes, and NORAD standdowns are what happened on 9-11.

If you come here to learn, watch these films and do your own research on their points.

If you come here to troll, I ain't biting.

and addressing one more Anon of 9:24 PM and this quote:

Regardless, WTC 7 most likely came down from controlled demolition. How else did it collapse? Some barrels in the basement? It was protected by WTC 4 & 5 so it had minimal splash damage. Also, NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT ON THE MSM. What does that mean? They don't want people to think about it.

Here's a litmus test: to the believer of the government story, ask them how many buildings collapsed in NYC. How many of them say two? At least half. The more informed numbers say three. But see, many people still say two? Why, because like in 1984, perception becomes reality. We repeat the lie, by omission mind you, that only two buildings collapsed in NYC, and for most people, it becomes the reality. Do most people have time to ferret out all of the facts? Not unless they have internet access, two hours a day to spare, and will to look.

How many buildings suffered explosions and controlled demoltions in NYC on 9-11? Its more than three (WTC7 added in).


Let's add in WTC6. The WTC6 had a huge blowhole into the sky that went as high as WTC7 (47 stories next to it)!), then the CNN cut away from it as quickly as possible.


Let's add in WTC5. Another odd aerial blowhole, not captured on film, though captured from damage later photographed of its roofline. If it's not WTC5 though another one, apologiees. Though they wanted to destroy all WTC1,2,3,4,5,6,7 that day and they refused to take any chances.

another quote:

Bottom line, there is still no "official explanation" for what collapsed WTC 7.

Very true. Something that Silverstein got half a billion dollars for, and the only investigation is "we don't know???" That's all FEMA reports say or want to say.

America's been raped by the small clique of treasonous Bushies once more..

and another post from another anon:

But nowadays, I tend to look more closely at the "anonymous" posts, often written by intelligent passersby, and look somewhat askance at the "personality" posts, which are quite frequently agenda-driven and of less merit.

I agree. I'm not particularly interested in my personality. There is far more important things of interest going on here.

9/10/2006 03:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see much point in continuing to try to build 9/11 case for govt. complicity. I'm more concerned about what I should do with my grounded belief that somehow my govt. has betrayed me here. You won't see a truth based revolution here to my thinking. Something tells me that there is a bigger darker reason why all this comes to a head in this point in history, or else they would have let us all continue to be happy little sheep and graze in the malls like we always have. I some times wish they would have just said, "Listen America, in order to live our fat, complacent, ever changing state of "I want", we're going to have to kill lots & lots of people and push for outright world domination. You know a lot of the people I live around would probably have gone for it. Especially if they REALLY started to have their life styles affected.

It's like the movie 3 Days of the Condor... Cliff Robertson's CIA character defends the lying and the games for taking over an "Iraq"-like country, by saying(paraphrased) "At some point there's going to be some shortage that affects peoples lives, right now it's oil, maybe next it will be water, but when the American people's lives start to be affected, they aren't going to care how we get it for them, they're just going to want us to get it."

One of the things that everybody knows and no one is saying is that even right now as we type our messages, we're wearing jeans or something else that was made by folks making 10 cents an hour in Indonesian(or take your pick of 3rd world regions)sweatshops in 10 hour work days. Or to get the oil that powers the electric grid, we know really that some indigent(sp?)tribe had people killed, their lifestyle destroyed and evironment polluted so we could get oil, or maybe just the tungsten we use in the kids video games cost thousands & thousands each year in the murderous disfunction that is the Congo.

Joseph Campbell asked Krishnamurti(paraphrased), "what do I do for all the suffering in the world what do I say?..." Krishnamurti basically replied, "We can only say "YES". It's so hard for me to say "Yes" when I watch a family blown away accidentally by an American patrol at a road block in Baghdad. It was to gase down Kurtz' black open mouth in the heart of darkness to see the screaming bloody horror of children's faces pulled from the backseat of their car with their parents brains covering them in human debris. It was a news video that has scarred me for life every time I think of seeing it.(It's probably out there on the internet still if you look for it.) I think of "Do I say YES to this?"... but all around me now are the "YES'es" that I've given but just haven't wanted to think about...
Isn't that true for all of you???
Is this what it means when Joyce talked about - the "grave and constant in human nature".

9/10/2006 05:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And we go live to the World Trade Center which has just collapsed from multiple internal explosions, as reported by dozens of media heads live and witnesses suffering from the blast and taken to the hospital:

9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001
(3024 ratings) of 4.5 of 5.0
36 min
551,835 views: more than reads this backwater spinner blog.

This compilation of previously released material shows that the World Trade Center buildings (Twin Towers and Building 7) were brought down by controlled demolition. What will you do about it?

Dissemble madly, I guess, right?

However, Anderson Cooper. we can imagine cuts in: "Er, this is not a useful story to air right now. Terrible tragedy. We promise to, er, return to this of course, if any of this is actually verified by our research team, and futher experts we have lined up we will let you know. However, this is obviously merely on the scene witness type behavior that has nothing to do with 9-11 facts verified for you here in our studio. Anderson Cooper out."

Back to you Jeff.


Silence? Not one response to this. Typical. Jeff, you really disgust me sometimes. This isn't an animated digital fantasy!

When state terrorism on this scale happens to Canada, are you going to be silent? I'm not Canadian, though I won't!

This is your time to talk, not be silent. This is the time for all of us to talk, and not be silent.

We do NOT honor anyone dead by categorically as you do above by cursing those attempting to dig us out of this fascist hole even if they were once on the inside of the Bush Administration.

True, I agree, beware of them. I sure the hell am.

However, the data about the events at hand do NOT come exclusively from their 'insider' revealing of information as the video above so clearly and sadly demonstrates.

9/10/2006 06:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cUTtLeFiSh wrote:

"Joe Bageant's post was fun (gotta like any perspective from an old doper), but it ends on a real bummer: we're all gonna die!"

The last sentence is "Freedom is possible."
How does that equate to "we're all going to die?" Do you think freedom is death? Fascinating.

9/10/2006 08:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone wrote:

"Perhaps that is being aired because 9-11 Loose Change has been on the top of Google Video worldwide for solid months now!"

PERHAPS? YOu're too kind!

"Starroute." I hate to disabuse you of your fantasy, but this is not a "community." It's a vertical column of symbols, which your brain interprets as words. If you think that a community is made of such stuff, you're really lost. But hey, like, wow, have a nice day and all. Groovy.

9/10/2006 08:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ABC is now ORDERING its stations to air a five hour propoganda film! "Local stations have been instructed by ABC -- and its corporate owners at Disney -- to air "The Path to 9/11"..."

Tis to laugh. If the polls are anywhere near close to the mark, and wide swaths of the public no longer believe anything the Bushites say, then go a step farther. Who spends more time online, the upper or the lower strata of society? Who watches Loose Change, and plows through the 911 websites? Who is being targeted by this ABC fiction? To be blunt, what bottom-feeding dreck still watches network television?

When the Wurlitzer has to target its propaganda at the neuronally-challenged, and the best they can do is "blame Clinton," then they're pretty much cooked. Is that their grass roots strategy? "We've got to consolidate the moron base." A falling educational tide lowers all boats, and it looks like the "Best and the Brightest" ain't so bright any more. Where's McGeorge Bundy when you need him?

The Black Iron Prison exists only if you allow it to exist. Poor Phil Dick, all those black beauties snapped the "hopefulness" circuits in his brain. As a lot of us figured out a while ago:


If you refuse to play, they lose.

9/10/2006 08:36:00 AM  
Blogger jules said...

well shrub every time I see this place someone is calling for you to piss off. So don't.

I have friends who escaped Chile during the Pinochet years.

They escaped.

Its wrong to assume you are going to get done, better to plan how not to.

I often wonder about the 911 stuff. Obviously the buildings were demolished, but so what...

What about Florida, Katrina, Iraq what about enron, what about god knows what else that has been done that could actually provide something useful.

Like the weapons of mass destruction. Like reports from Nigeria or whereever they were about uranium sales. What about war crimes?

For fucks sake people.

Who burnt the reichstag and what were the nazis (those few scapegoats anyway) actually convicted for?

How easy is it to change diebold results?

911 this 911 that - get over it, its five years ago and you have done nothing. Whats happened since?

911 in plane sight was on mainstream tv here last night. BFD.

There was no analysis of the white phosphorus bombing of Fallujah, or is that stuff legal these days.

Look sorry, the truth is that whatever happened on 911 it needs to come out, as the crime that was committed has had such an influence on world events. but hoping that some definitive description of the events of that day will somehow make things ok is just delusional wanking.

"proving 911" is not some magic bullet thats gonna make the world a nice place again.

You know what the response will be if someone posts the video of Bush and Cheney talking about 911 the day before or the week before. It will be so what, what are you gonna do about it. Sue us.

Does anyone remember whitewater, and Clinton's actual impeachment, or attempted impeachment.

What was that for again?

9/10/2006 09:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jules/Shrub wrote:

"I often wonder about the 911 stuff. Obviously the buildings were demolished, but so what..."

Needs no comment.

9/10/2006 09:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It hardly matters to me what the author's name is; the book is very good

Fine, but next time you take umbrage with one of my posts, or Starroute's, or Richard's, or Iridescent Cuttlefish's focus your criticism on the words and leave the names, and name calling out of it.

If that's not you that does that, but another Anony, it doesn't matter. As far as I'm concerned, if you post as Anony, you are all one, so when I speak to one Anony, I speak to your choice.

If I continue to see Anony use people's names here as the center of their arguments (or lack thereof), which I'm certain I will, it will prove once and for all, as if it wasn't already obvious, that Anony is a cowardly hypocrite.

A little background on me, Shrubageddon. This morning I had a big mug of Bolivian Free Trade Coffee. I ground it myself from Whole Bean and brewed it in my $20 Braun Coffee Maker. The Bolivian is low acidity, so it is easy on the stomach, yet chock full of wonderful flavor and depth.

For breakfast, I had Wholewheat Walnut Pancakes with Whole Foods Maple Syrup.

Last night, for dessert, I had homemade cherry-almond bars. It was also Movie Night for my wife and I, and we like to have our homemade dessert while watching the movie. Last night's movie was Syrianna. It was a pretty decent movie, and I would be interested to hear other posters reviews of it here.

Tonight, we are having Paula Dean's Pot Roast and Roasted Vegetables. As the day wears on, I will become increasingly depressed, because tomorrow I know I have to get up bright and early in order to feed Mammon for yet another week......I delude myself that I'm not feeding him on the weekends.

The air has been eerily still for practically the entire summer in my neck of the woods. It is disturbing.....there's something unnatural about it, but I can't quite put my finger on it. There is no breeze.....and the filth just sits and accumulates day after day.

I heard on the news this morning that even though less people are dying from cancer, more people are contracting it. The Pharmaceutical Companies are elated, I'm sure. Spring fed streams may be drying up due to drought in my physical location, but drug company revenue streams are overflowing their banks, and new tributaries are formed daily.

Oh, and Thyroid cancer cases are mysteriously on the rise.......they say mysteriously...I say Depleted Uranium....but I'm just weird that way.

I could go on......but that's enough for now.

9/10/2006 10:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" #4

Let's add in WTC6. The WTC6 had a huge blowhole into the sky that went as high as
. . . .


Let's add in WTC5. Another odd aerial blowhole, not captured on film, though captured from damage later photographed of its roofline. . . . "

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I didn't even know there were seven buildings until some websites started asking questions about WTC 7. Is it because I'm an ignorant buffoon? Not necessarily. It's more likely that it is because I don't live in NYC, and thus don't know a lot of detailed information on the World Trade Center. Oh, and it was because I USED to get my news just from TV and newspapers; now it's all net. They didn't exactly make these points repeatedly.

In fact, I'm ashamed to say that I only recently even THOUGHT about WTC 4, 5, & 6 [what about WTC 3]. Why? Because nobody mentions them much. Finally, someone, I forget who, made the point that 4, 5, &/or 6 shielded 7, but none of them collapsed pancake style.

In other words, people were focussing myopically on WTC 7 because it looked like CD, and accordingly they were overlooking the other buildings. See how easy it is to get trapped in these reality tunnels?

Which leads me to my final point:

Stop picking on Jeff for his skepticism. For all we know, the whole 9/11 Truth movement is just another elite strategy to institute a fascist regime. What better way to sweep aside the "government" then by first completely discrediting it by exposing it as the perpetrator of terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, the real sources of power, those who pull the economic levers, will remain safely insulated, as their role is always obfuscated to the point of abstraction.

And who really thinks a regime under so-called "patriots" would be more progressive or enlightened than the worst excesses of this nation? Most likely, they would resort to the same tired strategies and tactics.

Ah, the myth of progress . . . .

But I digress. We know Jeff's worldview is all about paradigm stretching. Why should Jeff committ to CD, when that could be just what THEY want us to believe? I say this with tongue in cheek of course, but how many of us put our hands on the evidence? Chain of custody anyone? Our grasp of 9/11 is mediated even if it isn't through the traditional channels. Thus, while people leap to distrust the TV, the willingly embrace the Internet.

For all we know, Chthulu and Nyarlathotep brought down the towers just for the garbansio, or whatever that Lynchian emotional energy stuff is.

Ever been bullied? Why do they do it? Why does the 8 year old bully do it? For kicks, and a reaction.

9/10/2006 12:15:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

I can assure, or would at least like to assure concerned readers that I wasn't pointing my "purple prose" at anyone for purposes of derision or attack. I honestly don't know why my writing is so pornographically engorged; I've tried trimming it down and I discovered I just can't write Old Man and the Sea sentences. But let's do look at whom I was throbbing in such an unfriendly manner.

First there was Sheila, who starts off by explaining why lesser mortals can't find the truth of 9/11--they don't have any experience in "complex environments" or "forensic thinking," and therefore build thoughtscapes which are a "...submissive posture, a way of accepting and reinforcing a modern myth. Ignoring reality - as Bush does" without ever deigning to share her superior vision based on her own complex forensic farming experience.

Now, it's true, I did describe Sheila's attitude as "supercilious," which it still appears to me. It's one thing to pull a Fintan Dunne (accusing people of things without either evidence or even an argument), but to then construe other writers' perceived inadequacies as supporting BushCo ("submissive posture," "ignoring reality - as Bush does") is worse than ad hominem attack: it's supercilious. All that I asked Sheila to do was to enlighten us. We haven't all had the pleasure of supervising complex forensic farms and could no doubt profit from Sheila's hard-won insight.

As to Namegoeshere/Old Doper/Joe Bageant's concern(s),
Dude, Sir(s), I so very much dig your premise, seen in passages like this:

It always comes down to the one thing we never study in school, the one thing we cannot learn about in this country without a great deal of personal extracurricular effort -- consciousness. As we have known at least since the Sixties, the core issue of our existence is consciousness, which our corporate state is compelled to control at all times. That’s why drugs are illegal; that’s why we have hundreds of television channels; and that’s why you will never find anything much resembling the truth in U.S. newspapers and magazines.

The reason why I like this idea so much is that I think it is the key to the solution. I've been trying to drum up support for a Consciousness Be-In, where everyone stops what they're doing and watches a stream of alternative images, images of the new Civilian Conservation Corps working for a healed earth, while listening to something like what the Beatles used the first time this was attempted in '67 (All You Need is Love). It is my semi-firm belief that the televised reality can be shattered, if only we could stop the machine everywhere at the same time by interrupting regularly scheduled programming. Well, not "stop" the machine, but just eject the old tape and put in a new one, just for five minutes. Half our problem is that we've lost the ability to imagine how the world could be differently designed; we really can't see a sustainable society in our mind's eye, nor any of the truly amazing things which are as real as the bullshit we're forced to accept.

The other reason for the Be-In is an experiment. There's an idea floating around out there that we might actually be able to directly change/create reality through an exercise of consciousness. Now, I'm not putting all my purple eggs in that basket, as wavy as that idea is, but the ripple effect of the world seeing another reality, however briefly, that counters this reptilian dystopia is something that cannot be anticipated. The problem I had with what you wrote NGH/OD/JB, is that you obviously had the vision, once, but the colors are fading, sadly.

How encouraging is this?

Easily the most terrifying aspect of the industrial/media/political hologram is that we are trapped. There is no way out of a technological industrial machine where you need at least a car, a phone, etc. to function, to participate at all.

Or this, speaking of our bondage to the IRS and the credit card companies?

Yet we must do these things to be allowed to live in society. The only other choice is to sleep under a bridge.

And this, my deflated visionary friend, is your stirring conclusion, your call to arms?

But like I said, there are still a few of us old bastards out here who remember. And we can still hear the cry of the thrush echoing, still out there shattering galaxies. Freedom is possible.

But it doesn't sound bloody likely, does it, when it's reduced to a faded memory? Reduced to huddling under a bridge, looking backward in time instead of forward, the "freedom is possible" sounds like a faint, faint echo of what could have been, instead of what could be. Maybe my idea is just as crazy, but I fail to see how you're going to get anyone fired up with such a sad, tired view.

So...will you help with the Be-In, or did my criticism dash any hopes of communion?

jon, you are quite correct in pointing to Fallujah (and the truly horrible problem of DU) as being every bit as "relevant" as 9/11--it's all American imperialism (state terror or pretext thereof) and this is what half the "9/11" community refuses to acknowledge, that 9/11 was part of a pattern that stretches back to 1947, when it became "legal" to contravene the rule of law, and even earlier in terms of precedent (USS Maine/Spanish-American War/brutal occupation of the Philippines). How does this "movement" hope to stop the fascists when so many of them spout the propaganda the fascists planted at Rense, for example? Ever hear Alex talk about Mexicans? (Alex Jones is indistinguishable from Alexander Haig on this one...)

9/10/2006 12:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and I forgot to add that I ran 8 miles yesterday in polluted air, and had a hot dog with relish, mustard, ketchup/catsup and mayonnaise on it for lunch.

9/10/2006 01:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff wrote, "...are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity."

This may be true, viewed in the context of your long-range or big-picture strategy of choice. My own goals are modest: convince as many people as possible. Try to stay alive.

Different angles will be convincing to different people. It is a bit like cognitive style. Some people like visual metaphors such as, "I see what you mean." Some like auditory metaphors such as, "sounds good." Some like tactile metaphors. Matching the cognitive style of the listener makes your arguement more convincing, regardless of content.

Matching the thrust of your argument to the experience of the listener is simple good sense. "To a monkey with a hammer everything looks like a nail." Your job--find out what kind of hammer that monkey is holding. Most people get their hammers from their jobs.

In my youth I worked as a construction welder. After the initial dumbness wore off (of 911, not of my youth), the first thing that started to nag at my intuition was the improbability of the whole three-building, vertical-descent thing. Steel ain't like that.

Someone who had spent their life as an accountant, or a cab driver, never picking up a hammer, would find some other argument more compelling. "Let a hundred flowers bloom." The point is to convince as many people as possible. Numbers are our only strength.

To those who say "get over it" I say "not likely." 9/11 is a whirlpool traveling downstream with us in the North American stream of consciousness. It is an attractor that continues to demand our attention while the PTB feeds the process by trying frantically to massage our perception of it. The forces that set it in motion have as much control over it as they would have over a tornado. They are just trying to control the sorts of shit this funnel sucks up and sprays all over their worlds.

The world is a whole system and the PTB cannot predict the behavior of large masses of people beyond certain narrow limits. I do not believe that the numbers of people now doubting the offical story was predicted anymore than they could have predicted MySpace. The trends have probably already caused huge alterations in their plans and the further penetration of skepticism in to the mind of the general populace can only cause further downsizing of their ambitions.

Sure, when Mao said "let a hundred flowers bloom" he was just letting them bloom so he could identify them and pull them up by the roots. Maybe we will get pulled up. But the threat makes it all the more urgent that we act to ensure that our children don't face a similar or worse threat.

The numbers of skeptics are getting so huge now that threat is really evaporating as a viable deterrent to speaking out. South of the border a hopeful tide is rising. Global warming threatens the ratings of the Terror Show. Everything is up in the air and the PTB are not in control.

9/10/2006 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger Sounder said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/10/2006 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger Sounder said...

anon 3:08,

I agree that the named posters may have more ego issues. From my perspective ego is a tool that more often uses us rather than us using it properly. Let me explain. Buddists 25 years ago started the company I work for. Very large egos. So I swept floors and cleaned up while the big boys (with less talent) did the important work. I consoled myself with the notion that these folk would burn out because of the extra energy spent constructing and maintaining their facade. I was right, and as I -get the work done- there is always more work to be done.
My big egoed Buddhist boss however in making an enemy of his ego has only further perverted the expression of his personality. Needless to say, my 25-year observational experiment that became my career, involves some effort to not become mired in co-dependent relations. Yet such is life, and I fully embrace this struggle. That is, to make my ego into a more useful tool rather than trying to transcend it.
In regard to reflections on the 911 events. I appreciate the efforts of people in trying to expose the truth of what happened on that day. 911 was not only an operation designed to shape our psyches for the facilitation of larger goals, it also came to be because it reflected the condition of our collective psyches. My part in this is to examine the psychical conditioning systems that have shaped us for centuries, rather than trying to find the truth of the events on that day or any one other day. Many truths may come, in the blink of an eye, (the all seeing eye, o dear) when we truly learn how to change our minds. That said, I finally watched In Plane Site and it does seem to provide opportunity for people to wake up to one level of the matrix that may necessarily come before levels that Jeff or others focus on. We could all do better at encouraging each other’s humanity, but I guess wishing don’t make it so. sigh..
And thanks for the Brian Eno link also anon 3:08.

9/10/2006 01:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Sounder, if that's meant ot be an insult, then please be more clear.

If you want ot call me a son of a bitch, then please just do it, rather than beating around Barbara's Bush.

9/10/2006 02:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No thoughts on Syrianna? What's your take on Clooney? How about the individual upon whom the story was loosely based? How about his books See No Evil and Sleeping With The Devil? Any comments?

Robert Baer was born and raised in Aspen.....there's Aspen, again.

I'm sure there's more than a shred of truth to the movie and the books, but I'm not going to full myself into thinking the CIA would have ordained this, or allowed it unless it suited their nefarious purposes. In otherwords, I'm quite sure it is classic disinfo., but I would like to hear from those who can support that case more definitively.

The interviews with the directors and/or actors invariably belies my perception of the movie, and in this case it was no different. I found many of their comments to be in keeping with a Left Gatekeeper mentality. One of the chicks, a producer, I think, said the movie had no bad guys. I almost fell off the sofa. She has extemely low moral expectations, if she thinks the movie had no bad guys. Shit, it was full of bad guys, none the least of which are the CIA Cowards who kill from distant control rooms.

The theme of the movie is that "they," meaning the corrupt and compromised geopolitical scoundrels, do what they do for us.....that they think they are doing the moral thing....and it's all done altruistically for us.

To me, that's just plain fucked up, and I don't agree with the premise.

It segues nicely with the recent debate about Individual Man verses Sytemic Man.

Those of you who haven't seen the movie, please, by all means, give it a look/see and tell me what you think.

9/10/2006 04:25:00 PM  
Blogger Sounder said...

Shrub, I have no inclination to call you or even think of you as ‘a son of a bitch’ or any other nasty moniker. You may note that while controversy may be my bag, conflict certainly is not. Please ask yourself, are you standing up to bullies or are you being a bully?

9/10/2006 05:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 12:31 said

... how they took down the towers is irrelevant, who took down the towers is the question for criminal prosecution ....

Yeah, but as any detective knows, the "HOW" can shed a lot of light on the "WHO" (or the "WHO NOT")

The Official Story, in fact, stands or falls on the issue of "how." If it can be shown that three towers could not have been brought down by two planes, that collapses the entire Official Story.

These are not the least important details; they may in fact be the most important.

9/10/2006 05:28:00 PM  
Blogger Sounder said...

Thanks Dan, you said what I was trying to say, you said it better.

Is your sculpture to have water, or is it to be placed in a garden?

9/10/2006 05:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, to anon 12:31, Jeff, and other CD skeptics, consider that the burden of proof properly is upon THEM to prove their cockamamie theory that fires collapsed three mighty, redundantly constructed, fireproofed-steel-framed skyscrapers. They haven't proved jackshit! We in the Truth Movement need to demand they prove their ridiculous contentions. We should not be apologetic and on the defensive; we should have them on the defensive. The collapse of the towers is in that regard a powerful weapon for 9/11 truth.

9/10/2006 05:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anony 8:21 -

Since I never used the word "community" -- or anything remotely like it -- I have to wonder who you think you're talking to. I mean, it's not like I'm one of those kids running around on MySpace...

However, the real difference between us may be that you see a page like this one as "symbols, which your brain interprets as words." Perhaps it's eccentric of me, but my brain doesn't interpret written symbols as words. It interprets them as images, concepts, personalities, transcendent intimations -- in short, a virtual reality which is as solid and present, while I'm immersed in it, as the virtual reality which I experience through more mundane sensory impressions.

(Which may be why I make so many glaring typos in my posts. Words have always been something I struggle with, not something that comes naturally.)

Each to his tastes, of course, but I'd hate to see your reductionist approach made the yardstick for acceptable bloggery. Far better to leave room for a range of styles and contributions...

9/10/2006 05:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

irie said, "jon, you are quite correct in pointing to Fallujah.."

that was jules, but damn if she wasn't spot on.

as to the anon fockers pushing 'loose change': i've watched the film (hell, i own a copy, bought from prison planet) and found this website to be most helpful in picking thru its good/bad points:

it isn't that the makers don't have heart, it's that they're sloppy. thank god they dropped the 'pod' bullshit from the 2nd edition.

as to 'it isn't the author, it's the book' that counts, i would say, suuuuuuuure. i'm sure YOU lead the way in completely disregarding *sources* of information when it comes to digesting your evening news or picking a book at the local B&N... shit, if everyone did that, we'd have to pick up every mofo'ing book in the place to get a sample of its content, seeing as authors' names aren't any sort of guide, according to you.

what's that you say? you meant on the *blogosphere* names aren't important? ohhhh--well, shit! you got dead to our rights there! so shrub: stop posting under your given name. cuttlefish: same goes for you. you, too, sounder. luposapien--ditto. because there is no doubt to this dickfore that RI is populated by some whacked-out fockers whose christian names are


and 'cuttlefish'

and 'luposapien'.

he can't see that MONIKERS allow one to remain veritably anonymous while allowing *others* we engage with to distinguish our comments from someone else's (why do i feel like i'm teaching kindergarden?). because if we all followed his example, the blather on this blog would be indecipherable.

is that what you want? b/c that's what you're asking for. besides, anonymous posting is for the disingenuous: it allows the poster complete plausible deniability from whatever he/she might have posted before, and, coupled with the way in which it hampers--nay, DERAILS--clear communication, it seems a fit vehicle for disinformation.

(now, let me see...'plausible deniability' PLUS 'muddying the streams of communication' EQUALS 'disinformation' and/or 'propaganda'... hmmm--whose playbook does THAT sound like?)

9/10/2006 07:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounder said...
Shrub, I have no inclination to call you or even think of you as ‘a son of a bitch’ or any other nasty moniker. You may note that while controversy may be my bag, conflict certainly is not. Please ask yourself, are you standing up to bullies or are you being a bully?

Sounder, you're my brother, and I love you, but don't ever take sides against the family again...ever.

I was joking with you.....sometimes you are so ethereal, I don't know what the hell you are saying, or I could interpret it twelve different ways. I didn't figure you were insulting me....but if perchance you were, I wouldn't have even known. Your prose is so wonderfully surrepticious that it would allow you to bloody someone's nose whilst making it seem like you were offering them a Mint Julip.

9/10/2006 08:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Can you cover the blog for me next Saturday night? A last minute personal request came up, and I would like to honor it. In return, I'll take Thanksgiving Day for you, so long as you bring me a wishbone from a duck.

Over and Out,

Leopold 911

9/10/2006 08:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just had a question that's been floating around in my head for a while now. With all the computer power available to the government in its various departments, why doesn't one department just sit down with a computer with a simulated world trade center and some planes and see what the computer says would have happened. If the government story is correct, it should hold up in this simulated world. On the other hand, I guess that's the problem with doing something like this. There would be no more debate on how the buildings came down. Then maybe we could get some real answers as to what happened without all this speculation name calling and the such. A simple thought anyone have any ideas.

9/10/2006 08:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know, walter, your idea isn't half bad. the only problem i foresee is that

a. if some gov't agency simulated the 'attack' (and which would it be? which agency was NOT compromised on 9-11? johnny-on-the-spot FEMA?) by computer, they'd have to keep the results hidden, as i'm not convinced it produce the same results of 9-11; and

b. if someone else tried, what would they use to replicate what happened that day? simple detonator charges wouldn't *pulverize* the building on the way down the way we saw it happen, otherwise it would have looked like bldg7...

shrub: liked syriana, to a degree: if the blue-eyed arab jihadi recruiter had been an agency man, would've liked it more.

9/10/2006 10:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To answer Walter's question:

Would you trust the government to run a computer simulation? How about a private corporation? Remember that JFK assasination game that was supposed to put the conspiracy theories to rest? A computer simulation, like computerized voting, is an abstraction that is easy to manipulate to get the desired result. Don't leave it to the experts, be they bureaucrats public or private. Trust your own senses, instincts, and intuition.

9/10/2006 10:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dick Cheney's appearance on today's Meet the Press in a nutshell....

"The doubters are wrong. We're right. Everything's going according to plan, & the world's much better for it. Saddam was B-A-D & the T-A-L-I-B-A-N were also B-A-D & any mention of US involvement in previously playing puppetmaster to either regime would be superfluous & just down right distracting to the issue at hand.

& even though Iraq's now a slaughterhouse & Afghanistan is flooding the world with heroin we've made great strides at helping....ahem...I mean preventing the islamofascists from establishing a Middle Eastern Caliphate. We acted on the AVAILABLE intelligence that couldn't possibly have been cherry picked by me to gild the lilly for a plan already going through because I'm much too honorable a guy even though Colin Powell once described me as the most accomplished at hiding my true motivations.
We thought those WMDs were there but their lack of tangible existence is irrelevant because Saddam would have built them if he could've even though he couldn't have if he'd wanted to.
& all that heroin is irrelevant also because that part of the world has produced opium for centuries.
& anyone who believes otherwise is just falling for the islamofascists who know they could never beat us in a stand up fight, but understand & want to influence our inability to stomach a long war."

& that was after only about 7 minutes....

At about that point I shut it off as I realized that shouting obscenities at an earless tv was probably counter productive to maintaining my employment.

9/10/2006 10:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sometimes I feel
Like my mind will explode
Sometimes I feel
Like I've got no control
Sometimes I wish
I had a heart made of steel
Sometimes I wish
I couldn't feel

Information overload

They say the's on a microchip
Don't you know we're all on a sinking ship
Only ten percent control all the rest
Only ten percent decide what is best

Information overload

I don't want to live like this

Still ain't no cure for the summertime blues
I'd like to shake these blues but I'm still paying dues
My blues so deep you might think they're black
My blues so deep there ain't no turning back

Information overload...
Living Color

9/10/2006 11:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Time's up/the rivers have no life
Time's up/the world is full of strife
Time's up/the sky is falling
Time's up/the Lord is calling

How you gonna stop the clock
When the well runs dry
All the rivers have died
Moment by moment, day by day
The world is just slipping away
Your future won't save your past
The time is now, it won't last

The time is nigh
Time to do-or-die

Time waits for no one
If you want to go on
Leave me something to grow on
The forests, the trees, the rivers, the seas
All die of this disease

Time ain't on your side
Don't sit idly by
You've just got to try

9/10/2006 11:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Biologists have uncovered a deep link between life span and cancer in the form of a gene that switches off stem cells as a person ages.

The critical gene, well known for its role in suppressing tumors, seems to mediate a profound balance between life and death. It weighs the generation of new replacement cells, required for continued life, against the risk of death from cancer, which is the inevitable outcome of letting cells divide.

To offset the increasing risk of cancer as a person ages, the gene gradually reduces the ability of stem cells to proliferate."


"The finding suggests that many degenerative diseases of aging are caused by an active shutting down of the stem cells that renew the body’s various tissues and are not just a passive disintegration of tissues under daily wear and tear. “I don’t think aging is a random process — it’s a program, an anticancer program,” said Dr. Norman E. Sharpless of the University of North Carolina, senior author of one of the three reports."


"The gene in the finding has the unmemorable name of p16-Ink4a. It plays a central role in the body’s defenses against cancer, and it produces two quite different proteins that interact with the two principal systems for deciding whether a cell will be allowed to divide.

One of the proteins had also been noted to increase substantially with age. The cells of a 70-year-old produce 10 times as much of the Ink4 protein as those of a 20-year-old, Dr. Sharpless said."


"The researchers assume, but have not yet proved, that the increasing amounts of Ink4 as a person ages will thrust the stem cells into senescence, meaning that they can never divide again. The evolutionary purpose is evidently to avert the risk that a damaged stem cell might evade controls and proliferate into a tumor.

One implication is that therapists who hope to increase longevity have to tackle a system that may be hard to cheat. An intervention that reduces Ink4 production to prevent the age-related decline of stem cells will also increase the risk of cancer.

“There is no free lunch,’’ Dr. Sharpless said. “We are all doomed.” "

9/10/2006 11:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What do you want?"


"You won't get it."

"By hook or by crook we will."

9/10/2006 11:30:00 PM  
Blogger jules said...


When I say get over 911 I am referring to exactly this:

"9/11 is a whirlpool traveling downstream with us in the North American stream of consciousness. It is an attractor that continues to demand our attention while the PTB feeds the process by trying frantically to massage our perception of it."

This event is an attractor on a grand scale, it co-opts everything and is not that big a deal compared to events like katrina and ALL the consequences and implications of what happened in the Gulf last year.

I dunno the official figures, but if you count the uncounted (ie homeless people, illegal aliens and the like) probably more people died as a result of Katrina.

Back in 01 and 02 I met so many young Australians who if they didn't think the US was in on it (about 50% did), thought that the US had it coming. As a natural consequnce of their treatment of arabs, especially since the end of the cold war. (Think Osama as a pissed of ex asset in this context).

Compared to them the number I met that brought the official story was low. Less than 50%.

The time for action was then on 911. its too late now, cos most of those people have lost that worldview with the passage of time and the conditioning of MSM.

here my personal POV on the issue.

I am a volunteer bush firefighter with 10 years experience. If I was in NY that day I would have offered my help immediately. Thats something Australians, get in get their hands dirty and help, its easily exploited as bushco know.

So all those fireys that died... I can sympathise with them and their families far more than any yuppies at work in an office. or even the blue collar workers who would have been there and died.

If the 911 event was a scam then it should be busted and people responsible (legally how will you define that, it'll have to be a conspiracy charge for the highest placed people, cos they would not have got their hands dirty organising it.) And I think that it was a con, that the us government and admin of the time had members who knew and did nothing at the least, but probably were actively involved.

But again what was Clinton impeached for?

Lying to congress.

WMDs anyone.

The reason I am saying this is simply this; it is easier to charge people who have lost power with other crimes than it is to get them at the height of their power.

The 911 event is so clouded in the psychic emotional equivalent of the crap in the air at NY that day that making anything stick is going to be incredibly difficult, especially in the current climate.

it would be easier to get some justice for that event if those who were responsible, and lets face it we are assuming that the neocons are the main group responsible (well I am), and that makes sense as far as the 911 memepool goes. If the main group responsible were already under a cloud and facing legal sanction for their other more easily proved crimes.

heres a firefighter metaphor:

While we are running around trying to black out the remnants of that fire, its has spotted, jumped the control lines and is burning on a new front behind us, threatening to cut us off from safety and burn us as well.

There is one log glowing red and we have put 400 litres of water onto it, while the blaze behind us grows. If we had put that fire out when it first spotted over our control lines, it would have been out and the situation stabilised, but because we had our focus on the log, we got burned.

The log provides no immediate threat, but the front behind us does. We should deal with it and make sure the log is blacked out afterward when we have the time.

but thats just my opinion.

If you succeed in making the idea public consensus reality, and then succeed in getting an appropriate response (ie conviction of those responsible) I will happily say how I misread the situation.

911 is one of a list of crimes that is pages long. I think the current us amin should answer for these crimes, all of them, but choosing the biggest, most attension gathering one may not be the same as choosing the easiet one to begin a legal process with. And may drain you of you energy for no result.

9/11/2006 12:17:00 AM  
Blogger jules said...

Jules/Shrub wrote:

>>"I often wonder about the 911 stuff. Obviously the buildings were demolished, but so what..."

Needs no comment.<<

But you put one up anyway dickhead.

I wrote that not shrub, but you don't need to care about that. We are obviously not "with you" so....

One of the things I wonder about it is this. Why my friend D... dreamed of airplanes in the sky, nothing else, for the three days beforehand. Why the Princeton GCP went strange that day. Why the smoke had so many demonic faces in it. Why so many people I know dreamed about being there sometimes 20 years before it happened. What about windings?

Quite frankly sometimes the 911 movement seems like something people can spend their time and energy on so they don't have to get off their arse and be involved in effectively changing and taking back control of their republic.

Like some magical piece of information will appear and they can wave it like Saurons ring or something and everything will be ok again. If the WTC was demolished, and it probably was, who set the charges?

Who authorised the setting of the charges? Who supplied the explosives? Who placed them?

These are questions that will bring a result.

But what if the twin towqers weren't? What if they just fell? What about if they were supposed to have a certain standard of strength and didn't cos the builders wanted a few more bucks?

Like the fireys said in "In Plane Sight" It was like the buildings were demolished floor by floor.

but since when is that how controlled demolitions happen? Maybe it is I dunno.

Dan you said you worked in construction. And you think its impossible that the towers fell the way they did. Why?

Why is it impossible that the top floors were damaged, couldn't hold themselves up and collapsed downward hitting the floors below them, as each of these floors struggled to bear the weight they collapsed and dropped too, adding more weight to the mass that was descending?

The computer simulation is a great idea, because it could eliminate false trails.

(OK building 7 to me looks like a collapse from controlled demolition, but it also looks different to the wat the twin towers fell. Why. 7 looks like a typical collapse from CD.

but the twin towers look like a piano accordian beng squeezed?

Why the difference.

I am completely ignorant of this and would appreciate any enlightenment.

One further question to anyone.

Do you think it was pretty lucky that when the towers fell Atta, or someone else (i first heard it was atta's passport, then someone else) had their passport land in the rubble somewhere easy to find.

It certainly helped ID the hijackers, or place that meme of IDentity into the public mind.

9/11/2006 12:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of Mr. Atta.....

Sunday, September 10, 2006

DELRAY BEACH — On July 5, 2001, a Delray Beach police officer pulled over a motorist for speeding. He let the man go with a warning. The pre-printed caution on it read in part: "Take a minute and consider how your careless driving affects the people you share these streets with and try to help make our streets a safer place to be." Nine weeks later, the motorist, Mohamed Atta, helped pilot American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

For South Florida, the horror of Sept. 11 was compounded by the realization that at least 15 of the 19 hijackers were at one point living in the region — 12 of them in Palm Beach County.
But we know little more than that.

The federal government has told what it learned about the movements of the 19 hijackers in Hamburg, Germany; in San Diego; and in Maine. But not what they were doing here.

Terrorists rented apartments and hotel rooms, opened bank accounts, rented cars. Several had arrest warrants for traffic violations. They took flying lessons in at least six Florida cities. They took in naked lap dancers, intimidated hotel maids, gave waitresses lousy tips and argued with bar managers. They went on the Internet in a city library. And one quizzed a pharmacist about how to relieve mysteriously irritated hands.

But people who were interviewed when FBI agents swarmed across South Florida in the days following the attacks said in recent weeks that, if the investigation is ongoing, it's news to them. They said no one has contacted them since a few weeks after the attacks.

The exception: Willie Lee, manager of a crop-dusting outfit in Belle Glade that authorities said Atta checked out. He said investigators contacted him about eight months ago.

"They wanted to know if I'd noticed anything or seen anything suspicious," Lee said. "I haven't seen nothing."

The U.S. Justice Department, parent agency of the FBI, has rejected three separate attempts by The Palm Beach Post to obtain documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act — in October 2001, November 2004 and May 2006. An appeal of the 2001 rejection was denied; the appeal of the 2006 rejection is pending.

Justice was not the only federal agency queried. Wanting to cover all possibilities, The Post submitted requests to more than 75 entities, from Amtrak to the Peace Corps to the State Department.

Many took months or even years to process inquiries — one responded to an October 2001 request in July of this year — often blaming delays on disruption of mail service because of the anthrax attacks. The majority of agencies released a few pages, nearly all of them already public, including news clippings, or said they had no documents related to the investigation, or said they'd turned over what they did have to Justice.

Justice, in denying the requests, said documents are part of an ongoing investigation.

9/11/2006 01:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, with regard to Mountain Cascades, have you ever heard of Flowforms?

9/11/2006 01:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone already mentioned Philip K. Dick's Man in the High Castle, as an example of consciousness creating (or altering) reality?

9/11/2006 01:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it isn't that the makers don't have heart, it's that they're sloppy. thank god they dropped the 'pod' bullshit from the 2nd edition.

jon is a trashmouth troll...

and if black is white, and white is black, the pod issue visible from four different camera angles at least, in In Plane Site basically proves planes substitution in WTC2's hit.

And that means a U.S. military plane hit the WTC2.

The little flash upon entry of WTC2 is like

the little flash upon entry in WTC1 as well, which basically shows substitution of the plane there as well.

What is particuarly interesting is the Fox News anchor (of all things, thanks!) who reports that he witnesses the WTC2 hit from very closeby on the ground. He is interviewed live by his likely Anderson Cooper-like buddies down at the studio where they program (or actually create) the mass mind. And since this bit of information about the reality of 9-11 fails to fit that studio programming agenda at Fox, this was ignored.

This is a direct quote about the WTC2 hit from In Plane Site:

What did the UA175 substitute look like as it crashed into WTC2 with its little glaring pod housing, firing something into the face of WTC2, a direct kiss from the U.S. mlitary? It looked like a cargo plane, or U.S. military refueling plane:

Fox News reporter Mark Burnback, on live transmission was interviewed immediately after WTC2 hit. This was only played once by Fox News and then it went into the memory hole. The quotes are direct quotations from the witness/broadcast:

Burnback describes a "blue logo, circular logo toward the front" on the plane that hit WTC2.

He continues that it "definitely did not look like a commercial plane; I didn't see any windows on the plane."

His studio buddies sort of slowly commented, "(pause). Well, Mark, if what you say is true, these could be cargo planes,..."

Separate from Mark Burnback's witness statement, there are other corproate media heads who both witnessed planes circling around waiting for something--and even started to replay their own footage from 15 minutes before to share their information. This strategy was soon dropped.

The plane videos that other networks rebroadcast from their footage from the window between 8:46 to 9:02 (between WTC1 hit and WTC2 hit) is what they are commenting upon and replying directly after the WTC2 hits, only minutes afterward.

Mark Burnback's "blue logo, circular logo toward the front" is pretty much what these other network anchors were showing America circling around NYC like a shark between the WTC1 and WTC2 hit.

The hypothesis here is that one of these plane substitutes was waiting around NYC airspace until the right moment. That right moment would be when the actual WTC2 plane "loses its transponder" and thus no one could identty its call sign anymore (though they could still read the blank radar blip) which would allow for this substitution with the "blue logo, circular logo toward the front" plane that other network heads noted was circling around NYC between WTC1 hit and WTC2 hit.

It's like watching a parallel universe seeing this footage of corporate media talking animatedly about all these other waiting planes going back and forth in NYC airspace after the first WTC1 hit though before the WTC2 hit. And it really brings out how clearly TV information can so readily sculpt the mass mind, with a few judicious clips like this left on the cutting room floor--as became the policy afterwards.

And when you pick up all these cuttings from the floor, and put them back in, it shows why the "criminals that be" (instead of 'PTB', powers that be; just call it CTB) are so terrified and angry at the filmmakers of In Plane Site and Loose Change. The criminal programmers of the mass mind that have all this tech stuff who have enjoyed 50 yeears of consolidated TV lies to create a TV based culture, are having their TV based U.S. culture taken away from them by more honest reporting and by how readily such once incredibly expensive capacities are being developed by the grassroots instead.

The historically fascist television industry--invented and elaborated in well maintained technologcial asymmetry--is over for video reportage. After all, remember it was Hitler that started mass video broadcasts...and that the Mockingbird people were all Army Intelligence and spooks who basically were the CEOs of all networks in the United States when they started up after WWII.

Back to the data, personally I think we are witnessing one of the "Mark Burnback" military cargo refueling planes, planes waiting in the wings for its blaze of infamous gory glory, though someone else has other ideas at this link here. There was a third plane there at the WTCs circling around that this article comments upon, though it seems that there was a fourth plane at the WTCs as well--a backup plane. If I was doing this, I'd want a backup plane, wouldn't you? There is no "second chance" in this throughout the day of 9-11, and a lot of loose capacities and redundant planes were likely waiting arond everywhere.

Anyway, the clencher is that colorations noted by Burnback are indeed the colorations noted in these other films as well....

Watch these other videos here of the "blue logo, circular logo toward the front" Burnback plane that seems to be visible here among other video from the 8:46 to 9:02 window of 'waiting' that other filmmakers caught on tape.

Title: The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third (& Fourth) Jet in the WTC Attacks
Author: 9/11 Scholars for Truth, get crackin
Date: 2006.07.13 01:28
Description: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth has been appalled to learn that the author of this study has received threats against himself and his family for having written this article [and made watching four videos of the third plane, totalling around 2:10 min, conveniently available in a single article's links. I have seen many still photos of this third plane, though these are the first videos I have seen documenting it.]" "The source of these threats has suggested that he drop out of our organization and that this study should "go away". He has withdrawn from S9/11T, but this piece of research cannot "go away". It has already been widely read and no doubt copied. Under the circumstances, it would be a huge mistake to allow this organization and its journal to be manipulated by external threats.

Since the author has nothing to do with our decision to keep it in place, responsibility shifts to the organization. We hope others will pursue its leads."


When the stoic strategies of indifference and ignoring are tossed out the window toward active threats, particularly threats on little kids, you can bet that this is really important. I have one main thing to add to this article. I made an observation in one of these linked videos, and added some bracketed [comments] that it shows MORE THAN A THIRD PLANE, it shows actually a THIRD AND THEN SECONDS LATER A FOURTH PLANE (which the videographer tracks on both occassions, how did that guy miss this in wroting this?) going by in the distance even as the WTC2 is struck at 9:02 a.m., in the video marked with a ***. I don't see how the original author missed that in that video.

And by the troll attacks and the fact that the original author of this article was physically threatened soon after he put it out, and his kids were threatened shows its pretty real and important here.

Even more goes with this.

Other photographic evidences shows that the cargo/refueling plane fits well, because like these planes, the plane that smacked into the WTC2 had offset (non parallel) engines on its wings. Without getting into detail, on huge 757-based refueling planes, the engines are not "straight"--one is further forward than the other which I guess has something to do with fuel boom housing and the off-side weight issue of such refueling operations.

Third, another major factor tying HOW to WHO is that Dov Zakheim guy who announces that "several trillions have been stolen from the Pentagon, shockingly sorry, I'm off to my next job~without investigating."

Zakheim is inserted into the Pentagon right before 9-11, in May 2001, and "dis-inserted" back out afterwards in 2004...

Title: 9-11: UAL175 WTC2 substitute plane technology SUSPECT--fits who has the Boeing substitute capacity,too!
Date: 2004.08.03 01:19
Description: DOV ZAKHEIM: It's his multiple connections--to

[1] the main member writing for the Project for the New American Century, to

[2] his earlier 1993 investigation whitewash of the WTC attacks then--fascinating eh?, to

[3] his direct connections to retrofitted Boeing tanker leasing and to other interesting details for the U.S. government that he is directly tied to in the past

[4] he's additionally connected in the past personally with the drone plane monitoring and controlling at a distance technology--along with the plane self-destructing technologies, to

[5] his Pentagon job positioning right beore 9-11: Dov Zakheim, Comptroller of Pentagon, appointed May '01; and from which he subsequently leaves later after 9-11---all of that is the interest here. I think that was about the period when the Enron Executive Mr. White was "inserted" as well into Iraq war planning, then left soon after it was started up, in 2003.

Like so much if you follow out the 'state terror' thesis, it all fits depressingly well.

Dov had the Boeing substitutes.

Dov had the Flight Termination System as well.

Dov was intimately involved in covering up the 1993 WTC attack by the FBI. He's compromised and "eternally in the loop" on this operation after that.

Follow back to human networks from the materials involved and you have your people.

Who else would have substitutable retrofittable Boeings available for 9-11 unless it was the U.S. miliary?

'His' company Systems Planning Corporation (SPC) interestingly enough is the private core of FEMA. FEMA is a government shell that subs out almost everything to SBC/Tri-Data. Tri-Data was connected to the 1993 WTC terror attack 'investigation'--the investigation of which was of course a whitewash because it ignored that the FBI actually provided the live bombs to their patsy mark in this first attempt to take down the towers and launch a global police state...that kind of went flat merely one month into Bush proxy Clinton's first term.

By 2001, they were desperate to take it down, and this next attempt, which succeeded was far more detailed in its organization and cover story.

To look at such information described above and particuarly about the pod, BUSH'S OVAL OFFICE directly 'WEB-VISITS' LETSROLL911.COM IN LATE JULY 2004!~ to look at this information....likely to see how actually transparent are the Shrub-emperor's new clothes. Soon after I can picture Rove getting on the horn to Disney/ABC to work on a plan to rewire the public mind once more to suit the war criminals and terrorists holed up in the White House spewing lies every time they open their mouth.

Thus as someone said above, this HOW issue certainly leads to a WHO issue quickly.

He's probabaly Sabbatean instead of "Jewish" by the way, though that's another story better left to Barry Chamish's books for you to read about or "real Rabbi" who wrote the two volume parapolitical history of the Sabbateans called "To Elimiate the Opiate."

9/11/2006 03:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The hole that was less than 1/2 of the diameter of the fusilage of what is purported to have made and travelled through it isn't contentious. The object that made it without leaving some serious chunks of itself lying on the front lawn of the Pentagon is...hmmm?

Or steel beams and girders being weakened or somehow incredibly melted by burning jet fuel when the heat generated couldn't even begin to compare with what is constantly produced inside the combustion chambers of any ordinary cast iron car engine block which can certainly crack or break from the pessure of the EXPLOSIONS INSIDE OF IT but is certainly never in any danger of weakening, melting or suddenly falling to bits simply because of the very intense heat they continuously give off...hmmm?

Now raging infernos have burned out of control for days on end inside any number of steel skyscrapers of quite a similar design but absolutely NONE of them has ever fallen because of it.

Some have even been hit by massive earthquakes which have bent or twisted them completely out of shape, but once again, NONE of those has ever fallen because of that.

In the case of the WTC we have two of the largest skyscrapers ever built that just totally disintigrated. Each in a mere matter of seconds. Not only that, but without the slightest warning or indication of the huge stresses that would have had to be building up to achieve such overwhelming proportions!

Yet there want't even a creak or a groan... no shreiking and rending of steel or popping of girders or glass here and there beforehand; no teetering, no buckling or bending or shaking of any kind before they simply "went"...hmmm? Just an enormous "poof" and one after the other they completely and uniformly dissolved. Instantly disintigrated into monstrous heaps of nice little bite-sized pieces from top to bottom.

Now nothing of that size and composition ever "just simply goes to pieces" like that in a matter of seconds, at least not from any fire and not even from any earthquake. Blown to bits yes, otherwise no.

Now these things should be patently obvious to anyone who paid even the least bit of attention to their high school physics and chemistry classes.

There is nothing "anomalous" or even remotely contentious about "what" actually happened at either the Pentagon or the WTC.

We have quite literally hundreds of practical examples that are more than match for both of those situations.

Opposing those particular facts without any reasonable or even plausible explanation that can support such a position is hardly contentous.

It's either unconscionable stupidity or an equally unconscionable effort to try and decieve and distract by those who had some hand in it.

"What happened" has perfectly reasonable explanations. Who did it and why, however, has far too great a chance of being discovered if any of those rational explanations are acknowledged and properly investigated.

9/11/2006 03:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think for me, I am still skeptical about the idea of controlled demolition and I don't think it's at all necessary to believe that Bush caused 9/11 in order to oppose the Bush *response to* 9/11.

I don't have a problem believing that Team Bush are evil enough to have planned such a Reichstag Fire. I do sort of have a problem with believing that they are smart enough to have pulled off such a supposedly brilliantly coordinated and flawlessly executed plan without a hitch. They certainly haven't demonstrated anywhere near that level of competence in the five years since. Afghanistan, they stuffed that up. Iraq, spectacularly stuffed up. NOLA, complete and utter chaos. The administration, the party, and all departments from State to Defense to Homeland Security to CIA have been leaking like sieves with a steady stream of disgruntled defectors going public with their concerns for the last five years - no sign of a flawless media-control strategy there. Yet a plan of Byzantine proportions, involving coordination between multiple Federal agencies and private parties, over a period of months to years in order to install covert explosive charges in a 24/7 occupied building - an absolutely mind-numbing undertaking never before conceived of *anywhere* in history - was not only carried out without a hitch by these Bozos, but buried in utter secrecy five years later, with not a whiff of any inside protest despite the white-hot storm of protest from all sorts of former Bush men who've broken ranks. Yeah, I buy that.

No, not really, sorry. It just seems to be ascribing too much *togertherness* to Team Bush. And they don't strike me as those kind of people. They seem to be good 51 percent guys: you don't need to get 100% of the population on board, just 51% and finesse those last few digits like hell, and then run like a madman for the goalpost leaving as much damage in your wake as you have to, trusting to sheer momentum to keep you alive. Their every act so far has been not quiet, stealthy, careful triply-planned assassin stuff, but loud, brash, gung-ho in-your-face Big Lie tactics. Lie, shout, scream, cheat, do whatever you have to do to get that 51%. Then let the 49% hate you as much as they like. They simply DON'T CARE that much about hiding their tracks for me to believe that it was their team that did 9/11, instead of just jumping all over a golden opportunity that literally fell from the sky. At least that's how it seems to me.

I agree, it's absolutely unprecedented that a skyscraper anywhere should collapse from a plane hitting it. It boggled me at the time and still does. The Empire State Building took a B-52 in the face and didn't flinch. WTC 1 and 2 were supposedly able to take a 707 - as you'd expect all tall buildings would be designed for, I'd think it's the first thing an architect would expect, it's not like planes are rare - so bottom-line, either the WTC was wired to explode, or there was a *huge* architectural stuffup of mammoth proportions. But see, I don't have much of a problem believing the latter. It *was* a unique, one-of-a-kind building.

And yes, there's lots of mysterious coincidences, like the insider trading, that point to intelligence involvement. But there were also just weird omens around Iraq, like Columbia falling out of the sky, and I've seen no claims that it was an inside job either. Both WTC and Columbia feel omen-ish to me, by which I mean, they seem to be revealing the same truth about the USA: it's far, far more fragile than it appears on the surface.

Whether that fragility is from deliberate sabotage, or just criminal architectural neglect, I'm not sure matters so much to me. Because as I said, you don't have to believe Bush killed the WTC to realise that even from his very first speech, 'we will make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that harbour them', he was declaring his intention to violate the Geneva Conventions and raise a finger to the world. That most of America couldn't see that terrified me at the time. I'm glad people are starting to notice now, but - the badness of the Bush Doctrine remains its own self-evident fact, completely unrelated to whether 9/11 was an inside job or not.

(Since the well-known incestuous relationship between CIA and Al-Quaeda from the Cold War - just watch that good patriotic Reagan era flick Rambo III - means ultimately it's only a matter of degree, not of kind.)

Let's say I basically know Bush to be Bad with 100% faith. I put maybe 25-50% on 9/11 being an inside job. Opposing Bush is what I really want to do. Calling 9/11 a conspiracy gets me one of four things: if it was a conspiracy and I call it one, people trust me a little bit more. If it was a conspiracy and I ignore it, okay, I'm a sheeple, I lose a little bit of trust, but who in the mainstream's going to call me on it, since they all bought that line themselves? If it wasn't a conspiracy and I ignore it, nothing changes, that's the default position. But if it wasn't a conspiracy and I insist on calling it one - people flag me, correctly, as a raving conspiro-maniac, and proceed to *IGNORE ABSOLUTELY-BLOODY-EVERYTHING I HAVE EVER SAID*. Big loss there, really. And since none of these have anything to do with what I really want to do - oppose Bush - which I can already do with 100% certainty, I don't see anything to gain from following the conspiracy line - I don't see it leading much of anywhere. Bush is still scary-bad-wrong whether or not he was just that bit extra scary-bad to push the trigger himself.

But, ennh. That's because I, personally, still only give it 25-50% on being prewired for explosives, and that's in large part because I can't for the life of me figure out how they could have got into every floor and laid huge, powerful, demolition sized charges on every single core column, *covertly*. While both towers were in use. Yes, they shut down *half* of the second tower, not all of it, and that was just a power outage. How'd they do the first tower?

I have never seen anyone comment on this issue, and I have never seen *any* suggestions on any covert operation, anywhere, successfully pulling off or even planning a covert demolition of even a moderately sized office block. Granted I have no military or demolitions training, but all the demolitions I've heard of have been either way civilian, taking weeks to prepare, hugely advertised, or military sneak-in, blow shit up, run like hell kind of loud, noisy operations. Not this hugely complex. Not this clean.

I am prepared to be corrected IF someone can point me to any case, anywhere, where a covert, floor-by-floor demolition like this was carried out in a functioning office block with zero suspicion while the charges were installed. I'm way curious as to how one would actually go about setting and wiring charges. This is not your basic WTC '93 or Oklohoma '95 truck-bomb in the basement. This is several orders of magnitude bigger. They'd have to be military equipment, surely, radio-controlled, because how'd you hide the wires? But radio doesn't do well with lots of concrete. And don't explosives degrade over time, so you couldn't do it years in advance. And the risk, good lord, the risk! Even a single cable out of place being spotted by any of ten thousand people! Even PNAC don't have enough billions to buy off that many people, even if they ran the security.

Like I said, point me to a case study of a comparable operation. Please.

9/11/2006 04:42:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

I'm not watching the "Hardening of a Timeline" but it's there and I feel it. The 5th anniversary has all ducks in a row and if you think we have had any effect by debating the issues other than being a bump in the road or a dot that didn't make it to the "line" you must have been in the building when it came down.

It doesn't matter who controls the press or what truth is distorted. The only thing that matters is the timeline. As the path is straight and the gathering of light is narrowed, we lose gravity "and we all fall down".


9/11/2006 08:59:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

It's 9ll on 911.

Only 911 to go..

9/11/2006 09:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes to silverfox on:

Now these things should be patently obvious to anyone who paid even the least bit of attention to their high school physics and chemistry classes. There is nothing "anomalous" or even remotely contentious about "what" actually happened at either the Pentagon or the WTC. We have quite literally hundreds of practical examples that are more than match for both of those situations. Opposing those particular facts without any reasonable or even plausible explanation that can support such a position is hardly contentous. It's either unconscionable stupidity or an equally unconscionable effort to try and decieve and distract by those who had some hand in it. "What happened" has perfectly reasonable explanations. Who did it and why, however, has far too great a chance of being discovered if any of those rational explanations are acknowledged and properly investigated.

I suggest that the "Nates" of the world stop being so lazy and look at evidence first, and perhaps look deep in the mirror at their own denials--and read that quote once more. It's fascinating how the Nate's of the world 'arrive' (perhaps that's not the right word) at conclusions first and then demands to be contradicted on a cherrypicked issue, otherwise his conclusions hold he says.

That's not research. That not even tenable way to explore the world. It's called being teleological. It's certainly not rigorous. Don't start with conclusions. That's what Bush does, then he makes up information to fit it just like you want.

There's so many logial fallicies in Nate's little speech that I'll let Stephen take care of it.

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

The point of an argument is to give reasons in support of some conclusion. An argument commits a fallacy when the reasons offered do not support the conclusion. These pages describe the known logical fallacies....

9/11/2006 09:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jules wrote:

"If you succeed in making the idea public consensus reality, and then succeed in getting an appropriate response (ie conviction of those responsible) I will happily say how I misread the situation."

Your argument is a bit abstract and cartesian. I am not sure the process can be cut up in to distinct elements like that. Also, I think that the "getting justice" desire is excessivly goal-oriented.

I am thinking more in terms of gradients than of specific signposts. 9/11 has passed in to the realm of the mythic but it is the central icon of the ongoing dog and pony show. That show is the problem. Keeping the fear factor high so people will be willing to spend money we don't have on weapons instead of aid and environmental restoration--this is the ongoing problem.

Anything which undermines the power of that icon to induce a state of mindless subservience to power is a step in the right direction. It not only diminishes the power of their PR, but it reduces the efficacy of future distractions. There will be few signposts or events that seem indicative of success and they many not relate to 9/11 in any overt way. Simply helping someone adopt a more skeptical attitude toward propaganda is all the result I ask.

Whether we adapt to the looming environmental challenges in an intelligent and compassionate manner or whether we descend into distopian brutality is the big question. The extent to which the 9/11 flag is still flown over the war drums is the extent to which I will focus on undermining the power of the icon. It is a very limited goal.

It seems entirly possible to me that at some point in the future a saturation point will be reached and large numbers of people will wake up and throw off the chains of the warmongers. And the process might be helped along by laying a groundwork of skepticism, one person at a time.

One of the meanings of 9/11 is its ongo present-time application in the hypnotizing process. If that spell is broken it could have an effect on the Diebold spell, and vice versa. They might ripple in to the flouride spell, the ritalin spell, and the Disney spell.

"911 is one of a list of crimes that is pages long. I think the current us amin should answer for these crimes, all of them, but choosing the biggest, most attension gathering one may not be the same as choosing the easiet one to begin a legal process with. And may drain you of you energy for no result."

This is certainly true. Anything that will stick...

9/11/2006 10:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Well said, and I agree with you, on almost everything. In fact, you elaborated my initial sentiments that started this whole cascade of viscious reproach from the Anonys who must have their some must have their Wheaties.

The only part I don't agree with you on is pinning the blame entirely on The Neocons. The Neocons are but one glove of an, for all practical purposes, invisible hand.

This is why I blow smoke out of my ears when these 911 Truth Evangelists spout "Bush Did It!!!" Yeah, so all we have to do is remove Bush and his cronies from office and replace them with the benevolent Democrats, and all will be well again in The Land of Oz. As if!

There is no going back....because there never was a was always an illusion....and an ephemeral one, at that.

911 Truth is like Quicksand. It's time to create our own realities and let "them" argue about it Ad infinitum.

9/11/2006 10:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I refuse to look at any of the propaganda about 911 today, whther it be from the Truth Movement, or from the MSM and The Official Story.

I will not play into their hands by arguing the specifics of this reality they have created. I will not partake in the sentimental ceremony propagated by the MSM.

I highly suggest you all do the same. Don't give 911 the Status they intended. Don't be unwitting dupes. Realize you are being manipulated, and say NO.

9/11/2006 10:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jules wrote:

"Dan you said you worked in construction. And you think its impossible that the towers fell the way they did. Why?"

This was purely intuitive/emotional and based in no knowledge of engineering. My point was that I was drawn to specific arguments through avenues of familiarity.

I would have thought that the asymmetry of the damage would have led to asymmetrical collapse. In the case of WTC7 it was beyond belief.

9/11/2006 10:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounder wrote:

"Is your sculpture to have water, or is it to be placed in a garden?"

Yes and yes, thank you. It is a cobwebsite but all I got and it distinuishes me from the other Dan.

Anonymous 1:39 said:

"...have you ever heard of Flowforms?"

No. Really cool stuff! Thanks.

9/11/2006 11:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, c'mon. Obviously the three buildings fell because the iron workers forgot to bolt the girders together. Happens all the time.

9/11/2006 11:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Writes James Wolcott:

"Even if The Path to 9/11 were politically pure, its raison d’etre would be suspect. How many times and how many ways must the adrenaline be pumped, the tragedy replayed, and the suffering exploited? The fall of the towers has become a ritual fetish, an annual haunting, that doesn’t exorcise fear, but replenishes it.

"What has changed, grotesquely, is the aftershock," Simon Jenkins writes in The Guardian, delivering a splash of cold reality. "Terrorism is 10% bang and 90% an echo effect composed of media hysteria, political overkill and kneejerk executive action, usually retribution against some wider group treated as collectively responsible. This response has become 24-hour, seven-day-a-week amplification by the new politico-media complex, especially shrill where the dead are white people. It is this that puts global terror into the bang. While we take ever more extravagant steps to ward off the bangs, we do the opposite with the terrorist aftershock. We turn up its volume. We seem to wallow in fear."

9/11/2006 11:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That Wolcott quote is classic disinfo. There is a shred of thruth in it....but it is pure misdirection. It lists severable variables and a constant from the "real" equation, yet purposefully mixes in several other unrelated variables and constants to create an entirely new equation.

9/11/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, anon3:53--are you new here? if so, butt the hell out of my conversation with the other anony.

if it *is* you who i've been talking to all along, haven't you been slamming jeff (et al.) for not keeping an open mind to all of your long, sleep-inducing posts? well, then, mofo, did you read the link i provided that critiqued, point-by-point, Loose Change's 2nd ed.?

(here it is again, just in case: )

if you go into a conversation with some knowledgeable hack who supports the official version of events using *only* Loose Change, you're going to get your ass handed to you. i'll say it again:






9/11/2006 12:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jon is still the trashmouth troll. If 'he' is not a troll, he is doing a great impression of Ruppert. You're not a very convincing personae, adopt another one.

9/11/2006 12:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ongoing manifestations of insanity that lie at the very heart of our collective experience have always made up the largest part of our human history.

If that history were but a single clinical case the diagnosis would unequivocably be chronic paranoid delusions coupled with a pathological propensity to commit murder and acts of exteme violence and cruelty against any of it's percieved "enemies" - i.e. it's own unconsciousness projected outwards.

In short, criminally insane, with only brief intervals of lucidity.

Once you become aware of that, what is ostensibly possible or even predictable and what is not no longer has any power to remain hidden or simply shock you senseless.

That collective dysfunction isn't just plainly visible in what humans can and do do to one another in virtually all walks of life but also in the unprecedented violence that is steadily being inflicted on other life forms and the very planet itself... the deliberate destruction of oxygen producing forests and other plant and animal life; the ill treatment of animals in factory farms; and the willfull poisoning of rivers, oceans and the very air we all depend on to sustain us.

A completely self-induced ignorance and denial of the whole that can only lead to our utter destruction.

Now fear, greed, and the desire for power can always be seen as the motivating factors but the actual dysfunction that has allowed them to completely dominate and now actually threaten our very existence can only come from a collective delusion that exists in every human mind.

It is not enough to simply try and become a good or better human being, as commendable as that may sound.

That is merely an extension of the same basic dysfunction... merely a rarified form of self-enhancement or the same unchecked desire and wishfull thinking for "more", yet another further strengthening of our conceptual identity, our self-image as separate and distinct from all the others.

That is exactly what has brought us to this turning point.

Now we can never become good by trying to be good. We can only allow that which is already good within us to freely and spontaneously emerge without constantly interfering and compromising it ourselves.

That can only happen if something fundamental changes in our state of consciousness.

Not the part of our mind that does all the thinking but the part that is actually "aware" of that thinking taking place and remains that way even when it isn't. It is also where all intuition comes from.

Learning to trust and believe in that very real faculty and allowing ourselves to sense what our ego will never admit is the only road left for us to travel.

That which is "aware" within, not an ego that is only aware of without is the actual source of who and what we genuinely are and destined to be.

The future demands that we not only understand our past...we have to let it go.

9/11/2006 01:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ongoing manifestations of insanity that lie at the very heart of our collective experience have always made up the largest part of our human history.

If that history were but a single clinical case the diagnosis would unequivocably be chronic paranoid delusions coupled with a pathological propensity to commit murder and acts of exteme violence and cruelty against any of it's percieved "enemies" - i.e. it's own unconsciousness projected outwards.

In short, criminally insane, with only brief intervals of lucidity.

Once you become aware of that, what is ostensibly possible or even predictable and what is not no longer has any power to remain hidden or simply shock you senseless.

That collective dysfunction isn't just plainly visible in what humans can and do do to one another in virtually all walks of life but also in the unprecedented violence that is steadily being inflicted on other life forms and the very planet itself... the deliberate destruction of oxygen producing forests and other plant and animal life; the ill treatment of animals in factory farms; and the willfull poisoning of rivers, oceans and the very air we all depend on to sustain us.

A completely self-induced ignorance and denial of the whole that can only lead to our utter destruction.

Now fear, greed, and the desire for power can always be seen as the motivating factors but the actual dysfunction that has allowed them to completely dominate and now actually threaten our very existence can only come from a collective delusion that exists in every human mind.

It is not enough to simply try and become a good or better human being, as commendable as that may sound.

That is merely an extension of the same basic dysfunction... merely a rarified form of self-enhancement or the same unchecked desire and wishfull thinking for "more", yet another further strengthening of our conceptual identity, our self-image as separate and distinct from all the others.

That is exactly what has brought us to this turning point.

Now we can never become good by trying to be good. We can only allow that which is already good within us to freely and spontaneously emerge without constantly interfering and compromising it ourselves.

That can only happen if something fundamental changes in our state of consciousness.

Not the part of our mind that does all the thinking but the part that is actually "aware" of that thinking taking place and remains that way even when it isn't. It is also where all intuition comes from.

Learning to trust and believe in that very real faculty and allowing ourselves to sense what our ego will never admit is the only road left for us to travel.

That which is "aware" within, not an ego that is only aware of without is the actual source of who and what we genuinely are and destined to be.

The future demands that we not only understand our past...we have to let it go.

9/11/2006 01:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The impression I'm left with by all this seemingly unresolvable 9/11 debate is that the most fruitful place to start might be by considering 9/11 as a ritual -- a deliberate exercise in shock-and-awe intended to influence large numbers of people, render them more susceptible to further manipulations, and remain available for invocation on later occasions to summon that same pattern of conditioned behavior.

I understand that some people here are primarily concerned with winning over supporters for an anti-Bush or anti-Neocon movement -- and are arguing about whether 9/11 conspiracy theories help or hinder such a project -- but I'm interested in something entirely different.

As I've said here recently in several different ways, when you can't arrive at truth through analysis of the facts -- because the facts are withheld or compromised -- the best option is to work through analysis of patterns. And the ritual nature of 9/11 is a huge, highly stylized pattern that is inevitably going to display the watermark of whoever conceived and executed it, if we can only read it correctly.

I'm far from an expert on the psychology of ritual -- though I may pull a few books off the shelves and start looking for correlations -- but a number of fairly obvious questions come to mind:

1) Before the event, was there some sort of psychological preparation of the population? Was Bush's extended August vacation part of a deliberate lulling? Was the timing of the event in early September (very close to when the drumbeat for the Iraq War began in 2002) a deliberate choice to catch people at a susceptible time of the year?

2) Immediately after the event, when did the "reaction" phase end and the "spin" phase begin? What form did it take and who was pitching it? Was the basic narrative all in place from the start or did it evolve over succeeding days? When did al Qaeda start being blamed and when did Osama's name and image become central?

3) This is one of those areas I'm fuzzy on, but I understand that in magical and religious rituals, whatever powers have been invoked have to be dispelled again or Bad Things may happen. Is the (seemingly deliberate) failure to catch Osama a means of keeping the ritual incomplete? Is the apparently endless series of wars we're being asked to embark on in the name of 9/11 (though with less and less connection to the actual event) a sign of this incompleteness? And what happens when a ritual is left open in this way?

4) Finally, though this may be just a minor point, I realized in the last few days that the use of "Ground Zero" to refer to 9/11 was a hijacking of its original meaning, which was in reference to atomic detonations, especially that at Hiroshima. Clearly, for a country which still carries the psychic burden of having been the only nation to use atomic weapons on another -- and which is reputedly considering doing it again -- turning itself ritually from the perpetrator into the victim of "Ground Zero" has been extremely useful.

However, without having a more complete grasp of the overall pattern, it's impossible to tell whether that was a conscious factor in the original plans or merely a convenient by-product. (Though it might be useful to google and find out when the "Ground Zero" phrase began to be used after 9/11 and by whom.)

In short, I can see an enormous amount of analysis that could be done, just on the basis of public records, and very little sign that anyone is yet doing it.

9/11/2006 01:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you introspect you will find that no matter what the contents of your mind, the most basic `I' is something different. Every time you try to observe the `I' it takes a jump back with you, remaining out of sight. At first you may say, `When I look inside as you suggest, all I find is content of one sort or the other.' I reply, `Who is looking? Is it not you? If that ‘I’ is a content can you describe it? Can you observe it?' The core `I' of subjectivity is different from any content because it turns out to be that which witnesses — not that which is observed. The 'I' can be experienced, but it cannot be `seen'. `I' is the observer, the experiencer, prior to all conscious content.

9/11/2006 01:29:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

It's fascinating, in a sickening kind of way, how divided we are (despite how very much everyone writing here is opposed to what's happening in the world), to the point where we're calling each other disinformationists, Bush-supporters, etc, etc. The 9/11 research crowd doesn't understand how the national security state watchdogs think that 9/11 isn't the smokingest gun, while the nss dogs can't fathom why the 9/11'ers confine themselves to the mechanics of how the job was done. Can this situation be unintentional? Is there any way of getting both sides to point their dork swords somewhere more useful?

Here's my suggestion: there is ample evidence that the official story is as make-believe as the rest of the official narrative of the benevolence of America, so why not do something with it? By all means carry on investigating, all you avid truth-seekers, but do please bear in mind Shrubageddon's timely warning, that the more you gaze at Ground Hypnosis, the less you pursue the bigger quest, which is revealing the ugliness behind the wizard's curtain. This is why 70% of the public are still scared by the constant War On vibe: they don't know what the government (well, specifically, those behind the puppet government) are capable of. Perspective, people, perspective.

Of course 9/11 was an inside job! So was every other fucking news story that oozed out from your TV screen in the past fifty years. If you focus so exclusively on the mechanics of 9/11, not only do you leave yourself open to manipulation through the possibilty of bogus evidence and bogus theories, but you also make a tacit assumption that things could be fixed if only the perps were behind bars. The "bars" are part of the problem, too! The rot runs so deep that the whole edifice must come down. (Peacefully, of course. Violence is the problem, not the solution.) Here's what's rotten: the War On Terror, the War On Drugs, the Prison Industry, the War On Education, the War On the Environment, the War On the Poor, the War On Freedom--they're all part of the War On Us. We all know these things, instinctively, intuitively, but the general public still does not. They still carry the live wire around in their jumbled, anxious heads, they still believe the myth because they've never seen anything else.

When Orwell prophesied this nightmare into which we're being led, I doubt he realized he was writing a blueprint for its implementation, but that's just what he did. Know your enemy. Free trade is not free; democracy is not representational. What's good for GM is not good for America. We are enslaved by corporations which control the two-dimensional, fake government and which give the orders to the enforcers: the apparatus of the national security state and the mockingbird media. The earth is not inert; it is dying. Wealth does not need to be created; it needs to be shared. The conflicts and problems which make the world a crazy place are all man-made; they can all be unmade, but this is the heart of the very Biggest Lie: there's nothing we can do about it. Utopia is impossible. The failure of socialism, etc, etc. But our visionaries know the truth when they see it, hid beneath the filth:

Successful hills are here to stay, Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play, Welcome to the Soft Parade
All our lives we sweat and save, Building for a shallow grave
Must be something else we say, Somehow to defend this place

(Jim Morrison)

The moment of change will be at hand when every thinking person looks at the TV screen reality and says, reflexively, "Bullshit!" There is, of course, a price for this knowledge. You will be called unAmerican, a terrorist-sympathizer, etc, ad nauseum. But you will also know that it is they who are engaging in anti-Americanism. Whatever his motives were, Kennedy said no to Northwoods and died; Bush said yes! and was given a plastic crown with which to "rule" this plasticland. So don't obsess over what was merely a pretext for continuing what they've been doing for a very long time. Instead, spread the truth, that it's all lies. Every single piece of it. We need the public to see with Uncle Frank's eyes:

I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I'm the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That's right, folks . . .
Don't touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

(Frank Zappa)

Also, silverfox, I obviously agree that a change in consciousness is needed for any change to occur, but let's give credit where credit is due: our "dysfunction" is not an expression of our innate ineptitude--it's what's been instilled in us from the top down ever since we stopped hunting and gathering for a living.

I'm not suggesting that the hunter/gatherer societies knew no violence, nor am I advocating a return to that structure (although they did only work 20-25 hours a week...) My point is that given the choice without handicapping the conditions, people will always choose good over evil. Reagan, tragically comic actor that he was, understood this, as evidenced by his 1987 UN speech when he spoke dreamily of a new enemy (aliens) against whom we could unite. The thing is that we're never given the opportunity to work together in a cause that benefits mankind or the planet--we're only allowed to build autobahns together for our Leader (if we're not too busy killing ragheads or condemning commies, pinkos and faggots.)

So, change in consciousness, sure, okay, but it's more like letting people be good than showing them how or making them, the way I see it.

9/11/2006 01:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

c'mon, anony! you're *still* putting me to sleep here! you can do better than that, i hope!


9/11/2006 04:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IC -

Did you see the recent story suggesting that civilization was a response to hostile climate change? (I'll put the link at the bottom of this post.)

Severe climate change was the primary driver in the development of civilisation, according to new research by the University of East Anglia.

The early civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, South Asia, China and northern South America were founded between 6000 and 4000 years ago when global climate changes, driven by natural fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, caused a weakening of monsoon systems resulting in increasingly arid conditions. . . .

In a presentation to the BA Festival of Science on September 7, Dr. Nick Brooks will challenge existing views of how and why civilisation arose. He will argue that the earliest civilisations developed largely as a by-product of adaptation to climate change and were the products of hostile environments.

"Civilisation did not arise as the result of a benign environment which allowed humanity to indulge a preference for living in complex, urban, 'civilized' societies," said Dr. Brooks.

"On the contrary, what we tend to think of today as 'civilisation' was in large part an accidental by-product of unplanned adaptation to catastrophic climate change. Civilisation was a last resort - a means of organising society and food production and distribution, in the face of deteriorating environmental conditions."

He added that for many, if not most people, the development of civilisation meant a harder life, less freedom, and more inequality. . . .

Dr. Brooks said: "Having been forced into civilized communities as a last resort, people found themselves faced with increased social inequality, greater violence in the form of organised conflict, and at the mercy of self-appointed elites who used religious authority and political ideology to bolster their position. These models of government are still with us today, and we may understand them better by understanding how civilisation arose by accident as a result of the last great global climatic upheaval."

In other words, Dr. Brooks is saying that civilization arose as a last resort to maximize resources during a period of catastrophic climate change and immediately led to more inequality, more violence, and harder lives for most people, going hand-in-hand with rule by self-appointed elites.

The corollary, which the article only delicately suggests in the last paragraph I quoted above, is that those same self-appointed elites are still with us to this day and continue to maintain conditions of artificial scarcity and hostility in order to shore up their position -- scrambling particularly hard at any point that they're threatened with an unwelcome outbreak of peace and prosperity.

Viewing elite rule (along with the conditions necessary to maintain it) as an unnatural condition that takes constant effort to maintain may get us a lot further towards unraveling the conundrums with with this blog is concerned that viewing it as some sort of inevitability that we are doomed to endure forever.


9/11/2006 04:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Cuttle, we cwertainly can't fix what isn't broken. The reality delivered is always made to measure, never left to luck or chance...hmmm?

It is our own self-imposed limitations and lack of understanding that consistentlty misuses the mechanism of that double-edged delivery system.

Physical reality materializes strictly around the raw power of "intent" behind any particular thoughts or concepts we happen to concentrate or dwell on.

We will experience them reagrdless of whatever potential for good or harm they present simply in order to know them. That is the very essemce of all experience... the choice of certain probable events to be actualized from all the other equally "real" ones that could have been instead. It's all about "choices", most particularly our own.

So it shouldn't be any eye-opener to recognise the offspring of fear and dread running about in our very midst, or coming to terms with our own culpability in choosing to allow or help them on their way whether we meant to or not. We did.

There is only one thing in this world we've ever had or ever will have the power to change and that is simply ourselves. Everything else is contingent on whether or not we are up to that task or not.

If we dwell upon some overwhelming desire to punish those we assume have wronged us without taking responsibility for our own actions and reactions that have also preciptated those events into account all we wind up doing is punishing ourselves instead.

That is precisely what is happening. That's the smirk on the chimp's face, constantly taunting us to ape him and dare to see what happens.

He knows exactly how to create and keep that particular feedback loop generating even if he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

That "intent" to punish, regardless of what form it takes is only feeding the events that are creating all the punishment that he and his cronies are only too willing to dish out.

That's the nature of their game and we are only pawns in it as long as we allow ourselves to be used that way.

All we can do is refuse to play and work on a completely different kind of loop of our own that works on building instead of destroying; confidence in ourselves and each other, instead of fear; a willingness to co-operate and find more than enough strength and security in that to do what is required of us.

Perhaps more than anything is to understand that the uncertainty of any circumstances beyond our control is far less hazardous to our health than being controlled and restricted instead.

We are all mortals destined to die, how or when is of very little importance. It's how how we choose to live and whatever real aspirations we work towards that genuinely matter.

Those are only as good or as viable as the means we use to attain them.

Open your eyes and see that idea about punishment for what it actually is. Bush and company are symptoms of a disease that urgently needs to be quarantined but we can only spread it further if we can't stop ourselves from acting and reacting in the very same ways they themselves do, even and most especially if it's against them.

We'll only be adding more fuel to our own pyre and get ourselves done to a turn in the process.

Make no mistake that's what the other side has always banked on. It's time to finally dissappoint them once and for all.

9/11/2006 05:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kudos Jeff! You've been batting over one hundred per blog for some time now. They sure do light up when they're having fun.

Yeah, but it's a corked bat, because 51 of those posts were anonymous, with another 20, or so, pretending to be someone temporarily, which is, essentially, still anonymous.

So, the number of genuine, non-spam, non-disinfo posts is still under 100.

I'm just trying to be fair about it.

9/11/2006 06:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A human earlier said:

"Like I said, point me to a case study of a comparable operation. Please."

The Manhattan Project. Designed, built, detonated the first atomic bomb, in absolute secrecy, at enormous cost, with thousands of engineers.

I guess you could call 911 "Manhattan Project 2."

You want another, douchebag? D-Day. Hundreds of thousands involved, thousands of naval vessels, two years of planning, and the freakin' krauts still didn't know where the landings would occur. Not even fucking Rommel knew.

So fuck you.

9/11/2006 07:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4911 said.......

I was hanging out at the x-club tonight, my preferred underground type smoky fucked up jazz type place with worn leather furniture and darkness, with my preferred bartender tonight and told him to serve me up two shots, in straight glasses (not the nuclearplant silochimney shaped kind) to commemorate the day. "Know what day it is today? Its september 11, the day that five years ago marked the ugliest most disgusting and cancerous attack on humanities progress for the past sixty years. This was an attack on rationality itself. This is fascism. And right now my freind you and i are gonna drink these two shots and feel em in our gut and then piss them out. We are gonna drink this shit for the vibe and then well piss them out because thats how things work, fascism doesnt stick around for long its like a short spell of the shits but we will be pissing out all of this fascist garbage by morning. Cheers." We downed em.

I saw this on the discussion board, and considered it quite fitting.

It is upon you, Peter, The Rock, that I will build my church.

9/11/2006 08:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five,
and you would have to believe it.
--George Orwell, 1984

9/11/2006 10:20:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Gotta start this one off with a huge and hearty appreciation for Joe Bageant, who only yesterday was on the receiving end of some of my ire for what seemed to me at the time to be a lack of optimism for the prospect of using consciousness to fix the world. (I've since contacted Joe and confessed my spleen-venting in his direction, which he took in stride, good man that he is.) Joe is entitled to his opinions. He has more experience of the world than I do and writes with something to which I never even aspired: authority. Not the billy club to the head variety we're used to, but moral authority. I'm still hoping to convince him of the possibility of my Be-In scheme, as I'd love to have him on board. Check out his website--the man writes like H.S. Thompson would have, had he not smoked himself for the buzz.

Thanks. Dr. Brooks very much makes my point with his expose on the truth of the transition from hunter/gatherer to agricultural/urban societal organization: not only was it a bad deal for the common man ("more inequality, more violence, and harder lives for most people"), but it introduced, not coincidentally, the "self-appointed ruling elites (who) are still with us to this day and continue to maintain conditions of artificial scarcity and hostility in order to shore up their position -- scrambling particularly hard at any point that they're threatened with an unwelcome outbreak of peace and prosperity."

I have to disagree with your most basic premise, where you ascribe blame for the current reality to "our own self-imposed limitations and lack of understanding"--self-imposed? Are you serious? (Please see self-appointed ruling elite above, or, better yet, look again at the smirking chimp you describe as daring me to emulate him.) I understand the concept of a feedback loop, but you have got to acknowledge that your stupid ape (yeah, the one who can't find his elbow) and the interests he represents have started that loop, for their benefit and our detriment, and are constantly reinforcing in with each day's new terror alert, not to mention the very real terror campaign instigated by them (1, 2, 3). I got the idea that we shouldn't give in to the fear they're peddling, but to absolve them of any blame and, moreover, to place it all squarely on our heads is just insane.

Before I get into the most disturbing thing you wrote, let me just explain something about this whole guilt and punishment thing you're on about. I'm in no way interested in punishing anyone for anything, not even these bastards who are bent on enslaving us and murdering the planet. I would very much like to stop the death spiral, yes, but I've nowhere advocated any sort of retribution whatsoever. The sooner we can forget them and the evil they represent, the better off we'll be. Every executioner notches his own soul with each one he dispatches. I think Goethe probably saw a bit of Truth when he described Faust's bargain. That, however is for the universe to decide--I want no part of it.

It's in this idea of revenge that you've got me most confused. You write:

If we dwell upon some overwhelming desire to punish those we assume have wronged us without taking responsibility for our own actions and reactions that have also preciptated those events into account all we wind up doing is punishing ourselves instead.

Again, I have no overwhelming desire to punish these world-killers; I just want them stopped. As to the "taking responsibility for our own actions and reactions," first off, the notion that reality itself if shaped by our thoughts and emotions is probably unsuspected by very nearly all persons on the planet, so the first step is simply becoming aware of how reality "works," let alone taking responsibility for the results. And that's the weirdest part of what you wrote; that we "have also preciptated those events." Precipitated these events? I understand how giving in to the fear all around us reinforces the nightmare, really making it real, but precipitating? How in God's green earth does that work? And why are you so keen on absolving the people who have promulgated this dystopia of any responsibility for it? This is their plan, not ours, even if it's our collective consciousness that's been hijacked to give it substance!

The golden vibe is what we'll need to set ourselves free. Despite the New Age sound of that term, it's just the very old idea of transcendant love. Personally, all things New Age give me the creeps. It all sounds so self-absorbed and babyish. In fact, I just read an article that was purported to be on the subject of the malleable universe, The Religion of the Reality Makers, that just about made me puke. It described the proponents of creation-through-consciousness as a bunch of goddamned yuppies visualizing a new BMW and lifestyles of conspicuous consumption! Yuck! Fucking selfish whores!

I came across the concept of c-t-c through reading about these physicists who were tinkering with the possibility of such things, which I then assumed would finally be used one bright day in the purest sense of altruism, to stop the madness and remake the world, only to find the movement described as a group of lazy consumers who didn't give a shit about the death of this world and simply wanted to cheat the system, not far different from the fat-assed, self-righteous Republicans who've been playing the system all along! No wonder Joe Bageant doesn't have high hopes for the species.

9/12/2006 01:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Power of Nightmares is up at google video:

Century of the Self is too:

good stuff

9/12/2006 01:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because I think we have burned a hole enough in one topic thread of Jeff's original post, let's move the magnifying glass to another point where we can hopefully avoid setting ourselves on fire over it.

The last bit of Jeff's original post was on Belgium's supposed 'turning of a new leaf' to oppose a neofascist wing. This is what Jeff wrote--about 80 miles above this comment:

Briefly, thanks to "pepsified thinker" on the RI board for this update on The Massacre of the Innocents":

Belgian neo-Nazis in 'terror plot'

Belgian police yesterday arrested 17 alleged neo-Nazis, mostly serving soldiers, who were said to be planning to destabilise the country's institutions in a series of terrorist attacks. In simultaneous raids on five army barracks and 18 private addresses across the northern Flanders half of Belgium, police uncovered a homemade bomb and numerous weapons.

The raids by 150 police officers in East Flanders, Antwerp and Limburg were the most dramatic breakthrough in a two-year investigation into far-right activists allegedly operating inside the armed forces.

Is this NATO's 'secret armies' and Project Gladio once more we are touching upon?--which leads back to the Limnizer-to-NATO crony era of Project Northwoods?]

From Wikipedia:

Operation Gladio was a clandestine "stay-behind" operation sponsored by the CIA and NATO to counter communist influence after World War II in Italy, as well as in other European countries, which has been involved in various terrorist acts. While Gladio is usually used to refer to only the Italian "stay-behind", the term has also been applied to all other "stay-behind" operations. NATO stay-behind armies existed in all countries of Western Europe during the Cold War, including Turkey. Suspected at least since the 1984 revelations of Avanguardia Nazionale member Vincenzo Vinciguerra during his trial, Gladio’s existence was acknowledged by head of Italian government Giulio Andreotti on October 24, 1990, who spoke of a "structure of information, response and safeguard", with arms caches and reserve officers. Further investigations revealed links to neofascists, the mafia, Propaganda Due masonic lodge (aka P2), and the "strategia della tensione" followed in Italy during the 1970s–80s to block the electoral success of the Italian Communist Party (PCI)."

It was additionally to block any semblance of competitive parties as well and democracy.

And on the Belgian wing of Gladio:

Belgium (Main article: Belgian stay-behind network)

After the 1966 retreat of France from NATO, the SHAPE headquarters was displaced to Mons in Belgium. In 1990, following France's (false) denial of any "stay-behind" French army, Giulio Andreotti publicly pointed out that the last Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) meeting, to which the French branch of Gladio was present, had been on October 23 and 24, 1990, under the presidency of Belgian General Van Calster, director of the Belgian military secret service SGR.

In November, Guy Coëme, Minister of the Defense, acknowledged the existence of a Belgium "stay-behind" army, lifting concerns about a similar implication in terrorist acts as in Italy.

The same year, the European Parliament sharply condemned NATO and the United States in a resolution for having manipulated European politics with the stay-behind armies [9].

Therefore, in Belgium, new legislation governing intelligence agencies' missions and methods was passed in 1998, following two government inquiries and the creation of a permanent parliamentary committee in 1991, which was to bring them under the authority of Belgium's federal agencies.

The Commission was created following events in the 1980s, which included the Brabant massacres and the activities of far right group Westland New Post [14].

And Jeff has mentioned these Brabant Massacres before--though there's a level these commando raids for destabalizing Belgium--concerning pedophile sex parties that tied into it--that escaped Jeff's previous post:

The Nijvel gang or Nivelles gang (Bende van Nijvel in Dutch, Les Tueurs du Brabant in French) is the group thought to be responsible for the massacre of Brabant, a series of violent attacks that occurred in Brabant, Belgium from 1982 to 1985 and resulted in 28 deaths and over 20 others injured. Nivelles is a major town in the Walloon Brabant province and was considered the center of these crimes.

The group carried out these armed robberies of restaurants, stores, supermarkets and a weapons depot with almost military precision, leading to suspicions that this was an effort to destabilize the country coming from disgruntled members of the Gendarmerie, a police force then partly supervised by the Belgian Minister of Defense. The weapons used to carry out the murders were stolen from a police arsenal.

According to the survivors' eyewitness testimonies, the Nijvel gang was composed out of three recurring gangleaders, assisted by a larger group of changing people. The three gangleaders were the Giant (because of his height), the Killer (who killed 23 out of the total 28 victims) and the Old Man (because of his age).

As of 2006, the identity and the whereabouts of the killers are still unknown.

Militant groups

The gang became linked to the neo-Nazi organization Westland New Post which aimed to destabilize the Belgian society and provoke an outrage of civil unrest in order "to establish a government lead by ultra-conservatives of the Parti Social-Chrétien."

This theory is based on rumours about the neo-Nazi connections of the Gendarmerie in Brussels as well as on the "military precision" of the attacks. All Rijkswacht-officers were trained in military law enforcement and commando actions.

More high wierdness:

The controversial Belgian nobleman Benoit de Bonvoisin, the so-called "Black Baron", was named one of the possible financers of the Nijvel gang.

Westland New Post leader Paul Latinus was supposedly killed, "besuicided," by the Nijvel Gang in April 1984.

Benoît Baron de Bonvoisin (born March 14, 1939) is a Belgian businessman. He is the grandson of Alexandre Galopin, who was a director of the Société Générale de Belgique and assassinated in 1944 by Nazi collaborators [1]. His father was a chairman of the Generale Bank.

De Bonvoisin was the owner of the Cidep company, which published the magazine Nouvelle Europe Magazine.

Although convicted to one-year imprisonment in 1986 for his connection to the bankruptcy of the Boomse Metaalwerken, de Bonvoisin was cleared of this crime in May 2000. In 1996, de Bonvoisin would be tried for fraud, involving his Cidep and PDG companies. In the case of Cidep he was cleared, the case PDG was annulled.

De Bonvoisin is pejoratively nicknamed the "Black Baron," for alleged connections to the Nijvel Gang, CCC and Gladio, and the financing of "fascist and militant groups."

The term was first coined by Albert Raes, former head of the Belgian State Security Service.

He was a close friend of Paul Vanden Boeynants, former Prime Minister of Belgium.


The massacre of Brabant has also been linked to a conspiracy among the Belgian "stay-behind" network SDRA8—camouflaged in the Belgian military service, the Belgian Gendarmerie SDRA6 and the US secret service Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

Some high-placed investigators believe that these "crimes" were pre-emptive actions against the communist threat in Western Europe. These actions are hence linked to Operation Gladio, a large paramilitary network, created and supported by NATO, which was active in many European countries to counterattack all possible communist operations.

Pink ballets

The Belgian tabloids also developed another conspiracy theory based on one of Belgium's most famous urban legends, the so-called Roze Balletten ('Pink Ballets' in Dutch). These "Roze Balletten" were supposedly sex parties, mostly with young underaged girls and boys, which several eminent members of the Belgian high society were said to have participated in, including noblemen, high civil servants, politicians, ministers, business leaders and policemen.

Of course Marc Dutroux features in these 'not so urban legends' as well..

Real-estate magnate Jacques Fourez and his secretary Elise Dewit, who were killed by the Nijvel gang in 1983, were supposed to have secret tapes of these parties. The killings of Jacques van Camp, Léon Finné and Constantin Angelou were also brought into connection with the Pink Ballets.

Organized crime

This theory is linked to illegal gun-running, which was in the eighties one of mafia's core businesses in Cold War Europe. The killed banker Léon Finné (in Overijse) was involved in illegal gun traffic.

Back to the larger Belgian Gladio issue, pirouetting away from the Pink Ballets on the side that seem interconnected:

Furthermore, Le Soir newspaper lifted a controversy in 1996 by revealing the existence of a classified document, dated August 1995, and titled "Plan de base de la défense militaire du territoire" ("Base plan of the military defense of the territory"). The newspaper quoted some passages of what it called a "racist plan" which targeted "immigrants" on the grounds of an hypothetic "clandestine threat with a permanent character."

The dissolved SDRA-8 — which had hosted the Belgian stay-behind — had been replaced by the "Commandement territorial interforces" (CTI), a military intelligence agency organized by provinces and essentially composed of approximatively a thousand reserve officers. Its goal was to infiltrate civil society and find informants, with the mission to be especially concerned by the "immigrant communities which represented a permanent clandestine threat" (sic). According to Le Soir, if the CTI is not closely linked to the military agency Service Général du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (SGRS), then it is "nothing else than a new structure of military intelligence... particularly suspicious of anything that is foreign to it".

Finally, the activities of the Belgian military intelligence agencies prompted the Parliamentary Committee of Surveillance (Comité R) to investigate concerning various abusive wiretappings. "The central [racial "official neonazi profiling] documentation of the SGR is composed of 450 000 files", stated Le Soir.

These various revelations caused an uproar, and the Defense Minister put an official end to the plan concerning the alleged "permanent clandestine threat", a plan widely considered in Belgium as unacceptable racism. [15] [16]

And Bush's CIA goes right into "Italian" P2 networks, and Gladio, and continues to the present in the person of Michael Ledeen.

"Michael Ledeen (born August 1, 1941) is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also a contributing editor to the U.S. National Review and the Jewish World Review. Ledeen was a founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and he continues to serve on the JINSA Board of Advisors. In 2003, the Washington Post alleged that he was consulted by Karl Rove, George W. Bush's closest advisor, as his main international affairs adviser.[1] Ledeen is also a member of Benador Associates.

In 1974, Michael Ledeen moved to Rome where he studied Italian fascism and terrorism. In 1977, he went to Washington to join the Center for Strategic and International Studies affiliated with Georgetown University. He continues to visit Italy frequently.

In 1980, Leeden worked for the Italian military intelligence service as a "risk assessment" consultant.[2] In 1981, Michael Ledeen then became Special Adviser to secretary of state Alexander Haig, previously head of SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe - NATO's European command center)."

Ledeen holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin, where he specialized in Modern Europe. Leeden was subsequently named Visiting Professor at the University of Rome. One of Ledeen's principal mentors was the German-born historian George Mosse, for whom he was research assistant at the time Mosse wrote two famous books on National Socialism.

George Lachmann Mosse (September 20, 1918, Berlin, Germany–January 22, 1999, Madison, Wisconsin, United States) was a German-born American left-wing Jewish gay historian of fascism in general and Nazi Germany in particular. He saw fascists as "scavengers" who took bits of other ideologies to create a new one.

Mosse was born in Berlin into one of Germany's richest Jewish families. The Mosse family owned a large chain of newspapers including several of the most prestigious papers in Germany, most notably the Berliner Tagesblatt. Mosse was educated at an exclusive boys' school run by former Army officers, where, as a frail youth, he had difficulty with the demanding physical education regime imposed on the pupils. In 1933, the Mosse family fled Germany to Britain. In 1936, Mosse moved to the United States. Despite his background, Mosse was a self-proclaimed "Marxist of the heart", meaning that while he did not believe in Marxism as a theory, he nonetheless sympathized with it as an ideology. Mosse graduated with a BS from Haverford College in 1941 and from Harvard with a PhD in 1946. He served as professor at the University of Iowa (1944-1955), the University of Wisconsin from 1955 onwards,and also the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Initially, Mosse began as an expert on family life in Tudor and Stuart England, but from the early 1960s on, he frequently wrote about Nazi Germany, Fascism, anti-Semitism, and Jewish history. Later, Mosse wrote about the history of sexuality. He specialized in developing arguments about how symbols were created and used by leaders to win and keep followers. Another major interest for Mosse was the brutalization of politics, especially in the Nazi era. For Mosse, fascism was not a rational ideology, but was rather the expression of irrational feelings. Yet another area of interest for Mosse was the intellectual origin of Nazism.

After the unification of Germany in 1990, Mosse petitioned, with considerable success, to reclaim the family property that had been expropriated by both the Nazis and the Communists. At his death in 1999, Mosse was a wealthy man, and he left the bulk of his estate to fund History scholarships at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Another major influence on Ledeen was the Italian historian Renzo De Felice.

Renzo De Felice (8 April 1929 - 25 May 1996) was an Italian historian of Fascism. He was born in Rieti and studied under Federico Chabod and Delio Cantimori at the University of Naples. During his time as student, De Felice was a member of the Italian Communist Party. Later, De Felice was to break with the Communists and moved somewhat towards the right. He was taught history at the University of Rome. He married Livia De Ruggiero. He died in Rome.

De Felice was best known for a massive seven volume biography of Benito Mussolini that was unfinished at the time of his death. De Felice was the founder and editor of the influential journal, Storia Contemporanea. De Felice also wrote well-regarded history of Jewish life under the Fascist government and articles on Italian Jacobinism.

De Felice's leading interest was in fascism. In his view, there were two types of fascism, "fascism as a movement" and "fascism as a regime". De Felice saw the fascism, especially in the "movement" stage as a revolutionary middle-class ideology that had deep roots in the Enlightenment. Moveover, De Felice insisted that fascism was not caused by fear on the part of the middle classes, but rather an assertive movement that sought to give the middle classes their proper power. Thus, De Felice felt that fascism should be seen as valid political ideology, not just something to be demonized and dismissed in what De Felice saw as being simplistic "Marxist" terms.

Furthermore, De Felice insisted that there was no connection or valid comparisons to be drawn between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, which De Felice saw as being a completely different political ideology. De Felice was very controversial in both Italy and abroad for the sympathatic studies of Italian Fascism. Many such as Giuliano Procacci, Paolo Alatri and Nicola Tranfaglia accused De Felice of writing an apolgia for Fascism.

Thus we seen once more the odd origins of the neocons, they were left wing Trostkite revolutionaries, the left wing of global totalitarian ideologies reformulating themselves from the 1970s onward to be a corporate global fascism, using symbolims of "freedom and democracy" as revolutinary fascist overthrow justifications in other words. This is perhaps why it is hardly remarked upon how these 'right-wing' ideologies of the Bushes are really left-wing totalitarian in origin at least in the way they understood themselves.

Ledeen claims to be staunchly anti-fascist [wha?] though holds political views which stress "the urgency of combating centralized state power and the centrality of human freedom"[3]...

And if you believe that, I have a WTC to sell you.

Earlier in his career, Ledeen authored Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928-1936, published in 1972 and now out of print. The book, which was his doctoral disseration, was the first work to explore Mussolini's efforts to create a Fascist international in the late 1920s and early 1930s."

Ledeen, Mosse, and Cheney all at one period of their lives were attending or scholar residents of the supposed 'left wing' University of Wisconsin-Madison. It may be closer to the truth to call the very Germanic state of Wisconsin a relict of the failed 1848 revolutions in Germany. Wisconsin the state was founded in 1848, from the same revolutinoary networks that just failed in Germany. There was a huge exodus of 1848 revolutionaries into the United States.

One bit came over and made their state in the Upper Midwestern Northwest. It seems have been a bastion of such occult and revolutionary things for quite a while--that's another story though though has something to do with the Masonic all seeing eye stamped into every book in the library as the University's logo.

Another bit turns up from Czechoslovakian revolutions of 1848--this is the Korbel family, the namesake of Madeline Korbel Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State. Madeline Korbel Albright's father was a U.N. representative, from 1948--100 years after perfectly from the failed 1848 revolutions. Later Madeline actually takes her fathers place as a U.N. representative. Moveover, Condi Rice studied under Madeline Albright's father at the Univeristy of Denver. So from Albright to Rice, the same person taught both, despite there being on the surface a "party switch" in the public eye.

More Korbels actually found Korbel champagne and wines--and come to own the land around Bohemian Grove (I kid you not).

Anyway, sidetracked. So: that's "anti-fascist" Ledeen: attempting to start up a fascist international by calling it human freedom--and he's a right-hand man (no pun intended) to George W. Bush and Rove.

Note the names. Small world, eh? Same network as Limnitzer/NATO already tounched upon, so Ledeen is in the thick of Gladio is seems.

And the Belgian branch of Gladio is interesting for its "high wierdness" besides the Pink Ballets issue that likely ties it to elite pedophiles in Belgium that "just couldn't bring themselves" to ever jail the "Black Baron" for very long...

Another Belgian high wierdness issue is that the public consumption story of the "mass suicides" of the Order of the Solar Temple may have had actually high financial fraud and Gladio networks at its heart and Belgian connections--to remove some people who could talk about it:

The Order of the Solar Temple mystery

It has been alleged by various sources, among whom François-Xavier Verschave, a critic of French colonialism, that the "collective suicides" allegedly committed by various Order of the Solar Temple (OST) members, in December 1995 in the Vercors region of France, were connected to Gladio.

The theory of the suicide has been heavily contested by family of the victims Alain Vuarnet, René and Muguette Rostan, Willy and Giséla Schleimer and their lawyer, Alain Leclerc. According to a Reuters cable dated March 22, 2004 (19:03:46), the lawyer explained that he had two documents upholding the theory of a murder.

One document was a copy of an April 21, 1997 letter addressed by a lawyer office to a bank, concerning the distribution of 17 millions Francs (about 2,5 millions Euros) between various personalities and political parties, the OST and the Rosicrucian Order AMORC (Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis), an organization suspected of links with the OST.

In his demand for more investigation, Dr. Leclerc wrote: "If the document is true, it shows that the Order of the Solar Temple was in activity after the last March 22, 1997 massacre (the "collective suicide" of five adepts in Canada) and that the responsibles of this organization are still alive".

However, the court refused further expertise: thus, it hasn't been possible to verify the validity of this document [due to the iron curtain thrown over it by the courts, which has shades of Marc Dutroux.]

The second document is a juridical statement of Dr. Jean-Marie Abgrall, a specialist of sects accused of violation of the secret of investigations. In this document, "he states, goes the Reuter cable, as he had already done in declarations to Le Point and to Nice Matin in February 2003, that the Renewed Order of the Solar Temple cult ("Ordre Rénové du Temple" - ORT [38]), ancestor of the OTS, had relations with Gladio network… Jean-Marie Abgrall would also talk about relations between the AMORC, of which he once was a member, and the French networks in Africa, so-called "networks Foccart" [39]."

Lawyer Leclerc, also quoted by the REUTERS cable, said that psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall "reveals… that the Order of the Solar Temple, as the AMORC and the ORT, were created and controlled by French and foreign secret services". Those information weren't given at the time of investigations; the lawyer thus asked that Dr. Abgrall be heard by the judge.

A third document was sent by the French secret services (RG) to the judge, [attempting to lead to the] discrediting the family of the victims' claims and demands for further investigations. If Jean-Marie Abgrall's claims of relationship between the ORT (OST's ancestor) and Gladio may seem far-fetched, Propaganda Due's juridically proven involvement in Gladio's strategy of tension inclines one to keep open various possibilities during investigations. Furthermore, connections between ORT founder Luc Jouret and far-right Belgian activist Jean Thiriart have been alleged by others sources; together, they had found in the 1970s a far-right party which was controlled by Belgium's branch of Gladio.... In any cases, the mass suicides haven't been clearly explained, let alone financial links concerning those various cults.

It's hardly strange when you consider that the American branch of this "fascist financial international" tied to Mr. Ledeen and the Bush family works through Satanic/MKULTRA mind control cults in the United States.

I would propose that what we seen in the United States around 'right wing human freedom occult' Satanism and MKULTRA of the CIA was just another version of the same dynamics of how the Order of the Solar Temple in Europe interfaced with Gladio and NATO.

Moreover, the CSIS group mentioned above in the same breath as Ledeen and Gladio is probabaly the main "planning agency" for 9-11 state terror. Would all fit very well:

Title: 9-11: CSIS (Center for Strategic & Int'l Studies) as Bush's state terror planning organ
Date: 2004.11.01 11:28
Description: CSIS did 9-11 (with a large coterie of helpers and other organizations of course). There are so many links to them. Please distribute this widely. So learn who did 9-11, one day before the fake election...I accuse CSIS of plotting out 9-11 events for their political goals...

Back to Jeff's quote--with these links circling in mind around Ledeen, Italian fascism, "conquering the world for human freedom," the U.S. CIA, Order of the Solar Temple/Gladio, the Zionist side of the neocon wing, Pink Ballets of Belgium that "just can never bring themselves" to be juridically dealth with, the fascist international, and 'de-democratization' campaigns:

It seems as though Nazis turn up in the last place you look - like America - and it seems to be the case especially when you're not looking for them. Some Belgians, at least, are looking.

However, thanks to a good memory of mine, regarding Belgian wings of Gladio and other things, I would note that there is systemic corruption in the vote in Belgium which has a quite fascist intent, even as other groups in Belgium seem to be attempting to purge them from the military.

Even this vote fraud in Belgium may even be a "foreign security services" idea--the U.S. stealing Belgium elections through its U.S. Embassy.

As noted in a 2003 article:

US Government Exports Election Fraud To Belgium
Wednesday, 1 December 2004, 9:56 am
Opinion: Guest Opinion

By Thomas Deflo

On May 18th 2003, the Belgian, Flemish Green party by the name of Agalev (now Groen!) got crushed in the Belgian elections. The ecological party supposedly lost two thirds of its electorate and all its seats in the federal parliament.

In reality, the election was a fraud, performed on foreign soil by the CIA with the help of the complicit Belgian State Security. A very successful coup. It is only now that I dare to write down my testimony, because I was harassed and intimidated for over a year.

The reason for the coup's success lie in its long preparation.

During the preceding years, Green party members were criticized and ridiculed in the majority of media outlets, some falsely accused of judicial wrongdoings. This propaganda was orchestrated, as the CIA has done in so many other coups around the world. The source of this propaganda evidently came from the Belgian CIA-linked State Security, under the direction of Koen Dassen, and was produced by the US embassy. This relentless attempt to skew the public mind set, also known as psyops, slowly started paying off.

The rather gullible Belgian people absorbed the negative portraying of the ecological party, with no clue as to the propaganda's real origin nor to its eventual purpose: to make a total defeat at the election credible. Many media corporations lost all sense of objectivity and cooperated in order to effectively destroy the Green party's public image.

The election fraud was next prepared by a fraudulent poll in an allied newspaper, exactly one week before voting day. All polls had indicated a share of around 8% of votes for the Green party. The fraudulent poll indicated less than 5%. In Belgium, a party is not allowed to stay in parliament if it drops under 5%. A week later elections were held and miraculously Agalev got exactly 4,9%.

The Green party had to leave the parliament and the government. This signified the end of a progressive, left-wing party in Flemish politics.

Fundamental to a soft coup d'état, of course, is the vote fraud itself. Just like in the U.S., Belgians vote mainly by way of touch screen machines. The system is transparently prone to fraud. The voters receive magnetic cards which are inserted in the voting machine slot. The cards then register the votes, and must be retracted from the machine to be brought back to the local booth computer, swallowing all cards and supposedly adding up their results on a floppy disk. Upon closure of the voting bureau, all floppy disks from all voting stations are then centralized in the local city hall and processed, behind closed curtains.

In Belgium, the whole voting chain, by royal law, is controlled by the Ministry of Interior. Under the veil of 'security', the counting of the votes is totally opaque to external, parliamentary oversight. I witnessed this personally as an official delegate for the Green party during election day in the municipality of Schaerbeek. Party delegates were not allowed to witness the tally: it was strictly forbidden to enter the rooms where the counting process occurred. Party members simply had to wait for a sheet of paper with the supposed results to be handed over to them.

Present administrators, not at least the sitting election judge, were as far from neutrality as possible, chanting victory as they 'read' the results for their preferred party. I was dumbfounded to see how, what were clearly party stooges, were in charge of counting the votes.

Fortunately, there is one last hope for a party witness to have some impact on the voting system: he can write down his remarks in an official document, which can then be used by the party, if wanted, to file a protest and demand a recount.

This official document is the so-called 'Proces Verbal'. At the end of the day, however - and here, the suspicion was obvious - the sitting judge refused to prepare the document.

This was not only in clear violation with the proper election procedure, it was also evidently fraudulent.

So--while we congratulate some section of Belgium on rooting out the fascist Bush/Ledeen "human freedom" international, let's remember that a 'softer gentler fascism' seems to be a more profitable strategy there--and that one has its U.S. connections as well, whether Gladio or otherwise on one side--while hypocrically tying back into the "anti-fascist" networks on the other side!

Ledeen is one of these liminal figures from both totalitarian sides, showing the central control group of both the global right wing and left wing totalitarianisms have historically been one in the same.

It's a mistake to call it only 'right-wing' in other words. It's a deeper problematic that left and right conceptions themselves have tended toward sponsored totalitarian applications, which leads to the strange motif of a very seemingly right wing U.S. domestically of George W. Bush exporting "left wing" ideas of revolutionary democracy worldwide, however hypocritical we can see that is. And to get this "global revolutionary democracy" run by the same elites, that tie directly back to the Trotskyites-to- neocons, vote fraud is the short cut to it. (By the way Condi Rice is another one in Bush's administration that really has a history of simultaneously being CEO of Chevron though very left wing revoluionary Marxist--as noted by people who remembered her in school). And let's remember the whole Strawberry Statement issue of the 1960s as well, written up by James Simon Kunen, as a warning which chronicled his experiences at Columbia University from 1966-1968, particularly the April 1968 protests and takeover of the office of the dean of Columbia by student protesters--when the Rockefellers attempted to "purchase leftist activists" to create dissention that would make them look more center when they moved toward more "centralized left" policies.

And this is why it is so difficult to explain current global politics if one adopts and accepts a "left is left and right is right and never the twain shall meet" view of a right/left wing dichotomy.

In terms of personnel, that mental creation doesn't exist: the ideologies do have their equal mass adherents though both sides are being run by the same groups--just as assuredly as the lawfirm in the United States that criminal Abramoff was involved in, Greenberg Traurig, supplies BOTH THE TREASURERS for the "competing" Democratic and the Republican Parties.

Perfecting this artificial two party state at home, the U.S. has increasingly exported vote fraud divisions animated by familiarity with how to juggle both sides at once. The CIA's/NED's huge public masques, pretending to be 'grass roots left wing democracy revolutionary overthrows' around the globe, are external infiltrations of local democracy on all levels.

This similar thing can be seen from Serbia/Yugoslavia, Azerbaijan, Georgia (south of Russia), Nicaragua (in the 1980s--where the U.S. provided the "neutral vote machines" which led to a huge upset and removal of the Sandinistas), and anywhere the U.S. party supports a candidate in another 'democratic' country--like Ukraine.

It's Gladio by any other name--though now framed as a local democratic overthrow. To do that you have to get rid of any independent local parties like Greens for instance, in their view.

Michael Ledeen's twist on turning old fascist strategies into updated ones framed as "human freedom and self-determination initiatives" seem well in hand.

9/12/2006 01:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think we can that easily move on:

just a note: Google Video has two versions of 9-11 Loose Change within the top 20 globally right now, and four versions of the same thing in the top 100 (two translations, German and Korean presently featured). This has happened several times before, though particularly five years on it's telling. First time I have seen four separate versions simultaneously.

We may see more and more 'high rotation' of Loose Change instead of less and less..

Today Yesterday
5 9
Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut
1 hr 29 min

Today Yesterday
12 20
911 Cover Up

Today Yesterday
39 72
Loose Change 2 - deutsche Untertitel - german subtitles - High Quality
1 hr 22 min

Today Yesterday
90 New!
Loose Change 2nd Edition, Korean Caption
1 hr 22 min

9/12/2006 02:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

great post, anon1:35. hell--look at what they're doing in nicaragua *today*:

Aug. 20, 2006,

U.S. playing favorites in Nicaraguan election
Envoys continue a pattern in region of trying to defeat a leftist, but policy comes with risks

South America Bureau

MANAGUA, NICARAGUA — In Nicaragua, one of the smallest and poorest countries in the hemisphere, U.S. envoys seem to be violating what is often considered a cardinal rule of diplomacy: Never publicly meddle in a host country's presidential election, the quintessential internal affair.

The diplomats are loudly promoting a conservative presidential candidate that the Bush administration favors while working to undermine the campaign of a leftist politician it loathes, according to analysts and former American envoys.

Washington's practice of pushing its political favorites, they say, also has been evident in other Latin American countries.

Though U.S. diplomats may discreetly advocate for their preferred politicians, they risk expulsion if they go too far in larger countries such as Colombia, Mexico or Venezuela. But when it comes to smaller countries such as Nicaragua that crave good relations and financial aid from Washington, U.S. officials often go out of their way to influence the vote, the analysts say.

"It's pretty clearly understood that an ambassador should not say anything about elections," said Myles Frechette, who spent 35 years as a U.S. diplomat, most recently as ambassador to Colombia. "That's wise because the United States is big and powerful, and it does use its size to force its will on Latin American countries."

Many experts say Washington's actions are a response to President Hugo Chavez of oil-rich Venezuela, who is openly trying to counterbalance U.S. influence in the region. The Bush administration, which applauded a 2002 coup that briefly ousted the Venezuelan, views Chavez as anti-American and anti-democratic.

As a result, the administration "has become much more interested and overt about trying to see that anti-Chavez candidates get elected," said George Vickers, an analyst with the Open Society Institute, a New York-based foundation.

U.S. officials in Nicaragua, a country of 5.5 million people, have launched a volley of verbal grenades ahead of the Nov. 5 presidential election to discourage voters from electing Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, who has been publicly endorsed by Chavez.

Another round
It's not the first time Washington has tangled with Ortega.

Two decades ago, after the Sandinistas seized power in the Central American country, the Reagan administration trained and funded the Contra rebels. In a 1987 radio address, President Reagan said the Contra army was following "in the best tradition of our founding fathers" and warned that the Sandinistas had given the Soviet Union a beachhead "only 2,000 miles from the Texas border."

Three years later, the Sandinistas lost an election to a U.S.-funded opponent and Ortega stepped down as president, ushering in 16 years of democratic government.

Now, with another presidential election heating up, American officials are promoting a pro-American candidate while U.S. Ambassador Paul Trivelli has publicly branded Ortega as anti-democratic — "a tiger who hasn't changed his stripes," Trivelli told Nicaraguan reporters.

In addition, American heavyweights past and present — from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State Colin Powell to Reagan-era U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick — have paraded through Managua to denounce the Sandinistas and Ortega, who leads the five-candidate race in opinion polls.

Writing in a Managua newspaper last year, Roger Noriega, then the State Department's top diplomat for Latin America, warned that should Ortega win, "Nicaragua would sink like a stone."

'Visceral dislike for Ortega'
Relaxing in a rocking chair on a sweltering afternoon after a packed campaign rally in the northern city of Matagalpa, Ortega, who is now 61 and no longer espouses Marxism, said that his government had better relations with the U.S. Embassy in the midst of the Contra war. Back then, Sandinista comandantes sometimes showed up at the embassy's annual July Fourth celebration.

"Even in the worst of times during the Reagan administration, the U.S. envoy was careful with his words," said Ortega, who was dressed in bluejeans and a Sandinista baseball cap. "But the current ambassador acts like he is the governor of Nicaragua."

Trivelli turned down repeated requests for interviews, but high-level U.S. officials denied that they are trying to sandbag Ortega.

"We see ourselves pushing the democratic process," Thomas Shannon, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, said. "It's all about creating political systems that are open, transparent and inclusive."

Some analysts say the administration fears that a Sandinista-run Nicaragua would add to Chavez's political clout. Already, the Venezuelan leader has signed deals to provide cut-rate oil and agricultural products to Nicaraguan cities run by Sandinista mayors.

Others point out that Noriega and several other current or former U.S. officials who helped forge Nicaragua policy also worked in the Reagan administration and were fervent supporters of the Contras.

"There's a kind of visceral dislike for Ortega and for what he stands for," said Anthony Quainton, a U.S. ambassador to Managua in the early 1980s.

In other elections around the region, Washington has made it clear where its sympathies lie.

Across the region
In Venezuela, the U.S. government is funding pro-democracy groups in the run-up to December's presidential election, in which Chavez is running. Some of the groups, including Sumate, which was instrumental in organizing a 2004 recall election against Chavez, openly oppose the Venezuelan leftist.

In Mexico, President Bush and U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza quickly congratulated the ruling party's conservative candidate, Felipe Calderon, as if his apparent razor-thin victory over leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in last month's presidential election was a done deal. But Lopez Obrador refused to concede defeat. He encouraged thousands of protesters to camp in Mexico City's downtown and is demanding a complete recount.

In Peru, U.S. officials shared private polling information this spring about voter attitudes with conservative presidential candidate Lourdes Flores, according to Vickers, the Open Society Institute analyst who is a longtime observer of Latin American politics. Alan Garcia, a center-leftist, eventually won.

In Colombia, the U.S. ambassador appeared to endorse a constitutional amendment allowing President Alvaro Uribe, Washington's closest ally in the region, to seek re-election. The proposal passed; Uribe won in a landslide last May.

"You're damned right we wanted Uribe to win," said Frechette, the former ambassador, pointing out that the Uribe government has received nearly $3 billion in aid from Washington to fight drugs and guerrillas.

Noriega, the former State Department official, said diplomatic standards are different for different countries.

"It's a political calculation," he said. "Probably the best way to help in the case of Nicaragua is to speak out while the best way to advance your interests in other countries is to be as quiet as you can."

Plans don't always work
A key goal of U.S. policy in Latin America has been to strengthen democratic institutions, but many political analysts say Washington's efforts often reinforce the dependence of Nicaragua and other small nations on the United States.

"Their first instinct is to look to outsiders to solve their problems," said Jennifer McCoy, a veteran electoral observer in the region for the Atlanta-based Carter Center.

But partly because the Bush administration is unpopular in many Latin American countries, its diplomatic arm-twisting doesn't always work.

Sometimes the "wrong" candidate ends up winning, "and then you have to deal with him, and it's very difficult to build any kind of a relationship," said Stephen Johnson, a Latin America expert at the Heritage Foundation.

To many observers, the classic case of diplomatic blowback stands as the rise of Bolivia's leftist leader, Evo Morales.

Could it backfire?
Shortly before the country's 2002 presidential election, U.S. Ambassador Manuel Rocha delivered a scathing address denouncing "those who want Bolivia to once again become a major exporter of cocaine."

The speech was portrayed in the Bolivian media as a slam against Morales, then a union organizer of growers of coca, the main ingredient of cocaine. Some of Morales' rivals denounced Rocha, and Morales, who had been languishing in the polls, nearly won the vote. He was elected president when he ran again last December.

"The support that the U.S. Embassy gave Evo was, as Mastercard says, priceless," said Bruce Bagley, a professor of international studies at the University of Miami.

Some experts say Washington's fixation with Ortega could also backfire.

During a visit to Managua in June, Shannon, the State Department's top official for Latin America, snubbed Ortega and met with Eduardo Montealegre, an investment banker also running for the presidency.

Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador Trivelli encouraged the badly divided Constitutional Liberal Party to hold a primary, a move seen here as an effort to unify the rightist party behind Montealegre.

"This is excessive," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington.

"Even if Montealegre does win," Shifter said, "he'll always be seen as the candidate the gringos put in."


9/12/2006 02:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

let the masses feed at the trough. *rigorously* discriminating sceptics know that Loose Change 2.0 cannot stand up to *rigorous* scrutiny:

9/12/2006 02:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"A human earlier
"Like I said, point me to a case study of a comparable operation. Please."

The Manhattan Project. Designed, built, detonated the first atomic bomb, in absolute secrecy, at enormous cost, with thousands of engineers."

Nope, sorry, not even remotely comparable. That was a military research project, done at a remote location, during a time of war. I'm talking *specifically* about a very specific case: wiring an inhabited office block for detonation in the middle of a modern peacetime city. Under the eyes of thousands of *civilian* observers. Not in a desert somewhere. And with the condition that *even the very existence of the project must remain secret for years afterwards*. That's to say: not just cryptographic, but stenographic, which is much harder. How long did Manhattan remain secret after Hiroshima?

"You want another, douchebag? D-Day. Hundreds of thousands involved, thousands of naval vessels, two years of planning, and the freakin' krauts still didn't know where the landings would occur. Not even fucking Rommel knew."

For one thing, you don't need to be offensive. I have nothing to hide. I give my real name and my real website. I'm a real person, and I'm not a troll.

But again, here we're a completely different kind of situation and a completely different scale of operation. D-day was huge, but was a military assault, conducted during the middle of a huge shooting war between countries, with all the benefits of military secrecy, and not a whole lot of stealth and finesse required - load ships, move 'em, drop troops on beaches. Like most military ops, secret only up to the point that you start dropping bullets on people, then it's pretty obvious to everyone what's up.

I'm talking specifically about tactical-sized operations *in a modern peacetime city*. Things from the playbook of organised crime, terrorism, SWAT actions, that kind of thing.

Look, if there were any prior art for this kind of operation, this shouldn't be at all difficult, and I'm not being argumentative just for effect. This really is what I find difficult to understand about people arguing the conspiracy case *in this particular situation*. You can't just wildly speculate. So there's motive? Great. You have to suggest some kind of method and opportunity to have people even begin to take you seriously.

There's plenty of examples of government agents planning and doing false-flag terrorist acts - Northwoods, Gladio et al. That's not what I'm talking about. What I find very complicated, awkward and just plain not good intelligence planning is the idea of trying to mask one form of spectacular terrorist event with another one.

There's one case that comes to my mind, and that's the apartment block blown up in Moscow a few years ago, attributed to Islamic terrorists, which was widely reputed to be a Russian government job. But that one, I'm pretty sure, was just a case of an ordinary terrorist-type bomb, so the stealth/deception component was just a matter of *whose* bomb it was, not of trying to demolish a bulding with one method while staging a completely different one. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I'm looking mainly at estimates of: time, materials, number of agents, ways of testing the charges as you go, ways of hiding them. My gut feeling is that intelligence agencies tend to work by standardised playbooks, do things that have been done before and that can be proven to work, and minimising the number of risky, untried elements that could go wrong. Granted, that's just my intuition from playing FPSes, but it seems to me that in any kind of secret operation, the potential for stuffup is massive and you want to keep things simple. So if this sort of thing were a standard intelligence operation, there'd be other examples, surely?

If you can't find any other examples, then you have to admit that the theory you're promoting is as much a unique, one-of-a-kind never-to-be-repeated event as what you criticise the mainstream consensus tower-collapse theory for being.

9/12/2006 03:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's Jeff Wells writing about WTC 7:

"the latest example from Venezuela is the stubborn resistance of the East Tower of the Parque Central block to obey the new physics of the War on Terror. The 56-storey Caracas landmark has been burning since Saturday, and still hasn't folded neatly into its footprint, as we've been led to expect steel-frame structures are wont to do from fires in the post-9/11 era.

Ever since 9/11 changed everything, a steel-framed structure doesn't need so much as a passenger jet strike to make it topple. The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, the third-steel frame high rise to collapse due to fire in history, and all on the same day, proved that. So what's the deal, Caracas? You're so far behind the times, it's not funny.

Of course, the usual thought criminals suspect Building 7 came down for other reasons. Such reasons as its tenants who, it's suspected, may have had secrets they wanted disappeared. Tenants of Building 7 included the CIA, which had a clandestine bunker on the 23rd floor; the Department of Defense; the US Secret Service; New York City's Office of Emergency Management (immediately replaced by the bigger, better FEMA camp established in lower Manhattan for the coincidentally scheduled "TRIPOD 2" biowar drill); a number of banks implicated in wire transactions to the 9/11 hijackers; and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which lost many irreplaceable filings in the collapse, including those pertaining to Enron.

These same sick in the head conspiracists persist in the belief that a video tape exists in which World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein said, about Building 7:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

Since "pulling" a building requires the knowledgeable placement of demolition charges, and there was no time to wire the building on September 11, the charges must have been placed beforehand, in anticipation of the attack. Therefore, in Bushthink, this is all crazy talk and must never have happened.

But perhaps it was possible charges were set in other than the conventional fashion, though they would still need a lead time that preceded the crashing of airliners."

and, a bit later ... "Whatever the truth, it may be worth noting that the WTC elevator system was undergoing renovation in early September 2001, which would have provided access to the core columns."

9/12/2006 12:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Manhattan Project a-bombs were built under the football stadium at the University of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois. They were armed and detonated in Nevada.

from Wikipedia:

"Born out of a small research program which began in 1939, the Manhattan Project would eventually employ over 130,000 people and cost a total of nearly $2 billion USD ($20 billion in 2004 dollars based on CPI), and result in the creation of multiple production and research sites operated in secret.[1]

The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now Hanford Site, the uranium-enrichment facilities at what is now Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the weapons research and design laboratory which is now Los Alamos National Laboratory. Project research took place at over thirty different sites spread across the United States, Canada, and in the United Kingdom. The MED maintained control over U.S. weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.

The first major scientific hurdle of the project was solved on December 2, 1942 beneath the bleachers of Stagg Field at the University of Chicago, where a team led by Enrico Fermi initiated the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction in an experimental reactor named Chicago Pile-1. A coded phone call from Compton saying, "The Italian navigator (referring to Fermi) has landed in the new world, the natives are friendly" to Conant in Washington, DC, brought the news that the experiment was a success. This was a major turning point."

Under a football stadium. Hidden in plain sight. Eyes Wide Shut, and all that.

And then, this dazzler:
"How long did Manhattan remain secret after Hiroshima?"

You mean, how long after the detonation of the first nuke did it remain secret that the U.S. had built a nuke? Huh? But ask yourself, FPS-player, how long has the fact that every top military leader in the U.S. begged Truman not to use the a-bomb on an already ruined Japan remain hidden from the U.S. population?

You refuse to recognize my point: large projects, in fact, much, much larger than 911, can remain clandestine. The real reason for the Tampico Affair have remained hidden. Gladio remains hidden to this day from the "public." How many even today in Italy know who was really behind the Bologna train station bombing? October Surprise remains hidden. The Inslaw/Promis affair remains hidden. George Bush's coke habits remain hidden, despite audio recordings in which he himself discusses it being made available.

Your arguments don't really hold water. "It's too complicated to remain secret," doesn't really cut it. Why can't we the public know why the FAA controller hand-crushed all those recordings the morning of 911? One simple little thing, but know one cares to ask.

You may simply be a "real person, not a troll," but what's your investment in this? Why do you bother to discredit the idea of government complicity? Because you're such a smart guy?

Go back and play your killing video games. At least in that artificial world everything's scripted for you.

9/12/2006 12:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush/Cheney may have lied about everything having to do with the Iraq War, but CERTAINLY they didn't lie about 911. Well, a little bit, maybe, like about having no prior warnings. And a few other things. But wasn't Bush the first person to insist on a congressional investigation? You see, don't you, how honest the 911 commission was? In their book, 'Without Precedent,' 9/11 Commisioners Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean even admit that the Pentagon's responses to questions "bordered on willful concealment". Now, why would they say such a thing if they weren't simply honest brokers with no vested interests whatsoever? It's just too bad Henry Kissinger couldn't have stayed on that committee. He was Bush's first choice, a sincere, loving man like our leader, and Henry would have gotten to the truth.

Say what you like, conspiracy-mongers, but at least admit that Phil Zelikow didn't have any ties to the Bush administration, other than being on Bush's father's National Security Council, and working for W's transition team, and W's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Bureau. Other than that, I mean. Heck, he even wrote a book called 'Germany Unified and Europe Transformed,' with Condoleeza Rice, but that was before Bush was elected, so who cares? According to Bush advisor Karen Hughes, "Mr. Zelikow was recruited by the administration to brief us during the transition because he was one of the foremost experts in the world on al-Qaeda." And since everyone knows al-Qaeda did 911, what better person to act as the Commission's executive director? Really now, can you name someone better qualified?

Nothing in this country can remain hidden. Those responsible for the Kennedy assassination have been tried and convicted, or soon will be. After all, we do live in a democracy, don't we?

That's why our government needs to be able to tap our phones and monitor our computers. Because we are free--the most free people on earth, last time I checked. If you don't understand that, you must be stupid.

9/12/2006 02:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zelikow. Yes. As Alice Lemieux wrote (HNN---

"His participation on the 9/11 Commission is also not the first time Zelikow has been involved in professional controversy. Director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, Zelikow is also a general editor of the Center's Presidential Recordings Program, which transcribes presidential telephone conversations and meetings recorded during the fifties, sixties and seventies. The transcriptions, however, have been found by former Kennedy Library historian Sheldon Stern to have at least 100 key errors, none of which have yet been updated in the publicly available transcripts. Zelikow has attributed the delay in these important updates to his work on the 9/11 Commission.

Zelikow has also been alleged to have made the controversial claim during his stint on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board that the real Iraqi threat was not to America: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel." These remarks were supposedly made at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, while Zelikow was speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts discussing 9/11 and the War on Terror."

9/12/2006 02:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Douglas Hermans

I've read a lot of commentary about the number of plotters it would have required to carry out an "Inside Job," black operation on September 11, 2001. One lively critic of the Truth Movement, Jan Burton, emailed me that 10,000 men would be needed. And all of them would have to keep their mouths shut forever.

I think 50 top specialists might carry out an operation like 9-11 successfully. Here's how it might be done.

Four or five head plotters at the top might hatch a plan. Call our plan PNAC. Plan of a New Attack Conspiracy. This handful of top government officials would hold the true reins of power in the White House and the Pentagon. I could name three or four players right now, just as anyone could, but I'll leave their identities to the imagination of my readers.

These powerful men, connected to banking, oil and the defense industry, would have a plan in place months in advance. They would then be joined by a half dozen foreign political operatives from a small, tech-savvy country. This small tech-savvy country would, ironically, have top officials in place already in the Pentagon. They would possess dual citizenship but be most loyal to one country. The small one.

Now we have 10-12 plotters.

The secretive, top operatives of the two countries would be joined by a few top honchos in the intelligence field. They would serve as a delaying force, delaying the warnings of loyal and patriotic Americans in the FBI, NSA and the FBI. Any whistleblowers that arose---like FBI translator Sibel Edmonds or the deceased FBI agent John O'Neill---would be marginalized later by a complicit mainstream media. This media would consist mostly of dupes and true believers. They would be outside the loop and not required to have insider information.

Now we number 15-20 key plotters.

These remarkable and clever men command huge numbers of SPECIAL FORCES. These special commandos resemble the Navy Seals. They possess certain demolition skills and variety of disguises and genuine-looking yet fake identification. I suspect these key players pledged a loyalty to a certain tech-savvy country and have been highly trained to follow orders. Trained professional killers who ask no question. Ever. Additionally, with their identifications, they are allowed ready access to key security points easily. Perhaps a dozen men altogether--maybe as few as a half dozen-probably gained access to the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 in the months prior to that "attack."

How many conspirators do we number thus far? 30 or 35 maybe? Far cry from the "tens of thousands" the Bushco apologists suggest.

Next, one would need the ability to control planes by remote control. Curiously, the head of a small, tech-savvy company that possessed that very technical electronic skill also enjoyed ready access to the Pentagon. He worked there in a high position as Comptroller, controlling the flow of money (during a time when 2.6 trillion went unaccounted for). According to Wikipedia: "In 2001, Dov Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems.

Coincidental? Perhaps-perhaps not.

Now you would need two or three more top people, preferably very rich, connected to the New York real estate market to acquire control of a suitable target. Let us call this target the WTC complex, a suitable array of architectural white elephants and one very highly important US government building (WTC-7) that could be insured for far more money than they cost.

Now we number 38 insiders at the most. Almost all of our ducks are in place. The shooting gallery is just about to open.

For the sake of simplicity, we'll require some skilled commandos to remain close to the targets. To remotely control the hijacked planes into the towers and Pentagon. How many skilled technicians would this require? Five thousand, you say? How about a dozen?

Well, now we've reached the 50. Anyone else is a peripheral player. Any top US general, befuddled at the Pentagon or NORAD is simply a victim, as much as those bewildered FAA air traffic controllers or USAF pilots. By the way, whatever happened to those air traffic control tapes? Guess we can add that fellow to our list of plotters, the top official who ordered the tapes destroyed after the New York Massacre.

That takes us to 51. Call it Area 51. A place that doesn't exist. Except in the twilight zone of our imagination. Except in the minds of "conspiracy nuts" like myself.

Lastly, critics of an inside job, like my correspondent Jan Burton, claim that somebody, anybody, would have come forward by now and "blown" the plot wide open. Now why would they do that? Indeed, well-trained commandos from another country might feel compelled to drunkenly boast about their exploits but I seriously doubt any commando would suffer any pangs of conscience.

And suppose some top official already came forward? Sybil Edmonds already came forward about 911 and her revelations have amounted to exactly nothing. Any top US official would have to think twice before risking his neck to suffer ridicule and probable recriminations---and threats of harm to himself and his family. I'm reminded of those US Navy sailors who were threatened with simple military courts martials and demotions if they talked about the attack on the USS Liberty. Now multiply the threat by, say, death. How many would talk then?

9/12/2006 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger Bruce said...

Jeff, love your blog, only one I read regularly, but, dude, I have to concur with Thermate Breath that the massive evidence of demolition at all of the WTC towers is one of the best wedge issues to present to 911 skeptics. Not only is much captured on the official media footage of the day, but the Marvin Bush/Securacom connection to security in the towers and the cutting of power for something like 30 hours to each of the main towers the week before the "attacks" is powerful evidence of means. I am not alone in this opinion, this is not one of the issues splintering the "911 Truth Movement."

9/14/2006 10:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""controlled demolition" brought down the towers, are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity"

Thats a joke, right?
Remind me when a localised laws of physics alteration device was invented again, my memory is hazy.

9/21/2006 10:20:00 AM  
Anonymous chevy chase pharmacy said...

Please keep us update for something new. Thanks a lot!

2/20/2010 01:31:00 AM  
Anonymous wolfet said...

The home of the infamous european toxic clan, psycho urban fraggers that pawn the virtual return to castle wolfenstein enemy territory battlefields.

7/19/2010 10:26:00 PM  
Anonymous justpub said...

Just Pub, a dumb return to castle wolfenstein enemy territory comic strip by feuersturm.

7/19/2010 10:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home