frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.



Check out my old  Voice of the People page.


Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

jonsdarc@mindspring.com




Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington



ARCHIVES
1092 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

Friday, 15 September 2006 at 10h 41m 15s

You are what you eat

You know what television entertainment programming really is ... manufactured populism, because rather than stimulating people to occupy their time with something that is self-initiated, the television is meant to merely pacify its victims while it feeds your mind with fantasies and illusions. Take a panoply of gender stereotypes, cast them into a few predetermined roles, and then pack weeks, months, even years of time into a single hour. And what you see is a suggested reality, created by the vision of individuals because the camera cannot convey the exactitude of the moment. This can be a highly brilliant, insightful depiction of life, but instead the vast machine of Hollywood manufactures a daily ether world of heroes, villainy, and everyday people.

Which reminds me of that stupid contemporary commercial of a family with glowing TV ratings on their head that is currently shown in between the baseball games I stream on broadband. How ridiculous is the premise that TV is something we have to "protect" our kids from, because they might get exposed to the raunchy, sexist real world. Certainly those magazines on the rack at the Supermarket check-out line don't have barely clothed women advertizing their cleavage. Certainly the average commercial isn't skirting the edge between blatant promiscuity and overt pornography. So from what exactly are the children being saved?

To me, this is just another PR campaign by the cable companies. You know the one's that preach the high tone of higher standards, but have yet to actually act like they bother to enforce or ensure them. Just like McDonald's trying to convince everyone that their food is a great experience for the kiddies, or that their stale coffee is exotically fresh. Fresh. I love that word. As if the very notion that something being "fresh" makes it better or different than the norm, rather than something you should actually take for granted.

Ah ... Nothing like fresh bad coffee from a smiling uniformed and underpaid maiden who started work at 4 O'Clock in the morning so that lazy, indolent people can drive thru and pick up some phosphate enhanced processed food product.

Which is exactly what I generally think of 99.9999% of Hollywood : fresh bad coffee and really unhealthy food. Every year the tube networks pump out the shows, even changing them frequently to keep the content "fresh", but it's like a ride at the amusement park where you remain seated the entire time absorbing the content. Gradually this content becomes the everyday background noise, since all that is absorbed by the mind becomes one with that mind by the very essence of the contact. We cannot separate our self from what we experience with the senses. The notion of being able to "control" this experience is ridiculous, because you cannot separate yourself from your experience. If the phenomenom goes into your eyes and ears, your mind has registered a recognition, and your thoughts have to interact with that which has been recognized. We are, we become, what we choose to imbibe.


Thursday, 14 September 2006 at 19h 56m 27s

It's happening all over again

I get home today, and this is what I read in the Washington Post [here]


U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.

The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.

After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.


To great applause throughout Europe, I might add.

If you can't see where this administration is headed then God help you when you finally see them for the lying hoodlums that they are. This administration was 100% completely wrong in Iraq. The IAEA was 100% completely right.

But go ahead, believe the chuckling man who sits in the cockpit while he and his goons fly this plane out of orbit. When everything goes completely wrong again you can still blame all your mistakes on the opposition -- those whiny Democrats who warned you beforehand.


The report was never voted on or discussed by the full committee. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the vice chairman, told Democratic colleagues in a private e- mail that the report "took a number of analytical shortcuts that present the Iran threat as more dire -- and the Intelligence Community's assessments as more certain -- than they are."

Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.

Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office "reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06." He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities.


Mind you, this is the same Negroponte who oversaw the death squad operations in Honduras in the 1980's. Now he is director of National Intelligence, the new agency created to oversee the operations of the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security.

Can you say Adolph Eichmann?


Friday, 8 September 2006 at 21h 7m 27s

A rhetorical question

Answer the following question (don't cheat)


  1. 1975-1959
  2. 1953-1950
  3. 1945-1941
  4. 1918-1917
  5. 1865-1861
  6. 1783-1775
  7. ????-2001


Now for the question : disregarding all of the minor military engagements in between, which one of the above is not like the others ?


Sunday, 3 September 2006 at 17h 53m 0s

About the plane that hit the Pentagon

I also put together a paper about the plane that hit the Pentagon. I analyzed the energy it would take to vaporize the aluminum plane that was said to have occured.

Go here if you want to read it.

Now mind you the Aluminum did not just melt, it boiled. Aluminum vaporizes at 2519C (4566.2F.) At less than half this temperature all living flesh and carbon-based items would vaporize without a trace -- because at those temperatures there is enough heat to cause the carbon in our organic body cells to unite with free oxygen. Yet the government insists it gathered DNA identification of 96 of the passengers on the plane that hit the Pentagon. I even heard a spokesperson for the debunker911 folks reiterate this meme.

How could they have gotten DNA if the DNA would have been completely destroyed when the Aluminum of the plane supposedly vaporized in the one hole of the Pentagon?

Hmmm...

This is unbelievable for even a friend of mine who vehemently disagrees with 98 percent of my thinking on these matters. If the wings folded up along with the two 9 ton engines and if the entire plane then vaporized in that one hole of the Pentagon, then how on Earth could they have gotten DNA samples? The DNA, all organic matter, AND all materials with a specific heat less than Aluminum would have all chemically burned into combustion gases and water vapor. There would have been no cell structures or DNA intact.


Saturday, 2 September 2006 at 22h 9m 0s

Debunking the debunkers

The Truth According to this site , here , here, and even here is not truth at all. Let me brieftly explain why.

The Physics from the Physics blogger Dr Frank Greenings (here ) analyzed the amount of energy that would be created from the Towers falling at free fall speeds. This energy however was created due to the collapse, and cannot at all have been the energy which presumably weakened the steel in the towers. The steel could not have been weakened from an energy that was created after the fall of the towers, since the energy that weakened the steel would have had to be present before the falling of the towers.

But more importantly, Dr. Greenings also assumed that the 110 stories all came down because all 44 central steel cores suddenly failed at the same time and at all places up and down the building. He does some basic time of gravitational fall calculations. Dr. Greenings then elaborates on what he calls the MOMENTUM TRANSFER THEORY OF THE WTC COLLAPSE or his version of the Pancake Theory, in which the stacks fall on top of lower stacks and gradually accumulate energy on the way down (you can read his PDF file here.)

But how this transfer theory could have had the energy to immediately pulverize concrete and spew dense fine particles outward in Pyroclastic flows cannot be explained. The paper says it "sufficiently explains" the pulverization but neglects to mention that all of the kinetic energy calculations and momentum series regression cannot provide energy to the top of the collapse. And how can 44 steel columns suddenly collapse equally all up and down the 417 meters of height, so that the end result was remarkably equal length sections of sliced steel columns in a pile at the footprint of the collapse. Natural or accidental collapses would have been irregular rather than staight-down, and would involve much twisting and warping of the columns due to the weight instead of clean breaks at an extreme angle to the beam. And if the steel did indeed collapse due to weight, how come the collapse began at the very top and traveled symmetrically downward rather then somewhere more near the center of gravity of the building? Or how come the top of tower didn't just slump and fall off? But instead for the first-time in the history of engineering, not one, but three buildings were said to have collapsed when the steel failed due to kerosine fuel based fires.

Pyroclastic flows are heavier-than-air gas-particle emulsions that travel across the ground at velocities ranging from 10 m/sec to 300 m/sec. They can attain temperatures of over 1000 C. They range from high density flows that move down valleys and can move beneath water, to dilute flows that extend over mountains and can move across water.[SOURCE] Pyroclastic flows like what occurred in the aftermath of the towers collapse do not occur because buildings fall down, they occur as the result of tremendous explosive energy. They are quite different than smoke and dust clouds in general by their velocity and density of material. In nature, a pyroclastic flow occurs when a volcano explodes.

How could concrete and office furniture become completely pulverized into fine particles and then horizontally projected outward in dense rapidly moving clouds that traversed 10 plus city blocks and hovered out over the Hudson River for nearly an hour? Had the towers simply fell down, there would have been much larger chunks of office furniture and concrete, and therefore not enough fine material for a pyroclastic flow to occur because most of the energy of the fall would have gone into the motion of these larger sedimentia. And recall that the expelled dense clouds of fine material began to occur at the very top of the towers fall, before the weight of the building could have had an impact. If it were this easy to crush concrete into fine dust (after falling 3 to 10 seconds in mid-air), a lot of companies have been wasting their money.

Hold a brick up above your head and drop it. Does it get pulverized into fine dust particles when it hits the ground? Drop it from a 20 story building -- or a 100 story building -- and it still doesn't pulverize the brick into fine dust particles, but many various stone-sized broken pieces. The density of small particles is not possible when most of the weight is in the form of broken pieces. And since most of the weight is contained in larger pieces, so too is most of the energy dissipated from the scattering of these larger pieces. Nevertheless, the pulverization occurred in mid-air, not underneath the weight of the building.

I don't presume to know what happened because I don't know. But I do know the laws of Physics. If the heat inside the towers was so great that it would have weakened the steel, the windows (which have a melting point close to that of steel : 1420 C versus 1353 C) would have all exploded outward from the massive pressure minutes before the towers began their collapse. But that didn't happen. A firefighter was able to radio a call from the 82nd floor, but he would have evaporated into flames if there would have been enough contained heat to weaken the steel.

Airplane fuel burns between 1400 and 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. The core of the towers was also specifically designed to seal off the potential of a chimney effect. So how could steel weaken that was specified to last 6 hours at 2300 degrees Fahreneheit without loss of strength?Go here to see an easy to read table of temperature. Accordingly, Plate Glass slumps at 1500 F and Aluminum (of the plane) melts at 1218 F . Dr. Greenings mentions that even at temperatures of 500 C (1000F), the steel could have suffered a 20% weakness, but the breaking into sections all along the length of the steel can be even less explained at this lower temperature, given that the steel was heavily reinforced at each floor with horizontal cross-beams which would have dissipated this energy. This would have prevented the accumlation of high temperatures and stess at any one location.

The structure of the towers is like a 110 story of vertical AND horizontal interconnected bars into small grids. The entire building was also wrapped in a blanket of steel. There were something on the order of 10,000 joints of this meshed steel in the buildings. A few slices in maybe 6 floors, the added weight of a passenger plane, and the burning of jet fuel cannot explain the collapse of the towers because at least 50% of the steel would have had to been the exact temperature of fires that could have at most burned at 1800 in maybe 3 to 4 floors using the most generous assumptions. There is no way the rest of the steel could have been even close to this temperature, so why didn't the top just slump over and fall off? The weight of the building is not enough to "pancake" and cause the steel in the 70 floors below and the basement to fail. If the section of 5 to 10 floors in the middle did indeed fail, the failure of those stress points alone releases the energy of the weight which engendered their failure.

There are other papers which push this notion of bracket creep. The added weight of the airplanes is not different in stress load than a day of high 30 mile per hour winds, which does occur in New York City. The heat could not have raised the temperature of all that steel to anything remotely close to 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This idea of "bracket creep" makes one think that the grid of steel in the towers didn't exist, or that all linkages involved up or down stress release points, when in fact, the stress release points were in all directions, even diagonal. But never you mind, there is an integral equation which says that one of the joints would fail, so therefore all of the 9,999 others must also fail as well. After looking at the mathematical paper which floated this idea I came away with a surprised understanding that you can use math to model any preconceived assumption you like. Your peers can even agree about the math being correct. But as for the original assumptions, here is where all of the best models fail.

All of this puffery put on the website is actually quite dishonest, because as I just point out, the debunkers are proving by assumptions based on a false primary argument. There are too many times when the ripostes and criticism offered is hardly credible, or really only based on opinion -- which is excusable but still not a substitute for genuine substance and factual description.

One such example (go here ) is when the site presumes to "debunk" Mr. Jones video of the squibs by showing a picture from SouthWest of building Number 7 AT A DIFFERENT TIME OF DAY! You can tell by the incidence of the sun with the building that the sun was higher in the sky. Look at the nearly 45 degree angle of the sun in the picture on the building to the right (near the center of the pic.)



This is the pic our impenetrable debunker used. That angle of the sun is between 2 and 3 pm in New York City at that time of year. Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:30pm EST. That's a 2 to 3 hour difference in time folks. Interestingly enough, it was also the time at which that fire raged the most and then started to cool off. By the time WTC7 fell, the fires were smaller and the smoke was less dense, which is typical of our historical experience with fires in high-rise steel buildings.

Oh and here's the best. The Jones pic the site provided was actually one frame from a video (watch it here and slo-mo zoom here ) which showed a sequence of puffs just before the building plummeted. And it's the visual motion of that sequence in time that is the whole point of the evidence. They choose one frame to criticize an entire video, how lame is that? The debunker site makes much ado about the smoke coming out of the side, even derisively castigating the researchers for their inability to show this photo. (But look, see, there it is above, 3 hours before the building falls in less than 10 seconds.)

A motion gif The pic the debunker site uses


So how exactly does the photo with all the smoke refute the video's sequence of squibs alongside the WTC7 building just before it fell? That building didn't sag on the weakened corner, as you would expect, but fell completely symmetrical all the way down. There is no way this is possible because the steel in the farthest corner from the weakened corner would not have collapsed at the same time since it was exposed to much less heat. One side would give maybe. All at the same time? That is the Physics you find from leftover newspaper scraps used by homeless cretins in place of blankets.

But alas, critical thinking comes cheap these days. Selecting one frame from evidence that is meant to be a video, and then trying to tie that frame to an event that occurred 3 hours earlier is apparently what the debunkers tried to do. Notice how this frame is zoomed in so that the distortions of the pixels could indeed seem to arise from smoke on the edge of the building. It's hard to believe someone who would pick one frame from a video then zoom it to distortion before linking it with a time 3 hours earlier.

Oh, and I love this bit


Puffs of smoke or simply damaged panels hanging on for dear life coming away from the building during a violent collapse?

What would the purpose be in setting off charges in that corner of the building anyway? A question not answered in this conspiracy story. The only purpose this has is to create evidence around another fuzzy anomaly.


Sounds like it wants to make sense, except two things. Those fires in building 7 could never have been hot enough to cause the steel to fail. The notion that an entire building could just suddenly shake (watch the video, that's what happens) and then plummet symmetrically to the ground in less than 10 seconds is not "simply damaged panels hanging on for dear life." Never once has a building ever fallen like WTC7 because of fire, despite their being plenty of fires that were much worse and on older buildings.

And is this trickster really asking that second question? Uh, like, surprise, surprise -- you can't bring a steel building down any other way! Okay. How about that. If there were other ways, then why do building owners hired controlled demolition experts to bring down steel buildings? And then this punk follows by stating his question is not answered and says the only purpose is "to create evidence around another fuzzy anomaly" ?

Gosh golly me, did I read that correctly. Creating evidence? Is that a freudian slip, or why would anyone credible even put those two words together? The sentence makes no sense at all. If an "anomaly" has been clarified as "fuzzy" then why does evidence need to be "created" ? "Fuzzy" implies that one doubts the veracity of whether somethings exists (namely, the truth.) An "anomaly" by definition is something out of the ordinary. So follow me now, if something doesn't exist that isn't out of the ordinary, your purpose is to create evidence? Surely this is either just fuzzy reasoning surrounded by pugnacious obscurity, or the mad hatter laughing hysterically.

This rank sidestepping amateurism doesn't debunk anything, however, much less does it come close to ruining Mr. Jones's credibility.

Furthermore, on the same web-page, our fearless debunker has this to say about the odd squibs:



They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. It's strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase it's explosive strength with time.


So explosives don't increase it's explosive strength with time? But what if all the explosives didn't go off at once, and were timed in a computerized sequence -- which is what actually happens during a Controlled Demolition? That's what the word "Controlled" means. It is true that squibs could occur from the rush of the building going down, but why is the concrete instantly becoming pulverized and tossed powerfully outward as the building falls down? And it still doesn't explain the entire collapse of the steel, which is the true anamoly (that's misuse of a word number two.) You can reverse this backwards and forwards as many times as necessary, but it's the same ole dead armadillo. The explosive strength began immediately and continued all the way down.

I also don't follow the criticism of the picture which is used to indicate the use of Thermite explosives [ here.] That picture was taken by someone who remembered when he took the picture. Your article however makes much ado about some apparent ambiguity of when the picture was taken, when the timing of the photo is not ambiguous. It was taken during the two weeks of rescue operations. You even cede this point, to make another ridiculous point that the picture of a wielder and a sliced steel beam refutes the angle cut in the original picture.

But it's not even the same angle. The angle from Thermite is greater than 45 degrees, whereas the slice provided in your picture looks more like 30 degrees.Go to the [ debunker site here] and see for yourself.

Here is how you estimate the angle. The cut makes a right triangle, with 2 legs that meet at a right angle. If the cut is such that the two legs are equal length, the angle of the cut is 45 degrees. Notice that the line of the cut is pointed to a place much lower than the top of the square, indicating an angle less than 30 degrees -- to me it looks like 2/3 rds. The pic with the fire-fighters however appear to have a ratio of height to base 1.5 to 1 (or at least 1.25 to 1) which indicates an angle larger than 45 degrees. In fact the angle can be determined by using the arctangent function on the ratio. Hence,

Arctan(1.5)= 56.3 degrees
Arctan(1.25)= 51.34 degrees
Arctan(0.66)= 33.69 degrees

Why is this signifigant? If a human being slices steel, it would take longer time to make the 45plus degree cut -- because the length is longer -- in addition to being a lot more difficult. This is precisely why the steepness of the angle in the original picture is the mark of a Thermite cut because the steep cut allows the steel to slide downward! There would be no need for a human to make this difficult type of cut in order to break apart the steel beam. It is also a waste of material. Shamefully, your refutation misses this point, because it is precisely this point that makes the entire argument of Thermite explosives quite plausible.

And yet once again, while admiting those steep cuts were of thermite origin, the debunkers don't realize the most damning point that the very steepness of the cuts makes the entire argument of Thermite explosives quite plausible.

(Don't know what A Thermite reaction is? Educate yourself. Do a google on "Thermite". You'll find an australian scientific experiment video and plenty of info.)

How pompous and self-righteous do you have to be? A hotmail account is the only contact ? There is no address or anything linking you to anyone. Not even a name. The only debunking done at this pitiful site is the debunking of its own myths that it actually does quite well doing through its sloppy, self-flatulent articles. Notice how I provide links to the articles that I am criticizing. Isn't it odd how the debunker site can't seem to do the same.

Here is a good place to go to read the articles the debunker was implicitly criticizing. This site is a repository for a growing lot of physicists and engineers who leave their real names and their sources from peer-sourced reviews (as opposed to one anonymous email link.) In my opinion, there is more substance and detailed analysis -- minus the boisting tone of the mysterious debunker site and the smug authority of its Physics blogger assistant, Dr Frank Greenings.

Yea, I believe in the JFK single bullet theory too. And the Liberty League did not attempt to get General Smedley Butler to head a military coup against Roosevelt in 1933 either (so did that Congressional trial where General Butler told all to a shocked American public really occur? ) Henry Ford never funded the Nazi Party in Germany, and Prescott Bush did not use a New York Bank to finance Germany until 1942. Nor did the Chiefs of Staff all sign operation Northwoods in 1962 before it was presented to and rejected by President Kennedy. And the arms for hostages deals with the Iranians, that did not happen either. Yea right.

There is nothing theoretical about any of these matters. They are not myths. I don't care to speculate about the implications, but I cannot in good conscience deny what I know to be true. It is a matter of irrefutable historical record that Men will do and have done despicable deeds in order to achieve grand designs of power.


Saturday, 2 September 2006 at 17h 38m 15s

Not IF . . . When

From the BBC

"We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we're going to experience more," Professor John Holdren [president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science] said.

He emphasised the seriousness of the melting Greenland ice cap, saying that without drastic action the world would experience more heatwaves, wild fires and floods.

He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts.

To put this in perspective, Professor Holdren pointed out that the melting of the Greenland ice cap, alone, could increase world-wide sea levels by 7m (23ft), swamping many cities.



John Holdren, in addition to his presidency of the AAAS, is director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.


Thursday, 31 August 2006 at 18h 58m 38s

There is no threat

Except maybe from the White House.

Nuclear materials need large conglomerations of nuclear material to make nuclear weapons. This isn't just a few garbage bags full of stuff. We are talking material on the order of 500 tons, or about 30 train-loads full. In addition to the bulk, nuclear materials can (and are) easily viewable from satellites using all kinds of spectral analysis. There is no place on Earth that is secretly doing anything without the foreknowledge of the United States.

They just want to scare you into thinking we need to invade and bomb Iran.

And if nuclear materials getting in the wrong hands was truly the concern of the administration how come they abrogated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and stopped working with Russia to monitor the proliferation of nuclear materials? How come Bush withdrew from the Salt Treaties and The International Criminal Court? How come they destroyed a covert operation by exposing the company Brewster-Jennings when they outed Valerie Plame if the purpose of the operation was meant to track nuclear materials? Does that make sense to you?

Now if they were so worried about Iraq and Iran that they fumed about them regularly in print and speech since 1997 (Cheney & Rumsfeld's signatures were on the original PNAC document) ... then why did they ignore all of the abundant warnings about September 11th? Why did the administration order the FBI to stop its investigation into the Flight Schools and the charitys of the bin Laden's? Why was Dick Cheney looking at oil field maps of Iraq at Energy Task Force meetings in April 2001? Why were the names of oil-conglomerate firms written on those maps? Here's the source for these maps.

If nuclear weapons are the main concern, you'd think getting rid of all of them would be priority number one. You'd think they would be pushing the investigations and covert operations, not destroying and hindering their progress every inch of the way.

You can't really stack shit this high, can you?


Monday, 28 August 2006 at 18h 41m 42s

Cartoons de Jour

Both of these cartoons were viewed at Bartcop.


Monday, 28 August 2006 at 18h 54m 59s

The Heartland speaks


Editors, Gatekeepers, and Lapdogs,

I'm so old i can remember the days when the press would have had a field day exposing blatent criminal behavior in high offices instead of enabling it.

By any and every concievable measure we are currently living in the times of the Worst President Ever and the reason he's still in the oval office is because of you.

Facts:

Bush is the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record. He has appointed more convicted criminals to his administration than any President in U.S. history.

He has broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history and has withdrawn the US from the UN Human Rights Commission, the World Court of Law, and the Geneva Conventions.

He has lied us into wars, failed us on security, embarrassed us with fratboy behavior on the world stage, bankrupted our national surplus, enriched contributors and henchmen, rewarded incompetence and criminality, shredded constitutional rights, and...oh I could go on and on, but it just makes me sick.

Even sicker yet, he still gets all of you to laugh and fawn at your inane press conferences.

You have monolithicly failed us. Why have you done this?

Mike D
Farmington Hills, MI


Many thanx to Bartcop for posting this letter to the editor that recently made the circuit of the the Mid-Western Newspapers.


Wednesday, 16 August 2006 at 20h 25m 31s

Of course its about politics

Craig Murray was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.

Published on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 by Craig Murray. The UK Terror plot: What's Really Going On?

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.


Craig Murray was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS