Final NIST Report on WTC7: Color Me Unconvinced

 

WTC7 on the afternoon of 9/11/2001

After nearly 7 years of investigation, the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), charged with producing reports explaining how the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed, held a press conference today announcing the publication of a final report on WTC7 (pdf) -- the third building in the New York City complex that inexplicably collapsed in 7 seconds late in the afternoon of 9/11/2001.

From today's press release (emphasis mine):

The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

Reasons for WTC7's collapse have been touted, over the years, by Popular Mechanics, FEMA, and NIST itself. A favorite debunking theory was that debris from the exploding towers caused excessive, critical damage to WTC7. Here's what Popular Mechanics said to debunk "conspiracy theorists." Note that PM quotes Shyam Sunder, the same fellow who gave the press briefing today:

The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

Well, in today's announcement, we hear:

Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

How conveeeenient! Now the photographs of this excessive south side damage that Popular Mechanics claimed they alone were privileged to see no longer have to be produced...!

In it's initial report, FEMA postulated that "a fire fed by fuel oil caused the collapse" and suggested that the cantilevered construction over the power station was a contributing factor in WTC7's demise. At least FEMA acknowledged that more study needed to take place (emphasis mine):

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Yet today, NIST tosses this notion into oblivion:

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

Instead, we are told that ordinary office fires "burned out of control" (see picture above) and created enough heat to expand steel beams which eventually caused Floor 13 (unlucky floor, eh what?) to lose its connection, and then in domino-like fashion, all the other columns and beams simultaneously failed resulting in a total collapse. In 6.5 seconds. In a neat pile. Totally symmetric. Read it and weep:

Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”

I wonder if there is any other possible explanation for a rapid onset for the failures of 81 core and perimeter columns? (Like some helper mechanism to dismember the structural support?) We have to recognize that there are certain paths NIST would not walk. And since the physical evidence has been destroyed, there can be no conclusive finding from any outside investigation.

How conveeeeenient.

Innocent Explanation for Ivins' "False Anthrax Sample"

Short Facts

The FBI and most of the media continue to claim that Dr. Bruce Ivins submitted false anthrax samples designed to mislead investigators -- therefore, this goes to show that Ivins must be guilty of mailing the anthrax letters. If true, this would be fairly strong, although circumstantial, piece of evidence. If untrue, I think we can reasonably accuse the FBI of trying to mislead us.

In February 2002 the FBI asked for anthrax samples from flask RMR-1029 in Bruce Ivins' lab. Ivins provided two; one went to the FBI (they subsequently destroyed it) and the backup sample went to scientist Paul Keim in New Mexico. These samples were smears, or a representation of the entire set of cultures in the flask. After destroying the first sample, the FBI asked Ivins for another sample, which he provided early in April. The instructions were given verbally, and the subpoena with written details on the required protocol was not delivered until May 2002, a month or more later. The sample Ivins provided this (second) time was a pure culture sample instead of a smear. Remember, he had already provided a smear.

The FBI now says the first sample was prepared in such a way that it would make for poor evidence in court, and that is why they threw it away. (Is this believable?) The FBI also now says the second sample was false, that is, not from the RMR-1029 flask, because it did not contain the newly discovered genetic markers unique to the anthrax used in the attacks. (Are all the king's horses and all the king's men unable to distinguish a smear culture from a pure culture? Apparently so. Otherwise, at the time, they would have asked Ivins for another specimen or gone and gotten a replacement smear culture sample themselves.)

The second sample was a pure sample cultured from the dominant strain in this flask of mixed cultures. Of course it didn't match the initial sample precisely. Years later, the FBI remembered there was a backup of the original sample provided by Ivins, and they retrieved it from Keim. Surprise, surprise, it had the newly-significant genetic markers. It was exactly what Ivins had given them in the first place.

Do I need to point out how ridiculous this "proof of guilt" is? It looks to me like Dr. Bruce Ivins was doing his best to help the FBI, when it was the FBI itself who trashed his first sample and miscommunicated what they wanted for the second sample. So, who is really misleading who? (Related documentation with links below.)

---

FBI Supports Request for Search Warrant (pdf)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigation ... has led to the identification of Dr. Bruce Edward Ivins... as a person necessitating further investigation for several reasons: ... (4) Ivins is believed to have submitted false samples of anthrax from his lab to the FBI for forensic analysis in order to mislead investigators...

USA Today Still Headlines False Sample Story

Ivins submitted a second sample in April — one that court papers say was intended to mislead investigators. That sample did not contain the specific genetic markers of the anthrax used in the attacks.

LA Times Repeats False Sample Claim

Ivins, recruited to assist the FBI, had failed in February 2002 to provide an anthrax sample, known as RMR-1029, as requested by a bureau agent. The FBI did not obtain the RMR-1029 from within the Ft. Detrick laboratory complex where Ivins worked until two years later, when an agent took possession of a flask holding that material.

NPR Repeats, Then Questions Claim

(4) Ivins is believed to have submitted false samples of anthrax from his lab to the FBI for forensic analysis in order to mislead investigators;

That is a far cry from the picture Justice Department officials painted Wednesday. They say Ivins not only dodged their inquiries, but also tried to outright "mislead" investigators. They say Ivins submitted false anthrax samples from his lab to throw off investigators.

In one instance, the documents say, investigators asked Ivins for a specific sample of anthrax they needed. Ivins gave a sample, but when they went to the lab themselves and took the sample, it did not match what Ivins had given them. When they confronted Ivins, the documents say, he denied it was true.

Kemp says when investigators asked Ivins for an anthrax sample, he thought they were asking for a pure culture sample. It wasn't until six weeks later that they called and said they had wanted something else.

Christian Science Monitor Buys FBI Story

Yet the FBI had requested a sample from a flask of anthrax spores which Ivins held as early as 2002. In April 2004, after discovering that the samples Ivins submitted in fact had not come from the requested flask, RMR-1029, an FBI agent accompanied Ivins into a biocontainment suite at Fort Detrick to seize the flask.

Daily Princetonian Attempts to Counter

The documents allege that Ivins sought to mislead investigators, claiming the anthrax used in the attacks was different from the batch maintained in his laboratory and giving them false samples of anthrax from his laboratory. They also say Ivins had mental health issues and sent a suspicious e-mail a few days before the anthrax attacks with similar wording to the laced letters.

But Kemp said it is actually government officials who are making misleading statements and failing to mention that Ivins passed two polygraph tests in 2002.

"He submitted proper samples in February," he said. "The government lost one, and the other was sent to a lab in New Mexico, and the government can trace it right back to his lab."

NPR Conducts In-Depth Interview With Ivins' Attorney

NPR: One of the things that came out of this idea that they can link the spore sample exactly to Ivins was that he also misled the FBI. There was this big thing in Wednesday's press conference about how they had asked for a sample from him, and that when they went out themselves and took the sample, that in fact it was different from what Ivins had given them.

Kemp: So many problems with that statement. It's hard to know where to begin. No. 1, I'll try and be organized in this, he provided a sample in 2002, the month of February of 2002. He provided it in a way that he thought matched their directions that at that point were orally given.

There really were, I believe, two different vials or preparations, slides, I think they're called, and he did it in a way that ultimately matches their written protocol for the preparation of these slides. One of them is delivered to the government, and they either lose it or destroy it. The second one is sent to a well-known scientist, somebody on a caliber with Dr. Ivins, in terms of this kind of thing. Paul Keim is his name, now at the Northern Arizona State University, at that point from the University of New Mexico. And he has it, maintains it. It's available for analysis, and when the government loses their slide or destroys it, they do go to the slide that Dr. Keim has, and are able to make the analysis from that.

So, that's the story, as to the February one. Not only did he not falsify the submission of samples, this is a government screw-up, for the February sample.

In the April sample, here's what they contend is wrong. They contend that the nature of the slide he prepared was improperly taken from RMR-1029, that they wanted him to prepare a smear sample of the entire set of cultures in the beaker. What they say he submitted is what's called a "pure culture" sample. And to understand that, you have to know what these things look like.

If you examine grossly, meaning with the naked eye, the anthrax that is prepared in a petri dish, an open glass petri dish, you might extract some of this stuff from the beaker — you can't really work with the beaker because it has a narrow top — so you take it out and put it in a wide petri dish and you let it grow in an agar substance.

And it ferments and grows upon itself. There will be little globules of anthrax in a harmless form, it's like wet oatmeal or something like that, and you can dip down and take each globule, or a representative set of globules — that's called taking a "pure culture" sample.

What they wanted him to do with that open petri dish was to take a smear across them all. And that's what he did the first time. He submitted a smear sample, it was properly done.

The second time, he did the pure culture sample and sent it in. That should have been readily apparent to them, as soon as it was received. They don't get to it for a long time. RMR-1029 was there. It has never been adulterated. It has never been tampered with. Why didn't they go back and say, "You took a pure culture sample, can you take a smear sample?" Why didn't they go back and take a smear sample themselves? So that's a long-winded way to the first point.

Second point, he's polygraphed twice, during the same year. They ask him, you know, "Have you told us all you know about this? Are you hiding any evidence?" as part of these normal polygraphs, but also that are directed by the investigators here.

They now discount the reliability of his passing in the polygraphs because it was conducted by the Defense Department, not by the Justice Department. And so we're left with this disparagement of the Defense Department, the same way Mr. Taylor disparaged the Defense Department yesterday during his news conference, saying, in a backhanded way, "Well, that's a matter for the Defense Department," namely, why was he allowed to continue working at the lab, with full access to these pathogens, right up to the end of the investigation?

NPR: So in your mind, this idea that the FBI came to him and said, "We need this specific sample," and that it was some kind of test and that he sent in something different, it just has no credence?

Kemp: It is unbelievable to me that in, I guess the second-highest-profile case going on at the time, the first highest-profile case being the Sept. 11 attacks, in this time frame, that they wouldn't go take the sample themselves or direct him to do it while one of their agents watch him.

The final point, the biggest point: He doesn't get the written protocol as to how to submit the samples until May 24 of 2002. The sample was submitted at their direction on April 10 of 2002. They'll say, in defense of that screw-up, that he was present at a meeting at which they think it was discussed, that, "We want you to take smear samples."

That to me is inconceivable. It's part of an investigation of a case of this significance. All of that is beside the point. He'd already submitted a proper sample at the beginning of February, I forget the exact date, in February of 2002. And they lost the slide, or destroyed it. I don't know which. But [U.S. Attorney Ken] Kohl can tell you.

Of Conspiracies and Theories

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories..." ~ George W. Bush

Everybody knows conspiracy theorists are crazy people. They wear tinfoil hats. They are idiots and morons who should be shut up, if not locked up. They come up with ridiculous reasons for events that are already satisfactorily explained by people in positions of authority in our Government and Media. They have the gall to keep asking questions and raising doubts. They're never satisfied!

Anyone who has been awake over the last several years knows that people in positions of authority in our Government and Media try to manipulate us and purposely mislead us. They busily rewrite history and even tell us outright lies with straight faces.

But conspiracy nuts are looney kooks. Everyone in their right mind knows that. Why should we concern ourselves with any of their conspiracy babbling, or spend time looking at questions those fools keep asking? After all, people in positions of authority in our Government and Media wouldn't do anything to harm us. They can be trusted to act in our best interests. It's downright hateful and anti-patriotic to think otherwise.

People in positions of authority in our Government and Media have floated several theories concerning Bruce Ivins' motives to mail anthrax. What makes their theories any more believable than the theories espoused by others? What makes one theory credible and another theory unthinkable? When does a theory become a "conspiracy theory," and therefore outlandish?

We owe it to ourselves to don a tinfoil hat and ask questions of our Government and Media when they say, "Trust us."

Doubts About Bruce Ivins as Anthrax Mailer

 


I'll be very surprised if it turns out that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax letters. Here are a few reasons:

1. Who benefited from the scare? Not Ivins.
2. Who had a supportable motive? Not Ivins.
3. Who had access to the equipment to produce the highly concentrated, 99% pure, military grade polyglass-coated spores (found in the Daschle and Leahy letters)? Not Ivins.
4. Who had the know-how to produce this weaponized material? Not Ivins.
5. Who can be placed at the scene where any of the hoax or real anthrax letters were mailed? Not Ivins.

The attempt to convict Ivins posthumously, in the press, is supported largely by an unsubstantiated report from a drug-addiction counselor (who had repeated convictions for DUI and was a home detention 'inmate' on the date Ivins' reportedly made threats in front of her group therapy session). She told the court in a peace order hearing that psychiatrists had diagnosed Ivins as a sociopathic revenge killer bent on homicide who had killed before. There is NO independent confirmation of this anywhere.

The FBI says, "Trust us, we got the right guy this time." I'm not buying it.

Cui bono?

Those in the government who were pressing for military aggression in the Middle East. Those who wanted to elevate the fear level of Arabs in general, Muslims in particular. Those who profited from the sales of Cipro and other drugs to treat anthrax infection.

Who had a motive?

See Cui bono.

Who had access to the highly specialized equipment?

Those persons working to develop (probably not legally, either) bio weapons. That's not what USAMRIID did, where Bruce Ivins worked. His lab developed vaccines to prevent anthrax infection, and didn't even use powdered anthrax in his work -- his challenge bacteria was in liquid form, as was the now-infamous vial of RMR-1029.

Who had the know how?

The same persons who had access to the equipment, the same persons who had been working for years on developing particularly nasty strains of bacillus anthracis for weapon use.

Who can be placed at the scenes of the mailings?

We know Bruce Ivins can't. Hatfill came close. Until we see how the FBI eliminated their 'universe' of other persons who might have had access to the anthrax, we'll never know.

---

Important reading on this topic:

from Glenn Greenwald

• Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News
• Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation
• Additional key facts re: the anthrax investigation
• The FBI's emerging, leaking case against Ivins
• The FBI's selective release of documents in the anthrax case

from Dr. Meryl Nass

• Anthrax Vaccine Blog

We Are Not at War

Let's call our military presence in Iraq what it is: an illegal occupation of a foreign country.

We had no beef with the Iraqi people, even if 9/11 went down the way the Bush administration tells it (it didn't). We had no beef with Saddam either, except that he was about to trade his oil in a currency other than the US Dollar. Yet we have been killing, displacing and poisoning the Iraqi people since March 2003.

If there is a real terrorist hiding among the Iraqi freedom fighters, he's there only because we are there. He wasn't there before we invaded Iraq. He'll probably be driven out by the Iraqis themselves when we leave. And what gives us the right to usurp Iraq's land and call it the "major front in the War on Terror" anyway? How would we like it if another country invaded the US so that their enemies would come here to fight them? And in the process destroy our infrastructure, ruin our economy, kill our civilians, and drive millions of us out of our own country?

Let's stop calling this a war. Call it what it is: an excuse to try out high-tech weaponry, an excuse to give a trillion dollars to the military-industrial complex, an extremely bloody show wherein the U.S. gets extend its hegemony to the oil-rich sands of the Middle East.

Amazing Distractions

George W. Bush commutes Scooter Libby's sentence. No jail time. What luck! It happened over a weekend, while the news was all over this developing story in London about car bombs and burning airports and Mercedes and doctors from foreign countries. These events are being touted as attacks but it is hard to find any damage.

Noone has been charged with anything yet in these "attacks." And the car bombs were not really bombs, they were "potentially viable explosive devices." One car was towed to a storage lot for bad parking, and only afterwards was it said to contain dangerous materials. The first car sat shrouded under a blue tarp before being loaded into a van and taken to a secret laboratory.

Like many anti-terror activities before today, this scare in England seems to be just that -- another boondoggle to frighten people and take their attention away from something else.

Why is 9/11 So Important?

The talking heads on TV, witness Homeland Security head Chertoff, still point to 9/11/2001 as a seminal event... a day that changed everything. This has been the mantra since that day. This event, and the accused perpetrators (never mind that those supposedly responsible have morphed from Osama bin Ladin to Saudi nationals to Saddam Hussein) are the reason we now have lost habeus corpus, the reason we are now enmeshed in a civil war in Iraq, the reason we are still losing soldiers in Afghanistan, the reason our gas prices are high, the reason we cannot expect the Executive branch of our government to follow the law....

I confess to holding a few assumptions. (1) The current administration is lying and has been lying about nearly everything. (2) Questioning the "official line" about what happened on (and who caused) 9/11 is verboten.

Actually, point 2 is indisputable. If you don't believe me, just try to raise a question, out loud, about how Tower 7 fell... or any other anomaly that day. Like how in the hell our national defense system failed us so badly that no planes were scrambled to confront the airplanes that turned off their transponders. Or why the members of the 9/11 commission just failed to include testimony from Norman Minetta that raised definite questions about just which orders Cheney wanted to stand as a plane approached the Pentagon.

Point 1 is obvious to anyone who learns about the world outside of Fox News [sic] channel. The lies are endless. Not only are they proven lies, they go unchallenged by the "MSM" ... who apparently have better things to do than source their stories and seek the truth.

The root of all current evil is 9/11. Once we shine the light on what really happened (and what DIDN'T happen) on that day, the remainder of our current issues and their solutions ... will come into focus.

That's why 9/11 is so important. If we leave those stones unturned, we are only trying to plug the hole in the dike when what we really need to address is why the seas have breached the dikes in the first place.

The Overarching Issue of Our Time

When we can no longer trust our government, our elected representatives and those they appoint, to protect and defend us, where can we go? What can we do?

The event that created the current climate we live in is referred to as "9/11." Everyone has heard, "9/11 changed everything," declared from every major media outlet for the last 5-1/2 years.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that what we've been told by those same major media outlets about 9/11 is a made-up story. (I've researched plenty of information that suggests just that.) Yet, maybe you don't want to spend the time to look at it because there are so many other important issues that need dealing with, such as the occupation of Iraq, the state of our health care, the imminent disaster posed by climate change, the ongoing nemesis of HIV, or overpopulation or genetically engineered foods or colony collapse disorder or Somalia or Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian situation or $4.00 a gallon gas or ... the list could go on for a long damn time.

However, who do we look to for solutions to the problems in this increasingly long list? Can we alone fix any one of these crises? No. Can we lend our voices and our money to try to help? Sure, but it's a drop in the bucket. We look to our elected representatives and their appointees to deal with local, national and international issues.

But if they fail us, where do we go?

I guess what I'm trying to say is until we solve the many mysteries surrounding 9/11, we will not be able to move forward on any other issue. If certain powerful forces within our government are complicit in 9/11, we can't very well expect them to work for the common good on any other issue. In fact, think of a common issue we've seen progress on in the last 6-7 years. I can't think of any. Why not? Compassionate conservatives seem to care only about granting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And supporting an illegal invasion of a sovereign country, and assassinating the leadership of that country... and setting up a puppet government who will agree to granting 80% of profits from that country's oil fields to multi-national corporations for the next 30 years.

If we don't address the root cause of our invasion of Iraq, the root cause of the stripping of our civil liberties with the Patriot Act and various other bills that have gone into law since 9/11, we soon will find ourselves bereft of any of the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And we'll also be bereft of our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of press, assembly, and the right to confront our accusers and have a speedy trial. Habeus Corpus is already a thing of the past.

I move that there is no more important issue than delving into what really happened on 9/11. That's even more important than impeachment, because it involves a larger group of people than the current [mis]administration. If we cannot have a proper, impartial and objective investigation of the biggest crime in our recent history, we are destined to become slaves to those who carried it out.

The FBI has insufficient evidence to charge Osama Bin Laden with the crime. So who did commit it?

Believe the mainstream media at your own peril, about anything.

When Is Breaking the Law Legal?

Even though I doubt she'll ever read it, I think I write this blog as if I were talking to my sister. She's four years younger than I; we have different fathers; and our mother (who died a dyed-in-the-wool dittohead) favored her over me. We correspond by e-mail now and then, and in a recent message she suggested I should listen to Rush (as in Limbaugh) to get my head straight. Needless to say, we grew up to be very different in our world views and politics.

Anyway, the ongoing saga of extreme politicization at the DOJ brings us a new chapter this week. Former DAG James Comey's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was so powerful that I fail to see how Congress can put off taking action on impeachment for one more day. Impeachment not only for Mr. Weaselwords Gonzales, but impeachment for those in the White House who tried to get an ailing AG "Let the Eagles Soar" Ashcroft to sign off on a super-secret program to spy on US citizens, and failing to gain DOJ authority, went ahead with the program anyway.

The law that created the FISA court has never been challenged. But this administration didn't want to have to go to the FISA court for some of its spying plans, so they simply ignored that law and carried on as if they had impunity from prosecution or accountability. And so far, those who are in a position to hold him accountable have so far let Bush act with impunity.

My sister says that Bush has a good soul and that he's made a few mistakes here and there but he means well and we really ought to stop being pinko traitors and just let him run the country the way he sees fit. Foreign policy disasters be damned, she knows those terrorists would be planting IEDs in her driveway if we left Iraq. Katrina victims should've listened to the warnings and fled before they drowned. And whose to say Bush broke the law anyway? Maybe it was a bad law. Maybe he needed to break it to protect us!

Maybe this administration has broken so many laws by now, using the same 9/11 excuse, that another one is meaningless. Let's think about this a minute.

• The folks at Bushco have brought us a war of aggression, clearly banned by international law.
  
• They've also sponsored in-house and outsourced torture, in Afghanistan and Iraqi prisons, at Guantanamo, and secret CIA outposts in other countries -- again, clearly banned by international treaty which is the same as the law of our land.
  
• They've instituted (and are still carrying out) illegal wiretapping on US citizens.
  
• They've failed to follow the laws that Congress has written requiring them to report on their activities and they've failed to respond to legal subpoenas to boot.
  
• They've changed the meaning of the laws Congress has written by adding "signing statements" claiming they read the laws but don't necessarily intend to follow or enforce them.
  
• They've tried to fix elections by using the DOJ as one of Karl Rove's personal political tools.
  
• There's simply not enough room to list all the intentional lies they told, from "the air in NYC (3 days after 9/11) is fine to breathe" to "there's disagreement about whether human activity is causing global warming" to "We know where they are(WMD)..."

One thing I'd like to ask my sister -- what about if a Hillary Clinton took any of these actions? Or a Ted Kennedy? Or a Harry Reid? Is it only Bush who should be immune from accountability? Or does this new impunity also apply to anyone who holds the title of President of the United States?

And I keep writing and calling members of Congress -- why aren't we impeaching them already?

The Man Who Doesn't Listen

I have to wonder of George W. Bush has ears at all. He certainly does not have ears to hear.

He says he listens to the "generals on the ground." But according to a general, an Iraq war general who led the troops on the ground, "You didn't listen." I'm talking about General John Batiste, but there's plenty more where he's coming from. General Shinseke was the first to be ignored. Sadly, I think General Batiste is not going to be the last. One can form the fairly safe opinion that Bush listens to "generals on the ground" only when those generals say what he wants to hear.

Colin Powel said we'd only be in Iraq as long as the [sic] sovereign Iraqi government wanted us to stay. But it seems as if a majority of the government wants us to leave! And, in fact, a majority of Iraq's civilian population wants us to leave too!

Then there's the walls we are constructing, separating Sunni neighborhoods from Shia and vice versa. Iraq's leader, Prime Minister Maliki, demanded (after a massive demonstration against the wall) that construction halt. But uhmmmm... no, construction continued and has morphed to other walls in Baghdad as well.

Bush never did say he listened to polls (even though we know that is a lie) so I suppose even when a large majority think our country is moving in the wrong direction, well, we can't very well expect Bush to listen.

Bush must have his headphones tuned in to another place. Let me guess, it's either Karl Rove or the Almighty. I've got $20 on Rove. For anyone who thinks God is talking directly to Dubya, I've got a nice rubber room and suit for you to wear.

Mister total-failure Bush must not realize that the better part of being a politician is listening to constituents, allies, one's military leaders, and even .. dare I say it, one's conscience. Although, once the greed gene has seated itself deeply, one's conscience loses a foothold. That's when a person is truly lost.

I know what torture is, Mr. Bush. I know what murder is, for economic gain. I know what Jesus would do. I doubt you do.

There is only one recourse. Our Congress must demand impeachment of Cheney and Bush.

My Call for a New Investigation

See TruthAction.org.

Tenet's Damning Disclaimer

 
George Tenet, CIA chief from July 1997 to June 2004, is making the rounds to promote his memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. He's particularly concerned about his "slam dunk" comment (aren't we all?) and how he claims it was used out of context to prove that he stood behind all the (phony) intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein had WMD and was a grave and gathering threat to us, our allies, and the rest of the world.

However, his convoluted explanation for when and how he used the "slam dunk" phrase sounds to me like an overt confession that he participated in creating the snow job, no, the avalanche of propaganda disseminated to frighten us all into supporting an invasion of Iraq. Here's what it sounds like Tenet is telling us now:

[Scene - the Oval Office] Tenet: Mr. President, my assistants here have prepared a few plans on how best to prepare the American people for your planned invasion in Iraq. Assistant1: [coughs] As usual, Mr. President, we have Rupert and the others ready to put up the flag all over the place. Assistant2: We've been working on Kofi for weeks, but it's not easy to get our wording in a UN resolution. We'll keep trying. Bush: [frowns] Tenet: Listen, we've got other things in mind too. Like keeping Judy Miller fed with information. Is there anything you've got anywhere you can leak? [glances at Cheney] Cheney: [snarls] Assistant1: We thought about using Hill and Knowlton to promote another phony story... you remember in your Dad's time, about the Iraqis taking babies out of incubators? Still working on something along that line, sir. Rice: I think the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" thing we worked up would be a great talking point. Bush: [scratches head, then winks slyly at Condi] Well listen up, what I wanna know is, are you fudgesticks gonna be able to come up with enough hoopla so the people get behind this here takeover in Iraq? I mean, y'all have had years to think up some good ways to smoke a screen, err, blow smoke... err, fobskugater things, right? Tenet: We can do it, Mr. President. I know our presentation today wasn't up to snuff, but just give us a little more time. Bush: You sure you can make this lie fly, cia-guy? Tenet: It's a slam-dunk, Mr. President.

I don't think George Tenet has helped himself much. Instead of being guilty of promoting what turned out to be faulty intelligence, he's just confessed to being guilty of participating in the rollout of the propaganda used to sell the war.

Letter to the Honorable John Murtha

 
 ThinkProgress reports on Representive John Murtha's Sunday, April 29 appearance on CBS's Face the Nation.

There’s three ways or four ways to influence a president. One is popular opinion, the election, third is impeachment and fourth is the purse.

It's relatively clear that popular opinion has little if any effect on the Decider-in-Chief. And I don't think the world can wait for another election. Since it seems highly unlikely that the Democrats in Congress pull the plug on funding the occupation outright, our only real recourse is impeachment.

After participating, albeit in a modest way, in Impeachment Day on April 28, I thought a word of encouragement to the good Representative may be in order. I mailed the letter below to John Murtha today.

The Honorable John P. Murtha
United States House of Representatives
2423 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3812

Dear Representative Murtha,

I am not a resident of your district in Pennsylvania, although I do live nearby in West Virginia.

I hope you don't mind that I write to urge you to support HR 333, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich's bill to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Just your mention to various news outlets this weekend of impeachment as a possible course of action has animated many of us in this country who believe the time for accountability is long overdue. You may not be aware, but April 28th was dubbed "National Impeachment Day" and all across the country people spelled out I-M-P-E-A-C-H in many ways. Perhaps your staff has run across reports. You can visit A28.org for details on the hundreds of events.

I firmly think that we owe it to future generations to call a liar and a lawbreaker just that, no matter if they run the corner grocery store or the country. No man (or woman) is above the law. What will our silence on the subject of impeachment and trial for high crimes and misdemeanors say to those who follow us? That we were too afraid of doing the right thing? That we lacked the will to stand up for what we believe in -- justice, liberty, fairness, the rule of law, the Constitution!?

Thank you for taking the time to read this. There are likely many constituents in your district who feel similarly to me -- the last serious poll done on the topic of impeachment showed that 51% of Americans would support impeachment if it could be shown that Bush and Cheney lied us into war with Iraq. Let this letter give voice to someone in your district who is unable, for one reason or another, to speak with you directly.

Please urge your fellow members in the House, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to remember that the people of this country want impeachment back on the table, now.

Sincerely,

April 28 2007 : IMPEACH

I Stand With Dennis Kucinich

I've been looking for MSM articles on this story, which surely deserves attention... it isn't every day that a Congressman brings Articles of Impeachment against a Vice President, after all! But where are they? I haven't even heard this news on NPR. What an amazing pity!

PoliticalAffairs.net nicely summarizes the three Articles of Impeachment here.

During the press conference announcing this resolution, reporters asked Representative Kucinich if he had co-sponsors for HR 333. Dennis responded that he did not stand alone, and as anyone outside the beltway knows, the courageous Kucinich is indeed supported by hundreds of thousands of people who are damn tired and awful angry about the lies and illegal actions of many members of Bush's inner circle.

Dana Milbank, in his washingtonpost.com video-story about the impeachment filing, stated with certainty that it was 'going nowhere.' I feel sorry for fellows like Dana Milbank. They are slimy, obsequious, full-of-themselves people who pretend to be news reporters but whose real vocation is a Bush boot-licker. Mr. Milbank, Dennis Kucinich is much more a man than you ever will be.

And in case any of my readers wonder just what Richard Cheney, VP, has done to deserve impeachment, The Nation article by John Nichols is a good read.

Impeach

The title says it all.

Kudos to all the state legislatures and city governments that are passing resolutions in favor of impeaching Cheney and Bush.

That is our remedy, my friends. And it is the only way we can start to make things right, absent a full blown insurrection and help from the other nations in the world.

We have, on our hands, an abysmal, decadent, wholly illegal leadership. We have to give it a shot at removing these criminals in the way prescribed. If we fail, I truly hope our friends outside this country give us a hand... either fiscally... or worse comes to worse, militarily.

Help now. Thank you. We, the people of the United States are sick and tired of being used in the name of torture and death. Honest to god, we do not want this legacy like a dead seagull draped over our neck and shoulders.

We DO NOT SUPPORT GW Bush and his minions.

Gonzales Testimony April 19 2007

Today's Senate hearing with Alberto Gonzales was really sad. He didn't know anything, was not in the loop, could not recall a meeting he attended, and frankly, he couldn't tell us anything about HOW the 8 attorneys made it onto the now-infamous list.

Alberto kept trying to convince us that really, nothing he did was improper even if it was ill-advised and ill-executed. Reminded me of heck-of-a-job Brownie actually. If he really takes responsibility for this mess he'd step down. But like other appointees in over his head (think BUSH, who was appointed President by the Supremes) he thinks even though he f'd up he should be able to continue to lead the DOJ.

He also reminded me of a cornered weasel, snarling at times, interrupting the Senate questioners a lot, contradicting them and lecturing them. He almost makes me feel sorry for him but then I remember he's the one who told Bush it was okay to torture.

Real weasels are cuter.

Can We Impeach Them for Blowing the Job?

We've got Dick (aka Darth) Cheney on Sunday morning talk shows maintaining that Iraq had connections with Al Qaida (you're supposed to think about 9/11 again) and insisting that more troops killing more Iraqis will give us a victory in this (faux) War on Terror.

We've got George (aka would-be-king) Bush sucking up TV time by commiserating with (and creating photo-ops with) the bereaved fellow students, faculty, staff and family members of Virginia Tech as a result of a very odd shooting on that campus.

So many other blogs have detailed the abysmal record of Dick and George's administration, that I hardly feel it is worth repeating the record here. I recently heard a phrase, I think a suggestion for a bumper sticker, that said: "Can we impeach them for blowing the job?"

I am very dismayed that "impeachment is off the table." Why? For God's sake, why? How else do we demonstrate in deed that we do not approve of the lawbreaking, arrogant politicians who have the nerve to tell us that we have no say in what happens in our country?

Anyway, in keeping with my thought process that every word posted on the 'net adds to the sum total of the words that represent how we, the people, really feel, let me say it again. IMPEACH. IMPEACH GW BUSH, IMPEACH DICK CHENEY.

I've submitted impeachment papers to members of Congress. Dennis Kucinich is ready to begin impeachment proceedings but he needs to know we support that. Please let Dennis Kucinich know we do support that.

Alberto Dodges the Bullet... for now

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is off the hook today and tomorrow, and won't have to testify until Thursday. The shootings at Virginia Tech are taking top billing in the media and Senator Leahy has determined that holding the hearing today is "inappropriate."

On Friday, Gonzales' office released a prepared statement [PDF] in advance of his long-awaited appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In it, Gonzales says he is "committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here."

TheBlueState takes a look at some excerpts here. It seems Mr. Gonzales cares more about convincing us that nothing improper happened than providing full and complete information about what did happen, who made it happen, and why.

When Truth Is Told

How are you going to feel about torture then? How are you going to feel knowing that you silently assented to carrying out cruel and unusual interrogation methods that destroyed hearts, minds and bodies for no reason, for so long?

If a cabal inside our government sponsored a false flag event on 9-11, what then? Would weaselly Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo still try to legally justify using waterboarding, humiliation, attack dogs, pissing on holy books, hanging by wrists or ankles, isolation, extreme temperatures, eardrum-piercing music for hours on end, on prime suspects?

If the vile and vicious persons -- the ones whose plans ended up destroying the entire World Trade Center complex, a wing of the Pentagon, a few planes and almost 3000 lives -- include some white Americans, will it be okay to torture them to find out who all was in on it?

There's more evidence that Cheney was involved in state-sponsored terrorism than there is for hundreds of detainees still held in Gitmo. Let's torture Dick for a few years and see what he'll confess to.

If it is okay to torture even one person, we are no better than anyone else who tortures.

The D'vidus Touch

Back when George W. Bush was campaigning to be president he promised he'd be a uniter and not a divider. He wanted to change the tone in Washington. Work with Congress, no matter what political affiliation. Of course, he also promised he would not do nation-building. So where did the hate start?

My take is, cleverly disguised think tanks planted the seeds during the Bill Clinton presidency. Some people became real Clinton-haters. I remember thinking at the time, how rude and cruel and crazy the voices sounded -- calling Clinton a murderer and rapist, a thief and a fraud. Hillary called it a "vast right-wing conspiracy." But eight years ago the words liberal and conservative weren't dirty words. Right-wing and left-wing were both valid political stances. Neo-conservatives did not sit at the main table.

Fast forward to today. So many aspects of our lives are weighed and measured and judged based on whether one calls oneself a Democrat or a Republican. When you testify in a Congressional committee, some lawmaker just has to ask, "Are you a Democrat?" Nevermind that you honorably served a Republican Administration. If you question a GW Bush appointee, or oppose US foreign policy, you deserve to be discounted, swift-boated, and discredited. You get to be called a traitor who deserves public humiliation and there are even some who will call for your hanging.

The US is more divided today than I can ever remember. The right doesn't trust the left any more than the left trusts the right. If you aren't with "them" you're against "them." Evil vs. good. Black vs. white. Dirty liberal pinko-commie hippie weaklings who want peace which equals surrender, vs. strong gun-toting smoke-em-out or just nuke the crap out of 'em, real Amurikans who won't settle for anything but victory.

It is as if GW Bush has the hands of a neo-conservative version of Midas. Everything he touches splits into opposing camps. Here in the US, it's rich vs. poor, corporations vs. workers, right vs. left, business vs. the environment. Iraq used to be united, but now... We have Sunni vs. Shia, Shia vs. Shia, Kurdistan vs. the rest of Iraq, Iraqi people vs. the puppet government that is trying to privatize Iraqi treasure.

Divide and conquer. It works the same at home as it does abroad.

Meet George W. Bush: the man with the D'vidus Touch.

Impeach!!

What is it going to take!? For God's sake, we have a president who can be proven to have LIED on multiple occasions, who can be proven to have KISSED OFF so many laws that the legislative branch has passed under the guise of his "signing statements," and who has blatantly rejected International Treaties and abused the Patriot Act and other laws to his own ends (witness recess appointments that would never pass congress).

I swear to God, if this were a Democratic president with a Republican congress, there is no way in hell he'd be allowed to continue. Impeachment would BE the subject of the day. This administration has gone beyond pushing the envelope in so many ways, and yet why ... WHY ???? .. are do our elected representatives look like they are pussyfooting around King George's throne?

The only reason I can imagine is that our so-called Democrats have been neutered somehow.

Give it up, Dems! State here and now why you cannot/will not impeach, let us know what you are being threatened with. Else, we have no recourse but to presume you are part and parcel of the despicable, greedy, propaganda-furthering war machine that GWB contributes to (with or without his conscious consent).

Truth in Media: Iran

Rosie O'Donnell upset quite a few pundits recently, and I think they were at least as upset by her questioning the official story about 9-11-2001 or wondering if we can trust the government (ours or the Brits') about maritime boundaries as they were about her insistence that we have to go outside of our country for unfiltered news.

Television is a fantastic propoganda machine. Talking heads on US "news" channels frequently appear in succession using the same key words or phrases to describe a situation. It's almost as if someone wrote a script for them.

It is plain for me to see that the latest churnings of the propaganda machine we Americans are exposed to daily seek to incite distrust and even hatred against Iran. With that in mind, here's a little background information concerning the most often repeated phrase attributed to Iran's President Ahmadinejad, that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map.

[source: Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."]

If you don't know how to read or speak Iranian, and you know the media lies to us about everything else, wouldn't it be prudent to get a second or third opinion on this kind of contagious rhetoric?

Hasta Luego, Alberto

The highest ranking government law enforcement official ... lies to Congress under oath and to the people of the nation.

Alberto Gonzales claimed he had no knowledge about the firings of the US attorneys. No meetings. No discussion. No participation in the decision. But voila! Documents released from the DOJ put the lie to his mealy-mouthed denials.

Yet again, one of GW Bush's closest has been proven to have obstructed justice. What a fucking sad irony that this man is (and hopefully soon WAS) the head of the Department of Justice.

Nearly every single department of our government now stands for its OPPOSITE. Justice? ROFL! Can you say lies and injustice? Interior now stands for finding ways to let the polluters pollute. State now stands for siding with Israel, to hell with Palestinians, suck up to Korea now that we know they have a nuclear bomb, threaten and posture Iran because we KNOW they don't... yet.

Why has no one stepped up yet to IMPEACH this president and vice-president? I swear to God, had any previous president been as outrageous and duplicitous and low-down and scurrilous... he'd have been outta here long ago.

Lying Under Oath Used to be Illegal

The firing or forcing out of at least 8 US Attorneys is a hot topic these days, and rightly so. There is abundant evidence suggesting that loyalty -- nay, fealty -- to the Bush administration was a primary factor in drawing up the list of which USA's to get rid of.

It's obvious the folks at the AG's office and the White House shared concern over how these firings would be perceived. From the e-mails published 3-19-2007 at the House Judiciary Committee Web site, we can see that a good deal of effort went into concealing the political motivation for these firings. And then we have AG Gonzales himself, under oath and in front of the cameras, protesting that, "I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."

Let's see, what is the meaning of "I think I would never..." ? Does he mean he would not do it again? Or does he mean he would not do it if he thought he'd be caught at it? Or perhaps he means that he personally wouldn't do it, but would have no hesitation to okay such a thing for a subordinate to do?

To listen to the damage control squad including WH Press Secretary Tony Snow, all of Fox News and a bevy of other paid propagandists, you'd think this sort of thing is not illegal at all. Firing the attorneys that is. They'll tell you that every President cleans house at the beginning of the term. It's only natural! Well, if it is justifiable and routine, why protest so loudly? Oh, I know. To distract from what IS illegal and unethical. Lying under oath.

I remember well that lying under oath (about a private sexual dalliance) was enough to start the impeachment ball rolling. How about lying under oath about turning the Justice Department into an army of personal yes-men for a unitary executive with a god complex?

Is it any wonder that the Bushies are fighting tooth and nail to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it? Do they really think we are buying the line that if we want the "truth" we'd do well to take what they tell us behind closed doors, without a record and not under oath?

Since when is the "truth" so fearful of being overheard or repeated or sworn to?

Does Bush Deserve Benefit of the Doubt?

Question: Does the Bush Administration deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore, on anything?

Think back to the secreted interview with Bush and Cheney holding hands before the 9-11 Commission (hint: whitewash, and we WILL uncover it). Think back to the Bush Administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein and his imagined WMDs were an immediate threat to the US (hint: intentional misrepresentation). Think back to W's protestation that no citizen in our country was being wiretapped without the FISA court approval (hint: LIE). Think back to W's declaration that we do not torture anyone (well, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, and a host of other abominable practices excluded, and therefore, a LIE). Think back to the White House Press Secretary insisting that Karl Rove didn't know nuthin' about the Valerie Plame leak, and W's phony promise that anyone in the White House who participated in this egregious leak would no longer have employment there (hint: another flat-out lie).

Enough? Have you had enough yet?

Answer: No, the Bush Administration does not deserve to respond to Congressional inquiries behind closed doors, not sworn in, and with no transcript provided. If the firing of the US attorneys was all okay and up front and legit, there is NO reason in hell not to testify, sworn in, and have statements recorded.

I found it most difficult to listen to Tony Snow today, trying to paint Karl Rove et al as honorable people. Don't you?

Why They Outed Valerie

The current wisdom is that the reason Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert agent of the CIA was exposed has everything to do with trying to discredit Joe Wilson's assertion that OUR government was falsifying evidence to push a rationale for invading sovereign Iraq.

I suspect an even more despicable motive. Ms. Plame Wilson was involved in a division of the CIA dedicated to intelligence discovery regarding Iraq's WMD. Doesn't this ring any bells for anyone? Valerie is running a very covert op posing as someone else, in the effort to gather intel regarding Iraq's WMD for God's sake!

What better message to send to the CIA than "BACK THE F*** OFF" besides outing one of its premier assets involved in exactly the task of finding out IF Saddam really had WMD? I mean, do you recall.... please say you remember..!!! that the main REASONS we were given for the impetuous invasion and occupation of Iraq had everything to do with that nation's ability to create, distribute and deliver smoking mushroom clouds!!

So.. not only attempt to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson's honest but naked-making op-ed, but at the same time send a message to those in the CIA, who are trying to do a good job, by exposing one of the main channels of intelligence... honest intelligence... we had concerning Iraq!

Bastards. I hope their limbs are slowly eaten away in Hell.

How Many Conspiracists Does it Take to ...

Why is one conspiracy any more believable than another?

To read forums and blog comments, some people believe that 19 incredibly lucky Arabs with boxcutters pulled off the total destruction of the entire World Trade Center complex, plus the destruction of a plane with passengers and crew in Shanksville, PA, plus heavy damage all the way through several rings on one side of the Pentagon.

I'd say that's fairly outlandish.

But if you suggest there's more to the story, or a different story, all of a sudden it's impossible because it would take the assent, aid and continuing silence of thousands of people!


This, my friends, is a straw man argument. There is no mainstream 9/11 Truth theory that calls for a cast of thousands.

I mean, if all it took was 19 mostly Saudi Arabs, then surely another group of 19 could do it too. Especially if the event was planned in advance and the mechanisms put in place over time.

I do not believe now, nor have I ever taken seriously, the motive ascribed to Osama bin Laden and his followers, that, "they hate our freedoms." Did Osama benefit? Did Islam benefit? Did the Taliban benefit? Just who did benefit? And who might have had the means and a motive?

If we are looking for motive, we find one right here -- the implementation of the PNAC's hegemonic plan simply could not have happened absent our "new Pearl Harbor." The neo-cons seem to have been ready for 9/11/2001.

[Tunick photo found here, fair use]

Run to the Rock: IMPEACH

This powerful video says it well.

To the United States House of Representatives: it's past time you listened. We know your game. Either do the people's work or share the blame earned by the corrupt Bush administration and the prior rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

911 CONSPIRACY MOVES TO MAINSTREAM MEDIA VIA AL JAZEERA

911 conspiracy theories just became mainstream news. if you don`t think AL jajeera is mainstream media you better check their audience. it is bigger than the Washington post and new york times combined. conspiracy theories and theorist are sure to change names and categories very soon and become conspiracy TRUTHS and TRUTH REPORTERS.



read more | digg story

Why the BBC Video is Important

"9/11 Changed Everything"

Can you remember when and who first spoke the phrase, "9/11 Changed Everything"? Within a day or two of 9-11-2001, pundits began this curious chant. The phrase persisted through the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report where, on page 328, you'll find:

However, the attacks of 9/11 changed everything. Less than one week after September 11, an early version of what was to become the Patriot Act (officially, the USA PATRIOT Act) began to take shape.

But who seeded that phrase into media consciousness? I surely thought it odd at the time. 9/11 didn't change everything for me.

Someone Planted a Story for the Media

Who seeded the media with the notion that WTC7 collapsed because of fire and damage? The same entity responsible for releasing the soon-to-be news a tad too early, that's who. That's why the recently unearthed BBC video is so important. You know, the footage where Jane Standley reports that the Salomon building (aka WTC7) has collapsed, only it is quite uncollapsed in the view out the window behind her.

At about 5:10 in the video linked above, Jane makes a rather honest observation: "It looks like the aftermath of a huge Atom bomb or something..."

How Perceptions are Formed

This video is called The911Solution. Watch how the news was massaged from the very beginning. After all, if we see it on TV, it must be true, right?

To All the Debunkers...

...who suggest that it would be perfectly ridiculous for bad guys to pre-announce their dirty deeds: you must not be astute or educated enough to grasp the fact that the television is a tool to brainwash the masses. The purpose of the news feed that made it on air too early was not to pre-announce a crime. Its purpose was to provide an explanation (fire and damage) for WTC7's collapse to replace the only other conclusion people could have reached had they been left to their own observations (that WTC7 was imploded in some sort of pre-planned demolition).

Part of the Conspiracy? (2)

Richard Porter, head of news for BBC World, continues to explain away the "9/11 foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse" broadcast, the missing BBC tapes, and all in all, how reasonable and easy to explain the whole thing is, after all. He ends his blurb with, "There's no story here." I don't think he understands that he doesn't get to decide that.



read more | digg story

Fight Ignorance: Read Widely

"Fight Ignorance: Read Buzzflash"

Or so it says at the bottom of many of the pages at Buzzflash. The motto should read, Fight Ignorance: Be Sure to Read Things Not Allowed Here.

I have doubts whether Buzzflash will print my contribution to their Mailbag, so I reproduce here what I wrote them today.

There are a handful of alternative news compilation sites I've frequented—and supported, financially—over the last several years. Every site has its particular bias or focus, naturally, because there is a human on the other side of a site and we each wear our own spectacles, right?

I have been visiting Buzzflash almost every day for the last few years since the site presents a good cross-section of stories from major and not-so-major news publications around the country. Buzzflash's obvious bias, like many other sites these days, is anti-establishment, and in particular, anti-Republican. Not unlike DailyKos in this regard, Buzz tends to promote Dems while harping on Repubs. Fair enough, the ruling party deserved it.

Another site I've frequented is WhatReallyHappened. Michael Rivero's bias is plain to see—Zionism in its extreme form can be quite ugly, and computer hackers (the bad kind) do deserve to be strung up.

Yet another site I've spent much time perusing is InformationClearinghouse. You'll find some of the more graphic images and videos of the "war on terror" here. The site owner has some pretty strong opinions about neocons and torture and globalism.

I think it is fine if you run a site and make your biases known. But I've run into a problem with Buzzflash in this regard. The site owner has biases he or she keeps hidden. Thus, you think you understand the scope of the content and don't realize the filtering that goes on behind the scenes.

I should have guessed this about Buzzflash, given a recent guest contribution from one Peter Michaelson.

Mr. Michaelson wrote a piece for Buzzflash where he, with true Frist-like audacity, remotely diagnoses everyone associated with what is called the 9/11 Truth Movement. I'll blog about his piece separately. The bottom line is, it was a hit piece disguised as a plea to those folks who dare question the Official Rendition of Events on that "day that changed everything"—a plea to leave their pointless questions behind and join with the true progressives to fight for the issues that really matter. Mr. Michaelson derided and belittled and talked down to and insulted all those who ask questions about what really did happen on 9/11/2001. So, do we assume just because Buzz invites this guest to contribute an article (which was nearly universally repudiated by its own readers) that Buzz itself subscribes to the "you are a nutcase if you disbelieve the government line about 9/11" belief?

Well, I didn't. Until yesterday that is.

Buzzflash offers an alternative .net site that solicits news from users—sort of a toned down Digg. You post something, users "buzz" it or not and if it makes the grade the story is supposed to go on Buzzflash's main page.

So okay, there is a new story this week about someone who uncovered a piece of video aired by the BBC back on 9/11/2001. The video shows a female reporter, standing in front of windows that let on to a view of the World Trade Center complex from a pretty good vantage point, blithely repeating some information she'd been given that the Salomon Brothers building, aka WTC 7, had collapsed. The problem is the building is visible over her shoulder and out the window. She reports the story about 23 minutes before it actually happens.

This is no small bit of news and, at least in my mind, it should raise a few very troubling questions, to wit: Who provided this breaking news to the BBC that had yet to break? And why did her live feed suddenly go black a couple minutes before the building actually fell? Shouldn't we ask some questions of the BBC, this reporter, and possibly the news service that provided that feed? How did someone know ahead of time, for sure, that WTC 7 would collapse?

Shortly after posting the item on Buzzflash.net, and after it had been 'buzzed' a few times, the posting was removed.

A subsequent posting of a similar story, this one bringing to light the CNN broadcast of Aaron Brown saying that WTC 7 had fallen down, or was falling down (when it obviously wasn't since you could see it in the video behind Aaron) more than an hour before it actually DID crumble, well.. this posting was also duly removed from the pending items. It isn't as if the stories were voted down and rejected. They were simply removed from consideration. I'd wager that the majority of Buzzflash.net readers never got a shot at viewing and rating the stories.

So what we are left with is the knowledge that Buzz has a hidden bias. Talk about government lies, fine, unless it's lies about 9/11. Talk about corruption and evilness and lack of compassion in Katrina-handling or veterans' health care or Iraq profiteering, but don't mention the possibility of corruption or evilness or lack of compassion regarding the government's handling of 9/11. Talk about National Intelligence Estimates and Government Accountability Office reports and secret Pentagon briefings, but don't talk about the 9/11 Commission Report. Whatever you do, don't post a newly unearthed video of a live news broadcast from 9/11/2001 that indicates foreknowledge of at least part of the tragedy that day.

I'm more than a little disappointed that the Buzz folks, whoever they are, have a phobia about this topic. I'm also quite sure that I won't purchase anything from the Buzz store or financially support this site anymore.

You may well be behind the curve, Buzz. There is a growing understanding that the Official Rendition of Events simply doesn't add up. This is not a wild-eyed kook-generated conspiracy. The perpetrators left too many loose ends, and we the People want to know the truth. I wish you were there with us, but either you are a left gatekeeper or simply too afraid of being accused of wearing a tin foil hat. Either way, you'll never earn a place in your own hall of fame for courage in the face of adversity.

Maybe one day you'll be honest with your readers that you are scared to death about 9/11 questions. At least that way progressives like me won't waste a few years and a few hundred dollars on your site, thinking that we are hearing about all the important issues of the day. Or maybe you'll catch on and catch up. But first you'll have to pull your head out of the sand and join the people who care not only about the Iraq War but about the event that "changed everything" that got us in there in the first place.

Sincerely,

Lee Franklin

New Congress: Here is Your Mandate

There are three items on your agenda, you who find yourselves elected and in the new majority in the House and Senate. I'll spell them out nice and simple.

1. Create a voting system that is transparent and verifiable.


2. Get the military out of Iraq, and while you're at it, destroy those permanent bases.


3. Begin impeachment proceedings against the lawless elements in the current Bush White House, beginning with Bush himself.

That's it!

If our vote keeps getting hacked, the voice of the people is not heard and we have no representation. It is not enough that this nation's wonderful disgust for "stay the course" actually seated the other party in power. In state after state, no recount was possible because there was no record of the vote other than that contained on proprietary memory cards. In district after district with e-voting machines there was a serious discrepancy between the exit poll data and the reported vote count. If we do not fix this, we should change our name to the Disunited States of Banana Republicland. Fix our voting system now!

We are not fighting "terror" in Iraq. We are creating "terror" in Iraq. We are slaughtering Iraqi people, daily, in massive numbers. We are building colossal bases and a majestic embassy. We are trying to decimate the country of Iraq so we can take over that patch of sand with its oil, so we can threaten other neighboring countries, so we don't have to ask Turkey for permission to base troops for future imperialistic ventures. We MUST get out of Iraq now. Now!

And finally, we cannot accept the President's men -- Alberto Gonzalez, John Yee, et al -- telling us that they think it is legal to torture, legal to wiretap, legal to invade other countries. So what, I should hire a lawyer and then commit murder and use, as my excuse, that my lawyer thought that murder under these circumstances is legal? Hahahahaha. Give me a break. I do not believe, no matter WHO is President, that a "unitary executive" is Constitutional. When the chief executive of a country is allowed to trample on the law he is sworn to uphold, our nation is greatly weakened. Impeach now.

---

Later on you can start working on the rest of the issues, like global warming, health care, financial solvency. But if these BIG THREE don't get fixed first, you're just diddling yourselves over there in D.C.

Not in My Name

Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home!

Get them the hell out of Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter.

As long as our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters are assigned to places like Forward Operating Base Falcon, as long as their jobs involve driving around Bahgdad or Kirkuk or Fallujah in tanks with guns trained on the local population, as long as they are ordered to bust down doors and drag Iraqi citizens out into the street -- bagging their heads and cuffing their wrists -- and haul them off for questioning somewhere, we fertilize their hatred against us.

In fact, given what happened at Abu Ghraib and other holding facilities in Iraq, we lost the Iraqi hearts and minds a long time ago.

A large majority of Iraqis want us to leave.

Our soldiers don't want to be there.

Top military men are in full revolt against the status quo. In an unprecedented display of dismay, they are retiring their commissions early to come out and say that the way the "war" is being waged is a farce.

Yet those responsible for this farce are still in their jobs -- "Yer doin' a good job, Rummy!"

There is an explanation for the disastrous state of affairs in Mesopotamia. Let me preface this by reminding us that nothing we were told in the pre-war buildup has turned out to be true. There were no WMD. Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to us or to his neighbors. We were not greeted with flowers. And our invasion and occupation sure as hell cannot be likened to a cakewalk.

There is an explanation for the disastrous state of affairs. We saw the new rationale, the new goalpost, laid out for us in the Chimp's press conference yesterday. Why are we in Iraq now? It is no longer the lofty notion of bringing democracy to the region. We are there now because Iraq is unstable, and we will stay until the job is done, that is, until Iraq reaches a point of "stability." How does that make sense, though ... how is that a reasonable goal?

It's clear that our continued occupation is the cause of instability, violence, chaos, resentment, and attacks. In fact, US intelligence agencies are uniformly of the opinion that we are breeding more terrorists by staying in Iraq. How does it make sense that staying another day will somehow magically change this fact? Simple answer: it doesn't.

There is an explanation for the ongoing disaster: we need an unstable Iraq to justify our continued presence. The longer we stay the more permanent bases we complete. The longer we stay, the more our permanent presence becomes the "facts on the ground." The longer we stay, the more resources in Iraq we can steal. The longer we stay, the more Iraqis who have means will leave the country. The longer we stay, the weaker the rest of the population becomes.

I ask myself, "Is it possible this administration is willing to be called incompetent and delusionary to cover for the real reasons we are there?" I ask myself, "Are the real reasons for our invasion and occupation any different from what they were initially? And if not, why should we believe the administration would tell us the truth now?" I doubt the real reasons are any more politically palatable than they were almost 4 years ago.

All this leads me to think we have only one option now... a military withdrawal, in as orderly a fashion as possible, and as quickly as possible. There are many who say, "But this will create a mess!" Yes, it is likely it will, at least in the near term. And we will have to face it, accept it, and recognize that this is the result of our misguided and mismanaged attempt at empire-building in the Middle East. We have to demand accountability from those responsible.

I thought, and wrote, a long time ago that the ill-conceived invasion was akin to opening Pandora's box. What's done is done. If we feel, as a nation, that we bear the responsibility to fix it, we first have to admit that we cannot fix it with guns and bombs and torture -- the very things that broke it in the first place.

We did break Iraq. On purpose. Our soldiers are not able to fix it, by the very nature of our armed forces. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq, we are fighting Iraqi citizens. We've helped create a situation that has fractured Iraqi society and civilization. We've helped to pit Sunni against Shi'ite against Kurd.

All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put Iraq together again.

Bring our troops home now. Anything less is horribly cruel to our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters. Anything less continues to hide the disaster we've created, on purpose, with the fiction that somehow our troops can make it better.

It's time we all accepted responsibility and face the music.

WTC 7 9-11-01

A 4 min. video about the collaps of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9-11-01.

Osama Was a Friend of Ours

Back when we were all a'skeered of communism and the USSR was our enemy, the US of A armed, supported and made friends with some Ay-rabs who were hanging out in Afghan-istan. One of these lead Ay-rabs was none other than Osama Bin Laden. If we could help the poor Ay-rabs in Afghan-istan resist the Russian move into their country, well hell, we'd be doing ourselves and all the communist-hating peoples worldwide a favor, right?

So our CIA made deals with Pakistan's ISI, their CIA counterpart. Through this connection, we sent material aid to the Afghan-istan terrorists who ended up thwarting commie Russia's drive to make the area their own.

Now, don't go telling me we will fight terrorism wherever we find it. Truth be told, we support and even create terrorists when it serves our "Nashnul intressshhhts."

So here we have good ol' Osama, he's a friend. That's a good reason why we never caught the dude even when we blamed him for coming up with this plan to fly planes into our buildings. That's probably also the reason we thought we could blame him for the events. After all, he was our boy, and we needed some scapegoat. How in hell we got from Osama to Iraq... well, that's all laid out in history now, the lies and the phony Niger documents and the smoking gun mushroom clouds and the morphing poor Saddam with Osama.

By the way, Saddam was our boy too. We put him where he is, we even gave him the chemical weapons we are now trying him for using against Iran and the Kurds.

Meantime, back at the ranch... the Congress just passed a bill and it's been signed... that effectively obliterates the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. In fact, by writing and publishing this, I could be declared as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, making me eligible for one of those orange suits and a 6 x 6 cage down in Guantanamo.

Letter to Producers of the Diane Rehm Show

[For those who do not listen to NPR (National Public Radio), the Diane Rehm show is a highly respected and nationally distributed talk show.]

I'm sure this has already been suggested, but I'd like to hear a show anytime now ... given the upcoming 5-year anniversary of 9-11-2001 ... that takes a much closer look at the official story of events, as given in reports from the Administration and the 911 Commission report.

Bush, in his first radio address to the nation on the morning of 9-11, promised a full investigation into who perpetrated the tragedy. On the same day, Bin Laden was accused and a list of names and pictures of the 9-11 hijackers was published. A few months later a "Bin Laden" tape, supposedly found in a bombed-out house in Afghanistan, appeared to contain Bin Laden's confession. (The Osama in this tape really doesn't look like any other Osama pictures we've seen. Several of the alleged hijackers -- who should have died, right? -- seem to have been quite alive in the months following. Can this be disputed? I'd really like to know!)

The Bush administration fought setting up any 9-11 fact-finding body for 14 months. The Zelikow Commission that was grudgingly established (originally headed by Kissinger, wasn't it?) finally published a report which failed on a grand scale to adequately explain what exactly happened on 9-11. Two commission members have now indicated they seriously considered exploring criminal charges against certain officials for their misleading and contradictory testimony.

There's more. The 911 Truth movement seems to be growing, and respected professionals -- scientists, engineers, physicists and scholars -- have spent a great deal of time trying to analyze what happened. They cannot explain the WTC buildings collapsing into dust in their own footprints using the official line (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 .. and what happened to WTC6? Have you seen the photos of the gaping vertical holes in that building?).

These brave people express dismay and disbelief that examination of the physical evidence (removed promptly from the scene and destroyed) was prevented. They claim it is impossible that the laws of physics somehow did not apply on 9-11 and 9-11 alone. (They point to the fact that no steel building before or since 9-11 ever collapsed due to fire. Can this been disputed? I'd really like to know!)

If .. and I pose this as an if that should be examined in great detail .. the official 9-11 story is more hype than fact, don't we as a nation deserve to discuss it? This seminal event .. the day that changed the world as we know it (according to the MSM anyway) .. has given rise to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, to the abduction and interminable detention of foreign born and US citizens, to the abrupt passage of the Patriot Act, to warrantless domestic wiretapping, to disregarding the Geneva Conventions, and to countless other sea-changes in our way of life.

We are being told these are all for our own good. But what if the premise on which the War on Terror rests is a house of cards? We already know that we were hyped in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. We've seen repeatedly how certain politicians seem to rely on evoking fear by conjuring up images of 9-11. And who did forge those documents about Saddam's supposed attempt to purchase yellowcake from Niger? I'd really like to know.

I have so many questions and I don't want to wait 30 or more years for the answers to trickle out. By then, the real perpetrators will be dead and gone, and so will I. But the all too real results of this day that changed our lives forever will reverberate in the world my children and their children have to inhabit.

Thank you kindly for your consideration of one or more shows dedicated to revisiting 9-11. Someone has to do it. Is NPR and WAMU able and willing?

Dear Joe...

Dear Senator Lieberman,

Isn't it time to thank the Democrats of Connecticut for giving
you 18 years in which to serve them and our country? Wouldn't it
be the decent, and yes, even ethical thing to do, to accept the
fact you were defeated? Why do you believe running as an
Independent reflects, in any way, the will of the people?

To do so will only further damage your already tarnished image
and may do harm to Ned Lamont's campaign. Why are you really
going to try to stay in the campaign? You have campaign funds to
spend? You can't get over the fact you lost? You want to do harm
to the official Democratic candidate for revenge?

By ignoring the voices of your former constituents, you are
attempting to marginalize the very people you claim you
represent. You are calling them pro-terror and fake Democrats.
Were they pro-terror and fake Democrats when they gave you the
nod to represent them over the last 18 years?

Instead of living in the bubble you seem to have created about
you, please take a moment to reflect on the possibility that the
people of Connecticut -- and all over this Nation -- no longer
want the kind of policies you so fawningly support in our
current administration. Please try to find an honest place
inside yourself to realize that running your own race does
nothing to further the ideas and ideals of the Democratic party
you claim to live by.

Would you cut off your nose to spite your face? If you fulfill
your promise (or is it a threat) to run as an Independent, I am
most inclined to to think your answer to that question is yes.

Lee Franklin

Lamont Wins - US Goes on HIGH Terror Alert!

Read my response to news of Ned Lamont's pretty amazing win over Joe (No-Mentum) Lieberman in Buzzflash's Mailbag on August 9, titled I Refuse To Be Marginalized Any More.

Democrats registered to vote in this one. Non-registered Democrats changed their registration to vote in this one. (One has to wonder how many were truly independents or those registering for the first time, and how many were actually koolaid-drinkers who switched from their Repug label so they could vote for Joe...)

In the end Ned Lamont, unknown as of 5 months ago and with less than half the funds Joe had, succeeded in unseating Sore Loserman, a guy with national name recognition, a huge purse and ego to match, and recipient of a fatal "Kiss."

Joe sort of goes brain dead now, registering to run as an Independent while still retaining his Democratic party membership, in order to let the other voters of Connecticut give him yet another defeat.

The blogosphere sizzled over this race for the past few weeks, and given Lamont's win, was bound to explode with astute analysis of the meaning of this nearly unparalled turn of events. And then what happens, the very next day?

You got it! The alert system we haven't seen used since the last election cycle, and an alert level we've never seen -- red -- is suddenly issued! Remember, Tony Blair and Chimp are both on vacation, and have remained on vacation in spite of this extreme "terra-alert" while everyone who flies a public airplane in Great Britain or the US has to throw out all liquids and gels they carry.

Here's how it might have gone down:

[Chimp] (Ring ring) Hey poodle, how's things down on the island where you are vacationing?
[Poodle] Not too bloody bad. How's the brush-cutting going? *laughs respectfully*
[Chimp] Aww hell, it grows faster than I can snip it, sorta like whistle blowers or lawsuits against my administration or questions about the war without end. Speakin of which, I got a favor I need ta call in. You got anything for me in the Terror scene?
[Poodle] What do you need now, boss?
[Chimp] Well see it's like this. We got us a breakin story here about my best kissing cousin, Joe Lieberman, that drew the press away from all the turrible things Hizbawlah is doin ta Israel. I need a distraction. One that puts the fear back in the hearts of all my sheeple.
[Poodle] I see, blimey, sounds like a bit of an emergency. I'll ring you back shortly. (click)
======
[Poodle] (Ring ring) Cheerio cowboy, I have just the thing.
[Chimp] *chews something noisily* Spit it out, poodleboy.
[Poodle] MI6 has been keeping an eye on this group of disgruntled peaceniks. They tell me they can bust the group wide open anytime, just give the word. Apparently, they have been planning a protest aboard US bound airplanes.
[Chimp] Protest, eh? What were they gonna do, link hands and sing Koombye-ah?
[Poodle] Much worse, I'm afraid. They planned to drink enormous amounts of fluids before and during the flight, and then piss their pants in the planes. Their slogan is "Wake up and smell the pisspoor way our governments are dealing with world problems."
[Chimp] *long pause* You can fix it so that sounds mighty dangerous, right?
[Poodle] No problem, el presidente. In fact, I'll have our boys raise the alert to its highest level.
[Chimp] *cackles and snorts* I knew I could count on you, tonybaloney! By the way, we won't have to stop vacationing over this, right?
[Poodle] *sound of sipping through a straw* It will be a done deal, no need to get back to work, our security boys and TSA will take it from here.
[Chimp] Knew I could count on ya! Time for my afternoon nap. Laters!