Musings, perspectives, rants

In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable
theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence
seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by
controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring
mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already
possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important
thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job,
orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the
prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a
presentation entitled "The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A
Christian Theologian Speaks Out." Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze
a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials
have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of
one of the most powerful indictments of the official story, the
collapse of the towers and WTC 7.

Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen's tapes which were
recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by
victim's families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported
in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These
sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off
in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who
saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.

Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all
indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by
planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly
without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own
footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they
fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being
progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The
towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160
mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing
fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be
necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much
less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments
that  could drop at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the
most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very
existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were
severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot
trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could
transpire. There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete
being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can
begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered
into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several
hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions,
with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward.
These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even
most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of
the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters
were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person
descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost
four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the
city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led
him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the
collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the
three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no
longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.

It's important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent
intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter
Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and
Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the
official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These
brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of
discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost
universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since
there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case
developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez
Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown
that a strong  majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and
half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders
conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.

How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story
of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin
himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:

"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has
thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under
the guise of obeying President Bush's advice not to tolerate
"outrageous conspiracy theories." We have seen, however, that it is
the Bush administration's conspiracy theory that is the outrageous
one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts,
including some basic laws of physics.

"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not
pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los
Angeles Times said:

"'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11
is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . .
the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of
rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a
government conspiracy of 'X-Files' proportions and insidiousness.'

"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at
least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it
would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of
government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to
believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any
merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more
recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American
psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole
will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the
values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the
Bush administration's lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its
disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its
criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its
apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the
use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this
lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account
of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take
the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the
truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course,
involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with
the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it
is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral
histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps
even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth
about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion."

from
Global Research

The 9/11 attacks were described as “opportunities” by Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and members of the NSC.

 

A year before 9/11 the Project for a New American Century published a document which argued for increased military spending to ensure “military preeminence”.  The process would be much quicker, it said, if America suffered “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”  Members of the PNAC included Cheney, Armitage, Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld.  On 9/11 itself Bush wrote "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."

 

The PNAC document also included strategies for dominating space and preventing access to other nations.  Its Vision for 2020 mission statement is: "US Space Command – dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment.”  Its primary purpose to protect US investments abroad.  Such protection will be needed, it says, because the “globalization of the world economy will continue with a widening between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.”  This program involves 3 parts:

Space based surveillance technology (tick)

Putting up space weapons such as lasers which can take out satellites of other countries.

An offensive missile shield.  The purpose of the ‘missile defense shield’ is to prevent other countries from being able to deter the US from launching a first strike against them.

This program is expensive, so in order for Americans to be more accepting of the expense there would have to be a ‘new Pearl Harbor’.

Rumsfeld was also the chairman of the Commission to assess US national security space management and organization.  Its report issued in January 2001 said a ‘space Pearl Harbor – will be the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the US government to act'.  Rumsfeld used the success of the 9/11 attacks to get more money including for the US Space Command.

These remarkable coincidences were, of course, not mentioned in the Commission Report.

 

Plans to attack Afghanistan were under way months if not years before September 2001.

The previously (US-)friendly Taliban regime was an obstacle to the construction of the oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan in the late 90s.  The Taliban were given one last chance in July 2001 to share power or “we bury you under a carpet of bombs”.  Attacking Afghanistan would also help to establish an American presence in Central Asia (with its vast oil reserves).  Within a month after 9/11 long-term US bases were arranged for Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.  Zbigniew Brzezinski, NSA advisor to Carter, said in a book that this region was key to world power and argued that America, to ensure its continued primacy, must get control of this area.  The problem, he said, was that America “is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad” which limits the use of America’s power, especially “its capacity for military intimidation”.  “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”  This can be overcome, he suggests, if there is a “sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being” such as a”truly massive and widely perceived external threat.”

The Commission Report ignores these ‘coincidences’.

 

Plans to attack Iraq were pushed for well before 9/11 and any reason would be acceptable.  Wolfowitz argued that Saddam should be attacked even if there was a 10% chance that he was involved in 9/11.  But the plan to attack had been in the works ‘for at least a decade’.  Perle and his colleagues recommended in 1996 that Israel adopt a policy of ‘preemption’, advocating that Israel invade Lebanon and then Syria and even included notes which could be used in a speech to justify such action.  Israel should say

“negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism…It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors… and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.”

These would be used later to justify attacks on Iraq.

In 1997 Rumsfeld, Perle, and other PNAC members urged Clinton to use military force against Saddam to remove him from power and thereby “protect our vital interests in the Gulf”.  Clinton didn’t listen.  In 2000 the PNAC published “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” emphasizing that Saddam was a threat to American interests in the region.  10 of the 18 signers of the letter to Clinton became members of the Bush administration.

Notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations about 9/11 by an aide included the following:

“Judge whether good enough hit SH (Saddam Hussein) at same time.  Not only UBL (Usama Bin Laden)  Go massive. Sweep it all up.  Things related or not.”  It’s clear that anything would be used as a pretext to attacking Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.  The plan was to “replace the Ba’ath regime in Iraq with a pro-American puppet government and build permanent military bases there”.

The PNAC said in its 2000 document:

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security.  While the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

 

Don’t expect American withdrawal from Iraq anytime soon, if ever.

 

As I suspected, at least one of the Bali bombs was probably NOT placed by terrorists but by the Indonesian police or military.

Police had role in Bali blasts

This wouldn't surprise me as the Indonesian government is, and has always been, corrupt.

When you find out about such truths/doubts/confessions at a later date doesn't it make you want to doubt all claims of 'terrorism'?  It's not unheard of, by any means, that governments will undertake terrorist attacks and destructive covert action and blame the 'bad guy'.  Any attack, any act of destruction can be blamed on some elusive or obscure terrorist group.  How's anyone to know?  The mainstream media certainly don't make any efforts to investigate superficial reports.  And these attacks are a perfect excuse for more invasions, more laws, more restrictions.  It's in our 'best interest', for our own 'safety'.

Bullshit.

Postscript:  This is basically what Ray McGovern is saying here.  (Another article at Prisonplanet reports on a fake terrorist alert in NY.) 

So, DON'T BELIEVE THEM!

Mood: annoyed

It pisses me off - which is why I barely watch TV news or take anything seriously on the front page of the international section of the news.  Today, for example, they had a photo of hundreds of coffins.  Supposedly they dug up the corpses of Kurds killed by Saddam in the 80s.  This sort of one-sided sentimental crap, designed to involve your emotions, is, in my opinion, utter bullshit and is not objective journalism.  When has mention ever been made of the Kurds slaughtered by Turks?  How many people actually know about that?  Fuck all I would say.  It's the one-sided, selective coverage pandering to the propaganda put out by Bush, Blair, Howard, et al, that really incenses me.  Anything I read or hear from mainstream media I take with a grain of salt.  The cynic in me disbelieves just about everything.  They never give the full story.  Never.

Reading another very interesting book currently.  The 9/11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin (author of The New Pearl Harbor).
Four chapters in and he raises some very good points, which I've seen before elsewhere.  None of these are mentioned in the report.  If a report claims to be unbiased and thorough all these questions should be dealt with.  Instead, it follows the party line.

1)  The Hijackers - four of the alleged hijackers who were in the planes are actually still alive and had nothing to do with any of it.  Did they draw names out of a hat?

2) The Collapse - it's inconsistent with the fire.  No such fire from a plane could cause such a collapse.  And what about WTC-7?  No planes hit that building but it 'collapsed' in the same way.  Actually it appears it was 'brought down' with explosives by the firemen themselves and yet it did collapse the same way -( it's said explosives were used to bring down the towers).  The steel columns were whisked away before forensics could see them.  Besides which, if the planes really did cause the collapses - why did the tower hit last collapse first?  It seems to defy the laws of physics.

3) The Pentagon - yeah where was the plane?  How come the hole was so small?  Where's the footage?  How did an inexperienced pilot (actually he was described as 'poor') bring a plane down so expertly and ram the west wing from virtually a horizontal position?  Why the west wing which was being renovated at the time?  If terrorists are going to attack the pentagon why not where the bigwigs are?  Why not attack the nearby nuclear power station?  Why not attack Bush while he's reading stories (upside down) in a classroom?

4) Bush himself.  He didn't seem too concerned did he.  Because he knew - because it was all staged.  If it was real he would have shown something - he would have been whisked away and protected.  When he eventually flew out of there about 35 minutes later he didn't even have air protection.  Because he knew he was in no danger.  Terrorist attacks my arse.  The whole thing was staged.

So yeah, the Commission report is a farce.  It doesn't answer any of the valid questions raised by so many.  It's a complete coverup.

"MORALITY TEST



This test only has one question, but it's a VERY important one.  By giving
an honest answer,  you will discover a lot about yoursef morally.





The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you
will have to make a very important decision.





Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.





Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.  You will
be given the situation first....then a scenario....and then you will be
asked the question.









THE SITUATION


You are in New Orleans.  There is chaos all around you caused by hurricane
Katrina, with severe flooding and massive damage.





This is a flood of biblical proportions.





You are photo journalist working for a major magazine and you are caught in
the middle of this epic disaster.





The situation is nearly hopeless.  You are trying to shoot career-making
photos.





There are pieces of debris and people swirling around you, some screaming
and disappearing under the water.  Nature is unleashing all of its
destructive fury.









THE SCENARIO


Suddenly you see a man in the water.  He is despeately fighting for his
life, trying not to be taken down with the debris.




You move closer. The man begins pleading for your help.





Somehow the man looks familiar.  You suddenly realize who it is.  It's
President George W. Bush!





At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take  him
under forever.





You have two options - you can save the life of the President of the United
States, or you can shoot dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photographs
documenting the death of one of the world's most famous men.







THE QUESTION








Would you select high contrast colour film, or would you go with the classic
simplicity of black and white?"

 

 

At least the French Ambassador to Australia recognises this. 

Iraq invasion breeds terrorists, ambassador says

Perhaps that's America's intention all along - to create terrorists so it has justification for continuing its war of imperialism.  Its ultimate goal to rule and dominate the world - to have all countries under its power as outlined in articles linked below.  The US will never leave Iraq.  Iran's next, then Syria.

Dick Cheney's song of America

The president's real goal in Iraq

Mind you, Bush provides less and less justification as he goes along.  He doesn't need any.  No-one's stopping him.  He'll do as he likes and keep on.  This isn't a war on terrorism.  He's the terrorist.

The War Against Terrorism = TWAT

Mood: cynical

" When media report wars or disasters, why are death tolls announced before bodies are counted? And what does this do to our democracy? "

The numbers game: death, media and the public

Jean Seaton raises a very good point.  I've noticed it myself - when a disaster strikes the body count is estimated at a very high number, to get our attention.  For a start, how can they possibly know how many have died so soon.  The trouble is, as the truth becomes apparent and an actual body count emerges, the erroneous estimate is still often quoted.  Apparently it's not a disaster unless thousands died (but, of course, even more so if the victims are white).

Numbers are part of the lies.  The numbers of dead of the 'enemy' or civilians of invaded countries is always grossly underestimated, while the patriotic soldiers' death numbers are overstated.  No-one ever hears about the thousands (actually more like over a million) people who have died as a result of US sanctions on Iraq.  What did that achieve exactly?  And then to kick them when they're down and actually dare to claim they're planning a nuclear attack on the States.  Oh please.  They just want clean water and jobs and to live peacefully.  Then fuckwit Bush decides to go in and kill off a few more (well big daddy did, didn't he).  Well actually he didn't do anything - just sat back and played golf or whatever the fuck he does after he's made these outrageous decisions. 

Been busy so haven't managed to catch up with any reading.  I really wonder about these 'Islamic' attacks in Bali.  Every attack has a motive - but we're not hearing about it.  Perhaps they're orchestrated to justify Howard's crackdown on liberties in Australia.  There's another fuckwit if ever there was one - a Bush asskisser like Blair.

 

Oh wait, there was Reagan.  I thought he was bad enough but this chimp takes the cake.  If he weren't so dangerous it'd be hilarious.  He's a retard.

Something that's also happening in Britain.  Animal rights activists and environmental activists are starting to be treated as 'terrorists'.

 "I believe legislative efforts that brand activists as 'terrorists' are largely aimed at intimidating compassionate Americans from speaking out against institutionalized animal cruelty, such as the abuse and exploitation of animal (sic) by the multi-billion dollar meat, dairy and egg industries," said Nathan Runkle, executive director of Mercy For Animals.."

Stepping Up the Attack on Green Activists

Yet another nail in the coffin for freedom of speech, resulting from the Patriot Act. ".. According to the law, the crime of domestic terrorism is committed when a person engages in activity... appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion."  That's a pretty broad definition which can be used to label anyone a terrorist.  The point of all protests is to influence policy.  Pretty soon anyone in a protest will be arrested as a terrorist.

Excerpts from the book, 'Tinderbox'.

"Terrorism rarely rises out of democratic societies.  When it does, terrorist groups are usually suppressed fairly easily , since few people agree with the terrorists' assertion that armed resistance is the best way to force needed political changes...  By contrast, it is no coincidence that political movements dedicated to advancing their cause through violence tend to arise within countries where governments hold power through violence.  The United States plays a major role in propping up repressive governments which, in turn, has led to a terrorist backlash.  Most Middle Easterners do not see American democracy at work, but they do see "Made in USA" on tear gas canisters and bomb casings used against civilians."...

"Even though democracy and individual liberty is not common in the Arab-Islamic world, the emphasis in the West on cultural or religious explanations tends to minimize other factors that are arguably more salient.  These include the legacy of colonialism, high levels of militarization, and uneven economic development, much of which can be linked in no small part to the policies of Western governments, including United States."....

"Human rights violations by foreign governments and their lack of democratic institutions generally get the most attention in the United States.... in order to mobilize domestic and international opinion against a regime the US government opposes.....
A large majority of countries in that region (Middle East) lack democratic institutions and engage in a consistent pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations.  In addition, three major recipients of US aid - Morocco, Israel and Turkey - have conquered all or parts of neighboring countries by force, engaged in ethnic cleansing, and continue to subjugate the population of these occupied territories in defiance of the Geneva Convention and the United Nations."...

Do we see the US attacking them?  No.

"... Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist and misogynist theocracy... engages in widespread human rights abuses, is labeled so frequently in the United States as a 'moderate' Arab regime." 
And also the country of origin of the majority of the 9/11 hijackers.  Do we see the US attacking them? No.

"Unlike Saudi Arabia, most Middle Eastern states do have elections.  They are usually formalities...  In addition, monarchical succession was not automatic to the eldest son or any single member of the royal family; the successor was chosen by a consensus of tribal elders based on his qualifications.  It was the British who dominated the Gulf region during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that helped ossify the sheikly system to a largely inherited position.  With the addition of strong American backing... several of these Arab monarchies have evolved from their relatively open traditional tribal governing structures to ones more closely resembling modern bureaucratic authoritarianism.  As a result, human rights abuses have increased in a number of these countries.... Popular resentment cannot help but expand beyond the regime in question to its chief foreign patron as well."

"Rampant double standards also fuel resentment of the United States.  American officials have condemned Iraqi repression of its Kurdish minority... Meanwhile, just to the north, the United States has armed the Turkish armed forces in their repression of its Kurdish minority....  The right of self-determination for Kuwaiti Arabs while under Iraqi occupation was vigorously defended, but not the right of Palestinian Arabs under Israeli occupation..."

Just a few excerpts from the beginning of chapter one of Stephen Zunes' book,  to point out to people who would never pick up a book to read for themselves.  So many Westerners  are totally ignorant of the real situation or of the double standards and hypocrisy.

Mood: Both disgusted and saddened

I just watched a very interesting film (the abovenamed) by Maysoon Pachachi.  She returned to Iraq with her father Adnan Pachachi who was involved with the drafting of Iraq's temporary constitution and Bill of Rights.  While she was in Iraq she filmed casual interviews with ordinary people in Iraq.  Each had a story to tell and it was sobering to listen to them.  I'll give you examples from memory.

A man driving with his 15 year old son saw a beaten Iraqi on the road, hands tied, soldiers around.  He stopped.  They searched his car and found an old pistol.  He and his son were arrested.  He was sent to Abu Ghraib while his son was sent to a prison several miles to the south of Baghdad.  (What had his son done?)  While in Abu Ghraib a group of them were shot at with live ammunition.  A boy near him, about his son's age, was killed.  He prayed for the boy and was asked what he was doing...  Eventually he got out and tried to find his son.  The Americans denied all knowledge of his son and it was only after painstaking searches and help, that he found him.  What had they done to deserve such treatment?

Another person told of an incident where a man's car was not working properly.  The carburettor was stuffed and it backfired.  The driver was shot.  No questions asked.

A woman told of American soldiers invading their homes and taking their gold and cash.  The soldier threatened that if they complained he would come back and take them away.

Several complained of arbitrary arrests and shootings.  They believe that the Americans and British are inciting civil war and unrest.  The Iraqis don't want to kill each other.  It's the Americans and British who pretend to be Iraqi and killing other Iraqis which then gives them an excuse to continue occupying the country and controlling everything.

No, they didn't like it under Saddam.  But how is it better now?  Shootings, thefts, arrests without trial, no electricity, no medicine, no jobs, no wages. 
The army was decimated after the Gulf War.  Iraq has NEVER been a threat to the US or anyone else especially since that time.  The soldiers were unpaid.  They didn't want to fight for Saddam but they also didn't want foreigners invading their country (would you?).  What choice did they have?  There were no jobs.

They told of the planes high up in the sky dropping cluster bombs, tearing people to bits.  Then the tanks came in and fired indiscriminately at women, children, buildings.  Who are the terrorists here?

When you've seen any Iraqis on TV think about how they're portrayed.  I bet they're shown as poor and dirty, the women veiled.  When, for example,  have you ever seen a clean, well-dressed, articulate, attractive Iraqi woman?  Iraqis are portrayed as subhuman not worth the 'privilege' of human rights.

Iraqis I've met have always been intelligent, articulate, and very nice, welcoming people.  What have they done to deserve the treatment meted out by the Americans?  All they want is their country back, some basic infrastructures put back in place (all destroyed by US in the Gulf War), some independence, freedom to live peacefully.  They are very patient, but who could blame them for being angry.

The invasion is not about democracy.  After arguing with Americans about their constitution, the Iraqis said among themselves there was no point if the allied rule of law overrode the Iraqi constitution.  May as well call yourselves an occupied territory, ruled by the White House.  How do you think they would feel about that?  Who wants to be ruled by liars and thieves?  The Iraqi government is not autonomous and Iraq will never be free while the 'allies' occupy it.  And they won't leave.  Why?  Oil.
More on 'democracy' later.

If you can find a copy of the film, do watch it.  It's distributed by Arab Film Distribution in Seattle (sold to institutions.  If you're lucky there may be a copy in your library).  www.arabfilm.com