Tom Sullivan (Explosives Loader) - "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out" (AE911TRUTH)

US Lobbyist Advocates Invading Iran and False Flags

And people wonder why I generally despise lobbyists -

Speaking at a Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” WINEP director of research Patrick Clawson listed a raft of historical examples of where governments have either staged or exploited attacks in order to become embroiled in war.

Clawson is also a former senior economist with the IMF and the World Bank.

Lamenting how it is “Very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran,” Clawson added, “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.”

By the “traditional way,” Clawson clearly intimated that he thinks the U.S. should stage or provoke an attack in order to create a manufactured casus belli for striking Iran.

“We can do a variety of things to increase the pressure,” said Clawson as fellow attendees at the luncheon snickered, adding that sanctions are not the only option and that “we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians, we could get nastier about it.”

“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson said.

Mentioning an incident on August 17 when power cables serving the Fordow Enrichment Plant were severed by an explosion, Clawson stated, “Iranian submarines periodically go down, someday one of them might not come up – who would know why? – clearly hinting that the U.S. should attack Iranian ships in order to provoke a response. 

Reeling off a number of incidents that the U.S. President “had to wait for” before taking America to war, Clawson mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin, the Lusitania, the attack on the USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, as well as the attack on Fort Sumter during Abraham Lincoln’s tenure.

This is exactly the kind of garbage that I rail against on a regular basis. The Iranians are Persians, people much like you and I. I would argue that the presence of nuclear weapons has made the world safer, not worse off. The United States is the only country that has used a nuke on another country and yet we are led to believe that it's the other guys that are out of control. Who has invaded the most nations in the last 50 years? Who has slaughtered hundreds of thousands if not millions in the name of its own self-interests? Who is currently advocating a quasi-socialist/fascist system of government in which property rights do NOT exist?

The United States.

Personally, I believe if they haven't already, the Persians will develop nuclear weapons, if only for the sole purpose of keeping NATO OUT of their country. At this point, who could blame them!?!

Identification and Papers Please

This raises the inevitable question of what is a violation of the fourth?

The Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals has ruled that private contractors operating toll roads on behalf of the state have the power to detain and store records on motorists who pay by cash at toll booths – another example of how using cash is increasingly being treated as a suspicious activity.

Having been held hostage by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the private contractor in charge of the state’s toll road, Faneuil, Inc. at a toll booth last year for paying cash and refusing to have a report filled out on them and their vehicle, Joel, Deborah and Robert Chandler filed suit.

“Under FDOT policies in place at the time, motorists who paid with $50 bills, and occasionally even $5 bills, were not given permission to proceed until the toll collector filled out a “Bill Detection Report” with data about the motorist’s vehicle and details from his driver’s license. Many of those who chose to pay cash did so to avoid the privacy implications of installing a SunPass transponder that recorded their driving habits,” reports TheNewspaper.

“They were likewise unwilling to provide personal information to the toll collector, but they had no alternative because the toll barrier would not be raised without compliance. FDOT policy does not allow passengers to exit their vehicle, and backing up is illegal and usually impossible while other cars wait behind.”

The three-judge panel dismissed the suit, ruling that detaining motorists in order to record details about people who paid by cash was not a constitutional violation and that the state and the contractor could subject motorists to such treatment because, “In Florida, a person’s right and liberty to use a highway is not absolute.”

The problem with much of this line of thinking is that there is never a line of thinking that violates the 4th because we find end runs around them. I'm fairly certain that the argument on this one would be that it's not the state who's detaining the person, but a private company. No one ever addresses the issue - What's a private company doing detaining other private individuals? Of course the answer to that is that they are doing it at the behest of the state, which raises yet another question - How can the state confer powers that it does not possess?!? (The truth is, it cannot) Inevitably the answer comes back, it's policy and this is exactly the case in this situation. It is not state law that is detaining these people, it is policy

This allows both parties to simultaneously avoid blame and get exactly what they want that US Constitutional Law prohibits. Basically the reasoning goes like this -

Company (to private citizen) - We need you to voluntarily wave your 4th Amendment rights.
Citizen - I don't want to do that.
Company - But we need you to do it. (The company may have to comply under terms of its contract, but the citizen is not bound)
Citizen - Are you trying to tell me that I have to do this?
Company - The state does require it.(Implying that this is the law)
Citizen - Which law requires it? (An honest inquiry into the legitimacy of the law)
Company - Look, we don't want a scene, why are you causing a scene?!? (Now implying that the citizen, by exercising his rights is somehow violating the company's rights) We need you to step over here.
Citizen - WHAT? No way, I'm leaving.
Company - You can't. (Not true) In fact, we're calling the state to fix this.
(At this point the citizen falsely believes that the state will act in a judicious, third-party role. Boy is he wrong.)
State, LEO division (Arriving on scene) - What's the problem here?
Company - (Framing the situation) We just want to comply with you, wonderful state, but this guy is preventing us from doing it.
State (To citizen) - Why would you do this, just give the guy what he wants.
(At this point, the citizen is faced with a very difficult choice - Take the chance that this LEO will have half a brain in his head and enforce only the law thereby allowing him to continue OR face possible arrest, trial and imprisonment at the hands of a system that is only interested in getting what it wants.)

Day after day, this exact scenario plays out in airports, highways and other such places where there is interaction between these parties. And when an arrest does occur, typically the state points at the company stating that 'They can't control those renegade companies' and the company points at the state stating likewise. A judge, wanting to appear "TOUGH ON CRIME" sometimes throws these poor saps in jail over a non-existent crime, the shrill harpy women are all too happy to support a dynamic safety effort and the overall net-effect is that another tax payer becomes a tax consumer as he rots in a cell.

 Notes several other important points in this article:

• The citizen is paying in cash. Something that until recently that was not only considered normal but necessary. 'Oh sure', they say, 'you can pay in cash, we just need you to comply with certain conditions.' (Which is also being driven by the state)
•  Compliance is seen as being passed through. Data submission may be in-fact mandatory for the company, but the citizen is under no contract or law and thus not legally obligated to provide it. The judge in the case disagrees. Who's opinion counts? The judge.
• This grants a corporation, the reserved power of detention that only the state possesses. This is the textbook definition of fascism.

And we wonder where we went wrong in this country?

The State of the Markets

Zero Hedge provides a nice little chart -

US Military Breeds Dictators | Think Tank

China Turns On Imperialist US

Getting awfully thick in the world for US national interests -

"The car of the U.S. ambassador to China was surrounded by a small group of demonstrators on Tuesday, who damaged the vehicle and briefly prevented it from entering the U.S. Embassy compound in Beijing. A YouTube video of the incident showed the protesters chanting slogans such as “down with the U.S. imperialists” and, in an apparent reference to the Chinese government’s purchase of U.S. government debt, “return the money!”

What is incredibly interesting about these protests that are going on worldwide is that the Republicans are absolutely clueless as to why they are happening. I continually hear analysis of the situation claiming that Muslims are exploding because Obama apologized. Or because Obama is too weak. Or he doesn't love America enough... But as the above quote should demonstrate and as Ron Paul has consistently maintained, they don't hate us because we're free or we're weak, they hate us because we're in their country stealing their wealth.

Most of the time these are not terrorists , they are the other side of the war that we started and they intend to finish it.

In an apparent reference to that dispute and the United States’ security treaty with Japan, some of the demonstrators chanted: “The U.S. government is the mastermind.”

Update: RT explores this very issue...

War, War Everywhere You Look

Certainly the world is not becoming a safer place -

China’s most powerful military leader, in an unusual public statement, last week ordered military forces to prepare for combat, as Chinese warships deployed to waters near disputed islands and anti-Japan protests throughout the country turned violent.

Protests against the Japanese government’s purchase of three privately held islands in the Senkakus chain led to mass street protests, the burning of Japanese flags, and attacks on Japanese businesses and cars in several cities. Some carried signs that read “Kill all Japanese,” and “Fight to the Death” over disputed islands. One sign urged China to threaten a nuclear strike against Japan.

 From the 2012 New Year's predictions -

Start of the Asiatic war (Late Q3 - Q4) - With the US being over committed, it can't back up its positions in other countries, the East sees this and starts moving. Fires break out faster then they can be put out.  

Now, here's my assumption on this. I believe the Chinese are trying to get Japan to switch sides long term here AND split US forces from concentrating on Syria/Iran. China is basically telling Japan - 'Look, we're bigger, we're younger and we have Russia, plus we haven't forgotten WWII. The US is on the way out, if you're smart, you'll side with us and save yourself in the long run.' Japan will probably have little choice and will join China forming an even more powerful Kings of the East.

The US, somewhat clueless to this, will play along and try to defend Japan (Seeing as how they buy our bonds). Yet, behind the scene, Japan will start making more and more trade and defense deals with China, publicly confusing the US.At some point, Japan will outright betray the United States, perhaps militarily, but that's down the road a bit.

For now, I would expect we'll see a lot of posturing trying to drag American forces away from the Syria. But come November, if Romney wins, expect to see a lot more hawkish uber-patriotism filter in as the West starts to commit strategic blunders.

The Call for the Fourth Reich Goes Out

Barroso asks that they set the pyre ablaze and behold the embers -

CHIEF Eurocrat Jose Barroso ignited fury yesterday by calling for the EU to become a “federation of nation states” run from Brussels.
In his most ambitious rallying cry yet for political and economic unity, the European Commission President said “shared sovereignty” was the only solution to the debt crisis in the eurozone.

Mr Barroso also demanded “absolute loyalty” from member states.

“Let’s not be afraid of the words: We will need to move towards a federation of nation states,” he said.

Mr Barroso promised a new treaty to effectively establish an elected Europe-wide government and denounced opponents of his dream as “populists and nationalists”.

Mr Barroso set out a plan for the EU to “evolve” into a “deep and genuine economic and monetary union, a political union, with a coherent foreign and defence policy”.

He told Euro MPs: “We are in a defining moment. This moment requires decisions and leadership. In Europe, this means accepting we are all in the same boat. It means recognising the commonality of our interests. And it means demanding a true sense of common responsibility.

“Because when you are on a boat in the middle of the storm, absolute loyalty is the minimum you demand from your fellow crew members.”

This should come as absolutely no surprise to long-time readers of The Real Effect. Let's go over the prognostications.

Nov 2005! -

Watch for an increase in centralization of power shifting from the United States to Brussels and the European Union, setting up the scene for the forth-coming global prince.  

From Sept 2008 (before the US crisis)-

European Union -They will be hit by this economic downswing, but where the US will be ravaged by this downturn, the EU will "weather the storm" precisely because they are the EU. This will lead for calls to imitate them with the North American Union in order to survive. (Timeframe: 1 - 3 years)

Two years after that prediction, the EU found itself consumed  by the ravages of the economic malaise.

January 2010 -

Once the Union hooks are in, you can't get out and those politicians are going to make sure that they get their pound of flesh.

The EU will make it through this in one form or another (It might cease to be called the EU but it will still be the EU.) 

April 2010 (In response to the Greece crisis)-

Look out for the shell game at this point. This is where the "leaders", who caused the mess by the way, give you your solution by stating the only thing that will save us is TOTAL GLOBAL POWER.

"Only a sustainable global economy can continue to guarantee growing wealth without jeopardizing the chance for future generations to meet their own needs." And how do we sustain it? Why, by having the developed world issue half a trillion in debt each and every month.

But to achieve their goal, they need to first be UNSUCCESSFUL with their bureaucratic efforts. It only works if you bring in a global despot as the world savior, much like Adolph was to Germany in the 30's.

January 2011 -

Western Europe contracts massively, putting extraordinary pressure on the Euro. But the call out of Belgium isn't about revoking the Euro, rather about the preservation of the European Union and the need to 'pull together'. I would expect that we could begin to see propaganda calling for a United Europe in the face of "x" (economic crisis, terror, war). 

 Of course, this is a long reaching plan. From July 2011 -

This is part of long-reaching, globalist plan. Take a look -

• 1957 Establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC) with Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries.
• 1967 Creation of the European Community (EC).
• 1987 The "Single European Act" provides for the creation of the Single European Market from 1993 and establishes the goal of a Monetary Union.
• 1990 Start of stage one of European Monetary Union (EMU) with the full liberalization of capital movements.
• 1991 Conclusion of the "Maastricht Treaty" on European Union (EU), establishment of the timetable for Monetary Union.
• 1993 Start of the Single Market permitting the free movement of people, goods, capital and services.
• 1994 Start of stage two of EMU. The European Monetary Institute (EMI) is established.
• 1998 Decision on EMU participants, confirmation of the starting date; establishment of the ECB. 1999 Start of the Monetary Union with the fixing of exchange rates; the ECB assumes responsibility for monetary policy and operates in euro; start of the currency changeover in the financial sector.
• 2002 Euro notes and coins replace the national currencies.

 And finally from January 2012 -

The groundwork is being prepped for Europe's phoenix moment. But like the mythical bird of lore, before the new can come into being, first the old must burn.

Remember, it was this summer that the Olympics unveiled their phoenix in the stadium during the closing ceremonies. I believe that this particular incarnation of the EU and Barroso specifically is meant to be sacrificed by the globalists in order to advance the script on this situation. How that sacrifice will be played out is difficult to predict, but look for nations to rail against his call to unite. When the world burns during 2013, that action by the nation states will be demonized to the point of becoming the blame that is assigned to nationalism itself prompting the leaders to firmly denounce the "evils of nationalism".

In short, Barroso's only job is to create the script that we're all bad, evil people when we want to belong to a nation and not a global construct. And the blame for all the devastation that they created will go to you because you will be framed as an evil, selfish person for wanting to exist. At that point, the exterminations of the useless cattle will start in earnest.

Timing Is Everything, the Phoenix Approaches

An awful lot of mad arabs out there, like in Yemen - 

Turmoil in the Arab world linked to an American-made video denigrating the Prophet Muhammad spread on Thursday to Yemen, where hundreds of protesters attacked the American Embassy, two days after assailants killed four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador, and crowds tried to overrun the embassy compound in Cairo.

Tunisia -

American flags were also burned in Tunisia, outside the US embassy in the capital, Tunis.

Cairo (Where the marines are sitting ducks) -

Egypt's Islamist president said on Thursday he backed peaceful protest but not attacks on embassies after Egyptians angry at a film deemed insulting to the Prophet Mohammad climbed into the U.S. embassy in Cairo and tore down the American flag.

It's almost like, the Arabs are being unleashed, just after the 11th anniversary on 9/11. Hmmmm, what an odd coincidence. (See the Religious War series for clarification) Of course, we have an election coming up and the Bernank just announced a new open-ended round of printing -

The Fed said it will buy $40 billion of mortgages per month in an attempt to foster a nascent recovery in the real estate market.

The purchases will be open-ended, meaning that they will continue until the Fed is satisfied that economic conditions, primarily in unemployment, improve.

"There's strong hints that they'll do Treasurys next," Joe LaVorgna, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Advisors, said in a phone interview from London. "They're pulling out all the stops to try to get this economy to gain some traction and, most important, to get unemployment down."

As we said in January-

US Dollar officially goes inflationary. Printing comes in one form or another

What does this mean? It means that the Fed is just about finished and the US's economic end game is squarely in view. The Fed is 'paying' for things by robbing you of your purchasing power and they've just signaled that they want to be able to steal at will.

Naturally gold and silver have taken off like a rocket, as has the stock market. The liar Romney reportedly told Ben not to do it, but I have an incredibly difficult time believing that an individuals that's cut from the same cloth as his predecessors would choose a different option. It's always easy to say you oppose something and would change everything (See Obama on Gitmo), but actually doing it is a far different beast altogether.

But before the fated Phoenix can rise, first everything must burn.

American Embassies Attacked - IMF Riots and Arab Spring Join Forces

Whenever you stir the pot of anger in a country, the angry hive needs something to attack -

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three embassy staff were killed in an attack on the Benghazi consulate and a safe house refuge, stormed by Islamist gunmen blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad.

Gunmen had attacked and set fire to the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, the cradle of last year's uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year rule, late on Tuesday evening as another assault was mounted on the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

The problem with discussing many of these issues is you quickly devolve into a 'who hit who first?' kind of argument. Americans should be rightfully livid at the fact that heavily-armed terrorists are coordinately attacking their soil in foreign lands. They're probably right that Muslim anger has nothing to do with the fact that we bombed their country, stole their gold and forced a central bank on them, it was probably a movie. Those crazy Muslims, mad about movies...

But this raises the question of who started this in the first place?

...the Neocons are salivating over yet another pointless war that gives us the wonderful opportunity to have a dramatic Al-Quaeda face turn in true WWE style. It appears that bombing sovereign nations and aiding terrorist organizations in opposition to the Constitution is a Conservative Principle upon which this country stands.

The fires of Arabic fury are being stoked in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The pump is being primed, but the Muslims are not aimed yet. Yet, all bodes ill for the United States because even now, there are rumors of her demise.

Anyone who has ever seen 'professional wrestling' more than once should be familiar with terms "face" or "heel" turn. A face makes up the stable of "good" guy wrestlers and likewise the "heels" are the bad wrestlers. Much of the story lines in pro wrestling center around "turns" or scripts where the good guy becomes a bad guy and vice-versa. A given "character" can flip myriads of times based off of flimsy events such as a bump, a bad word or in this case, a movie.

Of course, the wrestlers all work for the same company and many of them are actually friends in real life, the turn creates the justifiable reason for the new feud in the storyline arc. al-Quaeda recently went through this again as they were pointed against Syria.

Let's quickly examine al-Quaeda in the long scope of history:

• Face: 1980s -  Bin Laden fighting against the USSR in Afghanistan as part of the mujahedin.
• Heel: 2000 - USS Cole bombing, 9/11
• Middle:  2002 - Bin Laden isn't a priority 
• Face: 2011 - al-Quaeda and US are on the same side
• Heel: 2012 - Embassies attacked (Above)

So what's the story! Are they good or are they bad? The truth is, they are whatever the government needs them to be at any given time in order to move the script. All they have to do is dust off some old footage of whatever character they want them to be, circulate the info and poof, instant support for a given position.

This is precisely why the foreign policy that the United States has engaged in over the last 70 years has not only been foolish, it's been downright murderous. Ron Paul rightly recognized the Keynesian styled fallacy of foreign policy that is run amuck in this country. Elements of a previous war cause blowback and create the pretext for the next war. This is not only inefficient, it is bankrupting us.

The way to fix this is to remove the blowback elements of the war, not necessarily the war itself.

The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts -

The article below was written for the Journal of 9/11 Studies for the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001, the day that terminated accountable government and American liberty. It is posted here with the agreement of the editors.

In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.

On 9/11 Doubts Were Immediate


On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, “turn on the TV.” I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of the neighbor’s voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to determine whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.

What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade Center towers. It didn’t seem to be much of a fire, and the reports were that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out why every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire, TV cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then that I learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.

Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower looking out. This didn’t surprise me. The airliner was minute compared to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on top of the other?

The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath the plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There were no signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners had hit. Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and disappeared in fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the same thing happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into fine dust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6alf9_xswA

The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.

The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing up were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of the towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off the TV wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such an unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.

I don’t remember the time line, but it wasn’t long before the story was in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked the US. A passport had been found in the rubble. Another airliner had flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been shot down. Four airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security had failed four times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully assaulted America.

When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100 stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who pulled off such a successful attack on the world’s only superpower, when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or even possible?

These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which I was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher official survived the attack.

The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel’s Mossad, and the intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO allies. There are simply too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out undeterred.

Washington’s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop.

As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state, former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story that a collection of individuals unsupported by a competent intelligence service had pulled off the events of 9/11.

As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability. There would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US security could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a catastrophic and embarrassing failure of the national security state would not be left unexamined.

NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air. Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year the demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the public, the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was necessary. The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said meant invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.

Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that he had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was limited to the US government’s colonial policies and control over Muslim governments.

It makes no sense that the “mastermind” of the most humiliating blow in world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower would not claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news reports he underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most reliable reports that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is simply not credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he feared Washington.

But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts, were released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always showed up on cue when Washington needed it. “Why would the ‘mastermind’ be so accommodating for Washington?” was the question that went through my mind every time one of the fake videos was released.

The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution.

One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but the news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.

All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two countries to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The neoconservatives who staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating more invasions of more Muslim countries. Paul O’Neill, President Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. O’Neill said that no one at a National Security Council meeting even asked the question, why invade Iraq? “It was all about finding a way to do it.”

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-10/politics/oneill.bush_1_roomful-of-deaf-people-education-of-paul-o-neill-national-security-council-meeting?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of British intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O’Neill’s testimony. The memo, known as the “smoking gun memo” whose authenticity has been confirmed, states that “President George W. Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In other words, the US invasion of Iraq was based on nothing but a made up lie.

As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition. When films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious that building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When physics instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building and established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case was closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled demolition has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0

If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled demolition used to bring down a third building?

I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained people would.

The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to resign his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government had threatened BYU’s research grants or whether patriotic trustees and alumni were the driving force behind Jones’ expulsion. Regardless, the message was clear to other university based experts: “Shut up or we’ll get you.”

Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the scientific team in which he participated found nano-thermite in the residue of the twin towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned in the US print and TV media to my knowledge.

Several years after 9/11 architect Richard Gage formed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include 1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner hits and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure except intentional demolition.

I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of the shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear bomber plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are farcical. How can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history and capable of devising improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and destroy US military vehicles would rely on something that had to be lighted with a match? The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have pushed a button on their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb would not have required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all to no effect).

None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the government’s claims, which were never backed by anything but the government’s story line. There is no independent evidence that anything was involved other than firecracker powders.

The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept. According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of official has the authority to override established rules, and what did the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power to override standard operating practices would know that it was pointless to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be rejected.

The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the Transportation Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot every person in the US 2.5 times.

Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US government had been involved in 9/11, “someone would have talked by now.” A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed to sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered in a threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years later before one of the USS Liberty’s officers, James Ennes, told the story of the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to wonder how the professionals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology feel about being maneuvered by the federal government into the unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of the WTC towers.

What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and emotionally weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are far more comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America successfully despite the massive national security state in place. The American public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly, without a peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of law guaranteed by the Constitution in order to be “safe.”

Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor.” When the neoconservatives said that a “new Pearl Harbor” was a requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set the stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If Syria falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct confrontation with Russia and China.

Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with “color revolutions,” these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington’s hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.

If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be faced with the suspicion it deserves.

If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national security state to deter an attack, the government’s refusal to conduct a real investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to concerned and qualified individuals to perform the investigative role abandoned by government. The presentations at the Toronto Hearings, along with the evaluations of the Panel, are now available, as is the documentary film, “Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out,” provided by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The government’s agents and apologists try to deflect attention from disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as the product of “a conspiracy culture.” If people despite their brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution and peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain Washington and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from destroying the world in war.

Moody's to Cut US Rating - Cue Faux Republican Outrage

In what is sure to become another notch in the 'Elections matter!' belt, Moody's warns the US that it can't get around the brick wall -

Budget negotiations during the 2013 Congressional legislative
session will likely determine the direction of the US government’s Aaa
rating and negative outlook, says Moody’s Investors Service in the
report “Update of the Outlook for the US Government Debt Rating.”

If those negotiations lead to specific policies that produce a
stabilization and then downward trend in the ratio of federal debt to
GDP over the medium term, the rating will likely be affirmed and the
outlook returned to stable, says Moody’s.

If those negotiations fail to produce such policies, however,
Moody’s would expect to lower the rating, probably to Aa1.

This should end well. If by well we mean in a collapsed economy with hysterical women screaming about their lack of divorce programming. This is very easy to understand - There is not a single candidate that proposes doing anything about the wall. The Republicans are blaming the Democrats but they both spend like drunken sailors going to war. Paul Ryan isn't going to save you, Obama isn't going to spend you into prosperity. They both realize that the game is over, they're trying to find their spots on the new ship.

New NEWS - BBC Video - WTC 7 - Prior Knowledge

Update: Now this is interesting. The BBC is agreeing with the 'conspiracy theory'.

Chicago Teachers Go On Strike

Following in the footsteps of Wisconsin, the IMF riots move from the fringe to the populace -

Chicago teachers began walking the picket line for the first time in 25 years Monday morning at the nation’s third largest school system, leaving parents to scramble for alternatives for their children.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel quickly blasted the strike announcement as “a strike of choice.” He repeatedly declared Sunday night: “My team is available now.” He is expected to hold a news conference Monday morning to turn up the heat more on the union and had already cancelled a fund-raising appearance later in the day.

And why are they striking?

Key disputed issues in the talks were teacher cost of living raises, additional pay for experience, job security in the face of annual school closures and staff shakeups, and a new teacher evaluation process that ties teacher ratings in part to student test score growth.

“Evaluate us on what we do, not on the lives of our children we do not control,” Lewis said Sunday, denouncing the online process by which teacher evaluators were being trained.

CTU officials contend that CPS’ offer of raises over the next four years does not fairly compensate them for the 4 percent raise they lost this past school year and the longer and “harder” school year they will face this school year, with the introduction of a tougher new curriculum.

The union also has pushed for improved working conditions, such as smaller class sizes, more libraries, air-conditioned schools, and more social workers and counselors to address the increasing needs of students surrounded by violence — all big-ticket items. CPS officials contend they are seeking a “fair” contract, with raises for teachers, but are limited by funding and the threat of a $1 billion deficit at the end of this school year.

Reports are filtering in that the union has turned down a $400 Million Deal that included a 16% pay raise on top of an average wage of $76k per year before benefits. You poor, poor mistreated educators. If only someone would give you a raise. Of course not entering this discussion is the quality of the product produced -

I can speak to this because I used to run a company in Chicago. We had to institute a screening test for applicants as it was utterly common to have someone come in for an entry-level job, requiring nothing more than a High School education who could not read, could not write a common business letter and could not make change for a $20 without needing a calculator or computer!

That's ridiculous.

And common.

Anyone that has followed me for any period of time knows of my utter contempt for most public unions and their effect on the economy. Try asking a unionista once 'Just how much money do you think you should get?' and the answer will almost always follow the same line of thinking.

Relative.

'Uh, I need 10% more for this year.' and 'We need a working wage.' and 'It's for the children, we need more.' and 'Don't you know how hard it is?!?'

All of these responses pale in comparison to the capitalist's answer. 'How about $20 an hour?'

Note the differences. The unionista will never, ever be satisfied with his compensation because someone, somewhere will always be making more. Therefore, he must get more. It doesn't matter if the market can support it, the taxpayers should sacrifice more! It doesn't matter if the product is inferior, those lazy parents need to help more! All of their proposed solutions involve more money and blaming someone else.

Ok teachers, how do you propose that works when your State is beyond bankrupt? Your pension fund is reportedly done in 6 years and how about the fact that your credit recently  was in a worse state than Portugal? You can't borrow, you can't raise taxes much without blowing your economy up and there's a limit to how much you can stiff people with bills to pay!

Of course all of this is a scam. The unionistas are being driven by the state to take on the taxpayers, the taxpayers are against the public sector and the banksters laugh all the way to the bank.

Look for the unrest to spread as the bills become harder and harder to cover with faulty paperwork. This is certainly going to be a crazy 4th quarter.

UPDATE: Just to drive home the point that the unions do not merit a pay raise, they deserve a boot out the door for these absolutely abysmal results -

Seventy-nine percent of the 8^th graders in the Chicago Public Schools are not grade-level proficient in reading, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math.

So 80% are flunking? That matches with what Denninger reported above. But what does this have to do with the strike?

...one of the major issues behind the strike is a new system Chicago plans to use for evaluating public school teachers in which student improvement on standardized tests will count for 40 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Until now, the evaluations of Chicago public school teachers have been based on what a Chicago Sun Times editorial called a “meaningless checklist.”

I see. The payee wants accountability for their dollars coming in with a 80% failure rate and the unions response is to demand a RAISE!?!

GIVE THEM ALL THE BOOT! 

Roberts - The Republicans Cross The Rubicon

It appears that I'm not the only one comparing the Republicans to Nazis, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts chimes in -

It was the German left-wing’s weak opposition to the National Socialists that gave the world Hitler.

The Republican Party has become the Party of Hate. Decades of frustration have made Republicans mean. They object to everything that has happened since the Great Depression in the 1930s to make the US a more just and humane society.

The Republican Party wants power so that it can smash all vestiges of regulation and welfare and all those of whom Republicans disapprove: the poor, the minorities, liberals, the imagined “foreign enemies,” war protestors and others who challenge authority, those American weaklings who have compassion for the unfortunate, the US Constitution, that pinko-liberal-commie document that coddles criminals, illegal aliens, and terrorists, and all dissenters from the policy of enriching the one percent at the expense of the 99 percent.

Above all else, the Republicans want to turn Social Security and Medicare into profit centers for private corporations.

Would the world be surprised if Republicans donned brown shirts? America has declared itself to be “the indispensable nation,” justifying its hegemony over the world. Any country that does not submit to Washington is “a foe.” The neoconservative propaganda that America is the indispensable nation with a right to world hegemony sounds a lot like “Deutschland uber alles.”

The rallying cry of the right has become "Anyone but Obama" based in part upon the erroneous assumption that no one could be worse. This is exactly the way the left felt about Bush in 2008. From their perspective Bush had destroyed the economy, engaged in several illegal wars, spied on the American people and oppressed the poor.

We must get rid of Bush! They reasoned correctly.

However, in their myopic drive to push someone out, they let someone worse in.  And to make the matter all that more egregious, he was not only worse, he was exponentially worse! More wars, usurpation of congressional power, assassinations of American citizens, were all permitted because the good people of the Democratic party listened to the liar Obama.

Four years later and Republicans are about to prove that they have learned nothing at all from their colleagues across the aisle.

Anybody but Obama indeed. Don't come complaining to the rest of the country when Romney dusts off his leather boots and begins to stomp your parents with them. You've been warned.

Update: Here's a flashback to bring some of this home for you. Hot on the heels of the now discredited 'liquid bomb' plot, then Governor Mitt Romney was all too eager to roll out the National Guard to 'protect' things at the airports.