Get your Rapture hats ready, kiddies! The sky is falling, and our wise gift of nuclear winter will propel us all into the loving arms of the all-knowing and all-everywhere G-d.


We HAVE Become The Enemy [Americans Ready for Democracy, Soviet Style]

We HAVE Become The Enemy [Americans Ready for Democracy, Soviet Style]

Democracy, Soviet-style

Oct 4th 2007   From The Economist print edition

The Russian people are readier for democracy than Vladimir Putin will allow


THE timing was surely no accident. On October 1st newspapers in Moscow were idly speculating over who might be Ukraine's prime minister after yet another indecisive election. This was the moment when the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, chose to announce that he would head the pro-Kremlin United Russia party's list in the general election in December, adding that it was “entirely realistic” that he might become prime minister when his presidency ends in March.

This tale of two prime ministers speaks volumes for the state of democracy in the two neighbours that sprang from the former Soviet Union in 1991. Mr Putin's slide into autocracy since he became Russia's president in December 1999 is well documented, as are his background in and his zealous promotion of the Russian secret service. In nearly eight years in the Kremlin he has crushed opposition, stripped regional governments of their autonomy, reasserted state control of Russia's energy resources and eliminated most independent media.

Yet thanks to the stability that he has brought, and even more to oil-and-gas-fired growth, Mr Putin remains extremely popular with ordinary Russians. Indeed, the only real question among Moscow's chattering classes this year has been how he will retain his grip on power after next March, since the constitution sets a limit of two consecutive terms for a president. Now that question has been answered (see article). Wary of a crude constitutional change, and keen to avoid unflattering comparisons to the presidents-for-life of central Asian ex-Soviet republics, Mr Putin will find a placeman to stand for president (perhaps the man he just plucked out of obscurity to be his own prime minister, Viktor Zubkov). He himself will then take the post of prime minister, which he held briefly in 1999, probably with enhanced powers. After a decent interval, he could then return to the Kremlin as president.

Nowhere in these manoeuvrings is there a trace of democracy as understood and practised in the West: it is far more reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. Mr Putin's supporters maintain that Russians are not ready for liberal democracy, preferring their tradition of a benevolent dictator/tsar. They contrast the stability and prosperity of the Putin years with the chaos and poverty of the Yeltsin years. Some go further, echoing Mr Putin's view that, even if nobody wants to return to communism, the collapse of the Soviet Union was still the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the late 20th century.

The Ukrainian model

Many Russians also point gleefully to the chaotic politics of Ukraine as just what they want to avoid. In fact Ukraine offers them a proud example. It is true that the country's politics has been messy since the “orange revolution” of late 2004 propelled Viktor Yushchenko into the presidency, ahead of Russia's preferred candidate, Viktor Yanukovich; that Ukraine's wealthy business clans have too much political influence; and that corruption is entrenched (as it is in Russia).

Yet the election on September 30th was still a thoroughly democratic and unpredictable affair, more honestly conducted than any before it. After some hard bargaining, it seems likely to produce a new orange coalition government (see article). There is no longer serious talk of the country breaking apart: all political parties want to move closer to Europe. Unlike Russia, Ukraine now has independent media, a real opposition and the prospect of a genuine presidential contest in 2009. It also has a fast-growing economy that is likely to get into the World Trade Organisation before Russia does.

What can the West do to promote the democratic cause in the post-Soviet space? The answer in Russia is: not much. Mr Putin is sensitive to outside criticism, but not enough to make him more democratic. Western economic leverage over Russia is limited. Indeed, the bigger risk is that the Russians' stranglehold on gas supplies to Europe is putting more leverage into their hands. Tellingly, the Russian energy giant, Gazprom, this week again threatened to cut supplies to Ukraine.

But the West could do more to foster and encourage fledgling democracies in places such as Ukraine and Georgia, through better trade access, more favourable visa arrangements and stronger support in the face of Russian bullying. The European Union would also do these countries a huge favour if it were willing to hold out the prospect, however distant, of their becoming members. This has worked wonders in central and eastern Europe, and in the Baltics—there is no reason why it should not do so in other bits of the former Soviet Union. Above all, the successful establishment of working democracy in countries like Ukraine offers the best hope of one day luring Russia down the same road.


Valley of Elah review, Burnett

Valley of Elah review, Burnett

"In the Valley of Elah"

by Bob Burnett

Judging from the small audience at the screening of "In the Valley of Elah" I attended, and its limited release – 326 theaters, Paul Haggis's masterpiece isn't going to be around very long. Perhaps Americans are put off by the title – Elah is the valley where David fought Goliath – or maybe we're not ready for such an unsparing look at the consequences of the Iraq war. But don't worry, if you don't get to see "In the Valley of Elah" before it closes, you'll probably get another chance early in 2008, after the Academy Award nominations are announced.

As he did for the Oscar-winning movie, "Crash," Paul Haggis wrote and directed "In the Valley of Elah." It's based upon the actual murder of a U.S. soldier, two days after he returned from Iraq. The movie works on three levels. As cinema, it's as near perfect as any American film we're likely to see this year. The plot is tight. The cinematography – by Roger Deakins – is flawless. And the acting is superb: Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron, and Susan Sarandon have all won Oscars; in January, they'll undoubtedly again be nominated for an Academy Award for these performances, with Jones the favorite for best leading actor.

The movie succeeds as a police-procedural whodunit. Jones' character, Hank Deerfield, is a retired MP working as a truck driver in Tennessee. He learns his son, Mike, has returned from Iraq, but has gone AWOL from his base at Fort Rudd. The father drives to New Mexico to look into Mike's disappearance. A few days later, the boy's burned and dismembered body is discovered. Both the military and the local police dismiss the murder as a drug deal gone bad. Hank enlists the help of local police detective Emily Saunders – Charlize Theron in the best role of an already notable career. Through a combination of skillful interrogation and dogged persistence, the duo eventually uncovers the truth about who killed Mike. (Along the way, Susan Sarandon gives a brief, convincing portrayal of his mother.)

However, "In the Valley of Elah" also works as a commentary on the war in Iraq. Not in the heavy-handed way that recent documentaries such as "No End in Sight" have done; there's none of the self-righteous tone of "we're right and they're wrong." Haggis's movie painfully examines the impact of the war on all Americans. It reminded me of "Coming Home," the 1978 winner of three Academy Awards, which looked at the psychological impact of the Vietnam War. (That movie was released three years after the war in Vietnam ended; "In the Valley of Elah" comes to us as the Iraq war continues.)

Early in the movie, Tommy Lee Jones' character, Hank, finds his son's cell phone and remembers Mike used its camera to take pictures of Iraq. Hank hires a technician to reconstruct the videos in the phone's damaged memory – the Iraq heat had fried the data. In parallel to the police investigation, the videos are reconstructed – a cinematic device first used in Antonioni's classic "Blow-Up."

As the videos emerge, the audience gets a chilling sense of the chaos in Iraq, amplified by statements of members of Mike's unit. In one harrowing exchange, a soldier says the best way to deal with Iraq is to "nuke it and turn it into ashes."

"In the Valley of Elah" is an unsparing examination of what the war is doing to America. At the beginning of the film, a woman tells Theron's character, Emily, that her husband, who has just returned from Iraq, lost his temper and drowned their dog in the bathtub. The terrified wife complains she is afraid of her husband and doesn't know what to do, as none of the authorities want to help. Emily explains she can't do anything, because the woman's husband hasn't threatened her. Near the end of the movie, Emily is called to a murder scene: the soldier has drowned his wife in their bathtub.

As Haggis's epic garners the awards it deserves, the film will be the subject of multiple interpretations. Some will say it depicts the manner in which the reality of the Iraq conflict has gradually emerged: painful images reconstructed over time until the awful truth is revealed. Others will note that the war has made savagery routine, inured the American public to random death and destruction. Many will observe that the death of Mike Deerfield and the grief of his mother and father symbolizes America's loss. All will agree that "In the Valley of Elah" is an earnest attempt to portray the war's consequences.

Afterward, I kept remembering the scene where the soldier's wife is found drowned in the bathtub. America was warned about the psychological and moral consequences of invading Iraq. Nonetheless, we ignored wise counsel and proceeded with the war. Now the entire nation has to face the consequences – not just the soldiers and their families. For it's our national soul that's slowly drowning as this terrible war drags on.


Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.

Contact Author
View Other Articles by Author

Research on 'Halo' podium Ahmadinejad NEW Version (via music guide)

Research on 'Halo' podium Ahmadinejad -- NEW Version (via music guide)
==> actual story found here:

and it does exist at the website.

Perhaps it is Salhani's words which created this halo, because there seems to be no other
mention of it on the web - in Enlglish, at least. 
Should we take Salhani seriously?
Should we take
Krauthammer seriously?  It must be apparent that bias infects all tales of politics.

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:30 pm    Post subject: Should we take Ahmadinejad seriously?

Politics & Policies: Should we take Ahmadinejad seriously?
By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Published December 14, 2005

Should the world take Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seriously? No, I mean seriously!

Consider his recent antics: First, Ahmadinejad declared to a group of students in Tehran in October that "Israel should be wiped off the map." Israel certainly takes him seriously.

If that first statement were not bad enough, and even before the dust from that storm he created had time to settle, the Iranian president suggested Israel be moved to Europe -- somewhere between Germany and Austria. Now the European Union is taking him seriously.

Then, while in Mecca last week, attending a meeting of heads of state of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Ahmadinejad takes advantage of the presence of the international media at an extraordinary summit called by Saudi King Abdullah, and does it again -- this time by saying he doubted the Holocaust ever took place. Now he has the Saudis furious.

So what exactly is the Iranian president trying to accomplish by stirring world public opinion against him? And this at a time when he should be trying to appease the world, showing them that Iran, even with nuclear weapons, can be a responsible nation.

"What Ahmadinejad is doing is making very calculated statements with a clear purpose in mind," said Alireza Jafarzadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting, and a former Washington spokesman for Iran's parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Jafarzadeh is the one who revealed to the world in August 2002 that the Iranians were building nuclear facilities in Natanz and Araj.

"Ahmadinejad is trying to rally the Revolutionary Guards and the most radical elements in the regime to be fully behind him and boost their morale," Jafarzadeh told United Press International.

At the same time, Ahmadinejad is also trying to reach out to the Muslim population in the Arab world, he believes. Hence the visit last week to Tehran by Hamas' leader Khalid Mashal.

"Ahmadinejad was placed at the head of the Islamic republic by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with the aim to head toward a confrontation with the United States," said Jafarzadeh.

"I believe he was tasked with a mission when he was selected by Khamenei," claims Jafarzadeh. His mission is two pronged.

-- To get Iran its first nuclear weapon as quickly as possible and at whatever cost.

-- Establishing an Islamic republic in Iraq, or at least gaining a very significant influence over Iraqi affairs.

If Khamenei were not planning for a confrontation, he would not have chosen Ahmadinejad as president, he would have backed a less conservative candidate such Hashemi Rafsanjani.

"Ahmadinejad's mission is not to negotiate," says Jafarzadeh, "but to confront. That is what he is doing on the nuclear side, and that is what he is doing in the entire region."

While Jafarzadeh may see Ahmadinejad as someone with a clear-cut mission, some analysts question whether Ahmadinejad may be entirely in control of his emotions. Consider this following conversation, caught on videotape, Ahmadinejad had with a high-ranking ayatollah after his return from New York where he addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September:

"The last day when I was speaking before the (U.N. General) Assembly, one of our group told me when I started to say, 'In the name of God the Almighty, the Merciful,' he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura and I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes the leaders of the world did not blink. When is say they did not bat an eyelid, I am not exaggerating because I was looking at them and they were [rapt] wrapped," said Ahmadinejad.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad may feel that at times he projects an aura and captivates his audience. And because of his close relationship with the ayatollahs, he may believe he is closer to the divine than most. Still, that did not prevent him from not wanting to take a chance that his prayers may go unanswered, preferring to rely on dirty tricks to secure the elections in Iraq for his candidates.

Just a day before Iraq's elections, border policemen seized a tanker that was trying to cross from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots, reported The New York Times on Wednesday.

The paper, quoting officials, said the tanker was seized in the evening by agents with the U.S.-trained border protection force at the Iraqi town of Badra, after crossing at Munthirya on the Iraqi border.

Iraqi police officials say the border police found several thousand partly completed ballots inside. When interrogated by the police, the driver admitted at least three more similar trucks also filled with fake ballots had crossed different border posts.

So should such a man be taken seriously? The Iraqis certainly are now.
Contessa d'EM
"The purpose of power is not power itself; it is the fundamentally liberal purpose of sustaining the key characteristics of an orderly world. Those characteristics include basic political stability; the idea of liberty, pragmatically conceived; respect for property; economic freedom; and representative government, culturally understood. At this moment in time it is American power, and American power only, that can serve as an organizing principle for the worldwide expansion of a liberal civil society." – Robert D. Kaplan, “Supremacy by Stealth”

next post was =
Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:34 am    Post subject:

In Iran, Arming for Armageddon
By Charles Krauthammer

So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near but nearer than the next American presidential election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.

To be sure, there are such madmen among the other monotheisms. The Temple Mount Faithful in Israel would like the al-Aqsa mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount destroyed to make way for the third Jewish Temple and the messianic era. The difference with Iran, however, is that there are all of about 50 of these nuts in Israel, and none of them is president.

The closest we've come to a messianically inclined leader in America was
<excuse me, W. listens to God and has passed himself off as messiah of 30 million evangelicals>
a secretary of the interior who 24 years ago, when asked about his stewardship of the environment, told Congress: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations." But James Watt's domain was the forest, and his weapon of choice was the chainsaw. He was not in charge of nuclear weapons to be placed on missiles that are paraded through the streets with, literally, Israel's name on them. (They are adorned with banners reading "Israel must be wiped off the map.") It gets worse. After his U.N. speech in September, Ahmadinejad was caught on videotape telling a cleric that during the speech an aura, a halo, appeared around his head right on the podium of the General Assembly. "I felt the atmosphere suddenly change. And for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. . . . It seemed as if a hand was holding them there, and it opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic Republic."

Negotiations to deny this certifiable lunatic genocidal weapons have been going nowhere. Everyone knows they will go nowhere. And no one will do anything about it.

Alternet is FakeLEFT WTC BIN -RosieO' April07

WTC BIN -RosieO' April07
» RE: Try "information Clearing House" Posted by: jags105
» RE: This article illustrates again how Alternet is FAKELEFT. Posted by: SJ
Idiots on both sides.
Posted by: drmflorida on Apr 4, 2007 6:27 AM   
With all respect to Mr. Holland, I think this debate is being conducted by idiots on both sides. The thing about conspiracy theories (and debunking conspiracy theories) is that they give the ignorant and powerless an opportunity to pretend to be knowledgable and important.

To say that you know that it is an inside job is absurd. To say that you know otherwise is just as absurd. Scientists and pseudo-scientists will make claims to sell books, and others will make claims to the contrary for the same reason, as well as to appear knowledgeable and important (like Rosie).

Was the US government responsible for the people who died on Sept 11th? I don't know. But I do know that WE (as in the American public) are responsible for the people killed in retribution.

number killed on September 11: 2,973
number killed in retribution: AT LEAST 700,000

Do we not care because they are brown?
Note that the number above does not include casualties from Afghanistan. I haven't seen a tally of the dead from Afghanistan. I suspect it is because they are even browner than the Iraqis.

I don't care about September 11th. I don't care if George Bush ordered 911. I don't care about the 2973 people killed in that attack. I am too busy worrying about the new genocide we are about to start, and the ones STILL IN PROGRESS.

This is something that we CAN do something about. This is something that we CAN be less ignorant about. Or we can obsess over one terrorist event that happened one day 6 years ago, and watch our country get obliterated over a skinned knee.

Disclaimer: If a close friend or immediate family member was killed in the September 11th attack, you have my worthless permission to continue your grieving process any way you see fit, within the normal bounds of human decency.
The rest of you are fucking idiots.
I just had a horrible thought. Those criminals that gave you 9/11 ...
Posted by: on Apr 4, 2007 6:30 AM   
... might just start throwing nuclear bombs on Iran over Easter. Rosie has now brought the whole 9/11 thing out in the open in a way even the mainstream media can't ignore - and the heat is on for Bush. Bush is a deranged lunatic, whose sick mind might just be telling him that God wants him to go ahead as mooted and start bombing Iran beginning this Friday. How convenient of God to be doing just that right now: it will create a massive distraction away from all the clamour, and the planned rallies, for his impeachment and for his hide.
Brilliant article, Mr. Holland! Wow, what a ploy, to pretend that that rubbishy Popular Mechanics stuff is worth the paper it's printed on, and to actually say that "Nobody knows the precise sequence of events that brought Building 7 down, but claiming that the collapse defied physics is patently ridiculous"! We know that it was the only way you could write about 9/11 and escape your sponsors’ censure. The more articles about 9/11, any articles, the more people discuss and research for themselves (interesting, there are thousands of eye-witness accounts and the crimes themselves have been recorded in their minutiae by the world’s media, now all on the Internet. Doesn’t happen very often!) I admit, it takes a lot of courage to pretend to be as stupid as Bill O'Reilly, just so you could write about 9/11 and get people talking! Our thanks! :-)
No, we don't know how they did it or who did it. All we know for sure is that those were controlled demolitions using unconventional explosives and chemicals (perhaps even thermo-nuclear devices), and that those planes were probably radio-controlled. (That Dutch demolition expert who said it was a controlled demolition (“zeker weten” – for sure) didn’t know it was Building 7 and did not know that it had come down on the same day.) And we also know for sure a whole lot of circumstantial things, such as that Giuliani shipped the evidence - some of the evidence, a minor part - off quick smart, and that there was three-way contact between Pakistani officials, Bush administration officials and the alleged hijackers, and a whole lot of other things. Who did it, who knows! But all the evidence points to Bush and friends. And Johnny Howard, prime minister of Australia, continues to support Bush (with the Iraqi oil grab. Hey, Johnny, that oil isn't the US's, you know, any more than Texan oil, or our own Timor Straits oil, belongs to the iraqis! And here’s something else you may not have thought of: the Iraqis, and now the Iranians Bush is so eager to bomb, are people, with real feelings about their lives being blown to smithereens and their loved ones being killed).
Good on ya, Rosie! (But in your eagerness to tell the world the truth you may have just started World War Three.)
Robert Hoogenboom
Sydney, Australia

» RE: I just had a horrible thought. Those criminals that gave you 9/11 ... Posted by: Bibs

Posted by: Hal on Apr 4, 2007 6:13 AM   
“What's unfortunate about the incident – and others involving celebrities jumping on the 9/11 conspiracy theory bandwagon – is the opportunity cost”

That “cost”? Bush regime ties (shared by surface political snakes from DC to London) to “terrorist financiers” at “the Saudi Royal family” along with “energy policy” with a “toll of American militarism” are what’s rehashed and recycled here.

Holland neglects to mention he is a serial defender of the official DC 911 conspiracy theory. The one about how evil genius bin Laden (alias CIA asset Tim Osman) and hung-over cave boys with WalMart tools pulled off 911.

And a clear and peer reviewed 911 cover-up“war on terror” Inc? as the Eveready engine for phony Ah, well that’s apparently good business by J. Holland, and the faux “left” from Alternet to poodle whorehouse Washington. It’s all sweet plantation limited hangout.

Yep, DC in the pocket of organized corporate crime is innocent till proven guilty on 911 “war on terror”. This, as the U.S. shreds the Bill of Rights in the wake of Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy , Operation Gladio, Operation Ajax , Operation Mockingbird, an ersatz “leftwing” press and 20 democracies killed by CIA overthrow since WW 2 as millions died for corporate monopoly.

So, Gullible Americans get to believe Big Oil trillions under Eurasia and Mid East are just Kool-Aid, not means, motive or opportunity for 911 cover-up.

What Rosie O’Donnell dared speak on 911 was not “unfortunate”. It was merely overdue. Worse than “unfortunate” is this retread, transparent crock on 911.

I saw papers that show the U.S. knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes… I gave [the 9-ll Commision] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented.”
former top-level FBI translator who gave closed session testimony to the 9-11 Commission. The Bush/Cheney administration silenced Edmonds with a court gag order citing the rarely used “state secrets privilege”. 4/2/04)

“It was a good thing for Israel…We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”
SIVAN KURZBERG (Israeli spy caught after celebrating with his team on the New Jersey shore as jetliners struck the WTC twin towers. Kurzberg and his team declared knowledge of the “terrorist” act when such information was not known. Kurzberg and at least two other members of his team were “Israeli intelligence operatives”. Sivan Kurzberg, his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari were arrested by the FBI and released to Israel due to intense pressure from Tel Aviv and Washington 9/11/2001)

» RE: 911 –> NATIONAL CON STATE Posted by: freethink7
» RE: two thumbs here too... Posted by: channing
the birth of the myth
Posted by: dover23 on Apr 4, 2007 9:47 AM   
» RE: the birth of the myth Posted by: henderson

They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.

Constant apprehension of war has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe. companions to liberty. -- Thomas Jefferson

"America is a quarter of a billion people totally misinformed and disinformed by their government. This is tragic but our media is -- I wouldn't even say corrupt -- it's just beyond telling us anything that the government doesn't want us to know." Gore Vidal


Why George Bush is Insane


Hiding behind Popular Mechanics, Mr. Holland?  Posted by: LeftWright on Apr 4, 2007 1:04 AM   
There has yet to be an official explanation regarding the destruction of WTC 7. The unofficial quasi-government explanations have been thoroughly debunked.

If anyone has not seen the video of WTC 7, I highly recommend you google it and watch it. While watching it keep in mind that the destruction of this building shows ALL eleven signs of a textbook controlled demolition, which are:

Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden.

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it comes straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint.

Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed.

Total Collapse: Through the careful placement of explosives a controlled demolition achieves a near total collapse of the target building.

Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces.

Pulverization of Concrete and other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolitions is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles.

Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy.

Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolitions is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off.

Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which a series of small explosions run rapidly around a building.

Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions.

Molten Steel: An 11th feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel.

WTC 7 fell in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 on 9/11/01, some 23 minutes AFTER both the BBC and CNN had reported that it had "collapsed." Neither broadcaster has explained their foreknowledge of this unprecedented event. Numerous members of both the FDNY and the NYPD reported hearing explosions in the building before and while it came down.

Do the research, find out for yourself.
It's time to take our country back, brothers and sisters.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Feingold on Bush: It's incredible that he's vetoing funds he wants... [VIDEO]

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 10:31 AM on April 4, 2007.

On Olbermann, the Dem rips Bush's conference.
olbermann fein iraq

"The president is beyond stubborn," "detached from reality," and the best one: "Unless we've shifted into a monarchy," the Congress is doing a legitimate job with this bill and that the president is the one vetoing the funds for the troops. Their responsibility is oversight, the power of the purse, and not just a body of suggesters.

Senator Feingold, who's been pushing a timeline for nearly two years, relays the thoughts of 7 out of 10 Americans that the War on Iraq ought to end. He then proceeds to lay out the plan that he and Harry Reid have in store for doing so...


Tagged as: oliver north, feingold, bush, iraq

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor.

But what was plan A?
Posted by: Blabdy on Apr 5, 2007 8:51 AM   
An expressed assumption, carried forward from the first attack on Iraq, is that Bush blundered into Iraq and will reform once he sees the truth or loses public support.

But if the entire enterprise was pressed on behalf of munitions makers, oil mongers and other corporations benefiting from this rapacious plunder and if it was meant to be in place permenently, then why would Bush ever wish to cease his depradations and withdraw?

One mustn't forget: Bush represents the interests of the Project for a New American Century. It is clear that he must be forced from the field. He is an outlaw.

Oh, enough already! Posted by: Edison829 on Apr 6, 2007 5:16 AM   
Sen. Feingold is right. He has been correct since 2000. Putting that aside, why the hell aren't the Dems beginning IMPEACHMENT proceedings for the entire group of vicious Bushies? What good was our Nov. 6, 2006 vote if Bush STILL acts like a king - and a seriously bad one at that? Why is Congress still allowing Bush to SPEAK for the People of the USA? Let's get it right, Dems: Get rid of ALL Bushies and you'll have our votes in 2008.
This is my favorite cameraman of all time. As Bush oozes his way through an attempt to make it look like he's not vetoing the troops' funding (more extensive video with Feingold on Olbermann HERE), Cheney hides in the bushes. Really, really far away...
cheney hides

Worth a million  by: ccluelessfl60 on Apr 5, 2007 9:24 AM   
One shot is worth a thousand words ,hit the nail right on the head. Cheney is lurking, in case George forgets his lines or has trouble delivering Dick's message. He also reminds Georgie boy what will happen if he flups up. Dick will take him to the woodshed. Note the clenched fist at his side. Dick stepped into role of surrogate Dad and this makes it real clear who is running the show. I just wonder how many times Dick has just been in the bushes , behind the door or under a chair every time Georgie boy talks to the public. Maybe Georgie boy is having trouble staying sober and repeating stupidity at the same time. This shot was not meant to be seen by the public. I want to thank that cameraman too, although he is probably unemployed today. Dickless wonder fires a lot of people.

How many ways can this conspiracy theory be debunked?  Posted by: jwc on Apr 4, 2007 2:50 AM   
I'm no expert on the topic, but here are some links to information from people who are.
good explanation of the problem with "grand conspiracies" in geneneral
another articla about that topic by the same author as above
popular mechanics debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories
debate: popular mechanics vs. loose change part 1
debate: popular mechanics vs. loose change part 2

3 more videos of the debate are available on youtube, search "popular mechanics loose change"

» RE: The Popular Mechanics "debunkers" are spewing nonsense.Bold Posted by: Chubbyrain
Popular Mechanics? LOL[Report this comment] Posted by: Klaus on Apr 4, 2007 3:23 AM   
Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hurst Corp. An obvious and blantant right wing corp. with a vested interest in protecting the right even if it means lieing. (not a problem for the right). Read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". It refutes all the Poplular Mechanic's "debunks".

What "Debate Over 9/11" are you talking about?
[Report this comment] Posted by: Wassermann on Apr 4, 2007 3:26 AM   
"Rosie O'Donnell Takes Fire in the Debate Over 9/11"
There is no "Debate Over 9/11" as this article suggests -- there is a BLACKOUT in the mainstream media when it comes to this topic...hence, NO DEBATE. All of this debate is happening out here in cyber-land. And even though millions if not tens of millions of Americans are doing research on this topic nowadays, it warrants hardly a peep from the (Zionist controlled) mainstream media.

If the 9/11 "truth movt." is perchance briefly mentioned in the mainstream media (again, only rarely, and then only VERY briefly), the people associated with the movt. and those that challenge the official account of that day are often referred to as "conspiracy theorists," "crackpots," "loonies," "dangerous subversives," "un-American," etc.

Rosie is one of the only high-profile Americans on record that has challenged the official account of 9/11. The fact that someone as inane as her (a daytime TV personality?) has now become a figurehead of sorts for the "truth movt." only makes the people associated with the movt. seem even more loony and pathetic. In other words, the 9/11 "truth movt." needs a better spokesperson...and fast!

» RE: What "Debate Over 9/11" are you talking about? Posted by:

Blow Back or False Flag, nothing is what it seems. Who is in denial?
Posted by: IanA on Apr 4, 2007 3:54 AM   
Sometime, somewhere you need to take something to be the truth. But if you cling to it too strongly, then even when the truth comes in person and knocks on your door, you will not open it.

if it ain't blowback, it ain't blowback! Deal, Noam.
Posted by: gretavo on Apr 4, 2007 7:12 AM   
We have not rejected the idea that we could suffer real blow-back Mr. Holland, we just don't think that blow-back explains what happened on 9/11, and with very good reason. On the other hand, we have Chomsky like a modern day Procrustes trying to fit 9/11 into his worldview by chopping off the bits (the HUGE bits) that don't fit in with his pet theories. Sure, if you ignore half of the facts or more, you can make a plausible case for 9/11 having been blow-back, but if you're going to ignore facts you could just as easily blame 9/11 on little green men from Mars. Instead, what the facts (all the facts that can be reliably verified) reveal is the not shocking fact that arab muslims probably had nothing to do with the events except to have been framed so as to galvanize public opinion behind the president's policies--not on their own merits but by a knee-jerk response that could have been foreseen by the blindest of the blind--aptly summed up as "let's kill us some ragheads".
In fact, it's not hard to see where people like Noam Chomsky run into personal problems with what happened on 9/11. With it's very existence threatened not by evil arabs but by the simple fact that it is an illegitimate and abusive state, Israel found that with the election (such as it was) of George W Bush that a slew of amoral and rabidly pro-Zionist hacks had come to power in the US. Whoever came up with the idea of demolishing the world trade center and blaming it on murderous arabs--whether American neocons or Israeli hawks, the facts are uncomfortably clear--in addition to the financial windfall for the military industrial complex, Israel presumably found its only friend in the world smacked into unthinking allegiance with those who are threatened by the existence of strong arab states like Iraq and Iran. Enter Larry Silverstein, who signed a 99 year lease on the WTC complex six weeks before 9/11, insuring it heavily against terrorist attack. Silverstein is not only a Zionist, he spoke weekly on the phone with none other than Israeli hawk Netanyahu. Circumstantial evidence such as this is not in itself conclusive, but circumstancial evidence in sufficient quantities is at least enough to warrant a closer investigation. We can add to this disturbing set of facts the presence of Israeli agents in New York that morning behaving more than suspiciously--the so-called Dancing Israelis are yet another unexplained aspect of 9/11 that undermines the official story.
Sadly, no nation or peoples are immune from bad leadership, as we in America well know. Why should we hesitate, when our very survival and personal safety is at stake, to impugn the integrity and motives not just of our domestic tyrants but of those in Israel, who indeed have a history of framing arabs for crimes they themselves committed (see for one the Lavon Affair)? Those of us who dare point out these unthinkable facts are routinely and without exception decried as bigots and hatemongers. Wethinks they doth protest too much! To deny a priori the possibility that 9/11 was intended by its planners and executors to usher in a new era of fanatical anti-arab and muslim feeling and that as such fanatical partisans of Israel--both American and Israeli (and in some cases like that of Michael Chertoff, who released the dancing Israelis, both--he is a dual citizen) is the height of folly, whether you are Jewish or not. In fact, plenty of Jews understand this, but are afraid of the consequences that are in store for "self-hating Jews" as evidenced by the existence of groups like the JDL (a terrorist group per the FBI) and webistes like To stand by or worse yet actively participate when the "anti-semite" or "self-hating" smears are used to discourage investigation of Israeli and American involvement in the events of 9/11 is tantamount to assisting criminals hiding behind genuine concerns of bigotry, and that is unconscionable given the stakes.

» correction "strong arab and/or muslim states" Posted by: gretavo
If you saw Fahrenheit 911, . . .[Report this comment] Posted by: chikbrite on Apr 4, 2007 4:13 AM   
. . . a Michael Moore movie, and you saw the look on Bush's face when the aide [Andrew Card] whispered in his, Bush's, ear -- he, Bush, knew. He knew, he knew, he knew what was happening and he knew before it happened. You could see it in his face that he knew. There isn't a doubt in my mind that the World Trade Center devastation was an "inside job." I also don't understand how our country has any right to go into another country and make war and I don't care the reason they think they have a right.

» The thing about leaders is that they're not like followers Posted by: eddie torres

comic relief //  Over the past decade, Neil Strauss, former pop music critic for The New York Times, .../... 2005, The Game, his bizarre, hilarious, and surprisingly uplifting memoir of joining a secret society of "Master Pickup Artists." Keep your eye out: he has many more smart and shocking projects on the way.
Neil's  Guest REVIEW of 

I am fully convinced after reading the entire A-Z of The Alphabet of Manliness that the author of its 26 essays, Maddox, is a nerd. And not just because he correctly alphabetizes the entries, but because he can recite the names of every Castlevania game, talks about hacking and IP addresses and various mathematical theorems, and has just spent way too much time analyzing in minute detail every aspect of the penis, its functions, and its influence on the male brain. However, Maddox's lack of bulging biceps may actually be a positive thing. Because having him become the symbol and policy-maker of all things alpha male just may be one of the most subversive byproducts of the Internet since file-sharing.

If you are new to the world of Maddox and unfamiliar with his website, here's how you will react to the book: When you read the dedication--"to the love of my life, my soul mate, and the greatest person in the world: me"--you will think for a moment that you have encountered one of the most unlikable narcissists in the world. When he calls a woman a "bitch" on page 2, you may actually begin to hate him. But if you stick with it, by the time you get to the middle of the book and are fully immersed in his over-active, over-systematic, testosterone-addled imagination, you will begin to realize that Maddox just may be the Andy Kaufman of his time, in possession of the driest wit you've ever encountered. The middle of the book also happens to be the home of Maddox's finest essays. In his contribution to the geek canon of Chuck Norris worship, he spuriously notes that Norris uses hippies as firewood, intercepts letters to Santa Claus to use as toilet paper, and eats "bread, cheese, some tomato paste and a handful of basil, which sounds like pizza, but it's not because Chuck Norris doesn't want to give the Italians the credit."

In general, there are two types of humor in this book: things that are funny because they're wrong ("a pirate's semen is indestructible") and things that are funny because they're right (his entire essay on urinal etiquette).

By the time you get to his views on the quickie, in which he describes a sexual encounter with his girlfriend that involves her never showing up and him passing out drunk and getting robbed, you may be bookmarking his website. And by the time you turn to the last page, you'll be flipping back to the first, reading it again and looking for the jokes you missed because you were too busy being shocked, offended, and slightly titillated. In short, The Alphabet of Manliness just may be one of the smartest paeans to stupidity ever written. --Neil Strauss
127 of 151 said 'helpful' review by Y. CHENG:

Maddox has always been a controversial figure. You either hate him or love him. "The alphabet of manliness," however, consistent with the usual Maddox style - witty satire and unique approach towards various topics, puts a stronger emphasis on the humor side which I believe is universally funny. The book covers such a wide range of topics that no matter who you are, how you feel about Maddox prior to reading the book, I assure you that you can always get a kick out of the book. .../...

-----JCRyan==> Is truly an accurate description of this book. Take everything you've ever even considered manly, turn into a book, and you'll get this. No deep hidden under-story depicting our shattered world here, only pure un-adulterated manliness. [...]
This book is pure comical genius. It follows the humor of his site, but with less of an emphasis on intelligent humor, and instead focuses on young, immature, man loving, flannel wearing humor. I'd advise picking up a copy of this along with Real Ultimate Power by Robert Hamburger, they go well together.
....... Glomski geek says==> I don't know how he does it, but every single sentence in the book is completely and utterly awesome. I'd expect any 204 page book to have one or two sentences that one could mistake for being written by a pansy, but this book is one-hundred-percent [...]stomping action.

Podcast: Someone had the revolutionary idea of taking a compressed audio file and putting it online. Yeah, doesn't sound so sexy when I describe it for what it is, does it you morons? It would have been a great idea if streaming audio wasn't already around for over a decade before the word "podcast" entered the lexicon. Man, I can't stand the word "lexicon." Talking about all these shitty words has made me start using shitty words. I'm so pissed, I just slammed the door shut on some kid's nuts.

Podcasting: It's snob for "streaming audio."

Podcatcher: Any idiot with an iPod, web browser, or ears.
Liberal media: Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.
ROSIE WANTS YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11  Posted by: DirectedBy on Apr 4, 2007 4:15 AM   
Think, people ... think --
Rosie is a citizen who is not timid to ask questions ... and say what is obviously so.
Like ... why is it that Osama Bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI for 9/11?
linked text
... or -- from:
>From 'WWW.911WEKNOW.COM' ...
linked text
The Independent Thinker’s
9/11 FACT SHEET    What occurred on September 11th, 2001 is a matter of
facts, physics and unprecedented violations of national
protocol by American officials themselves. Here are
10 points to consider. There are hundreds more.  .../...

Three Cheers for Rosie![Report this comment] Posted by: Shakti on Apr 4, 2007 4:45 AM   
Finally, a public figure asks the obvious, burning, crucial question. There is little doubt in my mind that 9/11 was an inside job, but I assumed this would go the way of the Kennedy assassination. The public gets so easily distracted and easily intimidated by taunts of "conspiracy theorist."

Fact: Kennedy's assassination was a conspiracy.
Fact: The official explanation of 9/11 is not plausible.

Wake up everyone.

Gauge the Reaction    Posted by: Democritus on Apr 4, 2007 4:50 AM   
Whenever there are unanswered questions a conspiracy theory fills the vacuum. JFK's assassination spawned several such theories; the latest one in a recent issue of Rolling Stone reported that E. Howard Hunt told his son that LBJ ordered it. The theory that the Bush Administration ordered the hit on the World Trade Center, though highly improbable, is not so far beyond the moon as to attract only cranks and crackpots. Rosie is neither. She is among those who think that, even if the Bushies didn't plan the attack, they are certainly capable of doing so. After all, they had no qualms about causing the deaths of thousands of our own military and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. What is interesting to me are not Rosie's comments, which are shared by many Americans, but the vehemence of the reaction against her right to speak her mind. When scumbags like Bill O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough start beating the drums to censor her, then you know that the right-wingers have something to hide. For even if the Bushies didn't plan the attacks of 9/11, it's not much of a jump to say that they callously used those attacks to instigate wars that they were itching to start ever since they took office.

A Brave Woman   Posted by: Bulldog on Apr 4, 2007 5:01 AM   
Rosie O'Donnell is a sensibly brave woman. We need more, far more like her who are not afraid to speak out.
But then, I'm in Britain and women here would usually rather express the resultant meanness than admit that they are scared by what the globalist militarist junta & their stoolpigeon politicians are doing to all sentient life on this planet.

Whatever reason it may be that the government supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy, it must have been worth it to them to cause so much suffering and loss of life. So if there's any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet. I can picture you morons emailing me now: "BUT MADOX, MAYBE DYLAN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAD A CHANCE TO REMOVE IT LOL." Yeah, too bad this rebuttal is inconsistent with the premise of Dylan's shit-festival of a movie: that the WTC was brought down "in a carefully planned and controlled demolition ... and it was pulled off with military precision." Now we're expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history--with military precision no less--is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation? The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, [yep -they knew it was planned; mystery that they haven't exterminated a few clueless clue-finders, they certainly iced the bomb-planters / js zog ] yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to nix this kid long before his video ever became popular?

I win. There is no conspiracy. Eat my shit, losers.

Explain the Israeli agents arrested videotaping...[Report this comment] Posted by: truthteller on Apr 4, 2007 5:13 AM   
The WTC attacks as they happened from a van across the Hudson in Bergen Co., NJ. They were there before the first plane hit, they were dancing in celebration, and lighting cigarette lighters in front of the camera lens like baby boomers at a rock concert calling for an encore. There were local news reports of this at the time, and it all went away very quickly and was hushed up. Where is the videotape they shot? Maybe the wrong people are being accused of the "inside job". I also want to know what happened to the security camera footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon from the Sheraton National (airport) hotel up the hill from the Pentagon. Supposedly, it shows the whole event from a really good perspective, but the videotape was confiscated right after the event and has never been publically shown.

I don't know if the buildings were wired to implode. But there are many unanswered questions, and the attitude of the Bush administration towards the use of the attacks to carry out their aggressive war policy just seems too pat.
Posted by: DirectedBy on Apr 4, 2007 4:15 AM   
Think, people ... think --
Rosie is a citizen who is not timid to ask questions ... and say what is obviously so.
Like ... why is it that Usama Bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI for 9/11?

linked text
... or -- from:
>From 'WWW.911WEKNOW.COM' ...
linked text
The Independent Thinker’s
What occurred on September 11th, 2001 is a matter of
facts, physics and unprecedented violations of national
protocol by American officials themselves. Here are
10 points to consider. There are hundreds more.

1. No steel-framed building before or since 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire.

2. No official agency (FAA, FBI, or the airlines) has ever released a list of the 9/11passengers. But within hours, the FBI released a list of the hijackers.

3. Multiple air-defense drills were planned for the morning of 9/11. These exercises left only two fighter jets available to protect the entire Northeastern United States.

4. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper and part of the World Trade Center complex, was not struck by a plane but collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11th, in the
exact manner of a controlled demolition.

5. There was no visible airplane debris where Flight 93 supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania – only a smoking hole in the ground, much like a bomb crater.

6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could cause the towers’ steel structure to buckle or fail.

7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported.

8. 9/11 was immediately declared an “act of war” by President Bush. The rubble from the Twin Towers’ collapse was carted away and the steel sold and shipped overseas
without examination.

9. Enormous profits were made by insiders on plummeting stock prices of the two airlines involved in 9/11 – American and United. Federal law protects their identities.

10. Accepting victims’ compensation barred 9/11 families from further discovery through litigation.

» ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11--redux Posted by: motamanx
People Believe What They Wish too.[Report this comment] Posted by: douglashoyt on Apr 4, 2007 5:51 AM   
No one will know for sure what the real reason of the collapse of the WTC one, two and seven. Because no scientitst evidence was collected before it was removed.

Rosie may not be correct in her conclusion, but the attack of September 11,2001 is a crime. And no criminal investigation was made before the evidence of the crime was removed.

This should be investigated: Why did not the FBI, New York state and local police investigate the crime evidence before it was removed?

left wing gatekeeping
Posted by: medicis on Apr 4, 2007 5:17 AM   
More despicable than the right wing loons.

Always willing to engage in ad hominem and falsehoods to maintain their neo-mockingbird control on the left.

Never willing to debate or discuss the actual data and science.

Always hiding , always obfuscating.

Rosie? You just keep speaking your mind and advocating for truth because the gatekeeping sites like alternet will never do so. And the MSM will always support their corporatist sponsors.

Oh, and Joshua, ya ever wanna honest debate? I bet not. Better for you to hide amongst the shadows.

dr richard welser
forensic neuropsycologist

» RE: xcellent post!!! AlterNet is a left wing gatekeeping site...Josh opened my eyes. Posted by: babs

Please read this!
Posted by: Maggieb on Apr 4, 2007 7:01 AM   
Alex Jones reported the conspiracy on 9/11 two mos. before it happened. Go to and you can listen to his radio show which is very enlightening.
Also google terror storm for almost 2 hrs of video of Jones' factual study of wars that will blow your mind.
Alternet is disappointing in their reports but from what I've seen dems and reps are one and the same. All big business thugs. Ron Paul is a candidate to consider...we need a candidate who doesn't have Israel in their hip pocket.
building 7 was pulled
Posted by: fake name on Apr 4, 2007 7:28 AM   
that is not unexplained. Larry Silverstein admitted it.
check it out
we may never know if LIHOPS or MIHOPS was the case, but we are not in the dark about building 7...

» RE: "pulled" eh? Posted by: dainin
Something is definately "FISHY"
Posted by: jags105 on Apr 4, 2007 7:44 AM   
I don't know for sure if the conspiracy theories re: 9/11 are true or not. I don't believe any one in the public does, due to the black-out and cover up. But SOMETHINGS about the events of that day are not being told. There is way too much speculation out there to not realize that there are problems with, and holes in the generally accepted "official" story. At this point, I wouldn't be suprised at anything our governement does! And that is a very sad thing to have to say.

Another great source for information concerning events leading up to, the day of, and following 9/11 is the book by Michael C. Ruppert called "Crossing the Rubicon".

Two more that give a glimpse of what is really going on in the world re: US foreign policy are "The Bush Agenda...invading the world one economy at a time" by Antonia Juhasz and "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky.

» "FISHY" Ruppert and Chomsky offer nothing more than fall back positions that divert. Posted by: rwa
» RE: it was as much if not more about framing muslims than the oil Posted by: jags105

9 11 Justice
18 min

9 11 Justice
18 min

9/11 Truth Bullhorns United for Pea..
11 min

911 Birth Of Treason.avi
Voice in the Wilderness
1 hr 58 min
William Schulz: "Tainted Legacy: 9/..
UCTV: UC San Diego
59 min
Dr. Kevin Barrett @ DC911Truth.o.. ..
53 min
Wayne Madsen @ DC911truth.o.. Confe..
36 min

United for Peace & Justice March is..
3 min
Dr. Robert Bowman @ DC911Truth.O..
33 min

The Easter Bunny Advocates for 9/11..
D'arc Media
8 min
J. Michael Springmann @ DC911truth....
22 min
Dear Mr. Holland
Posted by: McJulie on Apr 4, 2007 7:58 AM   
I am sorry that you can't question the more elaborate 9/11 conspiracy theories on Alternet without getting flamed.

I think I understand, emotionally, where it's all coming from -- outrage over the way the Bush Administration has exploited the hell out of a national tragedy, using it to further each of their poisonous and stupid agendas. And also, it's a way of saying, "there's nothing these guys won't do -- nothing so evil that it's beyond them."

But none of that is hidden or mysterious. The ignored warning memos from the summer of 2001, the way the Bush Administration defunded anti-terrorist efforts -- those are a matter of public record. The fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, not from Afghanistan, and certainly not Iraqi -- not a secret. The fact that the Bush Administration had a pre-existing agenda that involved invading Iraq -- also not a secret, and confirmed by things that are now a matter of public record such as the Downing Street Memos.

In fact, 9/11 conspiracy theorists make me kind of angry, because I think they are diverting attention from the obvious and undisputed sins of the Bush Administration, and getting bogged down in pointless discussions about the melting point of steel. I don't know more than Popular Mechanics about the physics of building demolition, and neither do they.

Anyway, it doesn't fit the pattern. 9/11 came off perfectly according to plan, and if it was an inside job, there have been no incriminating memos or e-mails left behind to prove that fact. Does that really sound like the Bush Administration?
wrong -deliberate incompetence = the pattern 100% 100%

» RE: Dear Mr. Holland Posted by: jags105
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland Posted by: JMorse
» You seem to have been protected from exposure to the incriminating whistleblower testimonies Posted by: rwa
How about a real eyewitness to 911..he was there!
Posted by: TRUTHer on Apr 4, 2007 8:28 AM   
William Rodriquez! A national hero, he saved lives, bush called him a hero..he unlocked the stairwells for the firemen. HE also HEARD and FELT bombs go off in the sub basement level before he heard the Boom from above, the plane hitting WTC. he gave testimony at the 911 commissions report, but they left it out! He reported what he seen and heard to the FBI..they ignored him. He saved lives, his co workers came running up from basement all burned from his story, and then ask why ALternet does not interview him. A real life hero who witnessed the bombs...Google William Rodriquez, then go to You tube and search him out...lots of footage , and then William needs to go on The View .. that would shut liz up. Rosie is a hero, and anyone else who is willing to speak up. Notice Billo did not show a video of WTC7....would have made him look stupid!
also, for some very influential people who support truth in 911 visit:

» But that doesn't fit! Posted by: tweedster
This article illustrates again how Alternet is FAKELEFT.
Posted by: Idunno on Apr 4, 2007 8:49 AM   
When a truly crucial issue for the neocons (translation: "new world super-criminals") appears, Alternet will side with them... Two resent examples: 9/11 Truth movement, and ... "The Secret" movement. Anytime a subject is covered by Alternet and it sounds a lot like a column written by Bill O'Reilly (CI*A operative and unofficial United States Minister of Propaganda) you can be sure this a hot issue that the "elite" would prefer to be "swept under the carpet". It's obvious why the "elite" would want the 9/11 topic extinguished... They planned 9/11 and conveniently CREATED a new enemy in order for the "elite" to move forward in their centuries old quest to take over the planet... The soon to be at your doorstep, "New World Order".

"The Secret" is a threat to them, as well, due to it's personally empowering nature. The "elite" don't want a movement empowering free thinkers... They need to keep the masses right behind the next sheep in line on the way to the confessional... once there, everyone can absolve themselves of their insanely self-centered imperialistic sinful ideologies and continue to focus on themselves and erase the world's underclass from their memories. They wouldn't want people to think that they just might be able to change this world's sick, unGodly direction with their own creative and compassionate thinking.

Can anyone out there direct me to a REALLEFT news website?

» RE: This article illustrates again how Alternet is FAKELEFT. Posted by: SJ

Blog Archive