The “Good Good War” Is A Bad War
By John Pilger

10/01/08 “ICH” – – In his latest article for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes how the invasion of Afghanistan, which was widely supported in the West as a ‘good war’ and justifiable response to 9/11, was actually planned months before 9/11 and is the latest instalment of ‘a great game’.

Straight Talk

By Layla Anwar

09/01/08 “ICH” — – Americans still pretend they brought Democracy to Iraq.

That is the most propitious environment for it.

Dahr Jamail explains the how US foments sectarian division in Iraq as a tool of divide and conquer, and as an excuse for perpetual military presence.

The myth of sectarianism

IF THE U.S. leaves Iraq, the violent sectarianism between the Sunni and Shia will worsen. This is what Republicans and Democrats alike will have us believe. This key piece of rhetoric is used to justify the continuance of the occupation of Iraq.This propaganda, like others of its ilk, gains ground, substance, and reality due largely to the ignorance of those ingesting it. The snow job by the corporate media on the issue of sectarianism in Iraq has ensured that the public buys into the line that the Sunni and Shia will dice one another up into little pieces if the occupation ends.

It may be worthwhile to consider that prior to the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq there had never been open warfare between the two groups and certainly not a civil war.

A Grassy Knoll in Pakistan

Musharref seems to be laboring under the illusion that the United States government supports his efforts to contain the building political explosion, when, in fact, the explosion of Pakistan is what the neocon traitors have been waiting for. With big “events” come big opportunities.

Full article:

All things have come full circle in the mountains of Pakistan.  The “great game” has been played-out.  The cycle of death which we unleashed upon the world there, bringing the  war on terrorism home to us, now draws us inexorably into the vacuum of its violent ending.  The convulsions now wracking that country threaten to become a revolutionary explosion capable of bringing down the foundations of the world.

 

The rapidly building democratic-revolution is now entering the “critical mass” stage.   Its expansion is accelerating beyond human control.  The assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a calculated risk, intended to derail democracy in Pakistan because Islamic extremists were making the democratic transition from militias into political parties.  For this reason, it is unlikely that she was assassinated by real Islamists, true Taliban.  It is more likely that the hit on Bhutto was connected to the Administration’s getting the “green light” (the day before the attack), to move large numbers of Special Forces “trainers” into the tribal regions. 

 

Even though Bhutto was allegedly stirring the cauldron, “…demanding after returning to Pakistan that the ISI be restructured; and in a press conference during her house arrest in Lahore in November she went as far as asking Pakistan army officers to revolt against the army chief,”  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7709   recent revelations by various neocon-men points to a covert US plan to eliminate her. 

“A large number of ISI agents who are responsible for helping the Taliban and al-Qaeda should be thrown in jail or killed. What I think we should do in Pakistan is a parallel version of what Iran has run against us in Iraq: giving money [and] empowering actors. Some of this will involve working with some shady characters, but the alternative – sending US forces into Pakistan for a sustained bombing campaign – is worse,” Steve Schippert was quoted as saying a November 2007 issue of Weekly Standard.  (1.   Steve Schippert  |  November 28, 2007 at 12:39 am “For what it’s worth, the author attributed a comment to me that I did not make in the Weekly Standard article. While I ascribe fully to what the unnamed intelligence source who actually said it did in fact say, they are not my words.”)  click here

 

Musharref seems to be laboring under the illusion that the United States government supports his efforts to contain the building political explosion, when, in fact, the explosion of Pakistan is what the neocon traitors have been waiting for.  With big “events” come big opportunities.  Bush does not intend to do anything to help him stave off the inevitable.  Their aim, all along, has been to plan for the day after the catastrophic event, for the day when their real plans could be fully implemented.  The Pakistani leader let their ceaseless warnings about the day after move him into cooperating with them, in allowing the new expansion of the war into Pakistan.   The actual neocon objective, according to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, is: 

“…fomenting social, ethnic and factional divisions and political fragmentation, including the territorial breakup of Pakistan. This course of action is also dictated by US war plans in relation to both Afghanistan and Iran.                                  

This US agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. US strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government.                                                                                                          

The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”   http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7705 

By cooperating with Bush and Cheney, Musharref is supporting their efforts to revive the CIA training operation which had originally destabilized Pakistan.  This had proven to be a winning strategy against powerful adversaries like the Soviet Union, but when the same strategy was tried elsewhere, where there were no large technological forces to attack, the trained militias targeted civilians.  When it was transferred to the illegal “contra” war against Nicaragua it was quickly perverted, degenerating into organized death squads.  “Targeted assassinations” and death squads, by trained, paid “militias” (mercenary armies) will overthrow regimes and terrorize the populations that dare to resist the American secret assault, will it will win no hearts and minds for the causes of democracy or freedom.  

 

In the article, “Key Pentagon strategist plots global war on terror,”   (Dec. 30) click here

we learn that the man who planned the strategy and directed the actions of the former Afghan Mujajedeen has been given the same job in the new improved “Global War On Terror,” patterned after it.

“In the Pentagon’s newly expanded Special Operations office, Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Vickers is working to implement the U.S. military’s highest-priority plan: a global campaign against terrorism that reaches far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

The plan details the targeting of al-Qaida-affiliated networks around the world and explores how the United States should retaliate in case of another major terrorist attack. The most critical aspect of the plan, Vickers said in a recent interview, involves U.S. Special Operations forces working through foreign partners to uproot and fight terrorist groups.

Vickers, a former Green Beret and CIA operative, was the principal strategist for the biggest covert program in CIA history: the paramilitary operation that drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan in the 1980s… he directed an insurgent force of 150,000 Afghan fighters and controlled an annual budget of more than $2 billion in current dollars.

Today Vickers’ plan to build a global counterterrorist network [to fight covert wars in 49 countries].”

According to the Guardian    click here Vickers will expand the Special Forces units now in Pakistan, to “…train the Frontier Corps and recruiting local militias to take on the insurgents.”  We will train a large roving Frontier Corps paramilitary force, as well as local Islamic militias.

 

“A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy, American military officials said.

 

Militants have extended their reach beyond the tribal areas.  If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan, directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agreed to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists, officials said.

click here

 

The “war on terrorism,” focused primarily on a fictional global insurgency named “al Qaida,” that, in fact, fought for American interests in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia and Chechnya is an exercise in hypocrisy.  The more “evidence” that is provided to us, to prove the al Qaida connection to every act of terrorism, the more evident it becomes that the war is a fraud, based on a cover-up of a treasonous attack, intended to whitewash history and to paint America as a heroic nation, dedicated to bringing freedom and democracy to all people.  The United States’ claim to be promoting democracy, while it exports state terrorism, has demolished the hopes of all those who still believe in American “good will,” all over the world. 

 

Informed people all over the world cannot fathom how the American administration can seriously claim to be pursuing “al Qaida-connected terrorists,” when they know that “al Qaida,” the terrorist organization never existed.  Thanks to revelations by British MP Robin Cook in the Guardian, click here  and French intelligence agent Pierre-Henry Bunel at the Wayne Madsen Report, click here  people know that when the United States needed a new enemy, after the demise of the Soviet empire, they decided to call “the base” (an international computer data base in Saudi Arabia of Afghan fighters), designated as “al Qaida” [an email address], an international terrorist network.

“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” – Robin Cook  

 

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.” – Pierre-Henry Bunel

 

“Elements associated with al Qaida” has become the new official catch-all phrase, used as often as possible, to incite terror among the American people and to justify new attacks by American forces and American-supported militia groups.  We are going into Pakistan in force, to train new Pakistanis to fight other Pakistanis that we had trained too well in the past.  How will we separate the “friendly” al Qaida from the unfriendly ones, when we bundle the whole bunch together under the rubric “al Qaida?”

 

Why are Islamists like Ayman al Zawahiri considered al Q., after they provided the US Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia, as well other Islamic recruits who served US interests in Chechnya?                     http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=143    The Islamic mercenaries were fighting for us when the embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, even after bin Laden and Zawahiri announced the establishment of “The International Islamic Front for Holy War Against Jews and Crusaders,” (an umbrella organization linking Islamic extremists in scores of countries around the world, the bin Laden group that was renamed Al Qaida).  The militant group, now called al Qaeda was the instant answer to the 9/11 attacks, even though it was never what it was alleged to be, the ultimate terrorist bogeyman.  The conjunction of US and al Qaida interests all over the Muslim world should warn thinking individuals, whenever attacks happen to occur in just the places that the neocon war planners would most like to invade. 

 

It is more than reasonable to question where al Qaida ends and the secret world of their CIA trainers begins.  Was it other trained al Qaida agents who pre-planted the demolitions that brought the towers down, obtained US security codes, timed the attacks into ongoing war games and stood down fighter cover, or was that part of the act of war the CIA’s domain?  Questioning further along that line, was Pakistan’s ISI (secret service) still acting as the CIA’s surrogate, when ISI head General Mahmud Ahmad allegedly had Sheik Omar wire Mohammed Atta $100,000?  According to Chossudovsky:

“The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been “wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad].” 10 According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

 

“The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism.”  click here

 

The name “Sheikh Omar” should set off alarms to those who are paying attention.  He was the one who Bhutto fingered on the David Frost interview on 2nd November 2007  (2:15), “Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg   Omar is mentioned in connection with a man that Bhutto feared might be involved in threats against her. 

President Musharraf, in his book In the Line of Fire stated that the Sheikh was originally recruited by British intelligence agency, MI6 to go to the Balkans.  Here is another shadowy figure linked to al Qaida, Western intelligence agencies and the US program, organized by Bill Clinton, to bring radical Islamist Jihadis to the war in Yugoslavia.  They fought on the US side, in a war prosecuted by the United States, as an Islamic paramilitary force.

 

The new secret world war, based on the contra strategy, follows on the heels of what has been described as a “winning strategy” in Iraq, where the strategy was implemented and proven to be faulty.  In Iraq, another former military/CIA contra trainer, James Steele has helped to implement the “El Salvador option,” injecting the same training that he provided to Central American “death squads” during the illegal covert war against Nicaragua.  But we know that the scenario, as it played-out in Iraq, produced the same results as in El Salvador, that of further polarizing the populace and turning the people against the US efforts.  But, in Iraq, the policy was judged successful, by some, because of the unexpected bonus of inciting religious sectarian civil warfare.  Between this new policy of promoting religious civil war and hiring armies of mercenaries, Bush & co. think that they are now winning in Iraq.  For this reason, they plan to repeat the pattern in Pakistan.     

 

We have seen elements of this new war strategy backfire in Gaza and Lebanon, where the political forces associated with Elliott Abrams sought to create viable insurgencies, like Mohammad Dahlan’s U.S.-backed Preventive Security Services who were ran out of Gaza and the Lebanese Fatah al-Islam faction, allied with Said Hariri, who were driven from the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli.  These small forces were far too weak to successfully engage the Lebanese government, or the Hamas government in Gaza, yet the US was willing to gamble on them.

 

Joint efforts between the CIA and the Israeli Mossad to train offshoots of the PKK terrorist organization in Iraq, for cross-border attacks upon Iran, have also gone astray, leading to Turkish military action in Iraq, to eliminate the intolerable terrorist attacks upon it, that were a bi-product of misguided American efforts.  Similar efforts to train Jundallah terrorists in Pakistan to attack Iran succeeded in killing a few Iranians, but managed to bring international opprobrium on the US for its support of terrorism.  

 

The new program to inflict mass terrorism upon Pakistan’s Western Provinces will backfire as well, further compounding America’s military dilemma, while increasing the suffering and tribal hatred of the Pakistani and Afghan people exponentially.

 

If America would only stop being the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism, then its leaders might realize that promoting real democracy is the only answer to the global unrest.  In Pakistan, democratic forces will sweep Musharref and the Americans completely out of power there.  Both he and Bush must decide to do whatever is necessary to make that “clean sweep” a relatively peaceful one.  There is no room for a dictator in any democracy – not in Pakistan, or America.  If the attempt by the Pakistani government to cover-up the Bhutto assassination, by claiming that she was not shot is any indication of the path that Musharref has chosen for Pakistan, then there will be no chance for peace in that beleaguered country.   click here

 

 

Another example of the excercise of very academically explaining why and how the notion of a 9/11 inside-job is simply the result of some psychological problem.

The funny thing about this one is that it attempts to analyse how myths become popular, without ever questioning it’s own mythic platform.

Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach – washingtonpost.com
This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi. While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may in fact help keep it alive.

Similarly, many in the Arab world are convinced that the destruction of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 was not the work of Arab terrorists but was a controlled demolition; that 4,000 Jews working there had been warned to stay home that day; and that the Pentagon was struck by a missile rather than a plane.

How Propaganda Works
Specifically, propaganda works by appealing to three things: emotionalism, tribalism and narcissism.

The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: A Tutorial in Orwellian Newspeak

by Robert Weitzel

“Political language has to consist largely of euphemisms . . . and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

It begins, “AN ACT – To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.”

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_robert_w_071130_the_homegrown_terror.htm

Another CIA sponsored Coup D’Etat? Venezuela’s D-Day

Democratic Socialism or Imperial Counter-Revolution

By Prof James Petras

11/28/07 “ICH” — – On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday (December 2, 2007).

      The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled ‘Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer’ and updates the activity by a CIA unit with the acronym ‘HUMINT’ (Human Intelligence) which is engaged in clandestine action to destabilize the forth-coming referendum and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government. The Embassy-CIA’s polls concede that 57% of the voters approved of the constitutional amendments proposed by Chavez but also predicted a 60% abstention. 

      The US operatives emphasized their capacity to recruit former Chavez supporters among the social democrats (PODEMOS) and the former Minister of Defense Baduel, claiming to have reduced the ‘yes’ vote by 6% from its original margin. Nevertheless the Embassy operatives concede that they have reached their ceiling, recognizing they cannot defeat the amendments via the electoral route.

      The memo then recommends that Operation Pincer (OP) [Operación Tenaza] be operationalized. OP involves a two-pronged strategy of impeding the referendum, rejecting the outcome at the same time as calling for a ‘no’ vote. The run up to the referendum includes running phony polls, attacking electoral officials and running propaganda through the private media accusing the government of fraud and calling for a ‘no’ vote. Contradictions, the report cynically emphasizes, are of no matter.

      The CIA-Embassy reports internal division and recriminations among the opponents of the amendments including several defections from their ‘umbrella group’. The key and most dangerous threats to democracy raised by the Embassy memo point to their success in mobilizing the private university students (backed by top administrators) to attack key government buildings including the Presidential Palace, Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council. The Embassy is especially praiseworthy of the ex-Maoist ‘Red Flag’ group for its violent street fighting activity. Ironically, small Trotskyist sects and their trade unionists join the ex-Maoists in opposing the constitutional amendments. The Embassy, while discarding their ‘Marxist rhetoric’, perceives their opposition as fitting in with their overall strategy.

      The ultimate objective of ‘Operation Pincer’ is to seize a territorial or institutional base with the ‘massive support’ of the defeated electoral minority within three or four days (before or after the elections – is not clear. JP) backed by an uprising by oppositionist military officers principally in the National Guard. The Embassy operative concede that the military plotters have run into serous problems as key intelligence operatives were detected, stores of arms were decommissioned and several plotters are under tight surveillance.

      Apart from the deep involvement of the US, the primary organization of the Venezuelan business elite (FEDECAMARAS), as well as all the major private television, radio and newspaper outlets have been engaged in a vicious fear and intimidation campaign. Food producers, wholesale and retail distributors have created artificial shortages of basic food items and have provoked large scale capital flight to sow chaos in the hopes of reaping a ‘no’ vote. 

President Chavez Counter-Attacks

      In a speech to pro-Chavez, pro-amendment nationalist business-people (Entrepreneurs for Venezuela – EMPREVEN) Chavez warned the President of FEDECAMARAS that if he continues to threaten the government with a coup, he would nationalize all their business affiliates. With the exception of the Trotskyist and other sects, the vast majority of organized workers, peasants, small farmers, poor neighborhood councils, informal self-employed and public school students have mobilized and demonstrated in favor of the constitutional amendments. 

      The reason for the popular majority is found in a few of the key amendments: One article expedites land expropriation facilitating re-distribution to the landless and small producers. Chavez has already settled over 150,000 landless workers on 2 million acres of land. Another amendment provides universal social security coverage for the entire informal sector (street sellers, domestic workers, self-employed) amounting to 40% of the labor force. Organized and unorganized workers’ workweek will be reduced from 40 to 36 hours a week (Monday to Friday noon) with no reduction in pay. Open admission and universal free higher education will open greater educational opportunities for lower class students. Amendments will allow the government to by-pass current bureaucratic blockage of the socialization of strategic industries, thus creating greater employment and lower utility costs. Most important, an amendment will increase the power and budget of neighborhood councils to legislate and invest in their communities.

      The electorate supporting the constitutional amendments is voting in favor of their socio-economic and class interests; the issue of extended re-election of the President is not high on their priorities: And that is the issue that the Right has focused on in calling Chavez a ‘dictator’ and the referendum a ‘coup’.

The Opposition

      With strong financial backing from the US Embassy ($8 million dollars in propaganda alone according to the Embassy memo) and the business elite and ‘free time’ by the right-wing media, the Right has organized a majority of the upper middle class students from the private universities, backed by the Catholic Church hierarchy, large swaths of the affluent middle class neighborhoods, entire sectors of the commercial, real estate and financial middle classes and apparently sectors of the military, especially officials in the National Guard. While the Right has control over the major private media, public television and radio back the constitutional reforms. While the Right has its followers among some generals and the National Guard, Chavez has the backing of the paratroops and legions of middle rank officers and most other generals.

      The outcome of the Referendum of December 2 is a decisive historical event first and foremost for Venezuela but also for the rest of the Americas. A positive vote (Vota ‘Sí’) will provide the legal framework for the democratization of the political system, the socialization of strategic economic sectors, empower the poor and provide the basis for a self-managed factory system. A negative vote (or a successful US-backed civil-military uprising) will reverse the most promising living experience of popular self-rule, of advanced social welfare and democratically based socialism. A reversal, especially a military dictated outcome, will lead to a massive blood bath, such as we have not seen since the days of the Indonesian Generals’ Coup of 1966, which killed over a million workers and peasants or the Argentine Coup of 1976 in which over 30,000 Argentines were murdered by the US backed Generals.

      A decisive vote for ‘Sí’ will not end US military and political destabilization campaigns but it will certainly undermine and demoralize their collaborators. On December 2, 2007 the Venezuelans have a rendezvous with history.

Opinion: Newton ville næppe have accepteret den forklaring

Af Niels Harrit, lic.scient., lektor, Kemisk Institut, Københavns Universitet, fredag 23. nov 2007 kl. 00:45

Den 11. september 2001 oplevede verden de mest spektakulære sammenstyrtninger i den moderne arkitekturs historie. Aldrig før eller siden er det sket, at en stålkonstruktion af de dimensioner er styrtet sammen på grund af brand. Begivenheden må være kommet som en overraskelse for alle bygningsingeniører.

PÃ¥ seksÃ¥rsdagen for angrebene pÃ¥ World Trade Center bragte Ingeniørens netudgave en artikel om, at en forsker fra Cambridge University, ph.d. Keith Seffen, med en matematiske model har bevist, “at World Trade Centerets hurtige og totale kollaps i nær frit falds hastighed har en helt naturlig forklaring”. Han har angiveligt fÃ¥et en artikel herom optaget i de amerikanske bygningsingeniørers tidsskrift, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, men den er dog endnu ikke fremkommet.

Det fremgÃ¥r af referatet i Ingeniøren, at det drejer sig om en matematisk verificering af den sÃ¥kaldte “pile-driver”-teori, som blev fremsat af Z. P. Bazant allerede d. 13. september, 2001, og senere udbygget, modificeret og understøttet af hans egne matematiske modeller. Medens vi venter pÃ¥ udgivelsen af artiklen fra dr. Seffen, er det mÃ¥ske pÃ¥ sin plads at orientere om og kommentere denne “pile-driver”-teori.

Sammenstyrtningens faser er her illustreret med en figur fra en af Bazants artikler. Bogstaverne refererer til følgende kronologi:

a) Et WTC-tårn rammes af en flyvemaskine, som delvis beskadiger den bærende stålkonstruktion på et par etager.

b) På de nærliggende etager udbryder der brande, som gradvis svækker stålelementerne på samme etager.

c) Efter et stykke tid (hhv. 56 og 102 min. for de to tårne) når de bærende elementer et punkt for samtidig kollaps af hele etagen (resp. etager).

d) De overliggende etager (herefter kaldet “oversektionen”) falder nu mindst to etager ned. Herved konverteres potentiel energi selvfølgelig til kinetisk, og nÃ¥r oversektionen falder ned pÃ¥ den underliggende del af bygningen (herefter kaldet “undersektionen”), repræsenterer den en overvældende kraft, der knuser alle søjler i undersektionens øverste etage. Herefter er oversektionen (”the pile-driver”) blevet tungere og har endnu mere kinetisk energi og kraft til at knuse den næste, underliggende etage. Dette er billedet af et sÃ¥kaldt progressivt kollaps.

e) Således fortsætter det nedad (crush-down), etage for etage, med konstant acceleration og stigende fart, indtil oversektionen efter ca. ti sekunder rammer jorden.

f) Bunken på jorden kan ikke trykkes yderligere sammen, og oversektionen oplever nu en reaktion (crush-up), som medfører, at den pulveriseres og forenes med resterne af den pulveriserede undersektion.

I første omgang ser det vel ganske indlysende ud. Men det ses af tegningen – og fremgÃ¥r implicit af “pile-driver”-modellen – at Bazant opererer med en model af tÃ¥rnene, der kan sammenlignes med en stabel tallerkner adskilt af smÃ¥ søjler.

Sådan var WCT-tårnene imidlertid ikke konstrueret. Som det ses af billedet af tårnene under bygning, bestod de af en solid kerne (47 søjler) og en knapt så solid periferi (236 søjler). Etageadskillelserne lå som Ikea-hylder på hængsler mellem den centrale kerne (hvor der i øvrigt ikke var noget, der kunne brænde) og den perifere skal.

Allerede pÃ¥ den baggrund kan det forekomme lidet troværdigt, at etagerne – sÃ¥dan en efter en – skulle falde successivt ned som horisontale enheder.

Isaac Newton var professor 1669-1727 på samme universitet, som nu har givet varsel om denne artikel fra dr. Seffen. Inden sin udnævnelse havde Newton faktisk formuleret både tyngdeloven og de tre berømte love for legemers bevægelse, som dog først blev offentliggjort i 1687.

Hvad mon Newton ville have sagt til forløbet af WCT-tÃ¥rnenes kollaps ifølge “pile-driver”-modellen?

NÃ¥r oversektionen kommer brasende ned pÃ¥ undersektionen, mÃ¥ der vel være en reaktion i overensstemmelse med Newtons 3. lov (”De kræfter, hvormed to legemer virker pÃ¥ hinanden er bestandig lige store og gÃ¥r i modsatte retninger”)?. Den nederste etage af oversektionen er stort set lige sÃ¥ stærk som den øverste etage af undersektionen, og mÃ¥ vel forventes at blive mast i nøjagtigt samme omfang. Hvis man trykker to marengs mod hinanden, bliver de vel begge to til flormelis?

Og hvorfor skulle hele den knusende kraft koncentreres på undersektionens øverste etage? Hele sektionen havde båret toppen i over tredive år. Trykket må da vel fordeles ned igennem konstruktionen, der havde både plasticitet og elasticitet?

Eller hvad med Newtons 2. lov: “Forandringen i et legemes bevægelsesmængde forholder sig som den bevægende kraft og sker i kraftens retning”?

De to tÃ¥rne faldt sammen med frit falds hastighed. Denne observation er der ikke diskussion om. Det betyder, at den faldende oversektion i “pile-driver”-modellen havde en konstant acceleration, og derfor mÃ¥tte have været pÃ¥virket af en konstant, uforstyrret (tyngde)kraft. Oversektionen ser faktisk ud til at falde ned og knuse resten af tÃ¥rnet uden modstand – som om den faldt igennem den frie luft.

Kan inertiens bevarelse virkelig opretholdes, når hver eneste etage skal rives af hængslerne og accelereres op til den på det tidspunkt opnåede faldhastighed? Derudover skulle der bruges energi til at pulverisere al beton og gips i hele bygningen, som det fremgår af alle billeder og videoer.

Problematikken er illustreret med billedet af tårnet med og unden underdel. Hvilken oversektion rammer jorden først, den til højre eller den til venstre? Iflg. dr. Bazant (og dr. Seffen?) vil de ramme jorden samtidigt.

Som artiklen i Ingeniøren indirekte afslører, er forløbet endnu ikke helt forstået, hvilket kan give anledning til en del bekymring.

Jeg er organisk kemiker med et nødtørftigt og elementært kendskab til mekanisk fysik. Mange af Ingeniørens læsere er betydeligt bedre udrustede i den henseende, og det ville være velgørende, hvis nogen heriblandt ville forklare, hvordan World Trade Centers tÃ¥rne kunne falde sammen – fuldstændigt symmetrisk og med frit falds hastighed – under overholdelse af de elementære bevægelseslove.

SÃ¥ ville vi – mig og Newton – kunne sove roligt igen.

Lest We Forget
By John Pilger

11/15/07 “ICH” — – On Remembrance Day 2007 – Veterans Day in America – the great and the good bowed their heads at the Cenotaph. Generals, politicians, newsreaders, football managers and stock-market traders wore their poppies. Hypocrisy was a presence. No one mentioned Iraq. No one uttered the slightest remorse for the fallen of that country. No one read the forbidden list.

The forbidden list documents, without favor, the part the British state and its court have played in the destruction of Iraq. Here it is:

1. Holocaust denial On 25 October, Dai Davies MP asked Gordon Brown about civilian deaths in Iraq. Brown passed the question to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who passed it to his junior minister, Kim Howells, who replied: “We continue to believe that there are no comprehensive or reliable figures for deaths since March 2003.” This was a deception. In October 2006, the Lancet published research by Johns Hopkins University in the US and al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad which calculated that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the Anglo-American invasion. A Freedom of Information search revealed that the government, while publicly dismissing the study, secretly backed it as comprehensive and reliable. The chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defense, Sir Roy Anderson, called its methods “robust” and “close to best practice.” Other senior governments officials secretly acknowledged the survey’s “tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones.” Since then, the British research polling agency, Opinion Research Business, has extrapolated a figure of 1.2 million deaths in Iraq. Thus, the scale of death caused by the British and US governments may well have surpassed that of the Rwanda genocide, making it the biggest single act of mass murder of the late 20th century and the 21st century.
2. Looting The undeclared reason for the invasion of Iraq was the convergent ambitions of the neocons, or neo-fascists, in Washington and the far-right regimes of Israel. Both groups had long wanted Iraq crushed and the Middle East colonized to US and Israeli designs. The initial blueprint for this was the 1992 “Defense Planning Guidance,” which outlined America’s post-Cold War plans to dominate the Middle East and beyond. Its authors included Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell, architects of the 2003 invasion. Following the invasion, Paul Bremer, a neocon fanatic, was given absolute civil authority in Baghdad and in a series of decrees turned the entire future Iraqi economy over to US corporations. As this was lawless, the corporate plunderers were given immunity from all forms of prosecution. The Blair government was fully complicit and even objected when it looked as if UK companies might be excluded from the most profitable looting. British officials were awarded functionary colonial posts. A petroleum “law” will allow, in effect, foreign oil companies to approve their own contracts over Iraq’s vast energy resources. This will complete the greatest theft since Hitler stripped his European conquests.
3. Destroying a nation’s health In 1999, I interviewed Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, a cancer specialist at Basra city hospital. “Before the Gulf War,” he said, “we had only three or four deaths in a month from cancer. Now it’s 30 to 35 patients dying every month. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer.” Iraq was then in the grip of an economic and humanitarian siege, initiated and driven by the US and Britain. The result, wrote Hans von Sponeck, the then chief UN humanitarian official in Baghdad, was “genocidal … practically an entire nation was subjected to poverty, death and destruction of its physical and mental foundations.” Most of southern Iraq remains polluted with the toxic debris of British and American explosives, including uranium-238 shells. Iraqi doctors pleaded in vain for help, citing the levels of leukemia among children as the highest seen since Hiroshima. Professor Karol Sikora, chief of the World Health Organization’s cancer program, wrote in the BMJ: “Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee].” In 1999, Kim Howells, then trade minister, effectively banned the export to Iraq of vaccines that would protect mostly children from diphtheria, tetanus and yellow fever, which, he said, “are capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction.”

   Since 2003, apart from PR exercises for the embedded media, the British occupiers have made no attempt to re-equip and resupply hospitals that, prior to 1991, were regarded as the best in the Middle East. In July, Oxfam reported that 43 per cent of Iraqis were living in “absolute poverty.” Under the occupation, malnutrition rates among children have spiraled to 28 per cent. A secret Defense Intelligence Agency document, “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” reveals that the civilian water supply was deliberately targeted. As a result, the great majority of the population has neither access to running water nor sanitation – in a country where such basic services were once as universal as in Britain. “The mortality of children in Basra has increased by nearly 30 per cent compared to the Saddam Hussein era,” said Dr. Haydar Salah, a pediatrician at Basra children’s hospital. “Children are dying daily and no one is doing anything to help them.” In January this year, nearly 100 leading British doctors wrote to Hilary Benn, then international development secretary, describing how children were dying because Britain had not fulfilled its obligations as an occupying power under UN Security Council Resolution 1483. Benn refused to see them.

4. Destroying a society The UN estimates that 100,000 Iraqis are fleeing the country every month. The refugee crisis has now overtaken that of Darfur as the most catastrophic on earth. Half of Iraq’s doctors have gone, along with engineers and teachers. The most literate society in the Middle East is being dismantled, piece by piece. Out of more than four million displaced people, Britain last year refused the majority of more than 1,000 Iraqis who applied to come here, while removing more “illegal” Iraqi refugees than any other European country. Thanks to tabloid-inspired legislation, Iraqis in Britain are often destitute, with no right to work and no support. They sleep and scavenge in parks. The government, says Amnesty, “is trying to starve them out of the country.”
5. Propaganda “See in my line of work,” said George W. Bush, “you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

   Standing outside 10 Downing Street on 9 April 2003, the BBC’s then political editor, Andrew Marr, reported the fall of Baghdad as a victory speech. Tony Blair, he told viewers, “said they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right. And it would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result.” In the United States, similar travesties passed as journalism. The difference was that leading American journalists began to consider the consequences of the role they had played in the buildup to the invasion. Several told me they believed that had the media challenged and investigated Bush’s and Blair’s lies, instead of echoing and amplifying them, the invasion might not have happened. A European study found that, of the major western television networks, the BBC permitted less coverage of dissent than all of them. A second study found that the BBC consistently gave credence to government propaganda that weapons of mass destruction existed. Unlike the Sun, the BBC has credibility – as does, or did, the Observer.

   On 14 October 2001, the London Observer’s front page said: “US hawks accuse Iraq over anthrax.” This was entirely false. Supplied by US intelligence, it was part of the Observer’s staunchly pro-war coverage, which included claiming a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, for which there was no credible evidence and which betrayed the paper’s honorable past. One report over two pages was headlined: “The Iraqi connection.” It, too, came from “intelligence sources” and was rubbish. The reporter, David Rose, concluded his barren inquiry with a heartfelt plea for an invasion. “There are occasions in history,” he wrote, “when the use of force is both right and sensible.” Rose has since written his mea culpa, including in these pages, confessing how he was used. Other journalists have still to admit how they were manipulated by their own credulous relationship with established power.

   These days, Iraq is reported as if it is exclusively a civil war, with a US military “surge” aimed at bringing peace to the scrapping natives. The perversity of this is breathtaking. That sectarian violence is the product of a vicious divide-and-conquer policy is beyond doubt. As for the largely media myth of al-Qaeda, “most of the [American] pros will tell you,” wrote Seymour Hersh, “that the foreign fighters are a couple per cent, and then they’re sort of leaderless.” That a poorly armed, audacious resistance has not only pinned down the world’s most powerful army but has agreed to an anti-sectarian, anti-al-Qaeda agenda, which opposes attacks on civilians and calls for free elections, is not news.

6. The next blood letting In the 1960s and 1970s, British governments secretly expelled the population of Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean whose people have British nationality. Women and children were loaded on to vessels resembling slave ships and dumped in the slums of Mauritius, after their homeland was given to the Americans for a military base. Three times, the High Court has found this atrocity illegal, calling it a defiance of the Magna Carta and the Blair government’s refusal to allow the people to go home “outrageous” and “repugnant.” The government continues to use endless recourse to appeal, at the taxpayers’ expense, to prevent upsetting Bush. The cruelty of this matches the fact that not only has the US repeatedly bombed Iraq from Diego Garcia, but at “Camp Justice,” on the island, “al-Qaeda suspects” are “rendered” and “tortured,” according to the Washington Post. Now the US Air Force is rushing to upgrade hangar facilities on the island so that stealth bombers can carry 14-ton”bunker busting” bombs in an attack on Iran. Orchestrated propaganda in the media is critical to the success of this act of international piracy.

   On 22 May, the front page of the London Guardian carried the banner headline: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq.” This was a tract of unalloyed propaganda based entirely on anonymous US official sources. Throughout the media, other drums have taken up the beat. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions” slips effortlessly from newsreaders’ lips, no matter that the International Atomic Energy Agency refuted Washington’s lies, no matter the echo of “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction,” no matter that another bloodbath beckons.

Lest we forget.

Video 1:

Video 2:

Internet Archive: September 11 Television Archive

Welcome to September 11 Television Archive

This collection contains television news programs recorded live from around September 11, 2001 by the non-profit Television Archive to help patrons research this important part of United States history. These materials were available on the televisionarchive.org site from October 11, 2001 through 2003.

aldeilis.net

Interesting site that seems to have many articles over the same theme a sthe one below:

‘False Flag’ terrorism

“A false flag operation means that you execute a strike against your own people and then assign blame to the enemy. The result is that you appear to be highly justified when you in turn attack your enemy.” (Willem Middelkoop)

YouTube – Dr. Dahlia Wasfi speaks at Iraq forum

This woman explains the plain facts, that USA is destroying Iraq for the looting of their oil.

This is the kind of simply explained truth that our National news-media does not but should show.

I am currently reading a book by Chomsky, and it seems to me a central missing piece of his worldview is state organized false flag terrorism. This article is about that.

Sword Play

By Chris Floyd
Published: February 18, 2005

‘You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent
people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The
reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state
to ask for greater security.”

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert
campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence
services of the West — against their own populations. Hundreds of
innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks — on
train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices — which were then
blamed on “leftist subversives” or other political opponents. The
purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo
Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the
public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders
– and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991,
Gladio (from the Latin for “sword”) is still protected to this day by
its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary
investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a
few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered
in a new book, “NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism
in Western Europe,” by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on
CommonDreams.org.

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated
behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe,
Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and
manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing
militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret
military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism,
assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as
Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies
in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided
Turkey’s repression of the Kurds.

Among the “smoking guns” unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document,
Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching
terrorist attacks in nations that “do not react with sufficient
effectiveness” against “communist subversion.” Ironically, the manual
states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups
“renounce the use of force” and embrace the democratic process. It is
then that “U.S. army intelligence must have the means of launching
special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and
public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger.” Naturally,
these peace-throttling “special operations must remain strictly
secret,” the document warns.

Indeed, it would not do for the families of the 85 people ripped
apart by the Aug. 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to
know that their loved ones had been murdered by “men inside Italian
state institutions and … men linked to the structures of United
States intelligence,” as the Italian Senate concluded after its
investigation in 2000.

The Bologna atrocity is an example of what Gladio’s masters called
“the strategy of tension” — fomenting fear to keep populations in
thrall to “strong leaders” who will protect the nation from the ever-
present terrorist threat. And as Rajiva notes, this strategy wasn’t
limited to Western Europe. It was applied, with gruesome
effectiveness, in Central America by the Reagan and Bush
administrations. During the 1980s, right-wing death squads, guerrilla
armies and state security forces — armed, trained and supplied by
the United States — murdered tens of thousands of people throughout
the region, often acting with particular savagery at those times when
peaceful solutions to the conflicts seemed about to take hold.

Last month, it was widely reported that the Pentagon is considering a
similar program in Iraq. What was not reported, however — except in
the Iraqi press — is that at least one pro-occupation death squad is
already in operation. Just days after the Pentagon plans were
revealed, a new militant group, “Saraya Iraqna,” began offering big
wads of American cash for insurgent scalps — up to $50,000, the
Iraqi paper Al Ittihad reports. “Our activity will not be selective,”
the group promised. In other words, anyone they consider an enemy of
the state will be fair game.
Strangely enough, just as it appears that the Pentagon is
establishing Gladio-style operations in Iraq, there has been a sudden
rash of terrorist attacks on outrageously provocative civilian
targets, such as hospitals and schools, the Guardian reports. Coming
just after national elections in which the majority faction supported
slates calling for a speedy end to the American occupation, the shift
toward high-profile civilian slaughter has underscored the “urgent
need” for U.S. forces to remain on the scene indefinitely, to provide
security against the ever-present terrorist threat. Meanwhile, the
Bushists continue constructing their long-sought permanent bases in
Iraq: citadels to protect the oil that incoming Iraqi officials are
promising to sell off to American corporations — and launching pads
for new forays in geopolitical domination.

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence. But the U.S. elite’s history of
directing and fomenting terrorist attacks against friendly
populations is so extensive — indeed, so ingrained and accepted –
that it calls into question the origin of every terrorist act that
roils the world. With each fresh atrocity, we’re forced to ask: Was
it the work of “genuine” terrorists or a “black op” by intelligence
agencies — or both?

While not infallible, the ancient Latin question is still the best
guide to penetrating the bloody murk of modern terrorism: Cui bono?
Who benefits? Whose powers and policies are enhanced by the attack?
For it is indisputable that the “strategy of tension” means power and
profit for those who claim to possess the key to “security.” And from
the halls of the Kremlin to the banks of the Potomac, this cynical
strategy is the ruling ideology of our times

The David Ray Griffin Interview – DRG Answers Your Questions – RINF FORUM
RINF members had the opportunity to put questions to one of the worlds most credible and respected 9/11 researchers, Dr. David Ray Griffin.

The Washington Note
Zbigniew Brzezinski Calls Iraq War a Historic, Strategic and Moral Calamity & Says Stop the Trappings of Colonial Tutelage

IRAKKRIG – GRUNDLOVSBRUD – DOMSTOLSKONTROL – Google Video
Christiansborg-konference

Se Video:

IRAKKRIG – GRUNDLOVSBRUD – DOMSTOLSKONTROL Vedtagelsen af grundloven bragte værdierne i overensstemmelse med … all » værdierne i international lov og ret (FN-Pagten). Som første instans pÃ¥begynder Østre Landsret den 29. ds. den mundtlige behandling af sagen, som statsministeren forsøger at forsinke ca. to Ã¥r ved først at pÃ¥stÃ¥, at sagsøgerne (24 danske statsborgere ægtefællerne Kirkmand) ikke skulle have ret til at fÃ¥ grundlovsovertrædelsen undersøgt ved domstolene (søgsmÃ¥lskompetence). Nu bliver der mulighed for at fÃ¥ mere information frem pÃ¥: CHRISTIANSBORG, (FÆLLESSALEN) TIRSDAG DEN 23. JANUAR 2007 KL. 16 – 18.30

PROGRAM 15.30 REGISTRERING 16.00 VELKOMST Prof. Kai Lemberg, fmd. Grundlovskomiteen 16.10 GRUNDLOVEN OG DANSK KRIGSFØRELSE Fhv. justitsminister, prof.dr.jur. (statsforfatningsret) Ole Espersen 16.40 RETSSAGER I STORBRITANNIEN: IRAQ WAR AND THE RULE OF LAW Philip Sapsford, Barrister QC, London 17.15 PAUSE 17.30 Villy Søvndal, formand for SF 17.40 RETSSAGEN I DANMARK A. SØGSMÅLSKOMPETENCEN Advokat Christian Harlang B. GRUNDLOVSBRUDDET I F.T. § 19 OG § 20 Advokat Bjørn Elmquist 18.15 SPØRGSMÅL FRA SALEN OG SVAR 18.30 AFSLUTNING

ORDSTYRER: Fhv. sognepræst MEP Ulla Sandbæk Philip Sapsford, QC

Barrister i London 1974, QC 1992.

Philip Sapsford har ført mange principielle sager om britisk forfatningsret, menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder.

Philip Sapsford er også særligt anerkendt ( i UK) for sit arbejde mod ”death row”, altså der hvor dødsdømte fanger holdes indespærret forud for eksekutionen af dødsdommen.

Vedrørende Irak-krigen fører han en sag for Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, der havde nægtet at deltage i RAF’s træning forud for udstationering i Irak og havde nægtet at lade sig udstationere i Irak. Han hævdede, at de ordrer, der var blevet ham pålagt desangående, var ulovlige i forhold til international ret, idet UK’s anvendelse af militær magt overfor Irak ikke var begrundet i et angreb på UK eller UK’s allierede. Der foreligger endnu ingen endelig retsafgørelse

YouTube – Bo and Jakob Discuss 911

Det her er da meget kært, Mig og Bo på slap line i Blackpool!

Manden spurgte om vi ville snakke til kameraet, og det gjorde vi så.

Vi taler mest om problemerne med at få 911truth dagsordenen i medierne.

Se Video:

Letter from a U.S. citizen “addressed to the world”

This article describes how The US administration uses budgets to entrench the ‘war on terror’ into the fabric of American life.

An all-consuming ‘war on terror’

…The same imperative – translate your agenda into war on terror requirements or be starved of funds – and its spiraling consequences surged across the government, affecting virtually all agencies. Bureaucrats unable to describe their activities in “war on terror” terms were virtually disqualified from budget increases and probably doomed to cuts. With billions of dollars a year in state and local funding, the Department of Homeland Security devised a list of 15 National Planning Scenarios to help guide its allocations. To qualify for Homeland Security funding, state and local governments had to describe how they would use allocated funds to meet one of those chosen scenarios…

Saddam Hussein Hanged for the Wrong Reason

It was not the Iraqi government but its American masters that chose to execute Saddam Hussein in a great rush as soon as the first sentence was confirmed, thus canceling all the other trials on far graver charges that awaited him. The current Iraqi government had nothing to hide if those trials went ahead; the United States government did.

Washington, D.C. 9/11 Truth

Symposium Video now available on Google Video.
FROM 9/11 TRUTH TO 9/11 JUSTICE:
A Symposium on Taking Back Our Nation
Dr. Kevin Barrett-DC911Truth.org Conference 11/11/06
J. Michael Springmann – DC911truth.org Conference 11/11/06
Webster Griffin Tarpley – DC911Truth.org Conference 11/11/06
Dr. Robert Bowman – DC911Truth.Org Conference 11/11/06
Wayne Madsen – DC911truth.org Conference 11/11/06
Daniel Abrahamson – DC911truth.org Conference 11/11/06
DC911truth.org Conference 11/11/06: DVD Intro Clip
See pictures from event

9-11 Investigation: Key 9-11 Facts And Assumptions Challenged By Prof. David Ray Griffin Video – 9-11: Myth Or Reality? – Robin Good’s Latest News

9-11 Investigation: key facts and assumptions about the 9-11 tragedy are systematically dismantled and proven false by retired theologician and active book writer Prof. David Ray Griffin. His documentary video – 9-11: Myth Or Reality? has some valuable insight everyone with an open mind should confront itself with.

Chomsky Dismisses 911 Conspiracy Theories As ‘Dubious’

The following is an exchange between a ZNet  Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum…

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice’s James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission’s report in accuracy and lucidity (see,
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html,
or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we’d have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists — of whom there are thousands — who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that’s been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn’t a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That’s of course up to you. I’ve explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a “war without end,” and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now ‘the Americans are in the same fight.’ Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can’t answer for the same reasons. I don’t see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,… etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through “prevention of terrorism acts” and the like. By the “who gains” argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what’s to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn’t resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism ­ which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.

Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 — crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.

ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?

Noam Chomsky: I think that’s the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn’t changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes — and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor ­ which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson’s seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).

Noam Chomsky: The concept of “false flag operation” is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I’d suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world’s leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?

Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779

Is Israeli wishes driving USA or vice-versa?
This article argues that AIPAC controls US congres.

Letter from James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota to Jeff Blankfort on the Israel Lobby :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq – it
The following letter was sent to me today by James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota, and he readily complied when I asked that I be allowed to forward it to my list because what he had to say is of the utmost importance, given last month’s election and all the new faces in Congress, and the immediate previous posting to you and James Petras’s article earlier in the day..

Dear Jeff:

I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky’s positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.

I had never paid much attention to Chomsky’s writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.

I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear–fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress–at least when I served there–have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public.

Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.

I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist’s articles. It’s a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.

With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel’s military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel’s involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I’m not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can’t think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.

I suppose one could argue that Bush’s encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby’s continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a “throw away” country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.

I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby’s pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they’ve been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn’t been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.

So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel’s giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders’ minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby’s principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, “That’s where the money is.”

Jim Abourezk

I was reading this article thinking how precisely it describes the situation in Iraq, when suddenly it dawned on me that this article was written in 2002 prior to the invasion…

To think that this whole sham was so obvious even back then, and blinded by mainstream-media we never saw it!
The president’s real goal in Iraq

…For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?Because we won’t be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran…

]]> http://jakoblog.agenda911.dk/id/573/feed 0 http://jakoblog.agenda911.dk/id/572 http://jakoblog.agenda911.dk/id/572#comments Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:01:33 +0000 Jakob http://jakoblog.agenda911.dk/id/572

Now that it’s become clear that the American expansion in the Middle East has become quicksanded in Iraq, the Israelis move centerstage and positions themselves for the non-conventional attack on Iran.

Or?

Netanyahu: It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust – Haaretz – Israel News

“It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs,” Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. “Believe him and stop him,” the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this.”While the Iranian president “denies the Holocaust,” Netanyahu said, “he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.”

Advertisement

Speaking on Army Radio on Tuesday, Netanyahu hinted that Israel possesses the military capabilities necessary for curbing by itself the Iranian nuclear threat, declining to specify what these entail.

The Likud chairman said “I don’t want to analyze the capability required to eliminate [the Iranian] threat, but this capability exists,” when told by host Razi Barkai that Israel lacks the ability to eliminate Tehran’s nuclear program by military means.

General Ivashov: “International terrorism does not exist” [Voltaire]

The use of the term “international terrorism” has the following goals:

• Hiding the real objectives of the forces deployed all over the world in the struggle for dominance and control;
• Turning the people’s demands to a struggle of undefined goals against an invisible enemy;
• Destroying basic international norms and changing concepts such as: aggression, state terror, dictatorship or movement of national liberation;
• Depriving peoples of their legitimate right to fight against aggressions and to reject the work of foreign intelligence services;
• Establishing the principle of renunciation to national interests, transforming objectives in the military field by giving priority to the war on terror, violating the logic of military alliances to the detriment of a joint defense and to favor the anti-terrorist coalition;
• Solving economic problems through a tough military rule using the war on terror as a pretext.

General Leonid Ivashov

]]> http://jakoblog.agenda911.dk/id/571/feed 0 http://jakoblog.agenda911.dk/id/570 http://jakoblog.agenda911.dk/id/570#comments Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:56:33 +0000 Jakob http://jakoblog.agenda911.dk/id/570

Israel Detonated a Radioactive Bunker Buster Bomb in Lebanon

Basically the republicans does not call for recounts, because it would expose the amount of fraud they have been doing to minimize their losses.
Senate Majority Accomplished; Why Allen and Burns Are Not Calling for Recounts:

by Rob Kall
http://www.opednews.com

There was a huge amount of talk about the potential theft of the 2006 election.

The predictions were that there would be vote flipping with machines, voter disenfranchisement through voter role purges, long lines, inadequate equipment.

Then there were the robocalls, the threats to voters.

Many of the people in the voting integrity advocacy community believe that all these things were going on.

The problem was, the wave of voter rejection of the republican party was so great,

How to steal an election by hacking the vote : Page 7

Conclusions: take-home points and parting thoughtsThe picture that I’ve painted here about the state of the American electoral system is bleak and depressing. Even more depressing is the fact that absolutely nothing can be done to address these vulnerabilities in any substantial way before the November midterm elections.

Download the (free!) PDF

Bibliography and further reading

Sites

• Doug Jones, Voting and Elections
• Princeton University, Center for Information Technology Policy
• Peter G. Neumann’s Site
• Rebecca Mercuri’s Electronic Voting page
• Blackboxvoting.com
• Bev Harris, Blackboxvoting.org
• Verified Voting
• Voters Unite
• Election Integrity
• Open Voting Consortium

Blogs

• Avi Rubin’s Blog
• E-Voting Experts
• Freedom to Tinker
• The Brad Blog

Reports

• Maryland SAIC Report
• Maryland RABA Technologies Report
• Ohio Compuware Report
• Avi Rubin et al, Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
• Election Data Services, Inc., 2006 Voting Equipment Study
• Common Cause, Election Reform, Malfunction and Malfeasance: A Report on the Electronic Voting Machine Debacle
• Harri Hursti, Diebold TSx Evaluation, SECURITY ALERT: May 11, 2006: Critical Security Issues with Diebold TSx
• Ariel J. Feldman , J. Alex Halderman , and Edward W. Felten, Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine

Books and Articles

• Avi Rubin, Brave New Ballot
• David Wagner, Testimony of Dr. David Wagner before House Committee
• Rebecca Mercuri, DRE Voting — Designed for Failure
• Rebecca Mercuri, Vincent J. Lipsio, and Beth Feehan, COTS and Other Electronic Voting Backdoors
• David L. Dill, Bruce Schneier, and Barbara Simons, Voting and Technology: Who Gets to Count Your Vote?
• Kim Zetter, How E-Voting Threatens Democracy
• Another source code leak for Diebold
• Diebold voting machines hacked in Florida
• Diebold voting machine failures strike again in Alaska
• Researchers find (more) severe flaws in Diebold voting machines
• Don’t touch the Diebold touchscreen machines
• California to sue Diebold over voting machine-related fraud
• Diebold loses legal case, certified anyway
• Diebold withdraws from North Carolina
• Electronic voting: isn’t it about time we had a collective fit of national hysteria?

A long term strategy to stay on the offense in the middle east.

USA has no motive to withdraw from Iraq, and it is not their plan.

They are building superbases in Iraq, and their plan is to stay.

Fomenting instability in Iraq, and overall in the oil-region serves as a self-created excuse to maintain military presence.

This is logic.

Bush U.S. Must Stay In Iraq To Control Oil

“On the one hand we’ve got a plan to make sure we protect you from immediate attack, and on the other hand we’ve got a long-term strategy to deal with these threats, and part of that strategy is to stay on the offense,” Bush continued.

Dov Zekheim

FBI will soon release one of the famous confiscated videos of the attack on the Pentagon.

Will we finally see a jetliner hiting the Pentagon???

Killtown: Doubletree video release to ’shock & awe’ before election?

Allen L Roland’s Radio Weblog

Excerpt: ” Britain and America not only used DU in this year’s Iraq war, they dramatically increased its use-from a minimum of 320 tons in the previous war to at minimum of 1500 tons in this one. And this time the use of DU wasn’t limited to anti-tank weapons-as it had largely been in the previous Gulf war-but was extended to the guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq’s cities …. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying, ‘The [US government's] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body.’ He concluded, ‘uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow.’ “

Syria switching to euros to combat U.S. sanctions -

Last time a nation did that it was Iraq, and the next moment they were invaded.

Now it should be exciting to see if Syria will start a stampede away from the dollar, or if they will just be carpeted with bombs and depleted Uranium.

This video shows the facade of the southtower bend inwards prior to the collapse.
South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church. – Google Video

Videos of Chomsky directly rejecting 911truth

YouTube – Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part1

YouTube – Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part2

Is this a hoax???

A video that claims to show that large portions of the core inititally remained standing when the south tower collapsed.

Big Medicine: 9/11: Time to Rethink Everything about Controlled Demo