Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Interrogating 9/11, Five Years On

9/11 And Truth

Interrogating 9/11 Five Years On… © By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

 Permission to re-send, post and place on web sites
for non-commercial purposes, and if shown only in its entirety
with no changes or additions.

This notice must accompany all re-posting.

It has been half a decade since the United States came under an unprecedented coordinated terrorist attack on some of its most prominent symbols of power. First the North, then the South, Towers of the World Trade Centre (WTC) in New York were hit by civilian airplanes. Then even the heart of the US military, the Pentagon, was struck, and finally a civilian plane, apparently destined for the White House, ended up crashing in Pennsylvania.
   Most of us remember watching the TV screens in absolute shock and horror, as first one, then the other, WTC towers collapsed in on themselves in a cloud of smoke and debris. Some of us experienced unbearable grief as we witnessed or later learned that our own loved ones were among those thousands of people who were brutally, gruesomely slain. Since then, there have been many other terrorist attacks on Western targets in Indonesia, Turkey, Spain, Britain, and elsewhere. And, we are told, there have been countless other attempted terrorist attacks foiled by the authorities.
   The enemy is not always easy to identify – but their broad contours, our leaders say, are well-known. “The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organisations known as al Qaeda,” declared US President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks… Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world – and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere… This group and its leader – a person named Osama bin Laden – are linked to many other organisations in different countries… There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighbourhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. And thereafter was officially launched the “War on Terror,” an unlimited war against an amorphous network of Islamist extremists who could strike out at any time, in any place, without warning, and without mercy, in order to pursue their ultimate goal of global domination.

Cold War Pentagon Memo Confirms State-Sponsored Self Terrorism

For those well-versed in the history of Western covert operations, the official narrative of 9/11 could not simply be accepted at face value. Questions were perfectly legitimate. But the 9/11 truth movement has largely missed the value of one of the biggest “covert operation smoking guns” of 20th century history: Operation Gladio, perhaps the only instance of successfully completed state-sponsored self-terrorism that is fully and directly confirmed by declassified secret documents, European Parliamentary inquiries, and confessions from intelligence operatives.
   The most authoritative study of this ‘Strategy of Tension’, NATO’s Secret Armies, was released last year, and authored by Dr. Daniele Ganser, Senior Researcher at the Centre for Security Studies in the Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. His groundbreaking book shows that it is now a matter of historical record that during the Cold War, high-level sections of the American, British and western European secret services participated in a sophisticated NATO-backed operation to engineer domestic terrorist attacks to be blamed on the Soviet Union. The objective was to mobilise drastic anti-Communist policies at home and abroad, and to legitimise interventionism against nationalist independence movements throughout the “Third World.”

1.   In July 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered the establishment of a secret army to “set Europe ablaze by assisting resistance movements and carrying out subversive operations in enemy held territory.”

2.   By 4 October 1945, the British Chiefs of Staff and the Special Operations branch of MI6 directed the creation of a “skeleton network” capable of expansion either in war or to service clandestine operations abroad.

3.   In the ensuing years, Col. Gubbins’ Special Operations branch of MI6 cooperated closely with Frank Wisner’s CIA covert action department Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) on White House orders, and in turn coordinated US and UK Special Forces, to establish stay-behind secret armies across western Europe.

4.   The programme soon developed into a dangerous conglomerate of unaccountable covert operations controlled by clandestine structures operating as parallel sub-sections of the main intelligence services. Dr. Ganser does us the greatest service in unearthing the only smoking gun Pentagon memo which proves that state-sponsored self-terrorism is standard strategy for elements of Western military-intelligence services: classified Field Manual 30-31, with appendices FM 30-31A and FM 30-31B, authored by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). As Ganser observes: “FM 30-31 instructs the secret soldiers to carry out acts of violence in times of peace and then blame them on the Communist enemy in order to create a situation of fear and alertness. Alternatively, the secret soldiers are instructed to infiltrate the left-wing movements and then urge them to use violence.” In the manual’s own words: There may be times when Host Country Governments show passivity or indecision in the face of Communist subversion and according to the interpretation of the US secret services do not react with sufficient effectiveness… US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger. To reach this aim US army intelligence should seek to penetrate the insurgency by means of agents on special assignment, with the task of forming special action groups among the most radical elements of the insurgency… In case it has not been possible to successfully infiltrate such agents into the leadership of the rebels it can be useful to instrumentalise extreme leftist organisations for one’s own ends in order to achieve the above described targets… These special operations must remain strictly secret.

5.   In this way, US and UK intelligence services orchestrated devastating waves of terrorist attacks blamed on the Soviet Union, not only in Italy, but also in Spain, Germany, France, Turkey, Greece, and throughout western Europe. Reasonable Doubt… But why suspect that the same thing is happening now in the new “War on Terror”? The answer lies in what almost amounts to a signed confession in the form of the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document published one year prior to 9/11 by the neo-conservative think-tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The document was sponsored by all the leading lights of the Bush Cabinet, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, among many others.

6.   It advocates a “blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.” The US military is described as “the cavalry on the new American frontier,” whose “core mission” is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” to preserve what is candidly portrayed as a “global Pax Americana.” But the most significant revelation is on pages 62-63, stating that: Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of US national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets.… Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

7.   The PNAC blueprint echoed the strategic concerns about legitimising US military expansionism expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to President Carter, made three years earlier: The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.

8.   Immediately, it becomes clear that interrogating the US government’s relationship to 9/11 is absolutely essential. It seems that in the preceding years, senior US policymakers had seriously contemplated the usefulness of a Pearl Harbor-scale attack to mobilise domestic populations in support of US military power projection. As Daniel Ellsberg, Special Assistant to the Assistant Defense Secretary of the United States during the Vietnam War, who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers, asked in June this year: Is this administration capable, humanly and psychologically of engineering such a provocation [as 9/11]? Yes, I would say that, I worked for such an administration myself, Johnson, ah, President Johnson put destroyers in harm’s way in the Tonkin Gulf not only once, but several times, with the, with a lot of his people hoping that it would lead to a confrontation and claiming that it had. And could have resulted in the loss of many lives in the course of it.

9.

9/11 Commission: Denounced by the 9/11 Families

   Thankfully, not everyone bought into the official narrative of 9/11 so easily. Least of all the bereaved families of the 9/11 victims, many of whom struggled and lobbied despite their own mourning for an independent public inquiry into the terrorist attacks, an inquiry that might resolve the numerous questions that hung over almost every single dimension of the government’s explanation for what had happened that Tuesday morning. The 9/11 families’ courageous struggle, supported by a loose association of researchers, organisations and activists around the United States and the world, forced the US government to hold first the Joint Inquiry by the House and Senate, and finally to instate the National Commission to Investigate the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, in Washington DC. But despite both processes making public some valuable new information about the attacks and raising a few important questions, they were ultimately pitiful failures in the task of genuinely, impartially interrogating the 9/11 attacks.
   Last year on 22 July, I had the honour of testifying as an expert at a special all-day Congressional hearing in Washington sponsored by Hon. Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Hon. Rep. Raul Grijalva, “The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizen’s Response – Did They Get it Right?” I was joined by a host of academic experts, journalists, and former senior US intelligence officers, all of them questioning the official 9/11 narrative from their own perspectives. But by far the most powerful address was from the 9/11 families who came to support and inform the meeting, including Robert McIlvaine, father of 9/11 victim and member of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows; Marilyn Rosenthal, mother of 9/11 victim, and professor at University of Michigan; and especially Lauri von Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Monica Gabrielle representing the 911 Family Steering Committee. “This report was supposed to provide the definitive account of what had transpired on September 11, 2001,” said von Auken in her opening address at the hearing. “We hoped that our thousands of unanswered questions would be addressed and answered. Yet, incredibly, we have found that the Commission’s definitive final report has actually yielded more questions than answers.” She indicted the 9/11 Commission Report as just “some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people, violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us one day soon.”

10.   Her characterisation of the Commission Report was the most damning condemnation that the 9/11 Families Steering Committee had ever made about the official inquiry process. Yet it was met with resounding silence from the American media, which refused to report the hearing in general, and ignored von Auken’s heart-rending testimony on behalf of the 9/11 families.
   Whither the Movement? Five years on from 9/11, the “truth movement” that has emerged in the vacuum of legitimate answers to the countless questions about the terrorist attacks remains in a state of internal disarray, despite significant progress and achievements. The movement is plagued with accusations and counter-accusations between researchers based on their theoretical preferences about what happened on 9/11. With an almost religious zeal, activists hurl outraged condemnations and paranoid allegations at each other.
   Splits in the movement are innumerable, mutual suspicions that other parties are “disinformation agents” are rife, and fruitless regressive arguments and counter-arguments continue on the most speculative minutiae of the attacks, without any clear resolution in sight. Perhaps one of the most obvious splits worth noting here is the apparent gulf between “physical evidence” theorists, who emphasise discrepancies in official accounts of the collapse of the WTC buildings, the movements of the planes that hit the buildings, and the Pentagon crash, among other things; and “covert operations” theorists, who emphasise the role of intelligence operations in liaising with terrorist networks, the extent of prior advanced warnings of the attacks, and the manipulation of “terrorist threats” to justify the pursuit of US geostrategic interests on the pretext of fighting the “War on Terror.”
   Even within these particular “schools,” there are vitriolic disputes between “9/11-truthers,” some advocating that there were no planes on 9/11, others that the planes were military aircraft, some that there were no hijackers, others that the hijackers were patsies, and so on and so forth. Most of these quite specific disagreements about how to interpret the available data remain unresolved on the whole, despite individual opinions. To some extent, the disputes have manifested in the form of seemingly hostile exchanges between various camps, such as the recent observations made by Michael C. Ruppert to the effect that the 9/11 movement has virtually killed itself by getting obsessed with physical evidence, and the responses that followed suggesting physical evidence provides the most convincing case.
   As readers familiar with my work will know, I myself prefer to engage in the kind of research loosely categorised here as belonging to the “covert operations” camp, but this has nothing to do with my view of the value of the evidence at hand. On the contrary, it is largely to do with my own expertise in international relations and conflict analysis, and my lack of familiarity with the relevant scientific disciplines. Having said that, the overemphasis on particular kinds of 9/11 research at the expense of others, for the movement as a whole, must be dropped. The fact of the matter is that both kinds of research are essential to develop a full and accurate understanding of what happened on 9/11, how and why.
   An impartial inspection of the relevant data in these two seemingly opposed areas of analysis firstly shows that there is a great deal we do know about what happened, and secondly opens up new avenues of inquiry about what we still don’t know.

The World Trade Centre: Demolishing Conventional Collapse Theories

   Thankfully, there are non-scientists unlike myself who despite a lack of specifically relevant qualifications, do feel confident about addressing some of the physical and scientific issues concerning 9/11. Some of the best work on this subject has, indeed, been done by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, who applies his well-honed academic methods of analytical analysis to the questions surrounding the collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings. Griffin is perhaps best known in the movement for his New Pearl Harbor (2004), which attempted to summarise the best evidence about 9/11 produced by other researchers, including apart from myself, Paul Thompson at the Centre for Cooperative Research and author of The Terror Timeline; Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa; and Michael Ruppert, former LAPD narcotics investigator who uncovered CIA narco-trafficking and author of Crossing the Rubicon. But Griffin went further in using the works of researchers like Eric Hufschmidt, a non-scientist who collected together serious discrepancies in the government’s claims about the WTC collapses, and Jim Hoffman, who specialises in applying scientific visualisations of mathematics. Griffin also tackled the anomalies in official accounts about the Pentagon crash.
   Griffin’s best work in this area was published earlier this year in what is arguably the best collection of academic 9/11 research to date. The collection, "Hidden History of 9-11-2001", was published in the peer-reviewed annual volume Research in Political Economy (RPE), edited by Paul Zarembka, professor of economics at New York State University. Griffin’s contribution systematically deconstructs the various official explanations for why the WTC buildings collapsed, and finds them hopelessly inadequate.

11.   Once again, he relies heavily on the research of other scientists, particularly Hoffman’s. He notes the basic claim, also endorsed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, that the towers collapsed due to fires, and points out that scientific studies carried out by NIST itself “found no evidence that any of the core columns were exposed to temperatures greater than 482˚F (250˚C).”
   The problem is that steel “does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit. And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene – which is what jet fuel is – can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.” In other words, the fires were nowhere near hot enough to cause the steel to either buckle, or melt.
   Griffin’s analysis is also the first attempt to review testimony about explosions from fire fighters and emergency medical workers in the over 500 9/11 oral histories recorded by the New York Fire Department. These were only publicly released in August 2005 under pressure from the 9/11 families and the New York Times. In conclusion of his review, Griffin quotes Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac saying that “there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” and that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.”
   Unknown to many, however, is the debacle behind the publication of Griffin’s article in Research in Political Economy. The piece was only submitted after another article on the WTC collapses, authored by Steve Jones, professor of physics at Brigham Young University (BYU), was banned from publication in the journal by his own physics department. Jones’ groundbreaking analysis – the first peer-reviewed deconstruction of the official account of the WTC collapses from an American physicist – was eventually posted on Jones’ website at the BYU physics department, which also permitted him to publish it in a separate prospective volume edited by Griffin, for which the paper went through yet another peer review process. Jones’ contribution is the first peer-reviewed refutation of the official account of the WTC collapses by a qualified physicist.

12.   One of his most explosive arguments concerned discoveries of molten metal in the basements of the two WTC towers, which were hit by planes, as well as in the third building, WTC 7 – a building which symmetrically collapsed despite not being hit by a plane. In all cases, the official account blames intense fires, made hotter due to jet (or in WTC 7’s case diesel) fuel. Jones points out that all scientific investigations by NIST, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and independent experts establish that the fires were simply not hot enough to melt the steel. In that context, the deposits of molten metal found after the collapses constitute “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.”

13.   Long before Jones’ devastating conclusions – only 3 months after 9/11 – the inadequacy of the official account had been flagged up by fire protection engineering experts. Editor Bill Manning wrote in Fire Engineering that: Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official Investigation’ blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure… Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers….

14.   And late last year, similar reservations were aired by structural engineers, concerned that: “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.” The visualisations are needed to iron out the many “simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls” made in the investigation.

15.

Pentagon Disinformation: Concealing the Nuclear Device

   Unlike the growing scientific literature critiquing the government’s account of the WTC collapses, there remains considerable ambiguity over what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. There are no scientific peer-reviewed analyses of the subject either for or against the official account. It is therefore difficult for a layperson to assess the strength of the evidence on either side. For instance, Griffin, using the work of French journalist Thierry Meyssan, has argued that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a Boeing 757.
   Mathematics professor A. K. Dewdney has also supported this thesis. The main grounds for the argument are:

      1.   The photovisual evidence of the crash scene, where no debris from a Boeing jet can be seen anywhere, and where the entry-point in the west wing wall is a small hole with no damage on either side of it;       2.   Photovisual evidence showing that whatever entered the Pentagon had the power to penetrate six reinforced walls;
      3.   The systematic concealing of evidence relevant to the crash, including debris, camera footage, etc.; among some other issues.

   But the Pentagon crash debate illustrates precisely the kinds of ambiguities that can arise when non-scientists try to assess physical evidence without the qualifications to do so. Perhaps the best critique of the sort of analysis done by Meyssan and Griffin, is by the French engineering professor, Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, who also holds a private pilot’s license.
   Desmoulins notes that it is often wrongly assumed that the famous AP “hunt the boeing” photo was taken only a few minutes after the crash: “Examined more carefully the photo reveals that this E-Ring zone had already collapsed.” Desmoulins notes that the photo, taken from afar, shows very little detail, and therefore chastises those who assume that the photo provides proof that there is no damage above or on either side of the hole. Indeed, he argues that although “there’s no damage above the central (fuselage) hole, there is extensive damage extending on both the left and right sides of this hole.”

16.   Desmoulins assessment is corroborated by Joe R.’s so far undisputed calculation of the actual size of the hole, based on examining the photovisual evidence in relation to the known sizes of the clearly visible windows in the damaged Pentagon wall, the known size of the wall itself, etc. Joe concludes that the total width of the primary hole is 20ft, compared to the fuselage width of a 757 at 12.5 ft – ample size for a 757 to pass through.

17.   The photo is also selective. Although fuselage debris “are not visible on the area shown by this photo, i.e. south-west of the impact point,” Desmoulins points out with photovisual evidence that “there were a lot of small (and some middle size) aluminium pieces on the north-west side of the impact point. This is normal, as the impact occurred with an angle of 55° from the plane of the facade. The parts of the aircraft which didn’t enter the building bounced away, like confetti, in a sector comprised, approximately, between 0° and 55° from the planular facade on the NORTH side.”

18.   Crash studies suggest that the over-300-mph impact of a jetliner with the Pentagon’s reinforced wall would have reduced the entire aircraft – and certainly its relatively light wings and tail – to confetti.

19.   Desmoulins also notes the role of the “Owen Effect,” whereby the temperature was likely to reach higher than the melting point of aluminium, a phenomena commonly recorded in tunnel fires in Europe (e.g. in the channel tunnel, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in a funicular fire in Austria where aluminium was completely melted and iron partly melted).
   As there was a sprinkler system recently installed in the zone of the crash, the input of water “on a mix of fuel and molten aluminium at high temperature creates a chemical reaction between aluminium and water, producing alumina (a white powder) and hydrogen.” The reaction would have “disintegrated most of the parts of the plane which were placed in this inferno condition… Any engineer in an aluminium production plant knows the dangers created by the encounter of water and melted aluminium.”
   Desmoulins then forwards an alternative explanation, consistent with the findings of a growing number of credible 9/11 researchers like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, Joe R., among others, that the Pentagon was indeed hit by a Boeing 757. This is consistent with the overwhelming bulk of the eyewitness evidence compiled by Bart.

20.   As well with the physical evidence assessed by Hoffman. But the large-scale impact of the crash inside the Pentagon can only be explained by the hypothesis that the airliner carried a military load. Indeed, professor Desmoulis argues that the scale of the explosion and its effects on the building structures is consistent only with the impact of a depleted uranium warhead.

21.  The use of DU on 9/11 at the Pentagon crash has been corroborated by radiation scientist Leuren Moret, who worked on radiation issues at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory. Moret and another radiation expert Dr. Janette Sherman took Geiger counter readings showing over eight to ten times higher than normal, 12 miles from the Pentagon. According to Moret, they alerted radiation experts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI who later confirmed high radiation levels at the Pentagon crash site.

22.   For Desmoulins, the high levels of radiation that would have penetrated the crash scene debris account for the authorities’ refusals to release the Pentagon evidence, which would confirm the planting of an advanced DU warhead in the nose of the Boeing. Remote Hijacking of Hijackers? In any case, the Pentagon debate appears less easy to resolve than another line of inquiry, the role of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The best research on the subject is by Jay Kolar, in yet another stellar contribution to the “Hidden History” REP volume. Reviewing credible reports from the BBC, CNN, and other mainstream sources around the world, he concludes that “at least ten of those named on the FBI’s second and final list of 19 have turned up and been verified to be alive, with proof positive that at least one other ‘hijacker’, Ziad Jarrah, had his identity doubled, and therefore fabricated.” Kolar, who has expertise in film analysis, examines the visual evidence furnished by the government to support its narrative – including alleged footage of the hijackers at Dulles Airport and the infamous Osama bin Laden confession tape. He finds them to be riddled with impossibilities and anomalies, and concludes that they are utterly unreliable at best, and downright forgeries at worst.

23.   This leaves us, however, with another problem. If there were no hijackers, then what happened on 9/11? In the same volume, professor Paul Zarembka notes that the available evidence from the FAA and elsewhere tends to support the conclusion that there were hijackings of the four flights that morning.

24.   So if the planes were hijacked, who did it? In my view, this is where Kolar’s ‘doubles’ theory comes in. Kolar argues that as many of the alleged hijackers are now alive, they must have had ‘doubles’ who were using their identities as aliases. In my own research, I’ve noted that the alleged hijackers had trained in US military installations in the 1990s, had connections to the CIA and DEA, and worse still, displayed patently non-Islamic behaviour in the form of drinking alcohol, snorting cocaine, and frolicking with women at lap-dancing clubs and illicit parties – behaviour not commensurate with that of normal practising Muslims, let alone Islamist al-Qaeda fanatics about to conduct the most spectacular martyrdom operation in history. At the forefront of this line of inquiry is former PBS and NBC journalist Daniel Hopsicker. Kolar’s ‘doubles’ theory can perhaps begin to explain how the 9/11 cell was in fact made up of double agents who could have gone on to carry out the hijacking operations on the morning of 9/11. But questions still remain. Nila Sagedevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot, explores how it is a matter of record that the vast majority of these individuals were notoriously incapable of flying properly according to their own flight instructors. Mohammed Atta, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Marwan al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour, were all described by their trainers as utterly incompetent. Hanjour’s instructer proclaimed incredulously: “His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

25.  But the flight into the Pentagon, as is well-known, was described by pilots as one of the most sophisticated flying operations they had ever seen. Consider the observation of retired US Army Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff about Hanjour: A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts. When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator. This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush.

26.   Thus, while it may be necessary to factor in the hijackers as involved in the initial part of the operation to takeover the civilian airliners, a fuller explanation would suggest that they were not aware of the wider ramifications of the operation as a suicide mission; and that new methods for the control of hijacked aircraft using remote technologies were implemented that morning to take the operation to its final, terrible conclusion. These technologies did exist prior to 9/11, as reported by the New Scientist, the Economist, ITN News, and many other sources. For example: “Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground,” said Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

27.   This of course highlights the failure of the US air defence system to do anything for about one and a half hours, as recently acknowledged by experts such as Lt. Col. (ret.) Robert Bowman, director of the Star Wars programmes under Presidents Ford and Carter. Not only were standard operating procedures systematically violated, such that no military jets were implemented in a timely fashion to the right targets; the technology in place to remotely direct the hijacked aircraft was not used to take them to safety. Given that the conventionally identified hijackers could not have flown the planes either, we are left with an unavoidable, if startling scenario of an “al-Qaeda” operation that was itself “remotely hijacked” by elements within the US national security establishment itself. There is, indeed, significant circumstantial evidence consistent with the possibility that remote control technologies were being used on the morning of 9/11. It is no longer disputable that there were over half a dozen war-games in operation on the morning of 9/11, including Vigilant Warrior, “a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner,” being run by NORAD and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

28.   A further exercise whose special significance has been relatively unnoticed by most 9/11 researchers was run by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), a secretive US intelligence agency which “designs, builds and operates the nation’s reconnaissance satellites” in order to “help plan military operations” and “monitor the environment” for the “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD).”

29.   According to the Associated Press: …one US intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings... National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport. The exercise was first publicly revealed in an announcement for a homeland security conference in Chicago, which noted that CIA officer John Fulton, also Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance Office, was on the very morning of 9/11 “running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building…”

30.   NRO officials promptly denied that the simulation was a counterterrorism and/or security exercise, claiming that it was to simulate a mere accident – and insisted that the simulation was cancelled when “real world events” began. But this is hard to believe given Fulton’s specific credentials – not only the CIA/NRO chief war gamer, but also a member of the US Joint Forces Command’s Project Alpha, and an adviser on counterterrorism and homeland defense to the Director Central Intelligence Staff.

31.   Fulton’s expertise as chief NRO war gamer is therefore fundamentally concerned with exploring scenarios related to security and terrorism. And what of Fulton’s Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM)? It describes itself as the Pentagon’s “transformation laboratory,” tasked among other things to develop concepts, test these concepts through live experimentation, and implement joint training exercises involving the “choreographing” of multiple military commands.

32.   In particular USJFCOM’s Project Alpha, in which Fulton is specifically involved, pursues programmes concerned with utilising advanced space-based satellite, surveillance, and communication technologies for military operations. Intriguingly, many of these programs have significant aerial connotations, including the use of remote control technologies using “unmanned, autonomous airborne vehicles” in war.

33.   Project Alpha – which is subordinate to the Department of Defense – also conducts military experiments that bring live field exercises and computer simulations together.

34.   Fulton’s job, in other words, is not to simulate accidents – it is to wargame complex joint military operations involving space-based and aerial technologies. Whatever the “plane into building” simulation that Fulton was exercising on the morning of 9/11, it was almost certainly a highly complex wargame. Given Project Alpha’s function, Fulton’s NRO exercise could have provided the mechanism for joint coordination of the live-fly hijack exercise, war game simulations, and remote control operations on 9/11 – remotely hijacking an al-Qaeda hijacking. “Al-Qaeda”: A CIA Database Indeed, much of my own latest research in The War on Truth (2005), The London Bombings (2006), and my own contribution to the “Hidden History” RPE volume, has focused on examining this entity “al-Qaeda.” Does it exist? If so, what is it? The late former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote in The Guardian one day after the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London that the term “al-Qaeda” was invented by the CIA to designate a computer database of CIA-trained mujahideen recruits around the world, administered by Osama bin Laden.

35.   Overwhelming evidence in the public record confirms that groups identified as being affiliated to al-Qaeda in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Asia-Pacific, have been penetrated, subverted and manipulated by Western intelligence services. But why? Largely to destabilise regional environments to pave the way for new “security” policies that serve to protect not people, but foreign investors taking over regional markets – especially markets with significant oil and gas deposits.

36.   Indeed, one CIA analyst described the covert strategy in plain words to the mainstream Swiss television journalist Richard Labeviere (currently chief editor at Radio France International): “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvellously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilise what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.” It should not be a surprise then (although it was at first to me!), to discover that al-Qaeda operatives as senior as Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s own right-hand man, are in fact CIA informants. The latter was confirmed by none other than Yousef Bodansky, former Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism, reporting in Defense & Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy that the al-Qaeda deputy leader was approached by a CIA emissary in November 1997, and essentially offered $50 million to protect US interests in the Balkans.

37.   It should not be lost on us that the same al-Zawahiri appears on the recently released al-Qaeda videos claiming responsibility for the London bombings.
   The implication is dire, but it is one supported by other academics such as University of Ottawa professor Michel Chossudovsky and University of California (Berkeley) professor Peter Dale Scott: that “al-Qaeda” has continued to function throughout the post-Cold War period as an instrument of Western statecraft, a covert operations tool. This, and everything else discussed here, renders the whole “War on Terror” narrative meaningless, and exposes it as an ideological framework engineered to legitimise a state of unlimited war for power and profit.

Looking Ahead

   Five years on, the way forward for the 9/11 truth movement is to put an end to the obsessive infighting, forge bonds with all activists sceptical of the official 9/11 story regardless of whether they are LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose), MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose), or even neither, and unite on a common platform based on asking hard questions. We don’t have all the answers, but we do know that the official account is wrong on all counts. Interpreting the often complex (and sometimes technical) data is difficult enough; overcoming the reflexive psychological barriers that most people are socialised into putting up as soon as they hear of the possibility of state-sponsored self-terrorism is even more difficult.
   9/11 truth needs to be understood and advocated in the context of clarifying the long tradition of state-sponsored self-terrorism that is so deeply embedded in our societies, as well as in relation to the wider dynamics of an increasingly unstable and indeed crumbling global imperial system, which the powers-that-be are desperately attempting to rehabilitate under the mantle of fighting the “War on Terror.” In this context, a strategy of compassion and persuasion is urgently required, one which looks ahead to the possibility of a new social model that is ecologically sound, politically free, economically just and spiritually awake to the ethical values that make us human. In keeping that vision at the heart of our movement, perhaps we will be able to magnify the successes made so far and reach out to people everywhere.

Footnotes:

1.   Apart from having his Gladio research – which was part of his PhD thesis – published by the reputable British academic press Frank Cass, Ganser also published a summary of his findings in the peer-reviewed Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, (Winter/Spring 2005), pp. 69-95, www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/Terrorism_Western_Europe.pdf.

2.   Cited in Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (London: Frank Cass, 2005) p. 40.

3.   Ibid., p. 41.

4.   Ibid., p. 42.

5.   Ibid., p. 234, 297. The field manual was published in the 1987 parliamentary report of the Italian parliamentary investigation into the terrorist activities of P2, the CIA-MI6 sponsored Italian anti-communist network. See Commissione parlamentare d’inchiesta sulla loggia massonica P2. Allegati alla Relazione Doc. XXIII, n. 2-quarter/7/1 Serie II, Vol. VII, Tomo I, Roma 1987, p. 287-298.

6.   Neil Mackay, “Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President”, Sunday Herald (15 September 2002) www.sundayherald.com/27735.

7.   PNAC Report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century”, Project for the New American Century, Washington D.C., (September 2000), p. 62-63, www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.

8.   Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Books, 1997, pp. 24-25, 211.

9.   Enviromentalists Against War, “Daniel Ellsberg Calls for 9/11 Investigation”, 21 July 2006, www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=4402.

10.   Transcript of opening address by Lorie von Auken, “Unanswered Questions and the Call for Accountability”, The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizen’s Response – Did the Commission Get it Right?, Complete record of transcripts and written submissions, House of Representatives (Washington DC: Cannon House Office Building, 22 July 2005), pp. 11, 18.

11.   David Ray Griffin, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”, in Paul Zarembka (ed.) The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006, pp. 79-122.

12.   Steven E. Jones, “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse on 9-11-2001?” Brigham Young University (2005) www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc.

13.   Steve Jones interviewed by Carlson Tucker, “Questioning what happened on 9/11”, MSNBC, 16 November 2005, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/.

14.   Bill Manning, “Burning Questions Need Answers”, Fire Engineering (January 2002) http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm? Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225.

15.   New Civil Engineer (6 October 2005)

16.   Pentagon 2001/9/11: the fraud!, www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-griffin.html

17.   Joe R., “Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass of Itself”, http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm.

18.   Pentagon 2001/9/11: the fraud!, www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-griffin.html.

19. Noted by Jim Hoffman here, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html#physical. Studies reviewed here, http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html.

20.   Voluminous compilation of verifiable eyewitness accounts of a Boeing 757 available in the public record, http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html.

21.   Pentagon 2001/9/11: the fraud!, www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-griffin.html.

22.   Greg Szymanski, “High-Ranking Army Officer: Missile Hit Pentagon”, 19 August 2005, www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm.

23.   Jay Kolar, “What We Know About the Alleged 9/11 Hijackers”, in Zarembka (ed.), op. cit., pp. 3-45.

24.   Paul Zarembka, “Initiation of the 9-11 Operation, with Evidence of Insider Trading Beforehand”, in Zarembka (ed.), op. cit., pp. 49-77.

25.   Nila Sagadevan, “The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training”, http://www.physics911.net/sagadevan.htm.

26.   Stan Goff, “The So-Called Evidence is a Farce”, Narco News, 10 October 2001, www.narconews.com/goff1.html.

27.   Sources linked and reviewed here www.911blogger.com/2006/07/wheres-remote-control.html.

28.   Michael C. Ruppert, ‘TRIPOD II and FEMA: Lack of NORAD Response on 9/11 Explained’, From The Wilderness, 5 June 2004, www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html. Also confirmed by former White House counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke in his Against All Enemies, p. 4-5.

29.   National Reconnaissance Office website, www.nro.gov.

30.   Lumpkin, John J., ‘Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building’, Associated Press, 21 August 2002, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/08/21/national1518EDT0686.DTL.

31.   National Law Enforcement and Security Institute announcement, ‘Homeland Security: America’s Leadership Challenge’, http://www.nlsi.net/hs-alc-info.htm.

32.   United States Joint Forces Command website, (viewed 30 June 2004), http://www.jfcom.mil/about/about1.htm.

33.   USFJCOM Project Alpha website, (viewed 30 June 2004), http://www.jfcom.mil/about/fact_alpha.htm.

34.   See for example USFJCOM Project Alpha, Millenium Challenge website, (viewed 30 June 2004), www.jfcom.mil/about/experiments/mc02.htm.

35.   Robin Cook, “The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means”, The Guardian, 8 July 2005, www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0%2c12780%2c1523838%2c00.html.

36.   See my “Terrorism and Statecraft: Al-Qaeda and Western Covert Operations after the Cold War”, in Zarembka (ed.), op. cit., pp. 140-188.

37.   See my The War on Truth (Olive Branch, 2005) and The London Bombings (Duckworth, 2006). Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the author of The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth, 2006 [www.independentinquiry.co.uk]) and The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (Olive Branch, 2005). He teaches political theory, international relations, and contemporary history at the University of Sussex, Brighton. His first book, The War on Freedom: How & Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001, was written to critique the official account of 9/11, winning him the Naples Prize, Italy’s most prestigious literary award. After that, he wrote a comprehensive deconstruction of Western imperialism in Iraq and the wider Middle East since the collapse of the Ottoman empire, Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq (New Society, 2003). His blog is at http://nafeez.blogspot.com. The above article appears in New Dawn No. 98 (Sept-Oct 2006):

© Copyright 2006 by New Dawn Magazine and the respective authors.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE Permission is conditionally granted to redistribute and reproduce articles published in New Dawn and on this web site, for non-commerical purposes only, and provided the copy remain intact and unaltered. For commercial reproduction, contact the editor. If you wish to reproduce any of our articles on your web site, please make use of the following notices to be placed at the end of the article:

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine. Permission granted to freely distribute this article for non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in full, including this notice.

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine. Permission to re-send, post and place on web sites for non-commercial purposes, and if shown only in its entirety with no changes or additions. This notice must accompany all re-posting.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Wind Power

Original posting, November 2006

Apparently, some 72 trillion watts (72,000,000,000,000) of electricity could be generated by wind power at sites identified by Stanford University. Researchers mapped 1000 locations worldwide where the wind could power a turbine.

Wind power could supply more than 7 times the Earth's (current - 2006) energy needs.

A combination of oil (hence petrol) to fuel cars and wind generated electricity would solve many problems instantly. There must be many worried oil and energy people around the world. But not for long. They'll find a way to obfuscate this potential solution.

But, what would be the justification of a tax on wind? A problem of a different kind.

This is the sort of issue a true leader would be investigating/exploring.

NOW


How about sabotaging the implementation of the technology? The technology could even be 'allowed' to fail after having spent £millions. Public support would disappear and clear the path to the obviously desired (by government) nuclear power. Give the people what they need, but the most costly (to consumers) and hence profitable (to business).

The Paradoxical Scientist

Based on the original posting, October 2006

How much science 'fact' can be relied upon?

A disturbing question.

Those who ridicule conspiracy theorists (hold a quite different and possibly radical viewpoint to mainstream thinking) are essentially closed-minded and rather naïve. Oddly, these people in many cases describe themselves as scientists and this is quite the opposite, in fact, to what a scientist should be: questioning, challenging and exploring new ideas. Not accepting dogma and mantra, but properly examining claims and by quality argument demonstrating claims (which can be neither proved nor disproved) to be unfounded if that’s what they truly believe. It takes courage.

To learn about the world around him, a scientist must ask, observe, suppose, experiment, and analyze:

  • In asking - the right question must be posed
  • In observing - the significant must be distinguished from the unimportant
  • In supposing - a workable answer (or hypothesis) may be predicted, but a scientist must be ready to abandon it
  • In experimenting - the right instrument must be chosen or borrowed from the tool kit of some other branch of science
  • In analyzing - the scientist must, with his mind and his imagination, draw conclusions from the data his research has revealed.
Science Building, Seattle World's Fair (1962)

A current example of this in progress is the entire issue of climate change and the associated global warming arguments. The politics and the real science are completely mixed up and any Truth is subverted into lies. The ethos of politics.

Power and control games

The consequences are dreadful. They have been and continue to be. The science needs to be considered by itself, otherwise the politics simply creates the illogical lie. This will inevitably (never) terminate, but just result in a very costly non-solution.

But it's so much quicker and requires less intellectual input to simply refute or ignore any (reasonable) argument as there is no time wasted in countering any 'ridiculous' alternative. Just because it is an idea not accepted by mainstream thinking it is confined to the box that contains stale ideas that are deemed to be going nowhere. Fresh ideas finish up forgotten simply because they don't fit in with dogma and mantra. Well established (long serving) ideas that could be wrong become so entrenched that the answer leading away from the errors is not examined.

Presumably, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Keplar, Einstein... were independent thinkers not influenced by political thinking and imagine how climate change 'might' be viewed if politics were not corrupting a 'fact'.

Comments like: "Sceptics have responded by insisting such findings... do not conform to known science", denies any results that don't fit 'inside the box' and that is an example of monumental arrogant thinking. Science has no place for bloated egos that display arrogance. Truth and accuracy will never be found that way. 'Facts' can easily be distorted (not necessarily deliberately) to fit 'inside the box'. An objective (and wide-open) mind is essential for good science to happen. In the first instance to consider everything and reject nothing. Like a good detective: believe nothing and question everything. Then to remove the impossible and the least likely. Least likely does not imply impossible. Something may be inconceivable, yet that does not make it impossible. It is only an assessment using currently accepted concepts, which in themselves could be mistaken viewpoints. Accepted, but incorrect, ideas of today can tomorrow be overturned when they are recognised as being wrong.

  • And, of course, ideas have been deemed wrong, but only based on the current thinking of the time, can be resurrected later when new thinking deems them correct. Any idea that is correct today was still correct yesterday. The consensus of opinion may change, but the 'facts' remain the same.
Nonconformism gets more threatening.

Kuhnian Paradigm Shift

Consider ideas that are 'outside the box'. No constraints to dogma. If observation doesn't fit, possibly the hypothesis is wrong. Death threats are actually just pathetic. The mentality of the bully or the scientific idiot. This should not happen anywhere in a civilised society and such types have no right to consider themselves scientists.

What if Einstein or Newton got it all wrong? Maybe they did. Not all right or all wrong. Mankind relies on these 'facts' being right. Everything is built on this single 'fact'. Some observations in various experiments don't fit. This doesn't make any single observation wrong. Only expressed in terms of dogma can it be wrong. Like the Church in the days of Galileo and the penalty for even daring to criticise religion.

The mental courage of such men as Keplar, Galileo and Copernicus cannot be imagined. The physical courage of women too: Joan of Arc or Boudicca (Boudica or Boadicea). Mental or physical makes little difference.

Standing up for your principles against tyranny

Be mindful of Geronimo. Regroup and obtain eventual success. To change outcomes you have to survive.

The concept of the single theory stands to reason. There probably is one since we all exist. The universe we imagine exists, but only in terms we think we understand. Maybe it doesn't exist at all, though it remains a complete mystery. In a local environment the physical laws may exist in the appearance of conformity, but outside that environment, physical reality may change. That cannot be tested. Yet. Science 'fact' must be discussed with extreme caution. Arrogance as a product of the ego is to state that the theory is still right even when nothing fits. It's pathetic and ridiculous. Ludicrous. Really bizarre illogical and twisted thinking.

But thinking in opposition to dogma receives death threats. Religion has always been the defining limit to thinking. It is the boundary to the limited-size box. One hand clapping is not only very inefficient, but it cannot work. Anything that objects to only belief is regarded as heresy. Confining to the inside of the box can never examine that which may be outside. Those ideas may be wrong or not exist at all, but at least they are rationally and properly considered. The confines of biased belief will deny anything logically argued. It is easier to refute out of hand without a rebuttal than construct the defense of an argument. It's a ludicrous scenario, but it happens all the time when dogma is accepted (though never examined) for what it isn't. Fixed, tunnel vision demonstrates a terribly biased selectivity. Dangerously biased. How scientists actually believe they can find an answer with this kind of thinking is completely beyond me. It's tantamount to intellectual fraud. This conditioning attitude in itself suggests manipulation and the price that must be paid by risking the professional reputation. If a claim cannot stand up to critical argument, then that’s that.

But be mindful that when politics becomes entangled in science it corrupts thinking to degrade to the level of the convenient lie. Money and the motives with financial implications must be considered. These are 'facts' of life. The bed of vipers is a dangerous place for the unwary.

If any counter argument to accepted theory cannot be easily overturned, then the viewpoint must be allowed to stand until it can be shown to be wrong or, perhaps, proven to be right! "We know that on the other side of the universe..." is a typical approach. We DO NOT know. We CANNOT know. "At the Big Bang 13.7bn years ago...". The concept of no beginning does not compute to the human psyche. It's not comfortable. Similar to past, present and the requirement of a future. The limitations of some constrained thinking processes simply cannot imagine anything other than the inside of their box. There is no outside to the box. The concept of The Big Bang is all a theory and essentially describes a time when no life is assumed to have been in existence anywhere. No witnesses. Nobody can know. This is 'fact'. What could it be like to be inside an exploding supernova? What might come out of that? A 'universe'? The environment may appear to be a 'universe', but what is... a 'universe'? It can only be what is understood to be as 'local'.


  • And only from the perspective of prison Earth
  • And from which we cannot escape (everyone returns home. Or dies)
Everybody who lives will die. This is 'fact', yet even this is unknown. That nobody has been in our understanding of existence to be asked the question after death doesn't rule out the concept of life and a continued, but different, 'life' at 'death'. Logic can produce many scenarios however unlikely any of them may be. Everything is speculative. The existence of a creator (God-figure) cannot be disproved so in the meantime it is accepted (by some) as a default condition. The absurd illogicality of some 'believers' is that they are prepared to kill (or allow to die) those who do not conform to their single-track ideas and concepts.

By definition, any belief is unproven

The Inconvenient Truth or The Convenient Lie? Both are opposite sides of the same coin.

Proof can only be based on well-tested theory that exists inside AND outside the box. Even then, a consistent approach without conflict does not necessarily provide proof for anything.


Smoking Kills

Original posting, October 2006

Ultimate Breakdown Of Global Society
Polonium-210

  • Life expectancy for female smokers is to age 70 (11 years less than the average of 81).
  • Male smokers lose around 3 years: 73 instead of 76.
Why the difference between the sexes? Not fair is it! But, simple though: smoking kills. Men don't reach 76 and women don't reach 81.
  • All smokers die in their early 70's. On average. But there's always somebody (usually a smoker) who knows of an example of someone living to 110 years of age having smoked 50 a-day for 80 years or more. And always unverified.
The classic denial syndrome

This means a lot die younger.

Very short story:

What did you achieve in life, Daddy? Nothing, really. I had my time cut out trying to stay alive. Getting through my fags. Did you know that over my 50 year habit of 30 a-day, I smoked my way through the equivalent of one 17 mile-long fag? Wow, that's incredible!

That represents a depressing number of dirty lungs full of filthy black smoke.

Missing Plutonium From The 'Responsible' UK

Original posting, October 2006


Unaccounted plutonium at Sellafield nuclear plant was 29.6kg up to 31 March, 2004.

This is 10kg more than the year before.

The 'authorities' put it down to "uncertainties inherent in the measurement systems".


"Lost"


This is the responsible UK?

Where's it really gone? Making weapons? 'Unaccounted' for is simply a possible euphemistic term:


'diverted elsewhere'

Not the ideal message to send to N. Korea or Iran, is it?


Another example of our leaders' intellect. They imagine that we (includes the N.Koreans and Iranians) are all gullible enough to swallow such a ludicrous excuse -  DA


Bush, Kyoto And Blair

Original posting, October 2006

The US gives the middle finger to the Kyoto Protocol. The most aggressive user of oil and producer of some 20% of global greenhouse gases, so it would be just 'too difficult' to help save the planet.

A justification has been that it won't work. It's all a con anyway.

  • Without trying?
  • They won't try just in case... it works!
  • They'd be well and truly up the proverbial creek without a paddle!
It may be a strategy to shame the American public if everyone else does their bit. Doubtful though as there isn't enough time and...

...shame?

Get real. Rather like Blair saying he cares.

It may shame the public, but never that stone called Bush. He does not have the capacity to feel shame.

When you listen, try this: Bush = Blair.

Synonymous.

British Crime Is Almost Non-Existent

Original posting, October 2006

Apparently there are some 2.2 million jail inmates in the US and of a population of around 200 million represents about 1%. Around 80,000 in Britain? This is approximately 0.13% of a population of 60 million. But then Britain doesn't lock up many criminals. So they are not jail inmates. This means the UQ (aka UK) Ltd is 8 times more law abiding than the US.

Clearly, they are let out on
their BEST behaviour

To be model citizens.

What? Who is Blair's mob trying to kid? Who would actually believe this based on such distorted figures? But it's how it works. People around the world actually do believe it.


Pathetic isn't it?

CIA Trying Very Hard To Be Effective

Original posting, October 2006 The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) in 2000 were apparently opposed to using a biological agent in Columbia to control drug crops. The argument is very simply not to use something in a foreign country that wouldn't be used in the US. How unbelievably caring. Exactly. Nothing to do with ignoring a possibly effective measure, then?

Speeding Police Car

Original posting, October 2006


Police car (**02 ***):


NOT


on a flashing light, but still doing around 40mph in a 30mph zone (in Thanet).


  • Many laws for us and one for them, eh? (09.10.06, early evening)


Labels

Based on the original posting, October 2006



Absolute control

New Labour, Old Labour, Tories, LibDems, ConDems ... and now UKIP. Different label stuck onto the same beast. Power-mad control freaks (the... politicians) with no real grasp on anything that can be perceived as not involving self-interest or ideology. Ineptness? Doubtful, but a definite plan with an objective?

Absolutely

Lack of any sense of personal responsibility. A politician by nature will distort the truth to 'spin' and communicate the story that is desirable. Accurate? Probably not. In fact, almost certainly not. It is still (sadly, but predictably) safest to assume that a politician's explanation of a situation will be inaccurate and designed to misdirect. Or, simply an alternative way of stating a version of their truth (and reading it from a script - DA). To all intents and purposes, the same thing. However, the politician is only the visible front end that drives the machine. The push from behind is the anonymous and faceless monster really in charge. The controlling element that attempts to make everything work for the controller at the expense of the controlled. Nasty. Wicked.

  • It should be obvious by now how the 'government-in-waiting' (not in power) panders to the electorate with attractive-sounding promises that always come before the delivery of the sucker-punch (opposition -> power). The only certainty is that change will be for the worse: to the electorate. One government out the next government in to simply pile on the pressure and misery and control. And without a break.
  • There are no 'sides', just the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. It's all illusion to cover up and misrepresent. Political 'spin' demonstrates that misrepresentation is not necessarily telling a lie. Just not providing all the truth (or any of it! - DA).
Ambition

  • NB. (Crudely):
Democrat = Labour
Republican = Conservative


The short-term thinking of (any) government is government of the day by the day. Tomorrow it's another government. Somebody else's mess to sort out? Not quite: the 'mess' that's created is the illusion. One mess gone, but another bigger and worse mess left in its place. And not really recognised as being a worse mess. At best only a different one. Actually, the first mess is still there, but buried beneath another one or just mixed up. Spun and stirred.

What one label leaves another welcomingly inherits

Thinking in longer-terms, the creation of a better and cheaper work-force means more profits to the employers. And with mergers and takeovers happening everywhere is clearly (transparently) moving towards a single employer. The invention of the 'middle rich' to draw a curtain over the ever widening gap between the richer-rich and the poorer-poor.



Sadly, those with the vision to see the future (Environmentalists, Greenpeace) who look to the survival of the Human Race are ignored. Like the wrongly-labelled conspiracy theorists. It's a wakeup call to the incumbants of planet Earth. The Earth will recover after a few thousand years without that parasite called the sentient human.

The housing market has been allowed to rocket in price (not value). Look at some of the crap buildings being constructed: maximum cost and minimum quality so everybody makes a shedload of money except the purchaser. Then tax at 40% any inheritance from the sale. The tories will not remove this tax. Nobody will. It's too profitable.

Currently at over £2,000,000,000 (£1 billion is £1000 million - it always looks less when the zeros are removed). Incidentally, look at debt in the UK which runs into £trillions. A £trillion = £1000,000,000,000 = £1000 billion = £1 million million. Sounds much more realistic.

The UK is technically bankcrupt, of course. You just have to admire Gordon Brown's ableness. Well, so the 'spin' goes. If you're dumb enough to believe it.

The

'best Chancellor we've ever had'

Spin again.

Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, has indicated that: "I'd like lower taxes."

Always listen to what is actually said and read what is written. There's psychology at work. Working on your intelligence. Be aware of that. This is politics. It's child's play really.

Osborne is NOT saying lower taxes will ever happen. It's a simple implication without foundation. He simply says he'd "like" them lower. Not tricky or underhand, just typical politico-speak.

Bring in cheap labour and price the housing market out of reach. The way this has already backfired is that the future homegrown generations of this country have also been so disadvantaged that they will seek work in another country.

But:

Trap the students here by making them debtors. Can't leave the UK to work until the debt in this country is paid off. This will also keep salaries down and let the debt continue. Cheap educated people on hand along with cheap and, possibly, non-educated migrants.

It's truly
paradoxical: the 'intelligent' human causes the annihilation of self while all other species have enabled life to be at one with the host.


Planet Earth