Tuesday, June 16, 2009

American politics: the choice between 'most bad' and 'not really very good'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

A true democracy is the exercise of free choice among real alternatives. A recent US regime change means little to those daring to demand the truth about 911. That's because real power no longer rests with the office of 'President'. Real power resides with the axis of MIC/K-Street/CIA-NSA. This cabal has good motives for continuing to cover up 911 and suppressing the truth. This cabal is among those who benefited most from 911.

What was true of Rome is true of the US. Emperors could rarely be called 'good' --just 'less bad'. By that scale, Bush, like Caligula, is 'most bad', Obama 'much less bad' but not yet really 'good'. A spoon full of sugar does little to sweeten a thousand acres of sheep sour or smelly manure.

Unfortunately, the system by which our leaders are selected exploits this paradigm, the result of the raw power accrued to extremely wealthy and armed interventionists, the merchants of war and plunder. I had hoped the American people deserved a better choice than 'less bad Obama' vs 'most bad Bush'. We can expect surface changes but precious few fundamental reforms.

Nothing said by Bush about 911 is true. Everything said about 911 by the US government, most prominently the Bush administration, is but a part of the 'big lie'! The US required a real revolution but got the 'less bad' Obama. That's how the system works. The result is that the people are never adequately or honestly represented by government. It also follows that until 911 is fully investigated and those truly guilty brought to justice, no US government can claim to be legitimate.

The Obama administration will not bring George W. Bush to justice for the crimes of high treason and mass murder called '911'. The office of President is powerless against the entrenched and combined powers of the 'intelligence community', K-Street and the Military/Industrial Complex. The government, the nation no longer belong to the people. Our 'sovereignty', guaranteed us in the US Constitution, is mocked.

That nothing said by the Bush administration about the crimes called 911 is true is good reason to suspect Bushco of high treason and mass murder. That Bushco benefited from 911 is cause to suspect that 911 was an act of mass murder and high treason perpetrated upon the people by its own government! Bush, his administration and enablers had method, motive and opportunity to pull off the crime of the century.

A real revolution would make holding those responsible a high priority. A real revolution would bring them to justice. Tragically, Americans have neither the stomach for nor the means by which a revolution of any sort may be waged. The lesson is this: if you wish to commit mass murder for profit you must first seize control of the government.

1) Official Flight Data from the NTSB proves conclusively that Flight 77 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. Flight 77 was at an altitude of 273 feet within less than two seconds of 'impact'. Source: NTSB, Pilots for 911 Truth, FOIA request, official computer data from NTSB.
The US State Department has a website to debunk conspiracy theories – not just about 9/11 but a whole range of stories circulating on the internet. But we found that simple requests, such as asking to see the plane wreckage of flight United 93 at Shanksville, or flight American Airlines 77 at the Pentagon, were refused after months of delay by the authorities. Yet if we had been able to film the wreckage from flight AA77 we would have had extremely strong evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

The explanation is simple. The US government has NO evidence in support of the official story. If it had, it would release it and put this issue to rest once and for all.

2) No airliner crashed at the alleged site in PA. Flight 93, we are led to believe, managed to bury itself upon impact, a convenient lie designed to cover the fact that no airliner wreckage was ever visible at the alleged 'crash' site. This myth can be put to rest with a simple excavation. My challenge to officialdom is this: if you believe or wish me to believe that a 757 lies buried under the soil in PA, then go dig it up and prove it to me!

Otherwise --shut the fuck up and resign your pubic office! Show me the wreckage! Until that is done, I say that there was and is no wreckage because there was no crash. Magic tricks are easy to pull off when no one is looking and you have trillion dollar deficits with which to finance the lies and misdirection.

3) Purdue University 'modeled' a soft-bodied, aluminum airliner slicing through steel girders at WTC's Twin Towers. Nonsense! If aluminum could slice through steel, Switzerland would make army knives out of aluminum.

But --they don't!

I carry a Swiss Army Knife. The blades are made of hardened steel. Purdue University has made a Faustian bargain. By putting its name on this piece of crap, by practicing 'truth by animation', Purdue relinquishes any credibility it might have claimed as an 'institution of higher learning'. These days anyone can animate anything. You can do major motion picture quality work with a free download called 'Blender'. All it takes are a few working brain cells and some patience. Walt Disney animated a mouse but that does not make Mickey real. Purdue animated a bald faced lie. It does not make it true!

4) As David Ray Griffin and numerous experts and scholars have pointed out: steel has never melted at Kerosene fire temperatures. And, until the laws of physics are repealed, it never will. The towers of WTC collapsed as a result of a controlled demolition. There is no other explanation consistent with the science of physics. [See: David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor (PDF)]

5) Only a controlled demolition looks like a controlled demolition The collapse of WTC7 looks just like a controlled demolition because it was one. WTC 7 collapsed though no airliner struck it. Consider the implications: if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, Silverstein and/or Bushco planted explosives prior to the attacks of 911. While all other official 'theories' merely raise more problems than they explain, the common sense conclusion is entirely consistent with Occam's Razor.

Larry Silverstein said that WTC 7 was pulled!

Later it was claimed by 'damage control' that Larry's use of the term 'pull it' really meant 'pull them' as in pull the firefighters out! Fire fighters are a 'them' --not an 'it'. Everyone else refers to 'firefighters' as 'firefighters', the 'unit' as a 'unit', they are not called 'it'! In fact, 'pull' --as Silverstein used the term in context --is commonly used by demolition experts to describe the professional demolition of buildings. One who is tasked with bringing about the controlled demolition of a building is said to 'pull it'. That's just the way it is, efforts to re-write history and common usage notwithstanding.

Just recently, a forty story steel frame building in Beijing was literally engulfed, totally involved in an horrific fire. Guess what! It did not collapse! And neither would WTC 7 which, of course, had help.

6) Clearly --anyone who commits a crime is most motivated to a) cover it up; b) lie about it about to protect the guilty. Who lied about 911? The most notable 911 liars are Bush himself and key members of his administration. Bush lied several times about having seen the crashes when, in fact, he could not possibly have seen them on TV at the time that he said he saw them. Perhaps the CIA had a arranged a non-network, 'closed circuit' set-up for him that he dare not reveal. Bush could not have seen the events 'live from New York' as he claimed unless someone in his administration knew precisely what was going to happen and when. Clearly --Bush and his 'players' were not ready for prime time. They fucked up and flopped!

Whoever that was, he/she/it might have gone to great lengths to arrange 'closed circuit' telemetry of the event for Bush's benefit. Certainly, there was no legitimate live coverage of the crash nor could there have been. Bush lied, revealing his complicity in the capital crimes of mass murder and high treason!

7) There were no Arab names on the official list of those autopsied from the Pentagon. The source for this is Dr. Olmsted, who filed an FOIA request. He had made the point that 'passenger lists' are just names someone types up on a piece of paper. It is not evidence. A coroner's report, however, is admissible in court. It's evidence. And, in this case, the coroner's report disproves Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. There's nary a 'hijacker' nor an Arab name on the list.

8) The BBC interviewed several 'said' hijackers though they were said by Bush partisans to have died in the attacks. Dead men don't give interviews. Another fatal flaw in the official conspiracy theory.

9) Phone calls by Barbara Olson et al were most certainly faked. Her husband, Ted Olson, told two mutually exclusive stories. Even so, the best explanation, consistent with Occam's razor, is that the alleged phone calls did not occur.
In this video the distinguished research scholar and author, David Ray Griffin, reports to a conference at the European Parliament on an FBI court document revealing that Ted Olson did not receive any telephone calls from his wife, Barbara Olsen, on flight 77 on sept 11, 2001 as falsely reported CNN reporter Tim O'Brien in the hours following the attacks. Obrien's report provided an eye witness account of hijackers allegedly armed with box cutters. CNN has not yet commented.

The Barbara Olson cell phone story is included in David Ray Griffin's new book: 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

--Video of David Ray Griffen, 911 Contradictions
Only the guilty tell deliberate lies about crimes, especially those lies having the effect of obstructing justice as Ted Olson's bald faced lie did. 911 was a crime of mass murder, possibly high treason. Ted's deliberate lie about this crime makes Ted liable for prosecution in Federal Courts as an accessory to the crimes of mass murder and high treason. At the very least it could be evidence that Olson was an accessory after the fact.

10) WTC steel was ordered destroyed, hauled away and sold! The willfull destruction of evidence is a crime; in this case, complicity and obstruction of justice. [See: Achitect and Engineers for 911 Truth]

11) Marvin Bush handled security for the WTC before and during 911. It would appear that he succeeded in doing the job for which he was planted. You can rest assured that he was rewarded when, in fact, he should have been arrested, charged and prosecuted for his complicity in the crimes of mass murder, high treason and domestic terrorism. Marvin Bush represents 'opportunity' among abundant method and motive.

12) Bush signed Executive Order 13292 which classifies 'a broad range of documents' and keeps them beyond the reach of citizens for 25 years. The EO also gave 'classification' powers to bunker Dick Cheney, VP at the time.

13) Though al Qaeda was blamed for 911, it is a matter of record that al Qaeda, the creation of the CIA, was founded at a mujahideen camp in Afghanistan in 1988, during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union.
It did, however, lay the groundwork for the expansion of power of the most extremist groups of the mujahideen and their allies from the Arab world, including the organization al-Qaeda, which was founded at a mujahideen camp in Afghanistan in 1988. The Soviet withdrawal and the end of the Afghan-Soviet war led not to peace but to new rounds of conflict. See also Islamic Fundamentalism.
Following the events of 911, Syria denied the very existence of al Qaeda. I am more inclined to believe Syria than anyone inside the US government. Certainly, the Bush administration gave us only propaganda and exploitation but no evidence. Al Qaeda became the label the admin attached to acts that the administration arbitrarily chalked up to 'terrorism'. 'Terrorism' itself is Orwellian. It is simply whatever those in power say that it is, or more accurately, whatever those in power believe they can most easily exploit. Dissent itself may be considered 'terrorism', especially any truth that might have the effect of discrediting or subverting the illegitimate exercise of power.

14) Though al Qaeda was blamed for 911, the US government insisted upon waging war on nations that most certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with 911. What, for example, did the Taleban government have to do with 911? The Taleban, it should be recalled, had visited UNOCAL officials in Sugar Land, TX, Tom DeLay's home district. The war in Afghanistan was about the 'failed pipeline' deal --not the 'terrorist' pretext that the media swallowed, regurgitated and then puked up for us. This sounds more like a drug (oil) deal gone bad! In fact, the US had threatened the Taleban with carpet bombing months before 911.

It's time to investigate this crime, round up the guilty, try them, sentence them and execute them.
Simon Polakowski said that if he believed the government's story on Sept. 11, 2001, he might as well believe the Earth is flat.

Polakowski produces an hour-long show with his friend Bob Martin called "9/11 Myth vs. Reality."

The show airs at 8 p.m. Mondays on public access channel 27.

He said that on Sept. 11, he was listening to the newscasts and thought to himself, "This is such bullshit."

He started the show more than one year ago to reach people who had similar doubts.

"From what I've been researching, there are millions of people who do not believe the official story and explanation," Polakowski said. "There are shows like this all across (the country). We get a lot of our material off of YouTube and off the Internet, and I am very thankful for all the people who are doing this research totally out-of-pocket."

The story of 19 hijackers led by "a man in a cave" is something Polakowski and Martin have a hard time believing.

"It was the most far-fetched story I have ever heard in my life," Polakowski said. "The most powerful nation on the face of the Earth, the most advanced military with over 30 intelligence agencies with over $40 billion in the annual budget to protect the nation, and they all failed?"

Martin was working as a doctor and living in New York on Sept. 11 and said he went to Ground Zero to help.

"One thing that bothered me was that we all noticed that the skies were quite empty, and there were no planes flying because there was a stop order," Martin said. "But they were really quiet. There were no military aircrafts over New York City for quite sometime, and somebody yelled out, 'Where the hell are the jets?' That question gnawed at me for the following year."

Martin said that as the day went on, there were more questions and concerns that popped up in his head.

"Another thing that gnawed at me was when I went down to Ground Zero, - it occurred to me that there was almost nothing left of these structures," Martin said. "I'm looking at girders that weigh anywhere from 4 to 300 tons. They were embedded in other skyscrapers like giant arrows. We're talking about distances upwards of 400 feet. Because this was allegedly a gravity-driven collapse, I found it very hard to reckon with what I saw."

Polakowski said 9/11 was a shock-and-awe maneuver that caught Americans completely off guard.

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt said there are no accidents in politics," Martin said. "It was the ultimate political act. People were suffering from PTSD in New York City, and that is what war does. It unbalances the human psyche, and when there is something of shock, they are much easier to manipulate."

Martin said the TV show explores possibilities of how and why 9/11 happened. Martin said many parts of the government's story do not hold up to scrutiny.

"The event 9/11 is a seminal event of the century that triggered this global War on Terror," Martin said. "It goes logically from what we're positive of - that the War on Terror is perhaps a hoax and is contrived. And that has its origins in intelligence agencies and major corporations in the Western world."

Martin said he uses the basic question of motive and benefit to come to his conclusion.

"When detectives come upon a murder scene, the first thing they ask themselves is, 'Who benefits from this?'" Martin said. "'Is it a crime of passion? Is there something that was put together and planned out?' This is the main question that should be asked about 9/11, is, 'Who benefits? Did the Arabs benefit?' No. So, who benefited from this?"

--9/11: A government story full of holes
The 'rats' desert the sinking ship. Even former Bushies dispute the lies still told us about 911.
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
  • Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..
  • When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
  • The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.
  • FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
  • Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."
  • Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
  • The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
  • WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
  • WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
  • In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
  • It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. [or even weakening sufficiently to collapse]

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

Greg Szymanski – Artic Beacon June 12, 2005, Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
It's too early to say that Obama will remembered as Marcus Aurelius --less bad, intelligent, thoughtful --or that Bush will be remembered as Caligula is remembered --a total waste of human DNA. A new paradigm is desperately needed, a paradigm that includes not merely the entire spectrum of political dissent but also the dimming hope that political morality might be electable and in some manner triumphant.


Anonymous said...

Hitler said that politics were a matter of emotion, not rational thought or facts and figures.
We are a society conditioned by a myth, a myth represented by John Phillip Sousa, John Wayne, Spielbergs teary eyed appeals to emotion and thousands upon thousands of hooks which tangle our emotions in some sort of alliance with a fatuous American Dream.
The pain of realising that things ain't right is simply too much for most of the citizens of this Disneyland fantasy world. Any "facts" which contradict the myth can be ignored, as the Ministry of Truth has instant quick explanations ready for a populace which is already primed to believe in angels, UFOs, and a number of magical theories, from creationism to God being an American.
To see and read this collection of information here this morning was to, once again, realise how difficult it is to "tell" anyone anything. The lines seem to be drawn, with True Believers locked into their respective points of view, not to be changed by "facts" of any sort.
It is clear that a monstrous crime has been commited, clear to those not emotionally invested in the myth of Americas' rectitude.
On another level, to blame the criminal system now in place on the citizens has merit, though to demand action against the state by our leaders, or to call upon mass demonstrations to sway the direction of things seems almost impossible.
This system has been in place since the beginning, and since WWII, it has become highly refined, with near complete control over the information and attitudes which most people here share.
One must try, though.
Don Smith

Unknown said...

Don Smith sez ...

The pain of realising that things ain't right is simply too much for most of the citizens of this Disneyland fantasy world

I chalk it up to a states of shock and awe and an unhealthy does of denial.

The 'insiders' who pulled this thing off share many chracteristics with kooky cults. It's easy enough to sell one's soul.

There is a memorable exchange from the 1966 'Best Picture' Oscar Winner: A Man for All Seasons.

It goes like this:

The Duke of Norfolk:

Oh confound all this. ... Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More:

And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

To see and read this collection of information here this morning was to, once again, realise how difficult it is to "tell" anyone anything.

It is next to impossible. I have lost life long friends, old classmates because I will insist upon 'doing my conscience'. I am not sure that Bush in hell himself will be in a position to commiserate with those who will have FAILED to 'do their consciences'.

On another level, to blame the criminal system now in place on the citizens has merit, though to demand action against the state by our leaders, or to call upon mass demonstrations to sway the direction of things seems almost impossible.

We're pretty much fucked! A revolution like that waged by the French against Louis XVI is really out of the question. The internet, I believe, has made a big difference but not big enough against the huge leviathans like Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC et al.

Anonymous said...

This post has caused me to examine, for the umpteenth time, just what has happened to "conscience" in the political realm of this benighted republic.
After WWII, the corporations used every means at their disposal to dismantle the "socialist" reforms,(small as they actually were),instituted as a stopgap against revolution by the patrician FDR.
By turning the thermostat on the "cold war" and pounding the drum continuously about the threat of communism, the mob was sufficiently distracted so as to forget just who paid the highest price in blood destroying Hitler and his obscene racial pecking order.
Some 27 million Soviets died to finally march into Berlin.
As to a threat to the West, the Soviets could barely feed themselves and parts of the USSR were dying from famine.
The "loss" of China was another specious point,China was never "ours" to lose, the coterie of crooks calling themselves the "Republic of China" never had the support of the populace, save in a general way in opposition to the Japanese invaders.
Massive thefts of lend-lease materials were commonplace, as Pearl Harbor was rightly regarded as a guarantee of Japanese defeat. The Kuomintang stashed away reserves for the postwar showdown with Mao, knowing that Japan would be driven out, and then China would be seized by the best prepared.
Truman bought into this public relations bilge by disguising anti-labor and anti democratic funding as the "Marshal Plan", destroying the left,(which had been the core of anti Nazi resistance during the war), in Western Europe.
Throughout this period, accusations with little substance shifted the liberals to the defence, "soft on communism" was enough to lose a job, or an election.
By the time Kennedy ran for POTUS, it was only necessary to mouth liberal platitudes before the primaries to gain the Democratic vote. After all, where else could they go?
Once in power, the same corporate melange still ran the show, with a bit of window dressing here and there.
Civil Rights?
Sure, the poor downtrodden minorities should be given the same privilege to vote for meaningless candidates as the rest of the herd.(Remeber, MLK wasn't killed until he began to organise labor).
This lip service to the "liberals"was very apparent in our most recent dog and pony show, though it was electorally unnecessary, given the primary system now makes the convention little more than a side show.
This was a sop to the mob, those liberals with "nowhere else to go".
The liberals went on the defensive in 1944, and they never came back.

Don Smith

Unknown said...

It was said that I was under the impression that 'steel' would have to melt to bring about the collaps of the towers. I didn't said that. And, interesting, that 'charge' is the officialists LAST REDOUBT.

1) it misstates my positions;

2) the 'steel need only weaken' theory is still put forward sans ANY evidence in its support;

3) the fires that were started as a result of the crash of the alleged airliners were clearly spent literally within seconds of the impact. They might have made a weiner roast in the one case, a small barbecue in the other. As a hard-bitten journalist who cover LOSTS of fires including military jet aircraft, I remain unimpressed with the fires and even more unimpressed with the bullshit that is peddled about them.


In the case of the South Tower, the hottest fireball was spent OUTSIDE the building. In the other instance, the fact that the fires had begun cooling within seconds of the fireball is proven by the video of people in the gaping holes, waving for help.

That would not, could not have happened. The fires were NEVER the 'raging infernos' capable of bringing down a steel framed skyscraper --an event that has, in fact, NEVER occurred. The 'steel need only weaken' theory is utterly without empircal support and assumes exposure over a much longer period of time. It also ASSUMES other facts NOT IN EVIDENCE, primarily that the heat sustained over a longer period time would have been 'even' enough to have brought about a the appearance of a controlled demolition.

At at last --it does not explain the numerous witnesses, including professional firefighters, who describe BOMBS and squibbs. It also DOES NOT explain the plethora of video footage OF squibbs actually detonating.

And there is simply NO EVIDENCE to support the OFFICIAL THEORY; there is NO EVIDENCE that on 911 the laws of physics were repealed.

That issue is a dead issue as far as I am concerned and only idiots continue to believe it. Some advice for them: get a clue and look up burden of proof! Otherwise --shut the fuck up and don't bother me!

Don sez ...

This post has caused me to examine, for the umpteenth time, just what has happened to "conscience" in the political realm of this benighted republic.

I don't to sound flip, but what happened was we lost the republic.

Truman bought into this public relations bilge by disguising anti-labor and anti democratic funding as the "Marshal Plan", destroying the left,(which had been the core of anti Nazi resistance during the war), in Western Europe.

That's excellent point and explains America's pathology. One of our arms has been chopped off.

By the time Kennedy ran for POTUS, it was only necessary to mouth liberal platitudes before the primaries to gain the Democratic vote. After all, where else could they go? Once in power, the same corporate melange still ran the show, with a bit of window dressing here and there.

And the left itself must bear much of the blame. We are betrayed not only by the crooked right but the COMPROMISED and CASTRATED left!

damien said...

Great work as always, Len. I'm not sure where the US democratic processes go from here but it does not look good. A few of the commentators are arguing that the economic recovery is just a share market pullback in a massive down trend and I think they're right. The Fed and Treasury are looking to sell US Treasuries to fund the bank bailouts but the big players, China etc, are not buying them. The slack apparently may be taken up by the big banks themselves who will buy the Treasuries. It's a vicious cycle with only one outcome: the collapse of the US dollar. Then the debate centres on whether we will then get price deflation, a massively winding down of the economy and 30% real unemployed (likely) or whether we will get hyperinflation and a skyrocketing of commodities like oil, grains (remember the speculative grains surge a year ago that had Asia in a tail spin) and gold. People are talking about the death of Bretton Woods and a retreat to precious metals. I have no idea. But a further massive collapse of the global economy seems likely very soon. What we will probably see then is a popular retreat to the trappings of democratic forms. Ordinary citizens have been 'shirt-fronted' by corporate interests and are shell-shocked. I don't think they have any strength or sense to take to the streets. I think it will be hunker down and every many for himself. Sad, really.

Here's another link to add to your overwhelming proof of 911 criminality -- "Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York."

Cheers, mate.

Unknown said...

Damien sez...

A few of the commentators are arguing that the economic recovery is just a share market pullback in a massive down trend and I think they're right.

I agree with those 'few' commentators. The fundamentals for a real, complete or sustainable 'recovery' are just not there.

The American 'empire' is already fallen. China has US by the gonads and may squeeze whenever it is to their benefit to squeeze.

People are talking about the death of Bretton Woods and a retreat to precious metals. I have no idea. But a further massive collapse of the global economy seems likely very soon.

Certainly --the value of any 'paper' currency is the degree to which folk are willing to accept it. A 'paper' currency --not redeemable with metals et al --works only for as long as people are willing to accept it and folk are increasingly LESS WILLING to accept it when the economy it represents is in the hole. My simplistic analogy is that of trying to get a second or third mortgage on one's home when you're already upside down. The US is upside down, OWNED by China. That Faustian bargain was negotiated by Bush Sr and 'sealed' by Richard Nixon in his 'operatic' visit to China.

Ordinary citizens have been 'shirt-fronted' by corporate interests and are shell-shocked. I don't think they have any strength or sense to take to the streets. I think it will be hunker down and every many for himself. Sad, really.

Indeed, Damien, it's tragic. I don't see anyone carrying 'old Glory' over the barricades. We are less cowardly than compromised but there are no Patrick Henrys among us. The US government will --eventually --collapse of its own weight. I just don't see a worthy, courageous 'revolution' filling the void.

I am reminded of the vivid picture drawn us by William Faulkner when he accepted the Nobel Prize for literature in 1950:

"I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking."

Faulkner went on to say: "I decline to accept the end of man."

I am no longer sure that he was correct on that point. If the 'end of man' is now foreseeable, it is because we have ourselves authored it.

Though he 'declined to accept the end of man', Faulkner was no optimist. He summed up human existence in Shakespearean terms: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!"

Anonymous said...

You have been on fire lately, Len. You may have the most important blog on the Internet, in terms of the links you provide in support of your positions and your hard-hitting delivery.


Unknown said...

Thanks, anonymous. You may be interested in my latest article in which AA claims that Fl 11 NEVER even flew that day. Another NAIL in Buscho's coffin.

Anonymous said...

2) the 'steel need only weaken' theory is still put forward sans ANY evidence in its support;

The strongest argument against this theory is that, even if it were true, the buildings collapsed at free-fall (i.e. controlled demolition) speed. This could not have happened unless every supporting beam underneath each building had been rendered useless - something that could only have been done with explosive charges.

I guess my "Thank You" comment in your next post really should have gone here! Sorry about that! I'm a little behind in reading your blog.

I think 9/11 is really the key to everything that followed and that it is very courageous of you to keep it alive in such a great way! Thank you so much, Len! I hope your efforts will move everything more quickly towards the full investigation that should have started in 2001.


Anonymous said...

Three things stand out in my mind regarding the events of 9/11/01.

1) Silverstein insured the towers for billions against "terrorist attacks", and in less than two months from taking control of the lease, these same buildings collapsed, blamed on "terrorists." ANY first rate police detective, upon learning the victim was insured by someone close (or with an interest in the insured), would focus like a laser on that person that benefited. Yet Silverstein gets no scrutiny, in fact, collects the insurance billions, in a court room with the judge Mark Mukasey. Bush's pick for A.G. Go figure. Yet, if I insured my wife for $100,000 in case she drowned while fishing, and she "had an accident on our boat and drowned" less than two months later, I would be the subject of one of these TV "Reality" detective shows, with a sure 25 to life sentence at the end of the 30 minute show.
Think about that, America. THINK, please.

2) If total collapses like the towers and WTC 7 could REALLY be caused by "fires from jet fuel", then why in the world would these controlled demolition companies need to use computer programs to locate the correct steel columns to pre-cut, spend weeks on where to place the explosives, what sequence to initiate to implode the building upon itself, if one could simply pour 10,000 gallons of cheap jet fuel in the basement, throw a match in, stand back, and watch almost perfect freefalls?


3) Lastly, but most importantly, is the absolute unnecessary loss of American life to implement these invasions and occupations of innocent oil-producing or pipeline crucial nations. Yes, the PNAC Manifesto had it's "we need a new Pearl Harbor to get the people behind these goals" statement, sure.

But did they really? And did they really think they did? I do not believe they did, nor do I believe they thought they did. I think they are murderous sociopaths, in desperate need of their necks stretched. Like putting down rabid dogs, we MUST not allow them to live, to carry on, without justice done. WE MUST NOT.

I'd point to this fake, CIA-implemented "Vote Fraud Iranian election" propaganda as evidence. Would anyone sane try to state the msm is not already controlled by government? That the masses aren't already swayed by the lies told BEFORE 9/11/01? Did we have any "Pearl Harbor" type attacks before we invaded Iraq in 1990? Panama? Grenada? Vietnam?

No, we did not, and the masses lined up to wave the flag, back the first idiot Bush in his goals.

So, they KNEW they did NOT "need a new Pearl Harbor" to manipulate the average American "30 second sound bite memory" minds. They've already been programmed to obey. THEY KNEW violence was NOT necessary, yet PLANNED TO KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS ANYWAY.

THAT is what I want my fellow Americans to ponder: they killed us for NO REASON, other than THEY COULD.

Just because they wanted to.



Unknown said...

A very enlightening perspective on this widely known and scarring event to the United States of America. Although you have just means to believe in this speculation or fact the truth is there is rare probability Bush will be prosecuted for his actions and if so would cause only emotional satisfaction. In some religions and philosophies, acceptance is a virtue. To that perspective the most efficient ways to deliver evidence to the public is to speculate a future event not many would foresee and prove why it happened. Simple as the "Eclipse to the natives" trick... Not as shallow and demeaning as that though. Like I said though, very enlightening post.

Unknown said...

ncognito said...

here is rare probability Bush will be prosecuted for his actions and if so would cause only emotional satisfaction.

And that will remain the case as along as people choose to be uninformed and/or apathetic. I urge folk to take the country back! It's either that --or slavery!