<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d10168904\x26blogName\x3dThe+Observor\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://theobservor.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://theobservor.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3383273257567256673', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Sunday, June 26

Neo-Conservatives 'Speechless' about Downing Street Memo!

Observing the way the Neoconservative crowd currently in power is not merely ducking, but blowing smoke and using mirrors, and indeed, using any and all semantic and logical tricks to confuse, obfuscate and otherwise 'bury' the HUGELY DAMAGING EVIDENCE of not only 'malfeance', but CRIMINAL actions would be highly amusing - if it were not for the MANY people who have already died as a result of this maniacal drive to conquer the entire world, all it's resources and all of it's peoples!

Of course, this is not really too surprising, considering what these people have already knowingly and purposely done. It would really be dreaming to think that they would 'come clean' regarding what are surely criminal actions which they have willfully taken! Since these people are probably Psychopaths to begin with, they would quite naturaly have no remorse or even 'misgivings' about their actions, and 'pangs of conscience' are actually only felt by those who really do possess one!

I found a good article which says the very same things I was thinking in greater detail.

From Signs of the Times, an article written by Karen Kwiatkowski:

Neoconservatives Speechless!
by Karen Kwiatkowski

Neoconservatives from the left, right and middle, including George W. Bush, believe that they create their own reality, live in their own world, and make their own history.

It's kind of funny how they don't want to talk about it right now.

Freshly ironed World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, when asked about the Downing Street Memoranda, had this to say:

"There will be a time and place to talk about history," he added, "but I really don't believe it's now."

Highly classified and eyes-only official government records, written by the British counterpart to George Tenet at the time, record the Bush decision in early 2002 to invade Iraq – long before the Congress or the American public was alerted by the administration to any national security risk involving Iraq.

The Downing Street memoranda also indicate that the George W. Bush administration crafted and disseminated half-truths and falsehoods to Congress and the media to support this predetermined policy.

I saw it, many others saw it, and we could not stop it. Each and every day since the war in Iraq was illegally launched, long before actual invasion in March 2003, people have died as a result. Cities and entire nations have been destroyed as a result. Billions and billions of U.S. borrowed money – added to the oppressive tab already owed by our children and grandchildren – has been wasted as a result.

These memoranda from Downing Street, circa 2002, also indicate that the Bush administration was attempting – through increased military attack beyond enforcement of the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones and through an obscenely oppressive international inspection regime – to goad Saddam Hussein into some action that could then be used to justify a military action by the United States.

Tragically for the neoconservatives, Saddam Hussein did not take the bait. He sat passively as the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy attempted to soften up the Iraqi battlefield. Saddam Hussein eagerly welcomed the most intrusive inspection regime imaginable. The inspectors had full access, and they – like David Kay's team after them – found no weapons of mass destruction. No stockpiles, no existent capability, no programs.

But Wolfowitz prefers not to discuss such history. He remains, in his own mind, a hugely successful instrument in gaining the war he had long fantasized and craved. What's not to like?

Where is Donald Rumsfeld on the Downing Street Memoranda? Increasingly, Rummy seems to embody the utter dementia that permeates the current administration. He seems to not to understand questions, not to have seen the news, not to have heard of the policy, not to be aware of the facts, not to conceive of the gravity of his personal situation in historical terms.

Ah, but there is time for that later, they say.

Dick Cheney, beyond identifying and denunciating presumed enemies of America behind every shrub at the Naval Observatory and beyond, has had little to offer. While Cheney makes history – for himself, Halliburton, Iraq, energy policy and American neoconservatism – discussion of that history can wait. Let's not talk about it now.

George W. Bush gave another speech this week, regarding energy. It occurred to me again, as I watched and listened to his words, that we have elevated only knaves and fools to Washington. Like Spanish conquistadors witnessed for the first time, we believe them gods and kneel.

Perhaps a better analogy is seen in The Gods Must Be Crazy, where a Coke bottle dropped from an airplane leads to a new "culture" of worship for an African tribe – a culture filled with hatred, envy, and discontent.

Young George spoke this week about future energy technologies, ethanol from corn, and bio-diesel from soybeans. He said taxpayers should be glad that he is spending "our money" to pay for programs to teach people to conserve energy and to subsidize research into energy saving practices, devices and vehicles.

Higher oil prices – made higher by wars and threats of war and embargoes and government managed international trade and expansion of unpopular U.S. military operations around oil pipelines and fields – in another world, would amply fuel this type of alternative energy research.

But no, the American government needs to extract more tax receipts and can somehow spend it more smartly than the marketplace of a billion choices could do. This fatal conceit is shocking. That it spews forth from a so-called Republican in the White House is in itself historic, or on second thought, perhaps not. Maybe the Whigs are back.

But of course, let us study all that later.

And who says the Congress has sat idly by? Why, there is a bipartisan move to repeal the 22nd Amendment, to remove the restriction that a President serve only two consecutive terms. The Senators fuss over the idiotic Bolton nomination while they vote 100 to 0 for the REAL ID and grant more of "our money" for the President's every whim. They quibble over Bolton's mediocre incompetence while smoothly confirming the far more deadly and corrupt Negroponte as super-intelligence czar, and integrating domestic and foreign intelligence and law enforcement in a constitutionally inscrutable way. J. Edgar Hoover would have been so proud.

Imagine what history we could postpone talking about if we repealed the 22nd Amendment! You'd think that the Democratic and Republican sponsors of the 22nd Amendment Repeal bills in the House and Senate could think of some other stupid laws to repeal, like say, the Patriot Act, the Intelligence Reform, the REAL ID. Perhaps they could eliminate funding for the illegal war they were seduced into supporting. But no, they can only get it up for giving some future President the right to be a permanent ball and chain in Washington, bequeathing to the rest of us an American version of the aging and interchangeable Presidents and Prime Ministers of France. Who knew?

History in the reality-based world, that is to say – real history – is made by individuals, who simply put, act.

Like North Carolina Republican Representative Walter Jones who, following his father's advice to "vote my conscience first, my constituency second, and my party third," publicly repudiated the President's past and continuing lies about Iraq and called for an exit.

Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush don't want to talk about the Downing Street evidence. Perhaps this is on the advice of counsel. But if I may recall a Chaucerian phrase, "Time and tide wait for no man."

When the Coke bottle worshipping Bushmen realized the utter nastiness of life in thrall of a piece of trash, they sent out one of their own to simply throw the garbage out. That strategy sounds really good about now.

Comment: Notice the snide remarks about France. They just can't help themselves, even some of those who are against Bush. But, yes, the idea of impeaching Bush is a good one. Too bad all three branches of government are in the hands of his cronies. How will they be able to impeach Bush when Congress and the Supreme Court have already shown they are willing to do whatever the man asks, including illegally making him president to begin with.

The idea that he could be impeached is a pipe-dream. It would take something as serious as the massive uncovering of the role of his friends in 9/11, and as we point out above, even then there are people who will make excuses. It might lead to civil war, not the peaceful process of impeachment.

Thursday, June 23

Secret wars waged behind our backs!

This is an article which indicates the Iraq war actually began way before the Administration said it was 'still negotiating'.

From Signs of the Times, Wednesday June 22:

"Secret" Air Base for Iraq War started prior 9-11
by Duke1676

This is great investigative work, and further evidence that Bush and the neocons were planning pre-emptive military action long before September 11th, and no matter what WMD intelligence revealed--Chris

With a small ceremony on April 26, 2003, control of Prince Sultan Air Base was handed back to the government of Saudi Arabia. Since the mid-nineties it had been the premier US air base in the region and the nerve center for all air force operations in the Gulf. As the home of the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC), the base was the primary command and control facility responsible for orchestrating the air campaigns for both Operation Southern Watch in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

The timing of the closing of PSAB seemed odd, coming just weeks after the official start of military actions in Iraq. It should have, at the very least, caused unwanted logistical problems for the Pentagon and regional commanders, but it didn't. A contingency plan had long been in the works, not only for Prince Sultan Air Base, but also for the entire map of the Middle East, including Iraq.

Long before the US pullout, a new home for the operations had secretly been built in the deserts of Qatar. What had been in October 2001 "nothing more than a runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses", the Al Udeid Air Base was transformed in a few short months into one of the largest air bases in the world.

Published reports and official DOD statements claimed that the amazing transformation was the result of the heroic response of US servicemen to the tragedy of 9-11. A determined military had beaten indeterminate odds to transform a barren wasteland into a state of the art military base in order to "take the war to the terrorists".

The true story of the building of Al-Udeid is actually quite different. The planning for the mammoth base had in fact taken place long before Sept. 11, and actual work on the base began as early as the spring of 2001. The building of Al Udeid turns out not to be a "miracle in the desert" in response to a heinous attack, as touted by the military, but rather a required step on the path to regime change in Iraq.

It has long been accepted knowledge that the Bush Administration was working feverishly towards regime change in Iraq during the 18-month period between 9-11 and the official start of the war in March of 2003. The Downing St Minutes confirmed that the Administration was set on a path to war at least as early as mid-summer of 2002. The accounts of Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke verified that Iraq was a front burner issue for the Administration from the very first day, and only intensified after the attacks. Yet finding hard evidence to prove that planning for the war in Iraq was taking place prior to 9-11 has been hard to find. A look at the building of Al Udied can provide that evidence. [...]

And now it seems as if 'they' are doing it again!

Right now it is reported (by Scott Ritter, who apparently has some good sources) that there are operating in Iran various teams of 'agents' who are there to reconnoiter, enlist the aid of 'dissident' Iranians and generally perform 'pre-invasion' operations for the 'coalition'.

Not only are they violating the sovereignity of a nation which has not threatened anyone at all, but these are the very same brutal and vicious mercenaries used by Saddam Hussein himself to do his dirty work! But now, they are not working for that brutal 'former dictator', but for the good old 'Champions of Freedom, Democracy and Justice - the US Government!

It lools as if the Iranian War has already begun!

It is also reported that the US is continuing to build and staff an extremely large base in Azerbaijan. This would ensure the least possible distance for US planes and ground-forces to have to travel in their march on Teheran!

This is what I am currently seeing, and it is not always 'pleasant'. But it is mostly True as far as I can tell.

Monday, June 20

Exxon-Mobil Runs the White House!

Anyone who can not see what is going one here has got to be blind!

Here is something you can put in your pipe and smoke it

From Signs of the Times:

Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush

White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance
John Vidal, environment editor
Wednesday June 8, 2005
The Guardian

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.

The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month's G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy.

In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.

Other papers suggest that Ms Dobriansky should sound out Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on potential alternatives to Kyoto.

Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the US government's rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under US freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case.

"Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition]," says one briefing note before Ms Dobriansky's meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto US industry group, which was dominated by Exxon.

The papers further state that the White House considered Exxon "among the companies most actively and prominently opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse gas emissions".

But in evidence to the UK House of Lords science and technology committee in 2003, Exxon's head of public affairs, Nick Thomas, said: "I think we can say categorically we have not campaigned with the United States government or any other government to take any sort of position over Kyoto."

Exxon, officially the US's most valuable company valued at $379bn (£206bn) earlier this year, is seen in the papers to share the White House's unwavering scepticism of international efforts to address climate change.

The documents, which reflect unanimity between the company and the US administration on the need for more global warming science and the unacceptable costs of Kyoto, state that Exxon believes that joining Kyoto "would be unjustifiably drastic and premature".

This line has been taken consistently by President Bush, and was expected to be continued in yesterday's talks with Tony Blair who has said that climate change is "the most pressing issue facing mankind".

"President Bush tells Mr Blair he's concerned about climate change, but these documents reveal the alarming truth, that policy in this White House is being written by the world's most powerful oil company. This administration's climate policy is a menace to humanity," said Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace's executive director in London last night.

"The prime minister needs to tell Mr Bush he's calling in some favours. Only by securing mandatory cuts in US emissions can Blair live up to his rhetoric," said Mr Tindale.

In other meetings documented in the papers, Ms Dobriansky meets Don Pearlman, an international anti-Kyoto lobbyist who has been a paid adviser to the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, both of which have followed the US line against Kyoto.

The purpose of the meeting with Mr Pearlman, who also represents the secretive anti-Kyoto Climate Council, which the administration says "works against most US government efforts to address climate change", is said to be to "solicit [his] views as part of our dialogue with friends and allies".

ExxonMobil, which was yesterday contacted by the Guardian in the US but did not return calls, is spending millions of pounds on an advertising campaign aimed at influencing politicians, opinion formers and business leaders in the UK and other pro-Kyoto countries in the weeks before the G8 meeting at Gleneagles.

Comment:(From Signs of the Times staff) Of course the Bush Administration took its orders from Exxon and the oil lobby. You just have to look at the strong links between the major figures in the Bush government and the oil lobby to know that is true. Remember Cheney's energy task force, the secret meetings that were held with people who could not be named in order to work out an energy policy for the new administration? Why would it all have to be so secret if the list of invitations wasn't made up of Cheney's oil pals?

As to the absurd idea that Bush would ever return the favour to Tony Blair, it only shows the delusional state of the British PM: he's lost in wishful thinking and the illusion of his own importance.

Saturday, June 18

Really Smooth Government Deception

It is just simply amazing to observe the the reactions of the many people I speak to in the course of a day who have almost no clue that they have been deliberately and continuously lied to by their 'elected officials'. Many get extremely defensive and wish to consign one who would speak 'ill' of their precious 'leaders' to the looney-bin, or someplaces even much worse!

Occasionally one will run into some who have a bit of an idea that 'politicians' more-or-less lie as a part of their 'trade', but that the little 'fibs' they recount for the populace are really meant for "our own good"! Laughable it would be if it were not so darned serious!

Here is an article which would most likely make the hair curl on the heads of some of the above:

From Signs of the Times

World Trade Tower 'Controlled Demolition'?
MER Editorial

MIDDLEEAST.ORG - Washington - 15 June: MER has never before published this story, this 'conspiracy theory' if you will. Though under much pressure over the years to do so we always held back and never published anything about this 'possibility'...until today that is. But now the fact that a ranking former Bush Administration official, in fact the man who was the top government economist in the Labor Department on 11 September 2001, has now gone public saying 9/11 may have been a historic hoax and the World Trade Towers were 'most likely' destroyed by a 'controlled demolition', causes us to reconsider. This is far too important to simply dismiss at this point. At the least we conclude this story now deserves far more attention that it has gotten in recent days with nearly the entire corporate media focused on Michael Jackson and various frivolities while this paragraph -- published this week on the UPI wire from Washington in fact -- has hardly had any attention:

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."


We think an unprecedented international press investigation is now called for to match this unprecedented historical situation -- one totally independent of all governments, intelligence agencies, and pressure groups; and one bringing together a coalition of major international media from various political and national dispositions. What happened is a totally modern-day sui generis event with the greatest of history-changing consequences. Taking place so soon after Ariel Sharon came to power in Israel, and the Bush/Cheney Administration put so many former Israeli-Jewish lobby 'Neocons' in key power positions throughout Washington was suspicious from the start. But in the past we thought these suspicions had more to do with what the U.S. and Israeli governments really knew in advance, and what steps they were fast preparing to take whenever they had the excuse to do so regardless of the actual facts.

But now we have to add to the larger picture that there is quite a long history of major political/military deceptions and hoaxes originating both with the Israelis and from Washington. To mention just a few that history has so far unraveled includes the sinkings of the Maine and the Lusitania, the Lavon Affair, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the deceptions behind the 1967, 1982 and Gulf Wars, the Iraq-Kuwait-US invasion, the 'Oslo Peace Process', and most recently the 'Stealth Assassination' of Yasser Arafat after the assassinations of the senior Hamas leadership. Add to this historical brew quite a few other very suspicious developments that have come to light including the jubilant Israelis caught after photographing the WTC's collapse, all the unexplained developments in Lebanon, the blatant lies and cons surrounding the Iraq invasion including Colin Powel's testimony before the Security Council, and looking ahead at the moment the considerable preparations to take down Iran one way or another. And so we conclude that such an unprecedented situation on top of such already proven lies and deceptions dateline Washington, London, and Israel, all call for an unprecedented coalition of credible major media from many countries to come together for a White Paper investigation of 9/11 focusing on the following specific issues:

1) What really happened on 9/11 and who knew what in advance?

2) Had the U.S. government prepared in advance to exploit such an event as 9/11, whether the full story is now known or not, in order to pursue geostrategic goals decided upon in advance regardless of the actual facts of the situation?

3) What is known about the behind-the-scenes contacts and coordination between the U.S. and Israeli governments, and the crucial role played by the leading American Jewish Neocons who held key power and intelligence positions in Washington at the time of 9/11?

(The following is from the Signs of the Times staff)
Comment: We extend a hand to the people at MER and say "Welcome aboard".

The left in the US has by and large refused to discuss the possibility that 9/11 was in inside job. They have tended to dismiss it out-of-hand as "conspiracy theory" -- and readers of this page will likely have a good idea of all the baggage that term carries with it. That is why we think this change of heart on the part of MER is significant.

A refusal to consider the possibility that Bush and his friends were behind the attacks of 9/11 and the deaths of nearly 3000 people has hampered the left and other progressive groups in fighting against the imposition of fascism on the American people. Without the understanding that the Bush Administration is capable of planning and carrying out an attack of that scale on its own people, one is seriously underestimating the opponent, permitting them to get away with murder. And we mean that literally. It has been particularly frustrating to see because groups like MER have done so much good work in cataloguing the litany of horrors brought upon people the world over by these same forces while denying that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and company would be capable of doing the same thing at home. What kind of a blind spot is that!

It raises another point: the appeal to and trust in authority. The triggering element in MER's decision to begin discussing 9/11 in these terms was the revelation that a former member of the Bush Administration has questions about the collapse of the three towers of the WTC, citing evidence that it seems more like a demolition than a collapse caused by the planes. Given no plane hit Building 7, that has always been an important hole in the official theory. So the evidence has been there for people who were willing to do the research and figure it out for themselves, who were not waiting for some authority figure to give the "conspiracy theory" his OK.

The 9/11 Truth movement has been bringing forward this evidence for years, presenting in great detail all the points where the data and the official story don't mesh. The evidence raised by Reynolds and so disturbing to MER has been discussed publicly for a long time. MER, unfortunately, appears to have changed its position because of the remarks of Mr. Reynolds, that is, because of who raised the questions, not based upon a reading of the evidence itself.

We do not think that this changes the importance of MER's decision. Perhaps they have had their doubts about the official story but were unwilling to discuss them in public because of a fear of being ostracised or dismissed as "conspiracy theorists", the death knell for "serious researchers".

We also applaud MER for seeing the important role of Israel in these events, a role that many 9/11 researchers refuse to admit. Of course, given its primary focus, MER is well-placed to know about the deceptions and false flag operations of Israeli intelligence.

Now that MER has decided there is enough evidence to begin to publicly raise these questions, we hope that other groups, such as ZNet and CounterPunch to name but two, will bring this same information to their readers, giving it the stamp of legitimacy that so many progressives in the US seem to need before confronting the biggest swindle and horror story of our time, before being able to open their eyes to reality and to see and think for themselves. To understand what is happening in Iraq today, one needs to understand 9/11. To understand how and why the last two presidential elections were rigged and stolen, one needs to understand 9/11. To understand that the situation in the US is far worse than the left has been willing to admit, one needs to understand 9/11. To understand how deeply the fascist beast has its talons sunk into the American political body, one needs to understand 9/11. To understand the true nature of the US/Israeli alliance, one needs to understand 9/11.

We hope, as well, that Mr. Reynold's remarks will be heard by the many Republicans who no longer recognise the GOP in its current incarnation, that they will find the courage to speak out against the ideologues who have taken over their party, and join in a movement to impeach Bush and those in his administration who are responsible for the war crimes committed in their name around the world and the murder of 3000 people at home. The full public hearing of the truth and the prosecution of the quilty for their crimes is the only true honour that can be paid to the victims.:

Sunday, June 12

The Most Dangerous Idea

The following is a really interesting article I have read at http://equalibrium4.blogspot.com, and it indicates very vividly how the 'control system' is maintained!

I can not see how I could add anything of substantive value to what has already been written at Equilibrium4 or by Laura Knight Jadczyk on the subject, so I will let their texts stand as they are.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005
The Most Dangerous Idea

Dangerous ideas are usually the most difficult to share. I learned this recently in what may seem like a rather innocuous way, but I can come to no other conclusion than that there are definite walls of force, sometimes very subtle, that exist to keep certain very special truths about our world 'contained'. Walls of force that keep certain esoteric knowledge from reaching those who might most benefit, or see it's application realized to a greater potential.

What am I talking about?

This all begins really with an attempt to just place an ad for a book in a thematically related publication. The book is Laura Knight-Jadczyk's 'Secret History of the World' (which I have written about in another blog entry here) and the publication is Parabola Magazine. What the book is about and what the publication is tell the whole story about the subtle walls of force I mention.

A little on the book in case you haven't heard about it yet. 'Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive' is a compendium of research and essential truths and ideas concerning Gnosticsm, Sufism, biblical analysis, cyclic catastrophes, history, DNA changes, Alchemy and the Grail Legend. That's for starters. Then, you might say, the book takes a 'quantum leap' into such profoundly specialized areas as 'superluminal communication' and 'hyperdimensional reality'.

Though I can do no justice to either of these areas here, I will just suggest that the first topic concerns the tested process, potential, and results of extended communication with 'intelligences' or 'thought forms' that fall far outside our usual understanding of reality. The common parlance for such a process is called 'channelling'. The second topic, or topic of topics as Don Juan Matus might say , conerns the reality of 'influences' - both malevolent and otherwise, on humanity. These 'influences' come to us from "outer space" and out of our "time". You might even say that the study of hyperdimensionsal reality takes UFOlogy "to the next level" of understanding; giving the esoteric phrase 'food for the moon' a whole new meaning.

Add an unflinching and mystically-minded yet scientific approach to decades of hard research involved in all of the above, and you get 'The Secret History of the World'.

So what might you feel compelled to do if you came across a written work that quite posssibly answered many of the most important questions about your own existance? Would you want to keep it a secret? Or would you want to share it with everyone you knew - who cared to know. And for those you don't know but who may one day benefit - where to advertise such a book?

Well, much of my own introduction to many ideas in 'SHoTW' came from a magazine I used to read called Parabola. A quarterly publication, Parabola chooses a theme for each of it's issues and expounds upon it by choosing relevant passages from established works, as well as new articles and essays. It's called the magazine of 'Myth and Tradition' and it always includes material from numerous cultures and perspectives which serve to explain mankind's 'condition'. A very laudable purpose for any publication; to try and explain mankind's condition using classic works and archtypical, mythical themes to structure them.

When I heard that Mrs. Knight-Jadczyk was in fact looking to advertise her new book, to me one suggestion was obvious. It had to be Parabola. The built-in audience were people reading about many of the same things, having many of the same questions that Mrs. Knight-Jadczyk delves into. Advertising with Parabola would be the perfect match!

Not long after suggesting this, I learned that Laura Knight-Jadczyk went with the idea of placing the ad in Parabola.

Parabola rejected the ad.

Wondering what reasons the folks at the magazine had for their refusal to accept the placement of an ad, I called their advertising representative. After several minutes of polite back and forth I was finally given to understand that the book was considered to be too "sensationalistic" and "not something they wanted to promote". I could only think: if only they knew how much in common their publication had with the 'SHotW', if only how they saw how much of an extension of it it was, if they cared about the material they were publishing why weren't they more open - to an ad for a book with very related subject matter???

After presenting these questions in as non-confrontational a way as possible, the conversation ended. It was apparent that her, or their, minds were made up about it and nothing would change that.

But why?

Media and consumers all accept that there is a tacit understanding about the advertising is published. The shpiel about the ad not necessarily representing the views of the host of the ad is implied, if not outright stated. We've heard it a million times. And it's not as though we were actually requesting the publishing of an article or any part of the material itself. So again I have to wonder, why?

Could it be that merely the ideas suggested in the ad were actually 'dangerous' to Parabola itself somehow? That Parabola, for all it's discussion of things spiritually enlightening would always maintain it's own version of a 'status quo'? And if that's true, how enlightening an approach could the publication have if it seeks to limit knowledge in even this way? This would be like studying the birth of Communism but disallowing research into the secret societies that helped conceive of it, or the Western Capitalists who helped to finance it. There are certain bodies of information and research, and connections made with them, without which the bigger picture is incomplete.

The Questions appear to end at Parabola with 'superluminal communication' and 'hyperdimensional reality'. These ideas threaten, in their eyes (or someone else's) to pull the carpet out from under them. To consider advertising such "sensationalistic" ideas would mean that might have to reconsider everything they do. And why would they want to do a thing like that?

Was requesting to have placed (and paid for) the 'Secret History of the World' book ad with Parabola magazine really asking all that much? Yes, apparently it was.

Yes, what kind of 'Censor' will allow the truth to leak out?

For an even more comprehensive account, this is what Laura Knight Jadczyk had to say about it.

Wednesday, June 8

911 - An interesting analysis

The following article by John Kaminski raises a lot of questions that many seem to be attempting to shove under the rug! The fact that the 'Official Story' does not at all add up is obvious to anyone who can see, but the charade continues in the effort to keep the public perception of those events in line with the 'story' which was told.


Agents Provocateur?
How the hell can you really tell
valid criticism from clever deception?
By John Kaminski

Honesty is a tricky business. What happens when an honest assessment of the situation actually works against your ultimate objective? What do you do then, when one of life's little riddles sneaks up and bites you on the butt?

Well, first you examine your long term objectives. What is your ultimate purpose? What is it you are trying to do? And finally, what the heck are we here for, anyway?

Then you review the short term goal. What is it I was trying to accomplish? And does that immediate achievement justify sitting on facts you suspect to be true, but don't dare say? And ultimately, will aspiring toward the short term goal actually work against your long term objective?

I could at this point veer into the murky territory that both links and repels men and women, but in the dull interests of decorous propriety, I will not, except to say the classic male example of this conundrum typically is a confession of undying love in pursuit of minimally sincere sexual activity, producing a result where one's long term objectives are inevitably polluted by the short term goal. (Ooh, I can just hear those speculative wheels spinning crazily in the minds of voyeuristic cybergossipers, but let me stress this I am only using this as a hypothetical for-instance.)

More to the point - and in fact exactly on it - is my perspective on the events of September 11, 2001, the day the world changed. Or, as I have said in the title of my booklet, "The Day America Died."

I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.

I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation about Arab terrorists.

I only know I turned around, stalked into the living room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"

I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside job. That this was not the work of Arab terrorists, unless they played some minor diversionary role in a complex and deliberately confusing cast of characters. That this was done at the behest of the people who control our lives, who wanted to create a stultifying example that would be branded into the minds of the muddled masses in order to create a war mentality to justify their criminal intent to make war on the whole world, and make a handsome profit from it.

Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that moment. All those millions of words, mostly written by people who have no stake in anything media-related or politically purposeful, have only reinforced my conviction.

The highest, most important leaders in our land, and other countries as well, were behind the scheme to kill thousands of American citizens in order to justify an intensified assault on the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. Time and the telling of hundreds of more lies have only deepened my conviction, and proved it far beyond a reasonable doubt. The plans for these wars were drawn up BEFORE 9/11, and the lies utilized to execute them have become well-established in the public eye, at least for those interested enough to take a look.

So, I began to write about it, firing thought cannons into cyberspace that were read by thousands of readers but which had little or no effect on the world at large. Gathering every fact I could from each mind who cared to comment on these matters, I soon amassed an array of speculative evidence from a variety of researchers that convincingly confirmed my initial emotional impressions.

I always thought the government's lies were the best piece of evidence, what with Cheney, Rice, and Myers all saying "we had no idea something like this could happen" and then the FBI announcing the names of ALL the hijackers later in the day. When Bush announced the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, it soon became evident that this demonic target-shoot has been planned years before the towers had been hit.

But more tangible evidence quickly followed: Why did the FBI quickly confiscate that videotape from that gas station across the street from the Pentagon that would have clearly shown exactly what hit the Pentagon? Because it would not have verified their story - that is the only reason it could be.

And that is legitimate probable cause for a thousand prosecutions, if we had a law enforcement apparatus that actually tried to enforce the law.

Why is there no evidence of the so-called hijackers actually being on the supposedly hijacked airliners? Or even if they were, of having no snowball's chance in hell of executing the impossible aerobatic maneuvers necessary to do what the government said they did? There were no hijackers. And no reason to invade foreign countries.

The time the towers took fall is what I consider the smoking gun. There is no way structures of that mass and complexity could have free-fallen the way they did without the 47 core columns of each twin tower being expertly severed by explosives. The minimal fires supposedly caused by the plane crashes were neither hot nor widespread enough to cause the buildings to fall at all, never mind the way they did, conveniently and neatly into their own footprints.

No way! No freaking way!

However, it wasn't long before I dared verbally venture into these matters when I ran afoul of people with different opinions as to what actually happened.

And as it stands today, the 9/11 skeptics movement is in total shambles, with the dominant personalities far more interested in pushing their own personal view of things and advancing their own interests than they are in convincing the public they need to focus on the American criminal politicians who were behind the whole caper in the first place.

And this is a truly tragic twist, because now that the American public, weary from the continued flimsiness of government lies about current events, is ready to confront the biggest lie of them all - 9/11 - the 9/11 skeptics movement has deteriorated into trivial bickering that serves no purpose at all other than reveal the shallow, selfish motives of many of its participants.

I receive about 2,000 e-mails per week, most from people who are intensely interested in solving this problem. One recent one from the indefatigable story forwarder Sally Chrisinis in Texas contained a link to a 2004 story by Gerard Holmgren that I consider the single best overall roundup of what really happened on 9/11 that I have ever read, titled "Manufactured Terrorism: The Truth About Sept. 11." Read it here: http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51

Holmgren, an award-winning, Australian blues guitarist, has distinguished himself as the 9/11 researcher with probably more amazing discoveries than anyone else (especially that two of the supposedly fatal flights on 9/11 never showed up in FAA records, and that the passenger lists are riddled with inconsistencies).

He is also at the center of, and chief spokesman for, the single issue that most divides the 9/11 skeptics movement - the assertion that there were no planes, or at least no passenger jetliners - used in the attacks.

Just for a moment, savor this enigma. The best researcher says there were no planes. Or, more precisely, not the planes we thought we saw.

Try to view this as a perfect parallel to the overall 9/11 dilemma. A majority of Americans, trapped as they are in media manufactured images for the entirety of their lives, simply cannot bring themselves to believe that their elected officials could ever even contemplate such a dastardly deed, never mind actually commit it.

So imagine how hard it would be to convince the public, which did not want to believe their leaders killed 3,000 of their own people, that on top of that, the whole charade was pulled off without the planes we thought we saw. This was always my chief objection to the no-plane theory. It would be met by guffaws (and has been). No one would believe it. Hell, it was hard enough to try and get people to believe their own government would actually do this (even though I never found it hard to believe, because there are simply too many similar historical precedents of self-inflicted wounds to justify aggression).

But then, from various nooks and crannies of the Internet, reality began to intrude.

First, there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon, except a couple of apparently seeded parts that may or may not have matched up to the specifications of the plane that was supposed to have hit it. Add on top of this the government's assertion that the DNA of each passenger was later identified after a fire that was so blazingly hot that it vaporized an entire jetliner into complete invisibility. And on top of that, remember that this was the plane that supposedly flew for an hour and 40 minutes in the most secure airspace in the world without being intercepted by our crack Air Force. And finally there was the impossible aerobatic maneuver the pilot of Flight 77 was supposed to have executed - a 270-degree diving turn at 600 mph - that not even Neil Armstrong could have pulled off, and this was done by a guy, a wacked-out Arab terrorist named Hani Hanjour, who from all reports had trouble driving a car.

So, you begin to suspect there's something wrong with the Pentagon story (to say the least).

OK, then you consider the crash in Pennsylvania, on which the passengers supposedly staged a valiant attempt to wrest control of the plane from hijackers, and in the ensuing fight, the plane crashed to the ground. It isn't so much the fact that no one actually saw this plane crash, or that there was something curiously anomalous about the wreckage, or that many witnesses recall seeing an unmarked white jet cruising around the area.

My pal Brad sent me an interesting timeline about Flight 93 that included the evocative phone calls Deena Burnett supposedly received from her husband Tom as he struggled with the dire situation fighting the hijackers aboard the doomed jetliner.

Just after 6 a.m. California time, Deena Burnett called 911 (the number, not the day) and said she'd just received a cell phone call from her husband who was on a plane. Deena told the cops: "They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane."

Seven minutes later, or so the story goes, Tom Burnett called Deena again. She says he said: "The guy they knifed is dead."

Greg Gordon's riveting account in the Sacramento Bee of the Burnetts' tragic morning http://tinyurl.com/dzh7h, with Tom furnishing inside details meticulously enunciated to verify the government's story, will bring tears to your eyes. It did to mine.

And then you remember that this was a cellphone call, and the plane at that time was flying at 35,000 feet (and climbing to 41,000). And you remember the words of Professor A.K. Dewdney (among others), who has proved conclusively that cellphones don't work at that altitude. See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

So you begin to suspect that there's something wrong with this Pennsylvania story, and think, hmm, deja vu all over again?

OK, then you begin to think back about the events in New York City, and you remember the famous Naudet video, which showed the first crash of the day, Flight 11 slamming into the north tower of the World Trade Center. It's a crappy video, all fuzzy and jerky, supposedly because the Naudet brothers caught it by serendipitous accident while filming a documentary that day about firefighters.

If you've done any research into these matters, you've watched the blown-up, slowed-down version of that footage over and over, and you can't escape the nagging feeling that that plane's wings are perpendicular to the fuselage - not swept back at an angle like those on a passenger jetliner. And you can't help but begin to wonder - what kind of plane was that? And you remember the initial reports of a small plane hitting the tower.

So you begin to think to there's something wrong with this North Tower story. And by now it's a familiar refrain.

When I put these three thoughts together, I am ready to believe Holmgren's story. If three of the crashes have been grotesquely misrepresented, there no way the fourth one could have happened as reported. If you think it could have, then you have never placed a bet in your entire life, and should never.

But what really nailed it for me was George Nelson, the retired Air Force colonel who recently wrote a story about airplane crashes in general. Nelson said there has never been an example of an airplane crash in which the plane could not be identified because of an innocuous item called replaceable time-change parts, small components in the vastly complex array of machinery necessary to get these big machines off the ground.

Each airplane has numerous time-change parts that are all recorded in their meticulously kept maintenance logs, and each of these parts has serial numbers that are logged in as well, hence providing a certifiable record of part with plane. Many of these parts are too small to be destroyed in a crash. I mean, even in the worst crashes, if a plane is reduced to rubble the size of say, silver dollars, some of these parts are even smaller than that, so they don't get further reduced in size. They turn up in a search of the wreckage, a serial number is found, and the plane is identified by the connection recorded in its maintenance log.

Every crash that has ever happened, Nelson asserts, has been identified in this manner. See http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Except on 9/11. No replaceable part that could link the planes said to have crashed to a piece of rubble that was examined on that day has ever been found.

Nelson's conclusion? "The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised .... it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government." (And this guy's a retired colonel.)

At that point, planes or not, I was ready to believe Holmgren's tale (after years of arbitrarily denying it was true, because I just could not believe it).

But one formidable hurdle remained. The major image seared forever into the minds of every person on earth is the crash of what the government says was Flight 175 into the South Tower. We've seen it over and over. It is etched into our dreams.

Holmgren, along with his allies in film analysis, The Webfairy, Scott Loughery, Nico Haupt, Marcus Icke and the whole "no-plane" movement, continue to insist it was done electronically - that there were no planes - because of anomalies they have observed in the videos of the event.

I had occasion to converse with the Webfairy (Rosalee Grable) recently, and I told her I was ready to believe Holmgren's version of events, except for one thing - how do you explain so many different camera angles on that crash all recording essentially the same event, and how could eyewitnesses see it if it were all done with exotic film techniques?

This was the question that had always hung me up in this debate. Sure, most of us had only seen it on TV, but what about all those people who were running from the raining rubble - what had they seen? And what about the people in Queens who watched it on the Von Kleist video. And what were the suspicious Israelis filming from the New Jersey shore - only a video deception?

How could a hologram of jet crash been seen by so many people from so many different angles? I am no technical expert on these matters, but for all the reading I've done on the Internet these past three years, you'd think I would have run across the subject - since I've been looking for it.

Rosalee told me that Gerard and her friends no longer believe it was a hologram, and that they now believe it was all done in the ersatz movie studio of a flight simulator, and then that footage was somehow transmitted to the TV networks.

Holmgren responded forthrightly. "I can't give a definite answer. As with the Pentagon, all I can say for sure is what it was not. That is, it was not the "plane" which we see in the video. The illusory plane masks whatever it was."

So there it was again - the difficulty of the story. In all four events on 9/11, we can't figure out what happened, but the evidence that can be assembled indicates the official story is not true.

The dilemma of a difficult story that cannot be easily conveyed to the public is what made me reject it in the first place, but in the same way that people's attitudes ultimately have no bearing on the veracity of what they're saying, so the difficulties in comprehending a story have no relevance as to whether or not it's true.

Where I began this reconsideration of a contentious dispute was by remembering that you can't determine the veracity of information on the basis of someone's reputation. And the reputation of the no-planers is horrible. They have savaged everyone who dared question their version of events, and left a trail of bad feelings wherever they've gone.

They have intimidated many into frustrated silence with a constant barrage of cantankerous contentions, and a result have attracted all manner of derogatory adjectives, including from me. And yet, we continue to use their information - that two of the flights may never existed, that the passenger list info is very suspicious - in our pursuit of the truth. So perhaps some of us have been too harsh in dismissing them as disruptive. After all, this is a very emotional debate, and the future of the world DOES depend on its outcome.

This emotionalism has spilled over into other principle schisms within the 9/11 skeptics movement. In my clumsy attempts to try and deduce the real story, I've received some of it myself, with the controversial Phil Jayhan (who lately has been saying he is receiving messages from God) accusing me of taking money from the government as well as not caring about the people who died on 9/11.

More recently, I have been swept into a public roasting by Holmgren and the no-plane gang of 9/11 personality Karl Schwarz in which neither side has exactly distinguished itself by polite debating tactics. The Holmgren gang has torched Schwarz for specific inaccuracies in his very public attempts to get New York state law enforcement officials to bring legal action against the government for wrongful deaths in the 9/11 attacks. But Schwarz has only feebly defended himself by using empty ad hominem threats against the no-planers, and his apparently inflated claims about himself and his "companies" have taken a major hit with the publication of his background on Portland Indymedia (Karl Schwarz: Unfortunate Son at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml).

Again, the upshot of this nagfest was to only drive more people away from the movement, disgusted with the level of personal insults obscuring the merits of the discussion.

The same kind of high-intensity emotion has been embarrassingly evident among Internet radio listeners of late, as they have watched, with increasing confusion and incredulity, the continuing attacks of WING-TV against several of the best radio hosts on the web: Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, and Fintan Dunne.

Miffed that they have been snubbed by their more experienced and more accomplished broadcasting competitors, WING-TV operators Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani have engaged an embarrassing juvenile tirade against three people who have perhaps brought more people to realistic political consciousness via Web radio than anybody else, especially with regard to 9/11.

It's very difficult for me to write these words, especially since Thorn has published two of my books. More importantly, over the past year he had conducted a string of timely and valuable interviews with some of the most respected voices in the 9/11 skeptics movement, and at great personal sacrifice attempted to shed some light on the decade-old Oklahoma City coverup.

But since that attempt, Thorn and Guliani have ceased interviewing relevant guests and gone on a deceptive and underhanded campaign to ridicule Rense, Jones, and Dunne that culminated in them throwing underwear around their makeshift TV set and holding up a Barbie-doll to the camera in a pathetic attempt to besmirch the sexual proclivities of one of these radio competitors.

Whatever credibility they may have had among many in the alternative news community disappeared forever at that very moment.

A quick scan of their WING-TV website reveals that they made whatever reputation they had by castigating the competition. They started out with easy targets like braindead radio host Mike Gallagher, then graduated to easy target Mike Ruppert, whose blatant oil company propaganda and mutation from top 9/11 critic into just another leftie gatekeeper news outlet has been noted with disappointment by most facets of the genuine 9/11 skeptics movement.

But most people get the feeling that if Rense or Jones or Dunne had merely had them on their shows and let them pitch their own products, none of this would have happened. So their so-called revealing exposés of Rense, Jones, and the Genesis Communications Network, are little more than sour grapes at not being able to crack the big time.

That some of their criticisms are valid are beside the point. That Jones is a bombastic and aggressive Texan with a keen sense of his own profitability doesn't diminish his many achievements in exposing many current events that need to be exposed. That Rense dabbles in arcane topics like UFOs doesn't negate the formidable political guests he's had on his show, nor does his continuing efforts to make clear the evils of Zionism are not perpetrated by all Jews nor all Christians.

That the owner of the Genesis network, Ted Anderson, makes money by selling gold doesn't make him an agent of the Illuminati. Fact is, Genesis, with Rense, Jones and Jack Blood leading the way, provides a news service to the American people that is unmatched for relevance across the media spectrum.

Which brings us to another point about Thorn. His little booklet titled "Christ Killers."

Thorn's decision to align himself with the hardcore Christian right opens him up to legitimate charges of anti-Semitism.

Now I know some of you must be laughing about me using that term, since I have been branded with it myself. Let me make this clear. Jews are human beings, just like everybody else. The fact that many - or even most - of them have chosen to believe the lies told in the Talmud that they are the Chosen are better than everybody is certainly despicable and ridiculous, but no worse than the way Catholics feel about themselves as the only true church, or Muslims as the only true religion, or Hindus being the fathers of us all. It's all hateful BS, and a movement among the Jews is growing that Zionism hurts them as much as it hurts everybody else.

So when I say somebody is anti-Semitic, you can count on it as being true, and not the same attempt at political intimidation as it is when used by fascist bozos like Abe Foxman, Jerry Falwell, or Richard Perle.

After all, I'm the guy who doesn't believe the Germans gassed anyone during World War II (because Eisenhower never mentioned it) and that Israel is an illegal state that should not be allowed to exist because it is simply a mechanism for crime engineered by the Illuminati. Does that mean I hate Jews? No it doesn't. Because I don't. Though I believe that rich Zionist Jews were right at the center of the 9/11 scam and are guilty of treason and mass murder, I believe that Jews hold the key to both the destabilization of the Middle East by Israel and the great 9/11 coverup, because they have the insights and the connections to get to the bottom of both deceptions in the name of honesty and humanity.

Whether they will or not remains to be seen. But the key to accomplishing this incredible feat which is so essential to the continued survival of human society depends both on Jews rejecting the notion that they are superior to other tribes of homo sapiens on the basis of how they have been misled by their evil holy men, and also on non-Jews abandoning the perception by that Jews are out to enslave them because that is what is written in the Talmud.

Both of these things must happen. Both of these things will happen, when people finally realize the real hate crimes are written in the world's holy books for the purpose of pitting one neighbor against another in the name of profit.

This needless arguments are typical of what has happened to the 9/11 skeptics movement. It has been betrayed by people more interested in their own financial fortunes than in unearthing the truth.

The truth is that we all make mistakes, we all believe things that with further study we eventually learn are lies, and we all like to condescend to people who don't share our particular ideas about what is happening.

This is what I meant when I said at the beginning of this screed that honesty is a tricky business. By revealing all these petty grievances, I have probably retarded the search for 9/11 truth more than illuminated it, simply because of the number of people who have not read this story to this point, and abandoned it for some other activity they think is more rewarding.

But you don't solve a problem by skirting its most contentious aspects. We must muddle through them, no matter how complicated or enigmatic they become.

In the case with honesty and the truth, if you don't persevere, and seek it without involving your ego in its discovery, you'll never find it. So those who didn't stick around for the end of this story have missed the best part.

Among the thousands of e-mails I try to comprehend came this gem the other day from someone I seldom hear from, Christopher Brown.

Dissatisfied with what was available in the way of 9/11 sites, Chris constructed his own site, and while it isn't quite accurate throughout (everybody gets bogged down in the debate about the temperature necessary to melt or buckle steel), it nevertheless contains two of the most pertinent modules available on the subject of the massacre at the World Trade Center.

The site is located at http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html, but let me synopsize the two parts I consider the most evocative. If you can read these two little stories and still believe the government's story about what happened on 9/11, than you are either learning disabled or on the payroll of the oinks orchestrating the coverup.

Although there is no supporting link in his narrative, Brown theorizes in the section titled "How the WTC Was Secretly Demolished on 9-11-01" that the thick coatings on the rebar used on the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of the plastic explosive C4.

"This would put enough explosive force in direct contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate," Brown writes.

"This was technology invented in the Cold War to make self-destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times."

On to the second story, which Brown clipped from the Danish website: http://jfk2wtc.tripod.com/ READ THIS WHOLE STORY.

Here's the excerpt:

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.


The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.


The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. 'There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything' he said

No walls, NO WALLS!!! Those were steel reinforced concrete walls, the centralized rebar of the walls coated with C4 removed the walls completely. The surviving engineers were protected by the efficiency of the blast which pulverized the concrete and filled the air with dust and high heat, floating the particles at the top of the room.

Gives you a new perspective on the comment by WTC landlord Larry Silverstein to "pull it," doesn't it? And it takes the planes/no planes brouhaha right out of the equation. Who cares what flew into the towers, or what radio show
has what guest on his show, when the towers were built to be demolished, and blown up at their bases?

We can figure out the plane thing, if we like, during the treason and mass murder trials of Bush, Cheney, and thousands of others.

Agents provocateur? We can easily identify the shams posted by establishment shills such as Chertoff in Popular Mechanics, Jasper in the New American, and Shermer in Scientific American, or by other Zionist gatekeepers such as Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky who refuse to address central questions about 9/11, the Iraq war, and Israel's extermination of the Palestinians and infiltration of the U.S. government.

But inside the 9/11 skeptics movement itself I cannot tell if anyone is deliberately trying to deceive or obfuscate (except for Michael Elliott of 911review.org, who has suddenly disappeared, leaving a trail of debts and broken promises).

What I do see is people pursuing their objectives so ardently (and I myself am not immune from this) that they castigate competing theories as government subterfuge. When combined with the frustration of trying to defog government smokescreens, and competing theories that disagree with their own, fireworks follow. And they don't help the movement. In fact, they play right into the hands of those who engineered the coverup.

The object of the 9/11 skeptics movement is not to gain personal fame and fortune, nor to disparage those who are not as expert as others in knowing all the trivial details of every aspect of the event.

It is perhaps a legitimate exercise to point out those who are deliberately trying to impede or distort a gathering of the facts. But identifying this activity must be weighed against the higher goal of inspiring a majority of Americans to recognize the capital crimes of their leaders. After all, even Mike Ruppert, before he revealed himself as an oil company shill, was of great value to the movement.

The object, ultimately, is to identify the true perpetrators of the greatest crime in American history, and perhaps on an even higher level, to prevent the world from being destroyed by rich and cunning white men who seek to profit from fomenting wars all over the world.

We need to stop the bickering, and press on in pursuit of the evidence, wherever it leads. Only then can we truly say we have led and are leading honest lives.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida. His essays have been posted on hundreds of websites around the world and have been collected into two anthologies, both of which are available on his website, http://www.johnkaminski.com/ Also available is the booklet, "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," which is still selling well. Don't you wonder why?