Monday, June 28, 2010

Examining the Case of David Ray Griffin

"David Ray Griffin: Afghanistan War not even close to legal; 9/11 “justifications” all lies.

June 25 LA County Nonpartisan Examiner Carl Herman

Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan? Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a Forbidden Question

By Prof. David Ray Griffin
Cross-posted from Global Research.

June 25, 2010

There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be "Obama's Vietnam."1 This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.

Although there are many similarities between these two wars, there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have surely been stopped long ago. People have often asked: Did we learn any of the "lessons of Vietnam"? The US government learned one: If you're going to fight unpopular wars, don't have a draft hire mercenaries!

There are many other questions that have been, and should be, asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11 attacks justify the war in Afghanistan?

This question has thus far been considered off-limits, not to be raised in polite company, and certainly not in the mainstream media. It has been permissible, to be sure, to ask whether the war during the past several years has been justified by those attacks so many years ago. But one has not been allowed to ask whether the original invasion was justified by the 9/11 attacks.

However, what can be designated the "McChrystal Moment" the probably brief period during which the media are again focused on the war in Afghanistan in the wake of the Rolling Stone story about General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, which led to his resignation provides the best opportunity for some time to raise fundamental questions about this war.

Various commentators have already been asking some pretty basic questions: about the effectiveness and affordability of the present "counterinsurgency strategy" and even whether American fighting forces should remain in Afghanistan at all. But I am interested in an even more fundamental question: Whether this war was ever really justified by the publicly given reason: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

This question has two parts: First, did these attacks provide a legal justification for the invasion of Afghanistan? Second, if not, did they at least provide a moral justification?

I. Did 9/11 Provide Legal Justification for the War in Afghanistan?

Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, international law with regard to war has been defined by the UN Charter. Measured by this standard, the US-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.

Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law, wrote in November 2001:

"[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal."2

In 2008, Cohn repeated this argument in an article entitled "Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War." The point of the title was that, although it was by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal, the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that many Americans did not realize it, was equally illegal.3 Her argument was based on the following facts:

First, according to international law as codified in the UN Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal.

Second, there are two exceptions: One is that, if your nation has been subjected to an armed attack by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. This condition was not fulfilled by the 9/11 attacks, however, because they were not carried out by another nation: Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Indeed, the 19 men charged with the crime were not Afghans.

The other exception occurs when one nation has certain knowledge that an armed attack by another nation is imminent too imminent to bring the matter to the Security Council. The need for self-defense must be, in the generally accepted phrase, "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Although the US government claimed that its military operations in Afghanistan were justified by the need to prevent a second attack, this need, even if real, was clearly not urgent, as shown by the fact that the Pentagon did not launch its invasion until almost a month later.

US political leaders have claimed, to be sure, that the UN did authorize the US attack on Afghanistan. This claim, originally made by the Bush-Cheney administration, was repeated by President Obama in his West Point speech of December 1, 2009, in which he said: "The United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks," so US troops went to Afghanistan "[u]nder the banner of . . . international legitimacy."4

However, the language of "all necessary steps" is from UN Security Council Resolution 1368, in which the Council, taking note of its own "responsibilities under the Charter," expressed its own readiness "to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001."5

Of course, the UN Security Council might have determined that one of these necessary steps was to authorize an attack on Afghanistan by the United States. But it did not. Resolution 1373, the only other Security Council resolution about this issue, laid out various responses, but these included matters such as freezing assets, criminalizing the support of terrorists, exchanging police information ?about terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.6

The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government's claim to the contrary is false.

This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the "supreme law of the land."7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.

II. Did 9/11 Provide Moral Justification for the War in Afghanistan?

The American public has for the most part probably been unaware of the illegality of this war, because this is not something our political leaders or our corporate media have been anxious to point out.8 So most people simply do not know.

If they were informed, however, many Americans would be inclined to argue that, even if technically illegal, the US military effort in Afghanistan has been morally justified, or at least it was in the beginning, by the attacks of 9/11. For a summary statement of this argument, we can turn again to the West Point speech of President Obama, who has taken over the Bush-Cheney account of 9/11.

Answering the question of "why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place," Obama said:

"We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. . . . As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam. . . . [A]fter the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan."9

This standard account can be summarized in terms of three points:

1. The attacks were carried out by 19 Muslim members of al-Qaeda.

2. The attacks had been authorized by the founder of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan.

3. The US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary because the Taliban, which was in control of Afghanistan, refused to turn bin Laden over to US authorities.

On the basis of these three points, our political leaders have claimed that the United States had the moral right, arising from the universal right of self-defense, to attempt to capture or kill bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network to prevent them from launching another attack on our country.

The only problem with this argument is that all three points are false. I will show this by looking at these points in reverse order.

1. Did the United States Attack Afghanistan because the Taliban Refused to Turn Over Bin Laden?

The claim that the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden has been repeatedly made by political leaders and our mainstream media.10 Reports from the time, however, show the truth to be very different.

A. Who Refused Whom

Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, CNN reported:

"The Taliban . . . refus[ed] to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week's attacks on the United States. . . . The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan . . . said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an "insult to Islam.'"
CNN also made clear that the Taliban's demand for proof was not made without reason, saying:

"Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks."

Bush, however, "said the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion."11

With this refusal to provide any evidence of bin Laden's responsibility, the Bush administration made it impossible for the Taliban to turn him over. As Afghan experts quoted by the Washington Post pointed out, the Taliban, in order to turn over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western nation, needed a "face-saving formula." Milton Bearden, who had been the CIA station chief in Afghanistan in the 1980s, put it this way: While the United States was demanding, "Give up bin Laden," the Taliban were saying, "Do something to help us give him up."12 But the Bush administration refused.

After the bombing began in October, moreover, the Taliban tried again, offering to turn bin Laden over to a third country if the United States would stop the bombing and provide evidence of his guilt. But Bush replied: "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty." An article in London's Guardian, which reported this development, was entitled: "Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over."13 So it was the Bush administration, not the Taliban, that was responsible for the fact that bin Laden was not turned over.

In August of 2009, President Obama, who had criticized the US invasion of Iraq as a war of choice, said of the US involvement in Afghanistan: "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity."14 But the evidence shows, as we have seen, that it, like the one in Iraq, is a war of choice.

B. What Was the Motive for the Invasion?

This conclusion is reinforced by reports indicating that the United States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months before the 9/11 attacks. At least part of the background to this decision was the United States' long-time support for UNOCAL's proposed pipeline, which would transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan and Pakistan.15 This project had been stymied through the 1990s because of the civil war that had been going on in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

In the mid-1990s, the US government had supported the Taliban with the hope that its military strength would enable it to unify the country and provide a stable government, which could protect the pipeline. By the late 1990s, however, the Clinton administration had given up on the Taliban.16

When the Bush administration came to power, it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. During a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush administration insisted that the Taliban must create a government of "national unity" by sharing power with factions friendly to the United States. The US representatives reportedly said: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."17

After the Taliban refused this offer, US officials told a former Pakistani foreign secretary that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."18 And, indeed, given the fact that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred when they did, the US military was able to mobilize to begin its attack on Afghanistan by October 7.

It appears, therefore, that the United States invaded Afghanistan for reasons far different from the official rationale, according to which we were there to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

2. Has Good Evidence of Bin Laden's Responsibility Been Provided?

I turn now to the second point: the claim that Osama bin Laden had authorized the attacks. Even if it refused to give the Taliban evidence for this claim, the Bush administration surely most Americans probably assume had such evidence and provided it to those who needed it. Again, however, reports from the time indicate otherwise.

A. The Bush Administration

Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he expected "in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack."19 But at a joint press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell withdrew this pledge, saying that "most of [the evidence] is classified."20 Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, said the real reason why Powell withdrew the pledge was a "lack of solid information."21

B. The British Government

The following week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a document to show that "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001." Blair's report, however, began by saying: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law."22 So, the case was good enough to go to war, but not good enough to take to court. The next day, the BBC emphasized this weakness, saying: "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks."23

C. The FBI

What about our own FBI? Its "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on "Usama bin Laden" does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted.24 When asked why not, the FBI's chief of investigative publicity replied: "because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."25

D. The 9/11 Commission

What about the 9/11 Commission? Its entire report is based on the assumption that bin Laden was behind the attacks. However, the report's evidence to support this premise has been disowned by the Commission's own co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton.

This evidence consisted of testimony that had reportedly been elicited by the CIA from al-Qaeda operatives. The most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed generally known simply as "KSM" who has been called the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks. If you read the 9/11 Commission's account of how bin Laden planned the attacks, and then check the notes, you will find that almost every note says that the information came from KSM.26
In 2006, Kean and Hamilton wrote a book giving "the inside story of the 9/11 Commission," in which they called this information untrustworthy. They had no success, they reported, in "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."27 Besides not being allowed by the CIA to interview KSM, they were not permitted to observe his interrogation through one-way glass. They were not even allowed to talk to the interrogators.28 Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained:

"We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?"29

They could not.

Accordingly, neither the Bush administration, the British government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission ever provided good evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for the attacks.

E. Did Bin Laden Confess?

Some people argue, to be sure, that such evidence soon became unnecessary because bin Laden admitted his responsibility in a videotape that was discovered by the US military in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in November 2001. But besides the fact that bin Laden had previously denied his involvement many times,30 bin Laden experts have called this later video a fake,31 and for good reasons. Many of the physical features of the man in this video are different from those of Osama bin Laden (as seen in undoubtedly authentic videos), and he said many things that bin Laden himself would not have said.32

The FBI, in any case, evidently does not believe that this video provides hard evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11, or it would have revised its "Most Wanted Terrorist" page on him after this video surfaced.

So, to review the first two points: The Taliban said it would turn over bin Laden if our government would give it good evidence of his responsibility for 9/11, but our government refused. And good evidence of this responsibility has never been given to the public.

I turn now to the third claim: that, even if there is no proof that Osama bin Laden authorized the attacks, we have abundant evidence that the attacks were carried out by Muslims belonging to his al-Qaeda organization. I will divide the discussion of this third claim into two sections: Section 3a looks at the main support for this claim: evidence that Muslim hijackers were on the airliners. Section 3b looks at the strongest evidence against this claim: the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

3a. Evidence Al-Qaeda Muslims Were on the Airliners

It is still widely thought to have been established beyond question that the attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda. The truth, however, is that the evidence entirely falls apart upon examination, and this fact suggests that 9/11 was instead a false-flag attack - an attack that people within our own government orchestrated while planting evidence to implicate Muslims.

A. Devout Muslims?

Let us begin with the 9/11 Commission's claim that the men who (allegedly) took over the planes were devout Muslims, ready to sacrifice their lives for their cause.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made "at least six trips" to Las Vegas, where they had "engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures." The Chronicle then quoted the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada as saying: "True Muslims don't drink, don't gamble, don't go to strip clubs."33

The contradiction is especially strong with regard to Mohamed Atta. On the one hand, according to the 9/11 Commission, he was very religious, even "fanatically so."34 This characterization was supported by Professor Dittmar Machule, who was Atta's thesis supervisor at a technical university in Hamburg in the 1990s. Professor Machule says he knew his student only as Mohamed Al-Emir although his full name was the same as his father's: Mohamed Al-Emir Atta. In any case, Machule says that this young man was "very religious," prayed regularly, and never touched alcohol.35

According to the American press, on the other hand, Mohamed Atta drank heavily and, one night after downing five glasses of Vodka, shouted an Arabic word that, Newsweek said, "roughly translates as "F--k God.'"36 Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker, who wrote a book about Atta, stated that Atta regularly went to strip clubs, hired prostitutes, drank heavily, and took cocaine. Atta even lived with a stripper for several months and then, after she kicked him out, she reported, he came back and disemboweled her cat and dismembered its kittens.37

Could this be the same individual as Professor Machule's student Mohamed Al-Emir, who would not even shake hands with a woman upon being introduced, and who never touched alcohol? "I would put my hand in the fire," said the professor, "that this Mohamed El-Amir I know will never taste or touch alcohol." Could the Atta described by Hopsicker and the American press be the young man whom this professor described as not a "bodyguard type" but "more a girl looking type"?38 Could the man who disemboweled a cat and dismembered its kittens be the young man known to his father as a "gentle and tender boy," who was nicknamed "nightingale"?39

We are clearly talking about two different men. This is confirmed by the differences in their appearance. The American Atta was often described as having a hard, cruel face, and the standard FBI photo of him bears this out. The face of the Hamburg student was quite different, as photos available on the Internet show.40 Also, his professor described him as "very small," being "one meter sixty-two" in height41 which means slightly under 5'4" whereas the American Atta has been described as 5'8" and even 5'10" tall.42

One final reason to believe that these different descriptions apply to different men: The father of Mohamed al-Emir Atta reported that on September 12, before either of them had learned of the attacks, his son called him and they "spoke for two minutes about this and that."43

There are also problems in relation to many of the other alleged hijackers. For example, the BBC reported that Waleed al-Shehri, who supposedly died along with Atta on American Flight 11, spoke to journalists and American authorities in Casablanca the following week.44 Moreover, there were clearly two men going by the name Ziad Jarrah the name of the alleged hijacker pilot of United Flight 93.45

Accordingly, besides the fact the men labeled "the hijackers" were not devout Muslims, they may not have even been Muslims of any type.

And if that were not bad enough for the official story, there is no good evidence that these men were even on the planes - all the evidence for this claim falls apart upon examination. I will illustrate this point with a few examples.46

B. Passports at the Crash Sites

One of the purported proofs that the 19 men identified as the hijackers were on the planes was the reported discovery of some of their passports at crash sites. But the reports of these discoveries are not believable.

For example, the FBI claimed that, while searching the streets after the destruction of the World Trade Center, they discovered the passport of Satam al-Suqami, one of the hijackers on American Flight 11, which had crashed into the North Tower.47 But for this to be true, the passport would have had to survive the collapse of the North Tower, which evidently pulverized almost everything in the building into fine particles of dust except the steel and al-Suqami's passport.

But this claim was too absurd to pass the giggle test: "[T]he idea that [this] passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged," remarked a British commentator, "would [test] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism."48 By 2004, the claim had been modified to say that "a passer-by picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed."49 So, rather than needing to survive the collapse of the North Tower, the passport merely needed to escape from al-Suqami's pocket or luggage, then from the plane's cabin, and then from the North Tower without being destroyed or even singed by the giant fireball.

This version was no less ridiculous than the first one, and the other stories about passports at crash sites are equally absurd.

C. Reported Phone Calls from the Airliners

It is widely believed, of course, that we know that there were hijackers on the airliners, thanks to numerous phone calls from passengers and crew members, in which they reported the hijackings. But we have good reasons to believe that these calls never occurred.

Reported Calls from Cell Phones: About 15 of the reported calls from the airliners were said to have been made on cell phones, with about 10 of those being from United Flight 93 the one that reportedly crashed in Pennsylvania. Three or four of those calls were received by Deena Burnett, who knew that her husband, Tom Burnett, had used his cell phone, she told the FBI, because she recognized his cell phone number on her Caller ID.

However, given the cell phone technology available in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were not possible. They were generally not possible much above 1,000 feet, and were certainly impossible above 35,000 or even 40,000 feet, which was the altitude of the planes when most of the cell phone calls were supposedly made. Articles describing the impossibility of the calls were published in 2003 and 2004 by two well-known Canadians: A. K. Dewdney, formerly a columnist for Scientific American, and economist Michel Chossudovsky.50

Perhaps in response, the FBI changed the story. In 2006, it presented a report on the phone calls from the planes for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. In its report on United Flight 93, it said that cell phones were used for only two of the calls, both of which were made the plane, shortly before it crashed, had descended to a low altitude.51 These two calls were, in fact, the only two cell phone calls made from any of the airliners, the FBI report said.52

The FBI thereby avoided claiming that any high-altitude cell phone calls had been made.

But if the FBI's new account is true, how do we explain that so many people reported receiving cell phone calls? Most of these people said that they had been told by the caller that he or she was using a cell phone, so we might suppose that their reports were based on bad hearing or faulty memory. But what about Deena Burnett, whose statement that she recognized her husband's cell phone number on her Caller ID was made to the FBI that very day?53 If Tom Burnett used a seat-back phone, as the FBI's 2006 report says, why did his cell phone number show up on his wife's Caller ID? The FBI has not answered this question.

The only possible explanation seems to be that these calls were faked. Perhaps someone used voice morphing technology, which already existed at that time,54 in combination with a device for providing a fake Caller ID, which can be ordered on the Internet. Or perhaps someone used Tom's cell phone to place fake calls from the ground. In either case, Tom Burnett did not actually call his wife from aboard United Flight 93. And if calls to Deena Burnett were faked, we must assume that all of the calls were because if there had really been surprise hijackings, no one would have been prepared to make fake phone calls to her.

The Reported Calls from Barbara Olson: This conclusion is reinforced by the FBI's report on phone calls from American Flight 77 the one that supposedly struck the Pentagon. Ted Olson, the US Solicitor General, reported that his wife, Barbara Olson (a well-known commentator on CNN), had called him twice from this flight, with the first call lasting "about one (1) minute,"55 and the second call lasting "two or three or four minutes."56 In these calls, he said, she reported that the plane had been taken over by hijackers armed with knives and box-cutters.

But how could she have made these calls? The plane was far too high for a cell phone to work. And American Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, and the 757s made for American Airlines the 9/11 Truth Movement learned in 2005 did not have onboard phones.57 Whether or not for this reason, the FBI's report to the Moussaoui trial did not endorse Ted Olson's story. Its report on telephone calls from American Flight 77 did mention Barbara Olson, but it attributed only one call to her, not two, and it said that this call was "unconnected," so that it lasted "0 seconds."58
This FBI report allows only two possibilities: Either Ted Olson engaged in deception, or he, like Deena Burnett, was duped by faked calls. In either case, the story about Barbara Olson's calls, with their reports of hijackers taking over Flight 77, was based on deception.

The alleged phone calls, therefore, do not provide trustworthy evidence that there were hijackers on the planes.

D. Autopsy Reports and Flight Manifests

The public has widely assumed, due to misleading claims,59 that the names of the alleged hijackers were on the flight manifests for the four flights, and also that the autopsy report from the Pentagon contained the names of the hijackers said to have been on American Flight 77. However, the passenger manifests for the four airliners did not contain the names of any of the alleged hijackers and, moreover, they contained no Arab names whatsoever.60 Also, as a psychiatrist who was able to obtain a copy of the Pentagon autopsy report through a FOIA request discovered, it contained none of the names of the hijackers for American Flight 77 and, in fact, no Arab names whatsoever.61

E. Failure to Squawk the Hijack Code

Finally, the public has been led to believe that all the evidence about what happened on board the four airliners supported the claim that they were taken over by hijackers. This claim, however, was contradicted by something that did not happen. If pilots have any reason to believe that a hijacking may be in process, they are trained to enter the standard hijack code (7500) into their transponders to alert controllers on the ground. This is called "squawking" the hijack code. None of the eight pilots did this on 9/11, even though there would have been plenty of time: This act takes only two or three seconds and it would have taken longer than this for hijackers to break into the pilots' cabins: According to official account of United Flight 93, for example, it took over 30 seconds for the hijackers to break into the cockpit.62

F. False-Flag Attack

It appears, therefore, that 9/11 was the most elaborate example yet of a false-flag attack, which occurs when countries, wanting to attack other countries, orchestrate attacks on their own people while planting evidence to implicate those other countries. Hitler did this when he was ready to attack Poland, which started the European part of World War II; Japan did it when it was ready to attack Manchuria, which started the Asian part of that war. In 1962, the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed false-flag attacks killing American citizens to provide a pretext for invading Cuba.63 This proposal was not put into effect because it was vetoed by President Kennedy. But in 2001, the White House was occupied by an administration that wanted to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and several other predominantly Muslim countries,64 and so, it appears, evidence was planted to implicate Muslims.

3b. How the Collapse of WTC 7 Disproves the Al-Qaeda Theory

I turn now to the strongest evidence that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by insiders rather than foreign terrorists: the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center, which is the subject of my most recent book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False.65

A. Mysterious Collapse

I speak of the "mysterious collapse" because the collapse of this building was, from the very beginning, seen as more mysterious than that of the Twin Towers. Given the fact that those two buildings were hit by planes, which started big fires, most people evidently thought if wrongly - that the fact that these buildings came down was not problematic. But Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and yet it came down at 5:21 that afternoon.

This would mean, assuming that neither incendiaries nor explosives were used to demolish this building, that it had been brought down by fire alone, and this would have been an unprecedented occurrence. New York Times writer James Glanz wrote, "experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire." Glanz then quoted a structural engineer as saying: "[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [Building 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers]," because engineers had no answer to the question, "why did 7 come down?"66

Moreover, although Glanz spoke of an "uncontrolled fire," there were significant fires on only six of this building's 47 floors, and these fires were visible at most for three to four hours, and yet fires have burned in other steel-frame skyscrapers for 17 and 18 hours, turning them into towering infernos without causing collapse.67 So why did Building 7 come down? FEMA, which in 2002 put out the first official report on this building, admitted that its "best hypothesis" had "only a low probability of occurrence."68

B. Reasons to Suspect Explosives

By its "best hypothesis," FEMA meant the best hypothesis it could suggest consistent with the fact that it, as a government agency, could not posit the use of incendiaries and explosives. Why might anyone think that incendiaries and explosives brought this building down?

Precedent: One reason is simply that, prior to 9/11, every collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building was brought about by explosives, often in conjunction with incendiaries, in the procedure known as "controlled demolition." Collapse has never been produced by fires, earthquakes, or any other cause other than controlled demolition.

Vertical Collapse: Another reason to posit controlled demolition is that this building came straight down, collapsing into its own footprint. For this to happen, all of this building's 82 steel columns had to fail simultaneously. This is what happens in the type of controlled demolition known as "implosion." It is not something that can be caused by fires.

Simply seeing a video of the building coming down makes it obvious to anyone with knowledge of these things that explosives were used to bring it down. On 9/11 itself, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said:

"[I]t's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen . . . on television . . . , where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."69

In 2006, a filmmaker asked Danny Jowenko, the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands, to comment on a video of the collapse of Building 7 without telling him what it was. (Jowenko had never heard that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.) After viewing the video, Jowenko said: "They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition." When asked if he was certain, he replied: "Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."70

An organization called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," which was formed in 2007, now has over 1,200 members. Many of them, as one can see by reading their statements, joined after they saw a video of Building 7's collapse.71

In light of all of these considerations, a truly scientific investigation, which sought the truth about Building 7, would have begun with the hypothesis that it had been deliberately demolished.


C. NIST's Report as Political, Not Scientific

However, this hypothesis did not provide the starting point for NIST the National Institute of Standards and Technology which took over from FEMA the responsibility for writing the official report on the destruction of the World Trade Center. Rather, NIST said:

"The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire."72

So, although every other steel-frame building that has collapsed did so because explosives (perhaps along with incendiaries) were used to destroy its support columns, NIST said, in effect:

"We think fire brought down WTC 7." To understand why NIST started with this hypothesis, it helps to know that it is an agency of the Commerce Department, which means that all the years it was working on its World Trade Center reports, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration.

Also, a scientist who had worked for NIST reported that by 2001 it had been "fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm," so that scientists working there had "lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than "hired guns.'"73

One manifestation of NIST's political nature may be the fact that it delayed its report on Building 7 year after year, releasing it only late in 2008, when the Bush-Cheney administration was preparing to leave office.

Be that as it may, NIST did in August of 2008 finally put out a report in the form of a draft for public comment. Announcing this draft report at a press conference, Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator, said:

"Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives."74

Sunder added that "science is really behind what we have said."75

However, far from being supported by good science, NIST's report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud. Two of the major types of scientific fraud, as defined by the National Science Foundation, are fabrication, which is "making up results," and falsification, which means either "changing or omitting data."76 I will begin with falsification.

D. NIST'S Falsification of Testimonial Evidence Pointing to Explosives

Claiming that it "found no evidence of a . . . controlled demolition event,"77 NIST simply omitted or distorted all such evidence, some of which was testimonial.

Two city officials, Barry Jennings of the Housing Authority and Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, reported that they became trapped by a massive explosion in Building 7 shortly after they arrived there at 9:00 AM. NIST, however, claimed that what they called an explosion was really just the impact of debris from the collapse of the North Tower, which did not occur until 10:28. But Jennings explicitly said that they were trapped before either of the Twin Towers came down, which means that the explosion that he and Hess reported occurred before 9:59, when the South Tower came down. NIST rather obviously, therefore, distorted these men's testimonial evidence.

Other people reported that explosions went off in the late afternoon, when the building started to come down. Reporter Peter Demarco of the New York Daily News said:

"[T]here was a rumble. The building's top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray."78

NIST dealt with such testimonies by simply ignoring them.

E. NIST's Omission of Physical Evidence for Explosives

NIST also ignored a lot of physical evidence that Building 7 was brought down by explosives.

Swiss-Cheese Steel: For example, three professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute discovered a piece of steel from Building 7 that had melted so severely that it had holes in it, making it look like Swiss cheese.79 The New York Times, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, called this "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."80 The three professors, in a report included as an appendix to the 2002 FEMA report, said: "A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed."81

When NIST's report on Building 7 appeared, however, it did not mention this mysterious piece of steel. It even claimed that no recovered steel from this building had been identified.82 And this was just the beginning of NIST's omission of physical evidence.

Particles of Metal in the Dust: The nearby Deutsche Bank building was heavily contaminated by dust produced when the World Trade Center was destroyed. But the bank's insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that the dust in the bank was ordinary building dust, not dust that resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to do a study, which showed that the dust in this building was WTC dust, with a unique chemical signature. Part of this signature was "[s]pherical iron . . . particles,"83 and this meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had "melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."84

Iron does not melt until it reaches 2,800F (1,538C), which is about 1,000 degrees F (540 degrees C) higher than the fires could have been. The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached "at which lead would have undergone vaporization"85 meaning 3,180F (1,749C).86

Another study was carried out by scientists at the US Geological Survey. Besides also finding iron particles, these scientists found that molybdenum had been melted87 even though its melting point is extremely high: 4,753F (2,623C).88

These two studies proved, therefore, that something had produced temperatures many times higher than the fires could have produced. NIST, however, made no mention of these studies. But even this was not the end of the physical evidence omitted by NIST.

Nanothermite Residue: A report by several scientists, including University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite. Whereas ordinary thermite is an incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive. This report by Harrit and his colleagues did not appear until 2009,89 several months after the publication of NIST's final report in November 2008. But NIST should have, as a matter of routine, tested the WTC dust for signs of incendiaries, such as ordinary thermite, and explosives, such as nanothermite.

When asked whether it did, however, NIST said that it did not. When a reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, why not, Newman replied: "[B]ecause there was no evidence of that." "But," asked the reporter, "how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?" Newman replied: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers' money."90

F. NIST's Fabrication of Evidence to Support Its Own Theory

Besides omitting and distorting evidence to deny the demolition theory of Building 7's collapse, NIST also fabricated evidence simply made it up to support its own theory.

No Girder Shear Studs: NIST's explanation as to how fire caused Building 7 to collapse starts with thermal expansion, meaning that the fire heated up the steel, thereby causing it to expand. An expanding steel beam on the 13th floor, NIST claimed, caused a steel girder attached to a column to break loose. Having lost its support, this column failed, starting a chain reaction in which the other 81 columns failed, causing a progressive collapse.91 Ignoring the question of whether this is even remotely plausible, let us simply ask: Why did that girder fail? Because, NIST claimed, it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote: In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.92 Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.93 This was a fabrication, as we can see by looking at NIST's Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published in 2004. That report, written before NIST had developed its girder-failure theory, stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by means of shear studs.94

A Raging Fire on Floor 12 at 5:00 PM: Another case of fabrication is a graphic in NIST's report showing that at 5:00 PM, there were very big fires covering much of the north face of Floor 12.95 This claim is essential to NIST's explanation as to why the building collapsed 21 minutes later. However, if you look back at NIST's 2004 report, you will find this statement:

"Around 4:45 PM, a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time."96

Other photographs even show that the 12th floor fire had virtually burned out by 4:00. And yet NIST, in its final report, claims that fires were still raging on this floor at 5:00 PM.

G. NIST's Affirmation of a Miracle

In addition to omitting, falsifying, and fabricating evidence, NIST affirms a miracle. You have perhaps seen the cartoon in which a physics professor has written a proof on a chalkboard. Most of the steps consist of mathematical equations, but one of them simply says: "Then a miracle happens." This is humorous because one thing you absolutely cannot do in science is to appeal to a miracle, even implicitly. And yet that is what NIST does. I will explain:

NIST'S Denial of Free Fall: Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that Building 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so.
In NIST's Draft for Public Comment, put out in August 2008, it denied this, saying that the time it took for the upper floors the only floors that are visible on the videos - to come down "was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles."97

As this statement implies, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles meaning the laws of physics. Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said:

"[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."98

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST's rejection of controlled demolition which could have produced a free-fall collapse by causing all 82 columns to fail simultaneously in favor of NIST's fire theory, which necessitated a theory of progressive collapse.

Chandler's Challenge: In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder's denial of free fall, pointing out that Sunder's "40 percent longer" claim contradicted "a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity."99 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that "for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall."100

NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, in NIST's final report, which came out in November, it admitted free fall. Dividing the building's descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]."101 ("Gravitational acceleration" is a synonym for free fall acceleration.)

So, after presenting over 600 pages of descriptions, graphs, testimonies, photographs, charts, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST says, in effect: "Then a miracle happens."

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: "Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion."102 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance. If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle meaning a violation of the laws of physics - would have happened.

That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one "that has no structural components below it" to offer resistance.

But then in November, while still defending the fire theory of collapse, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by "gravitational acceleration (free fall)."103

Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. In its August draft, in which it had said that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said three times that its analysis was "consistent with physical principles."104 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics.

Conclusion about WTC 7: The science of World Trade Center 7 is, therefore, settled. This fact is reflected in the agreement by many hundreds of professionals with various forms of expertise architects, engineers, firefighters, physicists, and chemists that this building was deliberately demolished.

This truth has also recently been recognized by a symposium in one of our leading social science journals, which treats 9/11 as an example of what its authors call State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs).105 Criticizing the majority of the academic world for its "blithe dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics" that is violated by the official theory of the World Trade Center collapses, these authors also criticize the academy for its failure to protest when "Professor Steven Jones found himself forced out of tenured position for merely reminding the world that physical laws, about which there is no dissent whatsoever, contradict the official theory."106

And now the world can see, if it will only look, that even NIST, in its final report, did not dissent: By admitting that Building 7 came down in free fall for over two seconds, while simultaneously removing its previous claim that its report was consistent with physical principles, NIST implicitly admitted that the laws of physics rule out its non-demolition theory of this building's collapse. NIST thereby implicitly admitted that explosives were used.

H. Implications for the Al-Qaeda Theory of 9/11

And with that implicit admission, NIST undermined the al-Qaeda theory of 9/11. Why?

For one thing, the straight-down nature of the collapse of WTC 7 means that it was subjected to the type of controlled demolition known as "implosion," which is, in the words of a controlled demolition website, "by far the trickiest type of explosive project," which "only a handful of blasting companies in the world . . . possess enough experience . . . to perform."107 Al-Qaeda terrorists would not have had this kind of expertise.

Second, the only reason to go to the trouble of bringing a building straight down is to avoid damaging nearby buildings. Had WTC 7 and the Twin Towers which also came straight down, after initial explosions at the top that ejected sections of steel outward several hundred feet108 - instead toppled over sideways, they would have caused massive destruction in Lower Manhattan, destroying dozens of other buildings and killing tens of thousands of people. Does anyone believe that, even if al-Qaeda operatives had had the expertise to make the buildings come straight down, they would have had the courtesy?

A third problem is that foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant explosives. Only insiders could have done this.109
The science of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, accordingly, disproves the claim - which from the outset has been used to justify the war in Afghanistan that America was attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda Muslims. It suggests, instead, that 9/11 was a false-flag operation to provide a pretext to attack Muslim nations.


In any case, the official rationale for our presence in Afghanistan is a lie. We are there for other reasons. Critics have offered various suggestions as to the most important of those reasons.110 Whatever be the answer to that question, however, we have not been there to apprehend the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Besides never being legally justified, therefore, the war in Afghanistan has never been morally justified.

This war, moreover, is an abomination. In addition to the thousands of US and other NATO troops who have been killed or impaired for life, physically and/or mentally, the US-led invasion/occupation of Afghanistan has resulted in a huge number of Afghan casualties, with estimates running from several hundred thousand to several million.111 But whatever the true number, the fact is that the United States has produced a great amount of death and misery sometimes even bombing funerals and wedding parties - in this country that had already suffered terribly and that, even if the official story were true, had not attacked America. The fact that the official story is a lie makes our war crimes even worse.112

But there is a way out. As I have shown in this paper and even more completely elsewhere,113 the falsity of the official account of WTC 7 has now been demonstrated, leaving no room for reasonable doubt. In his inaugural address, President Obama said, "We will restore science to its rightful place,"114 thereby pledging that in his administration, unlike that of his predecessor, science would again be allowed to play a determinative role in shaping public policy. By changing his administration's policy with regard to Afghanistan in light of the science of WTC 7, the president would not only fulfill one of his most important promises. He would also prevent the war in Afghanistan from becoming known as "Obama's Vietnam."115

Saturday, June 26, 2010

How I Am Feeling At This Very Moment

The author captures it so beautifully....

"The World At War: AFRICOM vs Ghana in the Round of 16

We Are The World, and as I write, we are preparing for another battle, the next in a month-long series of short, controlled skirmishes which will draw the attention of billions of people, although neither the individual skirmishes nor the series have any actual significance. Such is the power of modern marketing.

The imminent clash pits the huge and mighty USA -- which just recently admitted running overt and covert "clandestine operations" in at least 75 "sovereign" nations -- against the small and mostly impoverished African nation of Ghana. Despite the disparity in resources, USA is not considered a "prohibitive favorite". Such is the nature of modern football (which Americans insist on calling "soccer").

Recently, at a family gathering, one of the older women -- a mother of three boys, two of whom joined the Marines as teenagers -- was talking about the Vietnam-era anti-war demonstrators. Many people believe that the anti-war movement forced an end to the war. I wouldn't go quite that far, but at the very least the anti-war movement proved to me that some Americans still had functioning brains and hearts.

I don't see that very much anymore; the brains appear to have turned to mush, and the hearts to stone. I was hoping the old woman was about to say something of a similar nature, but instead, looking back on the protests, she said, "That was so difficult for the parents!"

Given the circumstances, there was little I could say. I certainly couldn't say what I was thinking: "The parents!? It was difficult for the parents?? How do you think it was for the children???"

First we had to throw off all the propaganda we'd been fed by our schools, by our parents, by the teevee and the radio, the movies and the newspapers and all the rest of our so-called "culture"; then we had to bring ourselves face-to-face with the fact that our government had made a policy of killing millions of innocent people, who had no means to harm us and no intention of doing so, for fun and profit. It was a repulsive revelation, especially in the midst of all the Disney-crap we'd been "brought up" on.

But even that wasn't enough, because having learned what we had learned, having taken the stands we had taken, we then had to endure the rejection of our parents: and we saw with our own eyes how the people who had brought us into this world, fed us and held us, taught us and loved us, turned against us when we brought to light the most vital truth of their lives, preferring the deadly fiction to which they were accustomed, and with which they were so much more comfortable. And now, "it was so difficult for the parents". Such is the power of modern American stupidity.

None of this makes any difference, of course, to the billions preparing to tune in to the match between USA and Ghana. Very few of the world's sporting fans seem to know or care whether Ghana is seen by USA as nothing but a tiny component of AFRICOM, which in itself is simply one cog in the Pentagon's plan to rule the world by force. I know people who will be standing and cheering and yelling "USA!! USA!!" all afternoon, but I cannot share -- or understand -- their sentiment.

I want to see the whole world screaming for Ghana. I want to see the whole world waking up and aligning itself against the USA, not only in world football but also -- much more significantly -- against the American plan to rule the world.

I want ordinary, "decent", "intelligent" Americans to see the unprovoked murder of even one innocent person as an intolerable outrage; then I want them to understand that their country has murdered millions upon millions of innocent people, not just at one time and in one place but repeatedly, all over the world, for decades. And I want them to realize that their chant of "USA!! USA!!" is -- for the rest of the world -- the most obscene of non-violent gestures.

Not that it matters in the slightest to anyone, but it breaks my heart to realize that the country of my birth is a serial mass murderer, and that even despite the horror that is USA, many of the allegedly most intelligent people I know, including elderly and supposedly wise members of my extended family, still support it, while seeing any prospect of facing the truth about it as "difficult for the parents".

I want the so-called "Family of Man" to take a stand. I want to hear millions and millions -- billions -- of voices, jeering and whistling every time an American player touches the ball. I want to hear billions of voices jeering and whistling every time an American president tells another outrageous lie, every time the American military launches another unprovoked attack against innocent people, every time ... every time ...

I know none of this will happen. But then again this is football, where everything is artificial and nothing matters. Surely a battered old man with a broken heart can have a dream now and then, can't he? Isn't that what the beautiful game is about?


I'm doing the best I can, WP.

I -- unlike my fellow citizens -- was very annoyed that AmeriKa advanced late against Algeria for the reasons he outlined.

One thing I am tired of hearing is the homer announcers griping about AmeriKa is getting cheated, and then minimizing it when they tackle someone.

AmeriKans are down 1-0 at halftime.

What's more, I personally know someone from Ghana and they must be full of glee right now.

Time for the second half.

Go Ghana!

Friday, June 25, 2010

The Progressive Problem

"Progressives Want "Direct Action" But a Disarmed Public


rogressive William Rivers Pitt has lost patience with the Obama regime and with British Petroleum (“Enough of This Crap,” June 15, Truthout). To break through the news blackout that BP maintains over the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he wants a hundred thousand Americans to “just show the hell up down there and demand access.”

Pitt is correct that this “is the kind of direct action that has been missing from our national narrative, not just in the Gulf but all over.” Obama, he says correctly, is a “narcotic” for progressives. Apparently, for many progressives having a black man, or a 50 per cent black man, in the White House is what is important, not the fact that he is a continuation of Bush/Cheney.

If a hundred thousand people marched on the Gulf Coast, “big things would happen.” Pitt writes that “either the people would break through those unconscionable corporate barriers and show the world what is really going on in the Gulf, or the forces BP has arrayed against the truth would react with violence, which would tell us everything we need to know about what is happening, and would be enough to break that God damned criminal corporation finally and forever.”

It was, of course, the Bush-Cheney-Obama administration that permitted the drilling. BP didn’t go about it on its own. This aside, and also putting aside my sympathy with Pitt’s outrage, here we have a progressive advocating direct action that likely would end in violence, not merely from BP mercenaries but from local, state, and federal government forces. The anomaly in the picture is that it is progressives who have been most determined to disarm the American people. What would the one hundred thousand do when withering fire is directed at them? Amerika’s forces of “law and order” and conquest enjoy killing people. It doesn’t matter if they are women and children. In fact, killing women and children is the way to win 30-year wars like the one we are one-third through in Afghanistan.

And don’t think the government wouldn’t kill Americans. Remember the 100 murdered Branch Davidians that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno dispatched? The US government has never regretted the million dead Iraqi civilians and the unknown multitude of dead Afghan civilians. Have you forgotten Kent State where college kids were gunned down by the US National Guard? Youtube has tens of thousands of videos of cops getting their jollies by body slamming 90-year old grandmothers and tasering 10-year old kids. Just the other day Obama official Dennis Blair announced that he had a list of Americans to assassinate. In every society the worst people always get into unaccountable positions of power. It is these people who are the threat to Americans’ lives and liberty, not the Taliban and Iranians.

Ever since it became apparent to progressives, despite their faith in government, that the Bush-Cheney regime was an enormous threat to American liberty, to the environment, to truth, and to world peace, progressives have continued their campaigns to disarm the American people and to reduce them to grist for the Bush-Cheney-Obama Police State’s mill. The obvious question is: How can we trust progressives when they are such reliable agents of the Police State?

Perhaps William Rivers Pitt thinks that a massacre of a hundred thousand Americans would send a moral message that would overthrow the gestapo government in DC. The more likely effect would be to intimidate the sheeple. Don’t confuse Americans with Afghans who, despite their disunity, have thrown off every attempted conquest. Unless the US buys them off with money, they will throw off the “superpower” as well.

Even if progressives could realize that the Bush-Cheney-Obama Police State was a far more dangerous entity than Americans permitted to own pistols and semi-automatic rifles, no American is permitted to own the weapons that the oppressive government has. Perhaps if the sheeple could become aroused, we would have a replay of Joseph Stalin’s dictum that quantity overrides quality of weapons, and the American people, by sheer numbers, would prevail.

If progressives really desire direct confrontation with the evil doers who control our country, they will have to accept that the people must be armed, trained, and have an understanding of who their enemy is. As the Founding Fathers tried to beat into our heads, the enemy is always the government.

Somehow I just can’t see progressives getting this far. They would rather Americans be slaves of the state than armed.

I am not advocating armed rebellion, just pointing out an inconsistency in the progressives’ position.

Every civil liberty is reduced to the Second Amendment. This was recognized by our Founding Fathers, especially by Thomas Jefferson, and it was completely understood by William Blackstone, England’s greatest jurist. Blackstone wrote that whenever government broke free of the constraints placed on it by civil liberty, the “last right of the subject is having arms for their defense.”

Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that when legal constraints on government fail, physical checks remain: The right to bear arms expresses the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

There can be no doubt that if Thomas Jefferson and William Blackstone were alive today, they would be on the no-fly list, if not kidnapped, renditioned and tortured to death in the Amerikan puppet state of Egypt.

If progressives like William Rivers PItt want direct action from Americans, they will have to give up their agenda of disarming the citizenry. Otherwise they are going to get people killed for nothing while the rest become Big Brother’s obedient servants, accepting a bare subsistence from “a caring government” in exchange for docility.

It is the conservatives who are armed, and they think the enemies are blacks, hispanics, pinko-liberal commies, and “terrorists.” Recently a friend told me that Obama was a marxist. Really, how did a marxist get elected with the support of the US military-security complex, the support of AIPAC, the insurance industry, Wall Street, Big Oil? How much money do marxists have with which to make campaign contributions? I mean, really. It is extraordinary that anyone could possibly believe that a stealth marxist could gain the White House. If he did, once he showed his colors, he would be assassinated, and Iran would be blamed, followed by an invasion.

The other day I saw a young man with a t-shirt with Obama’s image. Under it was the caption, ‘“socialist.” The stupidity of Americans is extraordinary. Wall Street is going to put a socialist in the White House?! If the word under Obama’s image had been “prostitute,” the message would have been on target.


I Just Got a Call From Newt Gingrich

And I listened to the garbage message with the Reagan worship (as he is knocking Obama) and the whole sell-job.

So the hired hand from the polling firm comes on the line and asks me what is my biggest beef with Obama. I had a choice between deficits, corruption, and something else. I told the hired hack that mine was OTHER and it was FAILING to END the WARS!

She seemed taken aback and a bit disheveled after that and said so do we (I softly said, "Yeah, sure" when she told me that), and that there was a problem with the way Obomber was going about them.

She then veered away and asked if I had any other complaints about Obama and I said something about not being happy with him at all.

She then asked if there was something the Repuglicans could do and I told her I wasn't happy with either party -- and that was pretty much the END of the CONVERSATION.

And I had so many more things I wanted to talk about.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Who Are the Terrorists?


Just for a moment, I want you to consider the possibility that maybe 99% of the terrorists in the world are manufactured fakes, a bloody theater to serve the interests not of fringe groups, but of entire nation-states?

Now before you laugh and head off to get a coffee, just stop and think for a moment. Would any real group of oppressed people needing the support of world opinion to affect change intentionally set out to commit such an horrific atrocity that it destroys that very support?

Let us say that Nation A is being cruelly oppressed by Nation B. Nation A has succeeded in winning world sympathy and support for the harsh and cruel treatment they suffer at the hand of Nation B. Then all of a sudden, there is a "terror" attack, and it look like Nation A has struck out at Nation B, killing a lot of innocent people. World sympathy for Nation A vanishes in an instant and shifts over to Nation B, the perceived victim.

Why would Nation A do such a stupid thing?

The truth is, nation A would not do such a thing. The benefit of the terror attack points to the real culprit, which is Nation B engaging in what is called a "False Flag: attack; committing an act of atrocity in order to blame it on the enemy. Examples of false-flag attacks would include the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, carried out by members of Irgun dressed as Arabs, the Lavon Affair in 1954, carried out by Israeli agents but blamed on Egypt, and the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, which had it succeeded, was also to be blamed on Egypt.

Nation A is, of course, Palestine, and Nation B is Israel, and it began to be obvious that there was a pattern in the so-called "terrorist" attacks which always seemed to occur just when public opinion was starting to favor the Palestinians, just in time to thwart the Palestinians' desire for a nation of their own, always just in time to swing world opinion back to Israel's continuing theft of Palestinian lands.

So who are the terrorists really working for?

Israeli Mossad Role in Turkey Coup Plot Revealed

Israel funded "terrorist" groups through BCCI

AMIA was Mossad False-flag Operation

Mossad Agent killing Oz Tourists to steal their identity to use in fake Al-Qaeda operations

‘Mossad capable of US attack’: US Army officials

Iran hangs "terrorist" linked to Mossad

Montreal Averts Israeli Mossad Terrorist Attack

Israeli Mossad = al Qaeda?

Judiciary starts work on case of Mossad-linked terror group

Assassins caught on video reveals possible Mossad-Fatah link

Mossad funded Abu Nidal through BCCI

Mumbai: The Mossad Angle

Hamas Was Founded by Mossad

Israeli officer sells weapons to terrorists in Iraq


Revealing information on Mossad terrorist acts worries Europeans

Mossad and Moving Companies: Masterminds of Global Terrorism?

Group that took credit for "Bandini Bomber" linked to Mossad.

MARRIOTT BOMB:Mossad pulls off another false-flag operation

Mossad Exposed in Phony`Palestinian Al-Qaeda' Caper

Mossad orchestrated Christmas Day bomb plot

British Broadsheet Links Mossad to 9/11

How Mossad Deceived the U.S. Military on 9/11

A Look at the Mossad's Assassination Squads

Army Captures 'Terrorist Ring' Working for Mossad

Lebanon's Army captures Israeli Mossad 'Terrorist Ring'

A bumbling Mossad hand suspected in Dubai assassination

Mossad stealing passports in Australia and NZ

Mossad supporting "Radical Muslim" groups.

Mossad-Linked Cell Arrested in South Lebanon

Mossad links to 1986 Berlin disco bombing


Mossad-backed terror network in Lebanon

Mossad was found to be propping up 'Islamic terrorist' groups in mid-east.

Mossad implicated in a coup plot in Turkey, a NATO country

Mumbai Terror Attacks: The Mossad Angle

Mossad linked to "Jundollah" attacks, and kidnapping of Iranian border guards

Mossad behind Hindu terror group

Israeli Mossad Links To World Trade Center Attack

Abu Nidal - Mossad terrorist

'Terror' group in Iran linked to Mossad, CIA

Attack On US Embassy In Yemen Linked To Mossad

Mossad Black Ops and False Flags

Mossad linked to "Crotch Bomber"

Mossad linked to 9/11 attacks: Report

9-11 Mossad Agents Admit Mission: "Our Purpose Was To Document The Event"

Only people actually arrested on 9-11 were Israelis

Mossad Link Found to One of Key 9-11 Hijackers

Bush Administration Ignores Mossad-Al Qaeda Terrorist Link

Al Qaeda are really Mossad

Mossad linked to Ergenekon plot

Hezbollah infiltrated by Mossad, does Israel's bidding. Attacks when Israel needs excuse to invade Lebanon

Is Hizbullah a Mossad front?

Israel tricked the US into attacking Libya

When Israel attacked the USS Liberty they tried to frame Egypt for it.

The Lavon Affair: Israel has a history of faking terror attacks.

Israel creates and aids terror groups.

If HAMAS is so bad why did Israel create it? To demonize Palestinians?

Israel stages all these "terror" attacks to trick America into hating Israel's enemies.


Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The Stinking Stain on the Face of Planet Earth

Soon to be wiped away.

"The Whore of Babylon Parties in the Bathhouse of Hell

Dog Poet Transmitting……

In times of darkness, The Prince of Darkness is in full sway. Some don’t believe in such forces but I would then ask if they believed in the force of materialism, which they can see in front of their eyes or if they have difficulty seeing that the majority of world leaders are whores for position and money at the expense of their duties or whether they can see that a certain shitty little country is committing murder and evils beyond those of their alleged oppressor years ago and that these obvious vile crimes are justified and celebrated by the most powerful leaders in the west in a way that confounds the mind in consideration of right and wrong as we think we know it. Well? Does this not all suggest the same behavior we might expect if a real Prince of Darkness were rampant and risen above the world in which we live? So what difference does it make? It’s the same, either way… in some fashion or manner …this force does exist.

The Apocalypse moves inexorably forward. Hayward before the senate reveals what the reality controls deny but cannot conceal. It will get more and more powerful as it comes more and more direct and impacting.

One thing the people of America must do at this November election, despite what is certain to happen beforehand. That is to not vote for any Jewish/Israeli lawmaker no matter what. All of them must be thrown out of office. Also, any and every lawmaker who is in support of Israel in any way must be refused office on that basis period. They are traitors in the most indefensible sense. Every single individual who supports the Crime Syndicate known as Israel should be exposed for it as if it were a heinous crime, which it is. Support of Israel must be seen and understood as a capital felony against humanity.

I send this out in print and upon the ethers. I send this in a joining with all souls who now know the nature of that evil known as Israel and its loathsome attendant, Zionism. These states and conditions should be known as murderous psychopathy and accepted without argument as offenses equal to murder and child rape. It must be globally understood that Israel and all who serve and support her are more dangerous and evil than the worst offenders presently incarcerated anywhere.

Around the world, people everywhere should fully acknowledge and accept as irrefutable truth that the continued existence of Israel is a cancer in the life of the peoples of the world and that it has no right to exist at all and should be either disintegrated by the full and collective concentrated will of the world or sealed up like a terrible, plague virus away from the peoples of the world.

From being the force behind most Nigerian email scams, to body and organ trafficking, financial crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and nearly any crime you can think of, Israel is the leader in them all. It should be seen as a hydrophobic beast that cannot be contained or cured. 94 % of Israelis and probably a higher percent of Zionists fully support all that Israel does. Israel directly murdered those seeking to assist a large group of people who are daily tormented by these fiends. They stole their property and money. They laugh about what they did. They make fun of it on the internet and are defended by powerful individuals who have sold their soul to the God of these demonic swine.

They are the direct offspring of that ancient evil that has plagued humanity for millennium. They have stolen elements of culture, language and science from others and claimed them as their own. They control the media and this must be seized, destroyed or replaced by spiritual means.

They grow in the mind of unconscious, sleeping humanity like a Triffid or a body snatcher which they are in all definable ways. They are gathered together in a very significant number in one place that is a message of what is to come to, for once, fulfill that special number they hold with such despicable reverence. There is no coincidence here. If you cannot find the courage to echo what you read here and KNOW to be true then you deserve your servitude and what accompanies it. I speak for a power far greater than they and which every human being possessing a soul is conscious of and knows to be real beyond their temporary doubts and uncertainties.

No life is in their hands that does not deliver itself to them or is not martyred for the inescapable destiny they face and which will come upon them with a consuming wrath. I say all of this without fear, for their power is broken and would state such in any case because their power is a shadow which only appears potent due to the darkness of the times.

I command with all agreeable souls their utter destruction and relocation to that plane where they are most certainly headed and will go no matter what.

They are exposed at every turn. Most cannot understand how knowledge of their crimes finds its way to every heart and mind despite their control of most of the world’s economy and press.

No agent of theirs and no representative of their culture and alleged race should be allowed to continue in any place of power for that reason alone. There is no such thing as a good representative in any place of present, seeming power whatsoever, no matter what the argument or justification. The board must be swept clean entirely. There is no alternative. Greet everything they say, no matter how giving or condescending with contempt. Accept no excuse or rationale. They must go entirely and without the hope of any excuse whatsoever.

I state this, knowing it is ordained and in progress as I speak. I state this, knowing that it is inevitable and inflexible. Nothing that happens from this moment on will appear as anything but exactly what it is, regardless of the overpowering effect of manufactured lies to the contrary. Every single effort made by them will turn against them and the speed of this being made known around the world will be convincing in the extreme.

Nothing they have said and done is anything more, in totality, than a lie and an offense against every ensouled being on the planet. They do not possess souls and are foul creations of a darkness that, even now, is being broken up in every place and on every plane where they and their supporters reside.

Take this for what it is worth and know that regardless of any appearance to the contrary that it is outworking now.

As the ships move to Gaza from many directions, so is their fate sealed and already sealed beforehand.

Celebrate your liberation from this abysmal and stench ridden engine of departing evil which has encircled the world for centuries and is now experiencing the death rattle of a just and necessary destruction which announces the special poetry and vitality of the advancing new age. Make your every word and action a statement of conviction in the truth of what animates and makes you aware. So is it and so be it. Let the light arise from its secret chambers and illuminate the world as it cleanses our world and ourselves.

Be the transformation as it appears before you and within you. Experience the joy in the absolute certainty of what comes with the full force of the universe and its un-opposable will.

End Transmission…….


"Snake Dancing like Sleepwalkers into Childhood's End

Dog Poet Transmitting (through internet bans and most locations dependent on ads)…….

“Well now, I say, I say, I say… well now.” That’s a cosmic Foghorn Leghorn musing at some location at inner space. He’s been awakened from his comic book dream by an apocalyptic reveille and he’s standing with the rest of his comic book associates in a sleepy regiment line. Some of them forgot their pants (like me recently)… oh, this just in, they don’t all wear pants. Anyway, some noisy avatar is getting closer and closer to Ground Zero every day and his band is loaded with tom toms, tympanis and big bass drums. So there’s a lot of virtual ground shaking going on and, from the other end up (this isn’t scientifically sound, so treat it as a metaphor or an analogy) it looks like the ground has been shaking for awhile; the ocean floor, casino roofs, financial institutions, governments and pretty much everything that involves Earth and a connection to it, is looking like a conga line of giant spice worms, moving under the infrastructure.

Massive murder machines, driven by extra-terrestrial alien will, have crossed the Suez and are headed for Maynardville (Thunder Road). Atomic Israeli subs, courtesy of a duped German Republic, are in the mix. Across the world, enormous oil slicks are killing the wild life and rescuers are being interdicted and possibly arrested because rescued giant sea turtles don’t look good when cooking in a flaming oil tempura wok without the batter. Sorry, that’s what the oil’s for. Hundreds of thousands of sea birds are making their heavy, beleaguered way into the dying wetlands to join in a massive unseen death rite while the rest of the poor creatures just sink to the ocean floor.

The toxins from the oil spill are traveling in the air and causing spontaneous diarrhea outbreaks which (according to witnesses), are causing whole communities to stink; giving witness to how pervasive it is. Those on land and sea are also experiencing a variety of reactions to the poison that is filling the breathing spaces with all sorts of terrible anti-body chemicals. There’s word of a huge gas bubble that might explode and send tsunamis, hundreds of feet high in all directions. Meanwhile, the alien and satanic driven, crime syndicate nation of Israel is motoring into the Persian Gulf to attack Iran with their American bitch, done up in leather restraints and gag-reflex ping pong balls, like some zombie nation that got born in that basement in Pulp Fiction.

Longshoremen around the world are refusing to unload Israeli/MagogkeNazi goods. When this finally, with great speed, becomes ubiquitous, Rothschildlandia is dead and the nation with no right to exist, based on lies and violence and born out of the much greater Soviet Holocaust (for which they are solely responsible), will sink into the infernal regions from which the idea first emerged. No greater boon can be granted humanity at this time. A determined inquiry into who owns British Petroleum and so many other noxious, corporate, alien parasite driven, concerns shows just how great the boon will be.

The public fallout from the flotilla massacres and the psychopathic film parodies has put the Cast Lead demon-Orcs beyond the efforts of any P.R. firm or all P.R. firms in tandem. Now, various flotillas approach the Israeli gulag, concentration camp of Gaza and possibly one of them is filled with women. Brave hearts have been awakened by The Apocalypse and all governments opposing such efforts by their citizens should have the Ceauşescu Method applied across the board. This is the force of The Apocalypse. It not only reveals the darkness and its practitioners to the light, it forces them into actions of exposure as a divine punctuation on their intent and fealty to the Prince of Darkness. We’ve already discussed whether such a thing exists or not and have made it clear that it doesn’t matter what name you call it or how you define it, it’s there.

Because of world outrage and reaction, similar to the longshoremen and because of direct action by collective efforts like flotillas and including the support of surrounding nations and former friends, whose leaders were targeted for assassination by Israel/MagogkeNazi Nation and caught at it… an attack on Iran is the only thing that will take the eye of the sleeping public away from the deeds of the waking public. It’s been announced that a majority of the citizens of various western nations are in support of attacking Iran; anyone at all, their relatives, friends and even themselves, I guess. None of this will work. The attempted killing of the world’s oceans won’t work and let me take a moment to recognize Kevin Costner’s contribution to the problem. I’ve always been a fan, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

If you can’t interpret the meaning of what is happening, you probably aren’t reading this anyway. Once more, a simple synopsis; stone cold evil, counterfeit money lending, parasite terrestrials, in a link up with fellow traveling, alien parasites and dark shit golems from the inner planes, who have narcotized world leaders with promises of power, flesh and money, are engaged in a program of world conquest and wide spread confinement, murder, eugenics and euthanasia of the peoples of the world with the intent of keeping a certain amount for servants and amusement.

You don’t need a more complex picture than this. In the process of their indefensible acts they have the belief that they are doing these things. The truth is that they are being forced to continue in their nasty perversions, until they are unmasked before the eyes of the world and… at a given time they are in for a real surprise. This surprise is a world enveloping consciousness of change that is going to express itself in many different ways.

It is not possible to awaken the majority of these criminals in any way but through their total destruction. It is not possible to awaken the majority of the sleeping world by any means other than Armageddon like conditions. This mindset is actually being pushed by those manipulating the Rohypnol saturated, dreamers but many surprises are possible yet.

Media from the right, center and left, along with any other mediums that present themselves as truthful and alternative are nearly all engines of disinfo. Only the secret voice of the inner heart can be trusted and no one speaking or writing can be trusted who does not resonate with it. I myself know only a handful of sites, reflecting the fingers on one hand, which I have discovered to be legitimate.

To anyone who is awake and asking what they can do, I say to join with others in a massive push for revelation and change. The primary forces and agents of these forces that are in predatory operation against humanity will not be, cannot be, changed by debate; appeals to better nature, evidence of their own approaching destruction, common sense, the echo of a lost innocence, the memory of a better self or anything else. The secondary agents; formerly lost in delusion and self interest can be changed and shamed into acts of self-redemption and a passion to recover what they have lost.

The coming weeks are going to provide both proof and opportunity to awakening souls around the world. The time when perverse actions like the holocausts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are over. Every new act will now only cement the belief of many that what they have been increasingly suspecting is actually true. These acts will also awaken others who are still rubbing at the cobwebs over their eyes and on their hearts and minds.

The power of a force, long unseen, is coming into view and all of this is a feature of The Apocalypse. As the old world is reduced to raw materials and the new world is constructed out of this reduction, those personally associating themselves with either will rise or fall accordingly. This is set in something far denser than stone and cannot be turned aside or halted in any way. It is going to happen and it is happening and nothing can prevent it.

The time is at hand when the miraculous will be common place and there will no longer be logical or material means to spin it as something else. It is happening right now and each new day will bring further evidence that the supernatural is in full operation upon the fading reality of what was once believed to be real. Have no fear other than the fear that you are serving the wrong agenda. Bend and you need not be broken.

End Transmission…….