A Radiant Cage Of Thunder
- All
- General
25 HIGH-RANKING MILITARY OFFICIALS CHALLENGE 9/11 COVER-UP
Military Officers Challenge Official Account of September 11th
May 24, 2008 ·
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”
- George W. Bush
“It was all premeditated. Treason, a false flag military operation, and betrayal of the trust of the American people were committed on 9/11 by the highest levels of the US government and not one person responsible for the crimes, or the cover-up, has been held accountable for the last six years.”
- Former U.S. Air Force pilot Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom
Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD “A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
Regarding the failure of NORAD to intercept the four hijacked planes on 9/11, Col. Bowman said, “I’m an old interceptor pilot. I know the drill. I’ve done it. I know how long it takes. I know the rules. … Critics of the government story on 9/11 have said: ‘Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing’. That’s not true. If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”
During his 22-year Air Force career, Col. Bowman also served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot.
Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom Former U.S. Air Force pilot Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom wrote in a 2007 statement to this author, “When 9/11 occurred I bought the entire government and mainstream media story line. I was a lifelong conservative Republican that voted for Bush/Cheney, twice. Curiosity about JFK’s death, after a late night TV re-run of Oliver Stone’s movie, got me started researching and digging for the truth about his assassins.
“My research led me to a much more important and timely question: the mystery of what really did happen on 9/11. Everything that seemed real, turned out to be false. The US government and the news media, once again, were lying to the world about the real terrorists and the public murder of 2,972 innocents on 9/11.
“The ‘Patriot Act’ was actually written prior to 9/11 with the intention of destroying the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was passed by Congress, based upon the government’s myth of 9/11, which was in reality a staged hoax. 9/11 was scripted and executed by rogue elements of the military, FAA, intelligence, and private contractors working for the US government.
“In addition to severely curtailing fundamental rights of Americans, the 9/11 crime was then used by this administration, the one I originally voted for and supported, to justify waging two preemptive wars (and most likely a third war), killing over 4,500 American soldiers, and killing over one million innocent Afghan and Iraqi people.
“It was all premeditated. Treason, a false flag military operation, and betrayal of the trust of the American people were committed on 9/11 by the highest levels of the US government and not one person responsible for the crimes, or the cover-up, has been held accountable for the last six years.
“After reading fifteen well-researched books, studying eight or nine DVD documentaries, and devoting months of personal research and investigation, I have arrived at one ultimate conclusion: The American government and the US Constitution have been hijacked and subverted by a group of criminals that today are the real terrorists. They are in control of the US government and they have all violated their oaths of office and committed treason against their own citizens.”
Capt. Daniel Davis Capt. Daniel Davis is a former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. After his military service, Capt. Davis served for 15 years as a Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division and then devoted an additional 15 years as founder and CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company.
In a statement to this author, Capt. Davis wrote, “As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.”
Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam, Capt. Davis also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.
Capt. Davis continued, “Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there’s no way all four of them could!
“Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is difficult for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled ‘terrorists’. Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State’.”
Major Jon I. Fox is a former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot and a retired commercial airline pilot for Continental Airlines with a 35-year commercial aviation career. In 2007, in support of the Architects and Engineers[3] petition to reinvestigate 9/11, he wrote, “On hearing the military (NORAD/NEAD) excuses for no intercepts on 9/11/2001, I knew from personal experience that they were lying. I then began re-checking other evidence and found mostly more lies from the ‘official spokesmen’. Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel. Structures do not collapse through themselves in free fall time with only gravity as the powering force.”
Commander Ralph Kolstad Retired U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot Commander Ralph Kolstad started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. In a statement to this author, he wrote, “It just didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. And now six years after 9/11 he says, “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.”
Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie “Top Gun” reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor.
Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.
Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”
Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”
He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, “Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?”
But no major element of the official account of 9/11 is spared from Commander Kolstad’s criticism. Regarding the alleged impact site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, PA, he asks, “Where is any of the wreckage? Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane? Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel? Where is any evidence at all?”
Commander Kolstad also questions many aspects of the attack on the World Trade Center. “How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn’t the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just doesn’t add up.”
“Why did the second building collapse before the first one, which had been burning for 20 minutes longer after a direct hit, especially when the second one hit was just a glancing blow? If the fire was so hot, then why were people looking out the windows and in the destroyed areas? Why have so many members of the New York Fire Department reported seeing or hearing many ‘explosions’ before the buildings collapsed?”
Commander Kolstad summarized his frustration with the investigation and disbelief of the official account of 9/11, “If one were to act as an accident investigator, one would look at the evidence, and then construct a plausible scenario as to what led to the accident. In this case, we were told the story and then the evidence was built to support the story. What happened to any intelligent investigation? Every question leads to another question that has not been answered by anyone in authority. This is just the beginning as to why I don’t believe the official ‘story’ and why I want the truth to be told.”
Posted at 09:08AM May 28, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[0]
Serial Killer Stalking Young Midwest College Males?
Is a Serial Killer or a cult of Serial Killers hunting young college men and drowning them?
Is the presence of 'smiley face' graffiti a clue in the killings - or just a coincidence?
"The detectives believe that the smiley faces were left by the killer or killers. They varied in size, with each face more haunting than the next.
The most sinister was found in Iowa. It was drawn in red with a devil's horns. Next to the smiley face was a note that read, "Evil Happy Smiley Face Man."
Asked whether he believed there was a hidden message in the smiley faces, Duarte told CNN, "The message is, they're taunting the police."
Duarte and Gannon said they found 12 other matching symbols similar to gang graffiti. But, to protect their investigation, they wouldn't describe them in detail. The detectives say the string of deaths could be the work of more than one killer because some of them took place on the same day in different states..."
Read the whole story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/21/smiley.face.killer/index.html
Posted at 09:41AM May 22, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[1]
Is John McCain.... Sane?
An interesting video about the addled, confused, possibly schizophrenic mind of John McCain.
Posted at 03:51PM May 20, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[2]
Rumsfeld - "America Needs Another 9/11"
Rumsfeld: "Why Not another 9/11?"
by Larry Chin
Global Research, May 16, 2008
Online Journal
In a newly-released tape of a 2006 neocon luncheon meeting featuring former War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, attended by ex-military "message force multiplier" propaganda shills Lt. General Michael DeLong, David L. Grange, Donald W. Sheppard, James Marks, Rick Francona, Wayne Downing, Robert H. Scales and others, Rumsfeld declared that the American people lack "the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the ‘threats’" -- and need another 9/11.
When DeLong complained about a "lack of sympathetic ears" in Congress, and a lack of interest among the general American public, Rumsfeld responded, "What's to be done? The correction for that, I suppose, is another attack."
This videotape clip is part of a one-hour tape declassified by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The entire clip, and analysis of this damning new revelation, can be found here: "The Correction for that . . . is another attack" (Jason Linkins, Huffington Post, 5/13/08)
For an independent op-ed about the same information, see Rumsfeld's Mind: If 9/11 worked, why not try it again? (Op-Ed News. It was also the topic of discussion on the May 14 broadcast of Nova M Radio’s Mike Malloy Program.
In the seven years since the day, exhaustive and still growing evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the US government, spearheaded by the Bush administration, planned, orchestrated and executed the 9/11 false flag operation. As openly advocated by wide swaths of elites, from the People for the New American Century (PNAC), of which Rumsfeld has been a member, to the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski (in his The Grand Chessboard), only an attack “on the order of Pearl Harbor” would, in Brzezinski’s words, cause the American people to support an “imperial mobilization,” and a world war.
Sept. 11, and its resulting “war on terrorism” (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc.), remains the Bush administration’s endless gift from hell, in large part courtesy of Rumsfeld.
Placing the new evidence against previously revealed 9/11-related acts on the part of Rumsfeld, his guilt is overt and obvious. Recall that it was Rumsfeld who enthusiastically penned the "Go Massive" memo, gleefully declaring the Bush administration finally had the green light to kill: “Not only UBL (Usama bin Laden). Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
As the Bush administration’s war ensued in earnest, Rumsfeld gloated to the New York Times that 9/11 provided “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.”
It is not for nothing that Donald Rumsfeld was described by legendary war criminal Henry Kissinger as “the most ruthless man I’ve ever known.”
Larry Chin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Larry Chin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9002
Posted at 06:55PM May 19, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[0]
Bush PROVES he is an idiot on Yahoo Chat
What an idiot ex-Governor Bush is... holy crap... just watch this and soak in Bush's disgusting arrogance and asinine ignorance. It's hard to believe someone this stupid and self-centered can hold ANY job whatsoever, let alone President of the United States.
Posted at 10:28PM May 16, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[0]
What Should Christians Believe About Rape?
What does the Bible have to say about RAPE?
How about the dignity and position of women?
Find out for yourself.
Do the research yourself...
and then ask yourself: is this really the religion you want to belong to?
Posted at 07:02PM May 16, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[0]
And Bush & McCain think OBAMA's NAIVE????
I would like to ask Governor George W. Bush this question:
"Since WHEN is diplomacy APPEASEMENT? How do you think America WON the COLD WAR and averted WWIII? You probably aren't aware of this Mr. Bush, but it was through DIPLOMACY and DETENTE, not by 'pre-emptive' strikes based on fake CIA manufactured evidence. Mr. Bush - do you even KNOW what the word "detente" means? Or would have to ask your Daddy 'bout that first?"
MAN... I CANNOT wait until this loser bastard flees America for Paraguay and we NEVER have to hear from his sorry stupid ass again.
For GOD'sakes... have we forgotten how Bush appeased Libyan Terrorists in order to get some cheaper oil from Libya?
Bush is the ultimate LIAR and HYPOCRITE... HE is the APPEASER of TERRORISTS... how can he judge anyone else without admitting his own APPEASEMENTS to terrorists?
Remember THIS Mr. Bush???
Posted at 05:46PM May 16, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[1]
ALAN GREENSPAN - Iraq About Cheap Oil - NOT LIBERATION
I find it ironic - in late 2002 when I (and others in the 'know') said the impending invasion of IRAQ was ENTIRELY about OIL and had nothing whatsoever to do with 'Liberating the Iraqi People' (remember the first war slogan? Operation Iraqi Liberation? O.I.L.???) - I was labeled a kooky conspiracy theorist and anti-patriotic, a terrorist sympathizer and all sorts of nasty names...
But now - if I say the Iraq War was ONLY about OIL, people just shrug and say, "Yeah... I know. What's your point?"
You know - how many so called 'conspiracy theories' have to be proven correct for more people to start to look at them a bit more seriously and not just dismiss them as kooky and perhaps consider that they could actually be much more probable than unlikely?
Check out this article in which Alan Greenspan himself admits the illegal invasion of Iraq was only about OIL and why he and others had to lie about it and pretend it was about 'freeing' the Iraqi civilians (who are actually being killed by the hundreds of thousands each year by this fake war).... - Doug
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/31031
The oily truth about America’s foreign policy
By Gideon Rachman
13 May 2008 (Financial Times)
With the oil price heading upwards and President George W. Bush heading for Saudi Arabia, as part of a Middle Eastern tour, it is time to accept the truth. The pursuit of oil is fundamental to US foreign policy.
The importance of oil to American foreign policy is both obvious and curiously difficult to acknowledge in public. In the run-up to the Iraq war it was left to the left to make the argument that this was a “war for oil”. Establishment people – those in the know – rolled their eyes at this “conspiracy theory”.
Yet in recent months, both Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Senator John McCain have come close to saying that Iraq was indeed about oil. In his memoirs Mr Greenspan said he regretted that it was “politically inconvenient” to acknowledge that “the Iraq war is largely about oil”.
Earlier this month Mr McCain, who will carry the Republican banner in this year’s presidential election, promised an energy policy “that will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East” and so “prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East”.
Both Mr Greenspan and Mr McCain subsequently issued “clarifications”. Mr McCain now says that the conflict that he was thinking about was the first Gulf war of 1991. As for the Iraq war of 2003, that was about ... whatever he said it was about at the time: weapons of mass destruction, probably.
It is unfair to mock. The Iraq war was about lots of things: WMD, remaking the Middle East, democratisation, human rights, Israel, terrorism, the desire for a massive demonstration of American power. But oil was certainly among the motives. It is common to say that the Gulf is a “vital strategic area”. “Strategic” is shorthand for saying that it is home to two-thirds of the world’s known oil reserves.
However, if the invasion of Iraq was partly motivated by oil, it was a failure – in this respect, as in many others. In 2003, just before the invasion, the oil price was $26 a barrel. Today it is $126 a barrel, with reputable analysts discussing the prospect of $200 oil by the end of 2008.
Mr McCain’s promise to eliminate American dependence on Middle Eastern oil is hardly original. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made similar pledges. President Bush himself swore to end America’s “addiction to oil” a couple of years ago. President Richard Nixon made similar promises after the first oil shock of the 1970s. The reality is that things are moving in the opposite direction. In 1973 the US imported 33 per cent of its oil; today it imports about 60 per cent and this figure could rise to 70 per cent by 2020. America’s transport system is still completely dependent on oil.
American politicians have, so far, responded to this problem with a mixture of wishful thinking and anger. The calls for “energy independence” are all but universal. Money has been poured into the production of biofuels, which has helped push up food prices. But no leading politician is yet prepared to say that Americans may have to adjust their lifestyles to a world of permanently higher fuel prices.
Last week Senator Pete Domenici, a Republican, issued a plaintive appeal for “more oil and lower prices”. The Democrats are pressing for the US attorney-general to bring price collusion charges against members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. But any such action significantly overrates America’s power over the world’s oil producers. Opec members could retaliate by selling some of their huge reserves of dollars – which would hit the dollar and US consumers very hard. The world’s main oil producers have no shortage of potential customers. More than 50 per cent of Saudi oil is now exported to Asia.
Competition for the world’s oil supplies is intensifying. Chinese oil consumption doubled between 1994 and 2003 and will have doubled again by 2010. China’s foray into Africa is largely driven by its own search for “energy security”. The International Energy Agency predicts that in 2010 China will become the world’s largest consumer of energy. The IEA also thinks that the world’s energy needs will be 50 per cent higher in 2030 than they are today – and that we are going to become more, not less, reliant on fossil fuels.
This seems all too plausible. At present there are about 10 cars in China for every 1,000 people; there are 480 cars per 1,000 people in the US. But by 2015, China could be the world’s largest market for new cars.
While western politicians routinely worry about globalisation, they have yet to focus on a more plausible threat. It is not the outsourcing of well-paid jobs; or the inflow of cheap goods: it is the globalisation of western patterns of consumption. If the Chinese and Indians eventually eat and drive like Americans and Europeans, the current inflation in fuel and food prices could be just the beginning. The environmental implications are also obvious – and alarming.
So although the search for energy security is now central to American foreign policy, as it is for both the European Union and the main Asian powers, in the long run there is no real foreign policy fix for the problem. A future dominated by conflict over scarce oil resources – or truckling to oil-rich dictators – is not attractive.
The only plausible routes to “energy security” lie at home in the US – in the development of new technologies and in a change of lifestyles. Americans may have to drive their cars less. But it will be a brave presidential candidate who says that.
___________________________________________________________________________
p.s. And don't think I don't agree that Democrats knew EXACTLY what this illegal invasion of another sovereign nation was really all about and went along with it. Hillary Clinton is no better than Bush or McCain - only Barack Obama (and Ron Paul(R) of course) from the list of presidential candidates who openly opposed this fraudulent war from the very start.
Posted at 03:52PM May 13, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[2]
Check Out the Title of VINCENT BUGLIOSI's Next Book!
Vincent Bugliosi is of course - one of the most respected and well known attorneys in the United States. He successfully prosecuted Charles Manson for the Tate/Labianca murders. His bestselling book 'HELTER SKELTER' is considered a classic of courtroom non-fiction and has outsold every other book in this highly popular genre.
Check out the title of his next book:
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
by Vincent Bugliosi
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8834/
There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public — lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.
A Monumental Lie
In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.
On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.
According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.
Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.
In the original NIE report, members of the U.S. intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.
The Manning Memo
On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.
Denying Blix’s Findings
Hans Blix, the United Nation’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, in his March 7, 2003, address to the UN Security Council, said that as of that date, less than 3 weeks before Bush invaded Iraq, that Iraq had capitulated to all demands for professional, no-notice weapons inspections all over Iraq and agreed to increased aerial surveillance by the U.S. over the “no-fly” zones. Iraq had directed the UN inspectors to sites where illicit weapons had been destroyed and had begun to demolish its Al Samoud 2 missiles, as requested by the UN. Blix added that “no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found” by his inspectors and “no underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.” He said that for his inspectors to absolutely confirm that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) “will not take years, nor weeks, but months.”
Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief UN nuclear inspector in Iraq and director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the UN Security Council that, “we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.”
The UN inspectors were making substantial progress and Hussein was giving them unlimited access. Why was Bush in such an incredible rush to go to war?
Hussein Disarms, so Bush … Goes to War
When it became clear that the whole purpose of Bush’s prewar campaign — to get Hussein to disarm — was being (or already had been) met, Bush and his people came up with a demand they had never once made before — that Hussein resign and leave Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Bush said in a speech to the nation that, “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.” Military conflict — the lives of thousands of young Americans on the line — because Bush trumped up a new line in the sand?
The Niger Allegation
One of the most notorious instances of the Bush administration using thoroughly discredited information to frighten the American public was the 16 words in Bush’s January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The Niger allegation was false, and the Bush administration knew it was false.
Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador to Iraq, was sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate a supposed memo that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake (a form of lightly processed ore) to Iraq by Niger in the late 1990s. Wilson reported back to the CIA that it was “highly doubtful” such a transaction had ever taken place.
On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei told the UN Security Council that “based on thorough analysis” his agency concluded that the “documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.” Indeed, author Craig Unger uncovered at least 14 instances prior to the 2003 State of the Union address in which analysts at the CIA, the State Department, or other government agencies that had examined the Niger documents “raised serious doubts about their legitimacy — only to be rebuffed by Bush administration officials who wanted to use them.”
On October 5 and 6, 2002, the CIA sent memos to the National Security Council, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and to the White House Situation Room stating that the Niger information was no good.
On January 24, 2003, four days before the president’s State of the Union address, the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, which oversees all federal agencies that deal with intelligence, sent a memo to the White House stating that “the Niger story is baseless and should be laid to rest.”
The 9/11 Lie
The Bush administration put undue pressure on U.S. intelligence agencies to provide it with conclusions that would help them in their quest for war. Bush’s former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, said that on September 12, 2001, one day after 9/11, “The President in a very intimidating way left us — me and my staff — with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11.”
Bush said on October 7, 2002, “We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade,” and that “Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.” Of Hussein, he said on November 1, 2002, “We know he’s got ties with Al Qaeda.”
Even after Bush admitted on September 17, 2003, that he had “no evidence” that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, he audaciously continued, in the months and years that followed, to clearly suggest, without stating it outright, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.
On March 20, 2006, Bush said, “I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America.”
Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder is available May 27.
Here's his website:
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/
Posted at 04:08AM May 12, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[0]
Howard Roark's Courtroom Speech
Howard Roark's
Courtroom Speech
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
(If you've never read or heard this - I highly encourage you to read it. - Doug)
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.
“That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.
“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.
“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.
“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.
“Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.
“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.
“The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.
“The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.
“The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.
“Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.
“No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of expoloitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.
“The man who attemps to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.
“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.
“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.
“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.
“Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
“This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
“The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.
“The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.
“Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.
“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.
“No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.
“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.
“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.
“Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.
“But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.
“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.
“The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.
“The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.
“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!
“Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.
“It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amok. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.
“I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live."
Posted at 01:07PM May 07, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[1]
REPUBLICAN SENATOR QUESTIONS OFFICIAL 9/11 LIES
Finally - people in the right places are beginning to awaken to the TRUTH and openly questioning the LIES of the illegal Bush/Cheney Mis-Administration. Eventually the TRUTH about how 9/11 was STAGED by the C.I.A. will be revealed - and the true culprits - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rove, et all will face either lifetime prison sentences at Guantanamo Bay - or will be executed for treason against the United States and the Constitution by a just court of law.
- Doug
_________________________________________________________________________________
Backing my claims about 9/11 questions
Comments 39 | Recommend 21
Karen S. Johnson, Senator-R; Commentary
A recent letter to the editor asked for evidence of my claims regarding the tragedy of 9/11. Below I present some points that are presently known. I won’t be able to convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced, but for those who are willing to deal with factual evidence, consider the following:
• 37 different people reported explosions in the basement of the World Trade Center Towers before the first plane hit, and seismic equipment recorded both the explosions and the impacts. In addition, people were injured by the explosions in the basement, providing well-documented evidence. Yet this evidence is ignored.
•The media and government have promoted the “pancake theory” as the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers — that is, fire weakened the steel support beams, causing the upper floors to collapse. Then the weight of the collapsing floors above caused the floors below to collapse. This theory is not consistent with scientific principles or the facts. Frank Legge, who has a doctorate in chemistry, and Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer, reported in December in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: “It appears therefore that the official concept of a free-fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation story, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur” — and everyone agrees that it did not — “it could not have happened in the observed manner. In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse.”
• The theory that the buildings collapsed due to controlled-demolition explosives, however, is consistent with scientific principles and the facts. The “demolition” theory, in fact, is the only one which scientists have been able to corroborate. That is, “… all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a time sequence.” (Legge and Szamboti, December, Journal of 9/11 Studies.)
• Peer-reviewed reports indicate that the masses of dust particles created by the disaster contained tiny pieces of metal that had been exposed to both extreme temperatures (higher than could have been produced by a burning office or burning airplane fuel) and extreme pressure (such as an explosion) that would fragment material into minute particles. Official reports ignore this.
• In December, physicist Steven Jones announced the discovery of thermite chips in World Trade Center dust samples. The chemical composition of these chips are an exact match to known thermite samples used in controlled demolitions — further corroboration that explosive devices were involved.
• Steel support beams recovered from the site of the World Trade Center exhibit cut edges that are characteristic of thermite used to slice steel support beams in building demolitions but are not characteristic of steel beams that have been burned in a fire.
When the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, it was woefully inadequate. It never even addressed the collapse of Building 7, for example. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has stated that there are inaccuracies in the report and unanswered questions. Even the two chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton — have accused the CIA of “obstructing” the commission, and one commissioner, U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, resigned, stating that the commission was “compromised.”
Private individuals with specialized knowledge — scientists, engineers, architects, demolitions experts, and the firefighters and police officers who were on the scene on Sept. 11, 2001, have tested theories, constructed models, provided testimony, and dug for the truth about what really happened on 9/11. They have been ignored by media and the government.
The mainstream media parrot the less-than-credible conclusions of the 9/11 Commission without giving any thought to the many omissions and inconsistencies. In a truly free country, the press would ask hard questions and do real investigating, but this is not happening. Only the alternative media, such as Internet news sites, have done any solid investigating.
The events of 9/11 led immediately to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and passage of the Patriot Act (what double-speak), both of which deprive us of Constitutional rights and have brought us to the brink of becoming a police state. Homeland Security is currently trying to force a national ID card down our throats, although some governors have politely (or not so politely) told Secretary Michael Chertoff where he can go.
If we’re going to sacrifice our freedom, there ought to be a very good reason, and we have a right to know what that is. It isn’t enough for government to say, “Trust me.” It’s way past time for Congress to authorize an independent investigation of 9/11 that will consider the mass of new evidence that has been gathered in the past seven years. The longer they stall, the more suspicions grow.
Sen. Karen S. Johnson, R-Mesa, represents District 18.
Posted at 09:31AM May 05, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[4]
Election Machine Hacker New GOP Leader in S.D.
BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 5/2/2008 6:05AM
RAW STORY: San Diego GOP Chair Revealed as Infamous International Software Hacker
Where 'Last Ninja II' Was Cracked in Minutes, Warez Like 'Diebold GEMS/Accuvote' Will Surely Confound an Infamous Pirate Like 'Strider,' Right?
Any job applicant knows that background checks are routine – especially for jobs involving authority or oversight of money. So why didn’t the San Diego Republican Party do a simple Google search before naming Tony Krvaric as its chairman?
...Or did they?...
Online research reveals that Krvaric is the co-founder of Fairlight, a band of software crackers which later evolved into an international video and software piracy group that law enforcement authorities say is among the world’s largest such crime rings.
...Well, go figure.
That skill set should come in very handy down there in, of all places, San Diego, where the far-right Republican Board of Supes, and the far-right Republican Registrar of Voters office, have never met a hackable Diebold electronic voting system they didn't love. "It's well known inside the computer hacking world that well-paid hackers were used to crack Diebold's computerized voting system to give Bush apparent victories in the 2000 and 2004 election which he otherwise would have lost resoundingly."
I recall "Strider" (Krvaric) and the "Fairlight" boyz from my own C-64 and BBS "warez" swapping days in the late 80's. Those guys, and the other incredibly competitive pirate crews, could crack anything, anytime, usually within minutes after a new piece of software hit the market (and often, even before it did!).
But no doubt, the air-tight, mission-critical, impenetrable security in Diebold's voting systems would be beyond the reach of d00dz like Strider and friends. And, of course, there's far more to gain by a 17-year-old "Strider" cracking the codes of, say, International Karate Plus and Shoot 'em Up Construction Kit than there ever would be for him, as county GOP chair, to hack an election in San Diego, right? I mean, what would possibly be the upside to that?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/San_Diego_GOP_chairman_cofounded_international_0425.html
In other news - here's the closest thing we've gotten to a confession as to why the C.I.A. staged the 9/11 attacks and framed patsies from the Middle East in order to win broad public support for an all out pre-emptive invasion of the Iraqi oilfields and it comes from none other than ReichsMarshal John McCain.
“My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.
REASON FOR WAR IN MIDDLE EAST = "dependence on oil from the Middle East"... (NOT TERRORISM - NOT 9/11)... right from ReichsMarshal McCain's own foul mouth
Posted at 11:24AM May 03, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[0]
Grad Student Rips BU For Block
This was sent to me via "R.clskj02"
Grad Student Rips B.U. For
Blocking 911 Inquiry
5-2-8
Grad student declares BU "illegitimate" for blocking legitimate inquiry into 9/11, war on terror, Bush/Cheney impeachment
Boston University graduate student Christian Tutschka's efforts to initiate legitimate inquiry into impeachable offenses committed by President Bush and vice-President Dick Cheney have been blocked by the university's faculty. On March 31, 2008, Tutschka wrote a letter to the university's president declaring the institution's illegitimacy, supporting his contention with BU's own mission statement to "serve the future" and higher education's purpose to "...tolerate all points of view..." and subject them "...to vigorous criticism..." The university's response was not to honor their student's legitimate concerns by facilitating the inquiry he seeks, but to try fitting Tutschka with a "psychological jacket" intended to brand him as mentally unstable. As you will see, Tutschka is quite lucid. Following is the letter he sent to BU President Robert A. Brown. In it, Tutschka, a member of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth, places the university in a position where it must either concede and approve the time and resources necessary to facilitate legitimate inquiry into questions about 9/11, the subsequent war on terror and the war crimes Tutschka and others are alleging against Bush and Cheney...or...refuse to open its doors to such inquiry. Thus far, Boston University has chosen the latter.
Letter to President of Boston University, March 31, 2008
Dear President Brown,
My name is Christian Tutschka and I am a M.A. candidate in the International Relations and Environmental Policy (IREP) Program here at Boston University.
I believe Boston University is an illegitimate "university" or "institution of higher learning." Beginning today I will suspend my participation in the IREP program at BU until I once again believe BU is a legitimate institution. The following will explain this decision:
The Role and Purpose of the "University"
BU Website: "Forging our future More than any other institution in our society, the modern university exists to serve the future. Boston University does this by educating individuals for fulfilling, productive lives and by creating solutions to pressing or anticipated problems through research." [i]
John Silber, Former BU President (1971-1996): "A university - whether publicly or privately funded - cannot pursue the truth and advance knowledge unless it can proceed in freedom with toleration of all points of view and with vigorous criticism of each" (Excerpt from Silber's essay, "On the Purpose of a University," which was, until recently, on display at Mugar Library).
Given this role and purpose, the "university" acts as a "power center" of our society. A societal "power center" is an institution dedicated to serving society with the ability to influence the direction of a society.
The Failure of BU as a "University"
BU has failed to perform its role and purpose due to the following three reasons:
1) Impeachment: There is clear evidence that members of the Bush administration have committed not only impeachable offenses, but crimes against humanity, some of which include: lying to the public about the threat of the Iraqi regime, the illegal invasion and occupation of two sovereign nations (which has cost the lives of over 4000 U.S. soldiers[ii], left thousands permanently disabled and has killed over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians[iii]), using illegal weapons of mass destruction, failing to protect civilians in war zones, condoning torture, illegal spying on Americans, and the list goes on.[iv]
The fact that Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings against members of the Bush administration is evidence that each member of Congress is a political criminal for failing in their Constitutional duty to protect the Constitution and act as a check against an abusive and tyrannical executive branch.
In effect, our system of government has, over the years, become completely corrupt and all of our public officials in Washington, D.C. are corrupt political criminals. When this occurs, it is the duty of the other "power centers" of society to demand their removal. BU has failed to do this.
2) 9/11: There are many legitimate professionals in various disciplines that question the findings presented in the 9/11 Commission Report concerning the events of 9/11 due to the uncontroversial evidence-much of it not investigated by the Commission-that demonstrates various events could not have occurred as described in the Report.[v]
As 9/11 was the event that launched the global "war on terrorism" which continues to affect the global community, these professionals are demanding a new, independent investigation. BU has failed to publicly demand a new, independent investigation and rather has promoted the conclusions of the flawed 9/11 Commission Report.
3) My Experience: When sharing some of these ideas with some professors, I have been ignored, dismissed, and even reprimanded. This is incompatible with free, critical thought which is necessary for determining truth and serving society.
Furthermore, I have witnessed statements and behaviors from professors regarding these issues that have left me shocked and disappointed. Some statements contained such false understandings or flawed reasoning that the consequences could be described as dangerous given that these individuals are professional educators. As the list is long, I have not included it here, but I can provide it per request.
The Challenge for Re-Legitimization
I will consider BU to be a legitimate "university" if:
1) Congress has initiated impeachment proceedings against members of the Bush Administration and a new, independent investigation of the events of 9/11 commences and BU has been instrumental in causing this.
OR
2) I receive satisfactory answers to all of the following questions:
For the Physics and Engineering Professors:
1. How could World Trade Centers 1 and 2, both 110-story steel-framed structures, collapse in an average of about 10 seconds which is a rate at or exceeding free-fall speed from fire and the impact of the planes? The 9/11 Commission Report explains these collapses as "pancake collapses," however this type of collapse would take considerably longer. Also, the "pancake collapse" theory cannot account for the destruction of the interior steel-beam core, or the complete pulverization of the buildings.[vi]
2. How could World Trade Center 7, a 47-story steel-framed structure, collapse in under 7 seconds in a controlled-demolition style at around 5:20 p.m. on the afternoon of 9/11 when it was not hit by a plane and received considerably less damage than other WTC buildings which were left partially standing? The 9/11 Commission Report did not even mention the collapse of WTC 7.[vii]
For the Law Professors:
3. How can the various acts of the Bush administration not be considered impeachable offenses and crimes against humanity?
4. How can members of Congress not be considered "political criminals" for not initiating impeachment proceedings against members of the Bush administration (both Representatives for not initiating the process and Senators for not demanding that they do)?
5. How is this country not turning into a type of totalitarian "police state," complete with concentration camps,[viii] given the various unconstitutional acts passed by Congress and the various unconstitutional National Security Presidential Directives, Homeland Security Presidential Directives, and Executive Orders passed by the Bush administration?[ix]
For the Military and Intelligence Professors:
6. Why were there military drills that occurred on 9/11, some simulating very similar events as which occurred on 9/11? (The drills: Amalgam Virgo, Vigilant Guardian, Northern Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance, Amalgam Warrior, Global Guardian, Crown Vigilance, Apollo Guardian, National Reconnaissance Office, AWACS, Fort Meyer - Virginia, TRIPOD II - Manhattan, Timely Alert II.)[x]
7. Professor Michel Chossudovsky has compiled a wealth of evidence concerning the links between the CIA, Osama bin Laden, "Al Qaeda," and the Pakistani ISI which supports the claim that Osama bin Laden and the "Al Qaeda" network are agents of the U.S. military/intelligence complex.[xi] Given this evidence, how can one claim that Al Qaeda is anything but a manufactured "scapegoat enemy" working, at least in part, for the U.S. military/intelligence complex?
For the History Professors:
8. The U.S. entered major conflicts in the 20th Century only after being provoked. There is evidence that some of these provocations were either "false-flag attacks" (Sinking of the RMS Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident), or were allowed to happen (Pearl Harbor).[xii] Given this history, how is it possible that 9/11 could not also be a false-flag attack to launch the global "war on terror" and justify the invasion of Middle Eastern states?
9. How is the Bush Family, going back to grandfather Prescott Bush and his involvement in building Hitler's Nazi regime, not a crime family?[xiii]
For the BU Administration:
10. Within hours of the attacks on 9/11, the Bush Administration blamed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. There was no investigation carried out before this claim was made. Did BU demand an official independent investigation into the events of 9/11 before or after this claim was made? If not, why not?
11. If I am mistaken, and BU is indeed a legitimate "university," I would like BU to explain to me how my reasoning is flawed.
If I do not receive a response from Boston University regarding this letter, or this letter is dismissed or ridiculed in any way, I will consider this a violation of the role and purpose of a university. Furthermore, if I am dismissed from Boston University as a consequence of this letter and the decision stated in this letter, I will also consider this a violation of the role and purpose of a university and I will take appropriate action against Boston University.
Sincerely,
Christian Tutschka
[Letter, references and comments at
Note: Tutschka spoke with BU Physics Professor and Associate Dean Scott Whitaker about the letter on the morning of April 2. Attending the meeting was Margaret Ross, a psychologist and director of Behavioral Medicine at the BU Student Health Services. Whitaker and Ross were concerned by what Tutschka meant by "appropriate action."
"I assured them that I am nonviolent and my actions would be legal and civil," Tutschka said.
According to Tutschka, Ross commented that she was interested in the 9/11 issue and invited the protesting student to come talk to her about it at a later date. He also recalled that Whitaker evaded taking a position on questions concerning 9/11 or the impeachment issue.
We found this letter and the institutional actions that prompted it to be extremely revealing of a major mechanism of control in this country: Higher education. Tutschka posed legitimate questions to relevant department heads at BU and they chose to remain silent about a series of events that have justified the mass murder of innocents, the wanton destruction of property and nations, the displacement of millions of people and escalating public debt.
Tutschka's point is well made: When government fails to check and balance its abuses, then the nation's "power centers"-universities, churches and trade organizations-must step in to do the checking and balancing. For any of these institutions, in this case an accredited university, to fail us in this critical regard, they become accessories to the crimes alleged.
This courageous and principled, 27-year-old graduate student has inadvertently created a model for us all to follow.
· Based upon the FACT that 9/11 was not adequately investigated and the government's explanations for the tragic events of that day are not supported by the laws of natural science, the evidence or witness testimony;
· based upon the FACT that the government's unsubstantiated explanation for 9/11 justified its preconceived desire to wage a general war on terrorism and target specific countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran;
· based upon the FACT that the war on terror has been used to justify the most comprehensive government trespass on civil liberties in our nation's history;
· based upon the FACT that the Bush administration has used it's war on terror to justify unprecedented levels of public indebtedness that is destroying our nation's economic stability...
...we should send open letters to the churches, schools, professional organizations, labor unions and civic clubs and compel them, as our country's power centers, to take a public stand on these issues for the good of our nation and our world. In the absence of these organizations taking a stand for truth, justice and the law, we should discontinue our membership. Others will see the logic and may be compelled to discontinue their membership in these organizations as well.
The Bush administration and its corporate friends in oil, chemical, pharmaceutical, agribusiness, military industries and the media is encouraged to continue its campaign to justify the spread of death, destruction and misery, based upon the lies of 9/11, because our power centers remain silent.
At this time, our choice is to demand that the organizations to which we claim membership publicly demand investigations and indictments of these matters where appropriate. If they fail to do so, we must be prepared to sever our ties to them-at whatever cost.
Christian Tutschka, an intelligent and passionate young man with a bright future, made that choice. He decided that is was more important to make a stand for his country's future-the future of his generation-than it was to silently tolerate these heinous crimes in hopes that this spreading evil won't affect him. The best way we can honor his decision is by duplicating his efforts.
Posted at 08:37PM May 02, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[2]
A very VERY Rare Personal Business Endorsement
As you have probably discerned throughout the semester - I am not a big fan of International Mega-Corporations or Big Neo-Con Republican Government hiding under the artificial aegis of 'patriotic capitalism' or the tyranny of 'international business law'.
Our Federal Reserve system is a ticking time bomb which when it goes off - will end America's sovereignty, destroy the Constitution and eliminate our Rights as Citizens, and make us all indentured slaves to our new Global Corporate Masters.
That's inevitable. But it can at least be delayed.
With that said - I do not trust banks which are connected to the fascist Federal Reserve system whatsoever. I hesitate to borrow from the banks which feed the pockets of the Global Elites and further their agenda.
This then - is a rare, but heartfelt public testimonial and endorsement of the ONE place I have found that it's safe and "green" to borrow money from and not pay into the coming One World Global Government of Corporate Fascism.
If I'm going to borrow money (which I have to do constantly as I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth like most Neo-Cons) - I prefer to do it through a reputable, SMALL AMERICAN business loan agency - and the only one I've found which treats you fairly, lets you sit down and talk person to person with a human being and educates you as well as assists you is DOLLAR LOAN CENTER which you can find around here in Sioux Falls and Yankton. (I've heard there's even some in LAS VEGAS!)
Yes - the interest can be slightly higher than a bank - but at least you're not dumping your hard earned cash into the coffers of the Global Elites so to speak. This is money that gets retained by AMERICAN business men and women just like you or me. There's no INTERNATIONAL BANKING SYNDICATE getting rich and fat behind an authentic, homespun small borrowing business like this.
I do my homework before I use ANY business because I don't want my hard-earned American money going to support slave labor in China or Indonesia. I don't want my American Dollar converted into a Euro and spent on 24k gold toilet seats in some European Bank.
The profits a small loaning business like DOLLAR LOAN CENTER earns in AMERICA also STAY in AMERICA and benefits small AMERICAN business leaders and encourages American business growth - it does not go into the coffers of the INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE GIANTS. The small interest you pay at a place like DOLLAR LOAN CENTER goes towards building up America - NOT CHINA or GERMANY or SAUDI ARABIA.
The reason I chose to personally endorse DOLLAR LOAN CENTER is because I've done business with them many times. I've also done business with those nasty - bullet-proof window "Check Cashing" places of which there are hundreds - and every time I've went there - I've been screwed royally and treated like a bum. One bizarre guy at one of those places even refused my service because he couldn't reconcile the fact I had cut my hair and shaved my beard and didn't EXACTLY match the picture on my I.D. I've had nothing but frustration with those kinds of "Quick Cash" places and I will NEVER use them again.
But DOLLAR LOAN CENTER is set up more like a bank. It's clean and elegant. If you've ever been inside of a DOLLAR LOAN CENTER, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. There are beautiful secretaries (OMFG!) who are professionals and they treat you like a welcome guest, not just another transient off the street.
When you go into the office and meet with an actual loan officer - you are treated like you are a real individual - like this is YOUR high class bank and you are a high class customer.
The process is simple and they don't even require that you have a checking account or go through all that stuff - and the best and most ingenious aspect of this busines model in my personal opinion is that unlike all the other "Check Writing" places which hold your check for 2 weeks or more and then charge you full interest - DOLLAR LOAN CENTER actually only asks that you pay the interest for the ACTUAL amount of time you need before you pay back the loan.
So if that's just ONE DAY - you only have to pay ONE DAY's interest. If it's four days, twenty days, whatever - you only pay interest for the actual time you are borrowing - not a set interest time which in unchangeable and works against you if you are able to pay back the loan much quicker than the offered borrowed time.
For instance - I usually run out of money about three days before my next paycheck. If I go to "Check Write" or whatever - they charge me interest for TWO WEEKS - as that is how long they will hold my check.
But at DOLLAR LOAN CENTER - they will only charge me for the actual THREE DAYS I need until I get my next paycheck. They are losing profit in order to HELP me PAY LESS. You can't beat that and you won't find it any elsewhere that I know of at least.
Like I said - I RARELY endorse a business - but when I do - there's good reason - and this one has saved my butt too many times, especially with helping me keep up to date on my date/time sensitive payments, and I give it my full endorsement and thanks for doing what they do and keeping the money here in AMERICA and not giving it out to the International Banking Cartels which only want to destroy America's economic sovereignty and replace ALL small American private banks and borrowers with a Global Banking System.
http://www.dontbebroke.com
- Doug
Posted at 04:48PM May 02, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[0]
****PLEASE READ THIS ENTRY ASAP!!!
You are all invited to a benefit for Annie Christain, who is a PhD student, a TA in English, and a poet. Thanks to Sarah Garelik for organizing this event -- good food for a good cause!
Please join us for an end-of-the year BBQ to benefit Annie Christain
Annie has been recently diagnosed with a condition which will cause her to lose her vision if left untreated. She doesn’t have health insurance, so we are trying to raise some money for her.
Festivities will include:
* music by Narrative Feed, The Golden Bubbles (Chris V’s band), and At Ease (Simon and Joe’s band)
* a BBQ of delicious meats and meat-like vegetable products
* a silent auction (including baked goods, poems, and rare signed x-rays of Annie’s optic nerve!)
* a bar (wine, beer, and other much-needed end-of-semester beverages for a small donation)
When: 6:00, Friday, May 2nd (the last day of classes!
Where: basement of the United Church of Christ, Congregational, 226 East Main St. (due to weather)
Tickets: email sarah.garelik@usd.edu to buy (you choose the price of your ticket: $15-$50)
Because of the generous donations of time, talent, and food, all proceeds will go to Annie!
See you there!
The previously announced benefit for Annie Christain (and her squished optic nerves) is being moved to a different location because of anticipated bad weather. Join us in the basement of the United Church of Christ, Congregational, 226 East Main St., in Vermillion, starting at 6:00 p.m. tomorrow (Friday, May 2) -- a big thank you is due to the UCC and Pastor Steve Miller for donating this space at the last minute.
Celebrate the end of the semester with music and good food, and give Annie some much-appreciated support!
A few more details:
· If you have any small items in good condition (books, gadgets, art items, etc.) and would like to contribute them to the silent auction, please bring them with you.
· Donations of food and beverages are welcome; please contact Sarah.Garelik@usd.edu if you can help with this. Note that the UCC is a no-alcohol venue, so any alcoholic beverages contributed will be added to the silent auction rather than served at the event.
· A benefit account has been opened at Wells Fargo bank (branch in Jones Food Center). Checks may be made out to Annie Christain.
· Tickets for the barbecue are available in advance from Sarah.Garelik@usd.edu or at the door. Choose your price: $15-$50.
Thanks to everyone involved.
Posted at 10:59AM Apr 30, 2008 by Douglas Lee Bryenldson in General | Comments[0]