Humint Events Online: November 2004

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

The Great Decline of the Once-Mighty US

"However, I offer my modest proposal: the US is a far riskier investment over the next 10 years than the Brics."

The "BRIC"s being Brazil, Russia, India and China.
America, not the Brics, faces massive debt obligations to the rest of the world. America, not the emerging economies, has a currency that is looking weaker by the minute. And America, not the emerging markets, is over-owned as an investment.

US stocks comprise 45 per cent of the world's total market capitalisation. Brazil, Russia, India and China comprise 5 per cent. It is hard to believe that the US is worth nine times the emerging markets, especially when factoring in future growth prospects.

This is really not a good sign.

Bush and Cheney have driven us over a cliff.

Bookmark and Share

Big Lies

I haven't read the entire 9/11 Independent Commission report, but I did read the first chapter, which deals with the key events of 9/11. Frankly, I am not so interested in the legend building around Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda that occurs in the rest of report.

Mostly, the 9/11 commission fails by omission-- they just left out anything they didn't want to talk about (and you can imagine the things this covers). Bob Kerrey even admitted this is what they did with Paula Zahn on CNN, as well as on The Daily Show with John Stewart.

However, there are some big lies even in the first chapter that I read.

For instance (page 21:
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings.

While I understand that this is the position the commission takes, overall it is preposterous.

But to me, the most offensive and egregious lie was at the end of chapter one, the third to last paragraph:
NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on Septmeber 11, 2001. The struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet.

(Emphasis added) This of course is a monumental lie, since there were several previous hijacking drills/simulations run before 9/11. While one could technically parse the statement and say the precise events of 9/11 were not drilled before, but the glaring fact remains that this statement is a grandiose statement meant entirely to mislead. It is meant to make people think the US military had never thought of terrorist hijackings before, when this is clearly not the case. It is an outrageous and disgusting attempt at disinformation.
Bookmark and Share

A Good Line from Gerard Holmgren

...demolition engineers are now obsolete - if you want a building to fall down straight, just blast a hole in one side of it and then set fire to it - really neat job when it comes down.

Bookmark and Share

Terror Drills the Key to 9/11?

According to Nico Haupt (aka Ewing 911).

It's an interesting article, but it is not clear he brings it all together-- for me anyway.

Sadly, there seesm to be a schism growing between the researchers who espouse the wargame/military exercise aspects of 9/11 (Mike Ruppert, Nick Levis) with those who think other aspects of 9/11 are more compelling (Haupt, Victor Thorn, Dave McGowan). These are just a few names I've seen align themselves.

Part of it seems to be that you are either with Ruppert or against him.

In any case, the terror drill aspect is very intriguing, but I need to study it more to draw more conclusions.

I don't see how one can say the wargame aspect is NOT important when NORAD was running a LIVE-FLY HIJACKING EXERCISE on 9/11. That's got to be relevant.

UPDATE: Thinking about this further, it seems to me that maybe there is really only a semantic difference between calling the 9/11 live-fly hijacking exercise a "wargame" versus a "terror drill". Initially, the live-fly hijacking military exercise (nailed down best by Mike Ruppert) was put into the wargame box, but this exercsie also seems to really fit into the terror drill scenario to which Haupt is referring.

LATER UPDATE: I must say the article is VERY impressive, and certainly brings together an incredible number of important 9/11 strands. My hat is off to Nico for doing this.

The flight 93 hypothesis is quite interesting-- that the phone calls were made from the ground at an evacuated Johnstown airport. Perhaps the other flights were handled similarly-- the hijackings were acted out on the ground at abandoned airports. The problem is of course what HAPPENED to these people on the planes? I really have a hard time believing they were slaughtered on the ground. Perhaps the planes took off again and then were later shot down over a remote area?

I do have other questions:
1) how exactly did pre-9/11 terror drills with airplanes fit into what happened with the hijackings on 9/11?
2) what did hit the WTC and Pentagon?
4) this 9/11 plot seems very complicated with many many people knowing. How have they kept it covered-up for so long?
5) have people who acted in the previous terror drills had doubts about 9/11?
6) how can we use all this information to crack the 9/11 fraud open?

Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 29, 2004

More Signs of Vote Fraud in Ohio

“This looks like a computer glitch or a computer fix,” said Bob Fitrakis, a lawyer, political scientist and Editor of the Columbus Free Press ( who has written about election irregularities since Bush was declared the winner. Fitrakis is among the team of lawyers who announced they would soon file an election challenge in the state’s Supreme Court.

“Statistically, Kerry, as the Democratic presidential candidate, should have more votes than Connally. In a presidential election, most voters have the priority of casting a vote for president and the votes for president are almost always much higher than those of candidates farther down the ticket. When voters vote for Democratic candidates farther down the ticket, it is usually being driven by a sample ballot from the Party, starting at the top with president. Many voters simply don’t vote for Supreme Court justices. It is highly improbable that Connally’s vote totals would be so much higher than Kerry’s,” Fitrakis said.

The fact that Warren County has such odd vote counts is no surprise to Fitrakis. “The Republican-dominated county threw out all the media and independent vote watchers when votes were being counted at the end of Election Day, claiming ‘homeland security’ issues. This would have easily allowed for the wholesale shifting of a large amount of votes from Kerry to Bush. If you’re behind closed doors, it is easy enough to do. The November issues of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines show how easy it is to hack the vote and steal an election. The articles are called ‘E-vote emergency: And you thought dimpled chads were bad’ and ‘Could hackers tilt the election?’ I think they did,” explained Fitrakis.

There were 15 Ohio counties where Connally’s margin was 5,000 votes or more better than Kerry’s unofficial results. In five counties, Connally had a 10,000-vote margin or better. These counties used punch card, optical scan, and touch screen voting machines – with most using punch card systems.

Looks pretty damning to me.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Osama bin Asset?

In terms of understanding 9/11, there is obviously a lot of speculation about whether Osama bin Laden is still a US asset (clearly he WAS one back in the 1980's). Of course, it is impossible for me or anyone else outside the CIA to prove bin Laden is an active US asset.

However, my view is that bin Laden is under some sort of communication with the US-- almost certainly through the Pakistani ISI. And moreover I think it is highly likely the US can manipulate him to a certain extent-- note his recent appearance before the election.

My guesses about Osama bin Laden:

Does he have political grievances? Yes.

Does he want to kill Americans? Yes.

Is he dangerous? He is mostly as dangerous as we let him be.

That is-- if he wants to hijack airplanes and crash them into skyscrapers, he is only going to be able to do that if we help him.

If he wants to get a nuclear device and take out a US city, he is only going to be able to do that if we help him.

But wait-- doesn't the CIA want to kill bin Laden? What about Meet the Press a week back, where Russert interviewed the ex-CIA agent Michael Scheuer?*** (scroll down-- it is at the end.) Didn't Scheuer describe bin Laden as a sort of super-villian-- a "tremendously formidable enemy"? Didn't Scheuer talk about trying to "take out" bin Laden? Didn't Clinton try to take out bin Laden in 1998?

Yes, of course. They "tried", and failed. They "just missed" bin Laden (you have to wonder if he got some sort of tip-off about the attack). And they also failed to even TRY to take out bin Laden many times for various trivial reasons. It's almost like he wasn't THAT important to them -- even though he was even then an incredible menace according to them and now he is trying to get a nuclear bomb to attack the US.

So, I have to think the CIA is really playing a game with bin Laden. They make him into this brilliant terrorist mastermind, making him a great enemy of the US-- using him to scare the wits out of the US population. Then when it comes to getting him, they just seem to slack off.

But of course the Bush administration WANTS bin Laden as an enemy. They have benfitted tremendously from bin Laden. And there are the family connections between the Bushes and the bin Ladens. It's all quite a disgusting stew of duplicity and treason.

In "Welcome to Terrorland", towards the end, Hopsicker seems to be getting to the point that bin Laden is really a drug-dealer-- for opium. He even shows a picture of a pack of herion with bin Laden's name on it. But Hopsicker never really nails the point down or drives it home-- and it is one of the big disappointments of the book.

In any case, if there is one incontrovertible fact about the CIA is that they are involved in drug-smuggling and drug dealing on a massive scale. Michael Ruppert and many others have been writing for years on this point. So it does make sense that there is a common bond between the CIA and bin Laden that no one ever talks about publicly-- they are both drug smugglers.

Thus, the extent that the CIA keeps bin Laden around may very well have to do with how cooperative bin Laden is in keeping the opium supply running in Afghanistan. And one clear reason the CIA wanted the Taliban gone was that they were suppressing opium production very heavily. This is yet one more reason for why the 9/11 attacks were staged.

***The Scheuer interview is really remarkable on a few levels. On the one hand, it sounds like some sort of hard-hitting and brutally honest critique that cuts through some of the crap of politics (for instance he talks about not letting Israel have so much influence in the US). On the other hand, the interview is a fascinating mix of some things that are probably true with other things that are very certainly disinformation. One really needs to read the whole thing and just take in its breath-taking arrogance and overall truculence ("There is a great deal--and it's not very popular to say it--but there's a great deal of killing to be done"). The thing really made me cringe. The weirdest bit was Scheuer calling bin Laden "an admirable man."
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Daniel Lewin on Flight 11

One of the many many oddities of 9/11 was the initial report that Daniel Lewin, a passenger on flight 11, was shot with a gun by one of the hijackers. Then this story was retracted.

As this story points out, it is not clear why they changed the story. Was it too embarrassing to the FAA and to the airlines to admit there were guns on board?

Then there is this intriguing bit:
Born in Denver and raised in Israel, Lewin was a former member of the elite special forces of the Israeli Defense Force.

In light of new revelations about the surveillance of the alleged 9-11 hijackers by other Israeli military and intelligence operatives, Lewin’s presence on the plane, riding evidently one seat away from one of the hijackers, is significant indeed.

It does make you wonder.
Bookmark and Share

Making It Up as They Go Along, Part 2

In this post, I linked to a Democratic Underground thread discussing how thie FBI changed the names of the hijackers on flight 11 early on in the investigation. The story as presented was confusing.

This article from Frank Levi basically presents the same story in a much more coherent and easy to understand manner.

The point being that four of the hijackers on flight 11, whoever they were, used fake names. But also that they used names of Saudis that were training in flight schools. Basically, they were creating a false impression.

Interestingly, the article links to a scanned FBI document talking about the hijackers and a rental car they had. But most interestingly is that this FBI affadavit appears to say that Abdul Alomari was on the flight 11 manifest (they only list Abdul Alomari and Mohamed Atta as being on the manifest). But Abdul Alomari is alive and living in Saudi Arabia-- so he clearly wasn't on the flight. In fact, four of the original five hijacker names were changed by the FBI from the original list due to various reasons such as the person was already dead before 9/11 or they were still alive. So where on earth did the FBI get the new names? The new names can't have been on the manifest in the first place-- otherwise the FBI would have listed them initially.

And while we are on it-- why, after three years now-- haven't we seen the real flight manifests from the 9/11 flights? And why haven't we seen the security videos of the hijackers boarding the planes? (We have only seen Atta being screened in Portland, Maine, which is worthless), and two of the flight 77 hijackers in a strange video without a time or date stamp.) And why haven't they shwon the ticket stubs from when they boarded and the times they got on the planes? Hmmmm????
Bookmark and Share

Was the Rigging of the Election Done by the CIA to Set-up Bush?

Just a thought on the Madsen story.

A lot of people have been speculating that will CIA will try to get revenge on Bush, for various things that happened in the last four years, such as the Plame outing and the Iraq WMD debacle (for which the CIA was unfairly blamed, imho).

I woder if they set-up Bush to win the election by vote-rigging, and now they are exposing the plot in order to discredit him. Certainly, if this the vote-rigging story is true, it will be a scandal of immense proportions, and most likely would result in the impeachment of Bush. (I don't think the Republicans would have much choice of this if the evidence was clear.)

Wouldn't this be the ultimate pay-back for the CIA then?

Madsen appears to have some evidence-- a check that was used to pay for the vote rigging. Someone is trying to get this story out, and the money came from entities with CIA linkages. So, it's not totally crazy to think the CIA was involved in this somehow.
Bookmark and Share

Expert Opinion on Peak Oil

I consulted a relative of mine about Peak Oil. He has a doctorate in geophysics and he worked for one of the oil companies in Saudi Arabia before retiring last year. His job was basically to look for oil deposits by analyzing seismograph data. So I think we can say he knows what he is talking about when he talks about finding oil.

He says that the Hubbard curve that predicts Peak Oil has held up pretty well, but there have been a lot of predictions about oil discoveries that haven't held up very well. Thus, most people are cautious about making real predictions about Peak Oil. He said that if he had to guess, we are at peak oil production right now or peak oil is very near. He doesn't think oil prices will decline significantly ever again.

I asked him about the possibility of oil being abiotic in origin, and he said the majority of industry scientists think the idea is ridiculous. He couldn't rule it out completely, and said that if it were true, it would be a revolutionary idea. Overall his opinion on abiotic oil was that it was very unlikely.

Perhaps most interestingly, he said that most the scientists in his field are in their fifties-- because of the depression in the industry in the 80's that wiped out the training of young scientists. But perhaps they are not recruiting new oil exploration scientists either.

So-- this all supports Mike Ruppert's view fairly well.

Thus, if Peak Oil is now, this makes the urgency of the US securing new oil supplies very urgent.

Hence, 9/11-- the New Pearl Harbor.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, November 26, 2004

Peak Oil and 9/11

Dave McGowan smacks down Mike Ruppert yet again on Peak Oil. Although I enjoy reading McGowan a lot, I sense he is a bit of a contrarian, and his take on Peak Oil isn't the general consensus.

Certainly Ruppert pushes Peak Oil very heavily-- the most important reason being that he thinks it was the main reason behind the US setting up the 9/11 attacks which he thinks provided incentive to attack oil rich nations. But, Ruppert does seem to push the most apocalyptic version of Peak Oil, in which some three-quarters of the people in the world will die when oil and natural gas runs out. Ruppert also rules out absolutely that any alternative energy supply can take the place of oil and natural gas.

This is where I have a problem with Ruppert's take on Peak Oil. Although certainly if oil ran out all of sudden, it would cause an unprecedented catastrophe for humanity, I don't see it running out suddenly. Rather I expect oil supplies to dwindle and taper off, raising the cost of oil, then making alternative energy much more feasible. Oil shortages will also likely cause a severe global recession that will dampen the demand for oil, and which will prolong the global supply of oil.

Thus I don't buy into the extreme scenario Ruppert projects. The fact is, Peak Oil has been predicted to occur for some time now, and it never seems to come. It may well come in the very near future, but I'm not sure I'd want to wager a lot of money on it. The bottom line for me, is that I am not going to spend a lot of time worrying about Peak Oil.

But this is all really separate from the issue of whether Peak Oil had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. And on this account, I think Ruppert is right. Certainly every indication is that Bush and Cheney are very worried about Peak Oil. And this may well have been a major motivation for setting up 9/11. Thus, in terms of 9/11, it doesn't matter if Peak Oil is real or not-- the important point is if Bush and Cheney were worried enough about Peak Oil to do something about it. Given their background as oil men, I think they very well likely did want to go into Iraq (and Saudi Arabia, and central Asia through Afghanistan) to secure the oil there. And they needed a really good excuse to mount these wars-- hence 9/11.

Dave McGowan think that Peak Oil is all a huge scam, and that Bush and Cheney know this, and they used Peak Oil as a secret cover for their plans. McGowan thinks that what the Peak Oil people really want to do is CONTROL all the world's oil, so as to control the price and make a lot of money. Thus, Peak Oil is a cover for this operation.

McGowan seems to be postulating that Bush and Cheney engineered 9/11 with a false front of terrorism, with a SECOND false front of Peak Oil, and that the REAL reason for 9/11 and the wars it produced was to establish control over the world's oil supply so as to maintain the illusion of Peak Oil and drive high oil prices. This theory really seems a bit too convoluted to me.

I think George W. Bush basically does whatever Dick Cheney talks him into, and I think Dick Cheney, being a somewhat gullible fellow, REALLY believes in Peak Oil.

After all, Dick Cheney seems to believe Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons, and that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. While it is possible that Cheney really is a master of disinformation, I think it is more likely he just is prone to believing in extreme theories-- such as Peak Oil. This is, after all, Cheney's whole political career-- he is an extremist.

As far as Cheney being a mastermind behind 9/11, I am not convinced he planned it like it worked out. Although I think Cheney is about as sick a person as you'll find in Washington, I think more likely he was duped to some extent by 9/11. Perhaps Cheney helped set-up the hijackers in some other way-- such as a sting operation, and this went horribly awry.

With Cheney, I am more inclined to believe in incompetence than pure malevolence. Read this amusing story on Cheney from, and I think you'll get the idea.

Dick Cheney is clearly a man prone to wild military plans, and this would explain a lot about the last four years. Will we ever really know what Dick Cheney had in mind for 9/11?

Overall, I thnk it is highly likely that Dick Cheney:
1) believed in the concept of Peak Oil,
2) knew he needed a good excuse to invade Iraq and other oil-producing countries,
3) knew about the 9/11 hijacking plan before 9/11
4) ran some aspect of the wargames that were central to 9/11.

I'm just having a hard time believing Dick Cheney devised the entire plan for the 9/11 attacks, and that it went off the way he planned.
Bookmark and Share

Election was Definitely Rigged for Bush

according to Wayne Madsen.
According to informed sources in Washington and Houston, the Bush campaign spent some $29 million to pay polling place operatives around the country to rig the election for Bush. The operatives were posing as Homeland Security and FBI agents but were actually technicians familiar with Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Triad, Unilect, and Danaher Controls voting machines. These technicians reportedly hacked the systems to skew the results in favor of Bush.

The leak about the money and the rigged election apparently came from technicians who were promised to be paid a certain amount for their work but the Bush campaign interlocutors reneged and some of the technicians are revealing the nature of the vote rigging program.

There have been media reports from around the country concerning the locking down of precincts while votes were being tallied. In one unprecedented action in Warren County, Ohio, election officials locked down the facility where votes were being counted. The officials said this was in response to a Level 10 high-threat terrorist warning being issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI for Warren County. George Bush won 72 percent of the vote in Warren County, much larger than his percentage of victory statewide.

I seriously doubt however, that this story will go anywhere unless these "unnamed sources" are willing to go on record.

And for what it is worth, the article goes on to suggest the rigging was funded by the Saudis and the CIA, and other groups.

UPDATE: Madsen has a new article out with a little more information. However, what we really need is one of these disgruntled vote riggers to come forward!
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 25, 2004

The Main Problem with 9/11 Truth

It all rests on somewhat vague assumptions, and nothing has been proven definitively.

While the official story is clearly wrong in important respects, it is almost impossible to completely disprove any aspect of the story in a definitive manner.

While my best guess is that the 9/11 hijackings were some sort of CIA-run covert operation, I think it will be impossible to ever truly prove this. Almost by definition, there is no way that there is any evidence that could ever be used to definitively prove CIA involvement in 9/11 in a court of law.

So we are left with circumstantial evidence. Oddities about the official story. Enticing evidence that the WTC towers were blown up by explosives. A military training exercise with eerie similarity to what happened.

What of this could ever be used to convince the media or the mass public about the 9/11 cover-up? (Because they simply won't believe what we have collected so far, as compelling as it may be to us.)

I think the only thing that could really change this dynamic is if there was some sort of whistle-blower who came forward with clear evidence of a cover-up.

-- Someone at NIST who knew they found evidence of explosives on the WTC steel, and yet they covered it up.
-- Someone who was involved with planting explosives in the WTC
-- Someone who would testify in court that the black boxes were found for the flights that hit the WTC (there is a firefighter who claims they were found but he isn't talking).
-- Someone in the military who knew the details about the live-fly hijacking exercise being run on 9/11.
-- Someone from American or United Airlines who could testify about what the airlines knew about 9/11, such as the real flight manifest, and why some of the 9/11 flights weren't listed.
-- Someone from the FBI who could testify about how they determined who the hijackers were and where they got the hijakcers photos.

I'm convinced these people are out there, and they are being silenced by various threats and coercions.

We NEED these people badly.

Otherwise, we are just pissing in the wind.

Because all our evidence so far is circumstantial.

Bookmark and Share

The Problem with the 9/11 Truth Movement

There are way too many egos, too many weird personalities, and too little rigorous thinking. And almost definitely there has been some infiltration of the movement by people who may have perverted agendas-- in particular trying to discredit 9/11 truth by spouting nonsense. Most tragically, there is too much infighting.

Read Brian Salter's blog for a good sampling of what I am talking about, although this is by no means the best set of examples. But from what I have been reading, almost all the major people in 9/11 truth seem to hate each other.

This problem with the egos and infighting seems very likely to doom the whole 9/11 truth movement to wackodom, or at least irrelevancy.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with intellectual disagreements about issues. The problem is when it gets personal-- for instance calling Mike Ruppert a megalomaniac.

In particular, Mike Ruppert seems to be a controversial figure, but he also is a smart guy who has made a lot of important contributions. I personally haven't been bothered by him, though I haven't interacted with him personally. I listened to a radio broadcast of him talk, and it was excellent. He is a very interesting, engaging speaker who was also funny and charming. But I'm sure he can be abrasive to people who rub him the wrong way.

I do have a couple of critical things about Ruppert's work however--

1) While "Crossing the Rubicon" is an extremely important work regarding 9/11, the problem is the book is much too dense and meanders too much. Parts of the book are really good reading while many other parts are very difficult to get through. Because of this, I still haven't read the whole book-- mostly I have just read the key chapters regarding what happened on 9/11. While Ruppert may have felt that he needed to get every bit of detail of the background and history of 9/11 into the book, I think it was counterproductive. I do not think the case he has made for 9/11 is as convincing as he seems to think it is-- I do not think it would hold up in court (on its own, anyway).

2) I find his analysis of Peak Oil much, much too dire and apocalyptic. Reading the Peak Oil section in "Crossing the Rubicon" basically made me lose interest in reading the book for a while-- it was needlessly depressing. Dave McGowan has an interesting take on Ruppert and the Peak oil theory (which I don't necessarily subscribe to either-- I imagine the truth is somewhere in between McGowan and Ruppert).

As far as other 9/11 truth people, I think the following people are very counterproductive to the movement--

1) people who think that no planes hit the WTC (the "no-planers")-- Scott Loughrey of (9/11 hoax) and his ilk,

2) people who strongly promote the theory that the planes that impacted the WTC had pods and shot missiles-- e.g. Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll 9/11 (linked on this site),

3) people who relentlessly promote the idea that something besides a plane hit the Pentagon-- this is many different people, but most notable is the millionaire Jimmy Walter, who has been going on TV talking about this. I myself am not totally convinced that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but I also think this issue is a bit of a trap because we just can't say conclusively either way right now. Thus, I think it is better not to promote this theory too strongly.

Perhaps what is really needed for 9/11 truth is to make it into some kind of scientific society, with defined and rigorous standards for the quality of research and critical thinking.
Bookmark and Share

Recorded Original TV Footage from 9/11 available here.

The fellow who made the DVD, Tim Canale, summarizes what he has in a little essay, and there is a lot of interesting stuff. It would seem to be a boon for 9/11 researchers. However, he doesn't say how much he is charging for the DVDs!
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

About Those Transponders

One big mystery from 9/11 is why the hijackers turned off the airplane transponders. While it is possible they thought this rendered the plane invisible, if they knew enough to turn off the transponders, then they should have known that the planes could still be detected by normal radar. Moreover, since they were fairly sophisticated hijackers (in theory), they should have known that turning off the transponders actually alerts air traffic control that there is a problem with the plane.

So why turn off the transponders?

One reason is that it may have allowed a plane switch. Thus if a hijacked plane landed at, for instance, a military airbase at the same time as another plane was taking off, there would likely be only one plane visible by radar. The hijacked plane could land, be switched with another plane, and then the hijacked plane could take off later and be thought of as a different plane.

Yet, in light of the wargames that were running on 9/11-- turning off the transponders takes on a new meaning. That is, transponders are another name for IFF beacons, where IFF means Identify Friend or Foe. Thus, by turning off the transponder, a plane becomes an enemy by definition since it is not showing an IFF signal.

Thus the hijacked planes became "bogies", in essence. And given that the Northern Guardian wargame dealt with Russian fighters, it is intriguing to speculate that turning off transponders on the hijacked planes somehow merged into the exercise.

Note-- one of the real oddities of 9/11 for me (and others), is that none of the pilots on the four planes ever signaled there was a hijacking to air traffic control. This can be done easily by punching in 7500, which is the code for a hijacking, on the transponder. I just have a hard time believing that every pilot was caught completely by surprise by the hijackers-- and that none of the pilots heard the struggles outside the cockpit, and none of the pilots ever had time to either alert air traffic control or to type in the hijacking code on the transponder.

Second Note--Another oddity is that flight 175 apparently CHANGED its transponder twice before shutting it off. I don't think anyone understands what that was all about. Was it possibly a wounded pilot trying to type in the hijacking code-- or the hijacker trying to be tricky?
Bookmark and Share

At Least Seven Different Military Exercises

... were being run (or were supposed to run) on 9/11:

1) Northern Vigilance (NORAD)
2) Nothern Guardian (NORAD)
3) Vigilant Guardian (NORAD)
4) Vigilant Warrior (NORAD)
5) "Simulated" plane crash in to National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) exercise

6) "Timely Alert II," a force protection exercise located near the WTC
7) Unnamed counterterrorism 'game' exercise at the Pentagon

Additionally Tripod II , a biowar exercise was being set-up in southern Manhattan on 9/11, and was supposed to run on 9/12.

Granted that many different agenices may coordinate their exercises into one giant exercise, the fact that all these were going on 9/11 just seems to be WAY too much of a coincidence.
Bookmark and Share


It's kind of funny. A little earlier I was remembering for a brief moment how upset I was when they impeached Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal.

That all seems so far away now. And with all the horrendous bullshit that has gone on over the past six years, it's really hard to feel much outrage anymore.

Now, stories like this:"Witnesses say US forces killed unarmed civilians", seem to hardly even move me.

Which is frigtheningly reminiscient to this:
The slow creep of fascism
(Excerpted from Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1939-1945.)
Believe me this is true. Each act, each occasion is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.
(emphasis added)
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Making It Up as They Go Along

this article at Democratic Underground makes a good case that the FBI was just blindly making up who the hijackers were on the 9/11 planes. It's complicated to follow all the names and their stories, but what seems to be the case is that many of the so-called hijackers were simply NOT ON THE ORIGINAL FLIGHT MANIFESTS-- since the FBI didn't really know who was on the flights!
Bookmark and Share

9/11 Cover-Up by the Airlines

This article highlights something I have long thought--- the airlines are clearly covering up the truth about 9/11-- and they started the minute the first planes crashed!

And they still won't release the original flight manifests!

They are culpable-- very culpable here.

The article is definitely interesting.
Bookmark and Share

Collapse of the South Tower-- Explosive Evidence

9/11 Skeptics Unite! (or Ewing2001 aka Nico Haupt) put up the latest news about 9/11 truth yesterday. Although Nico is not a great writer (English does not appear to be his primary language), the site is always worth a read. Here is an article I found from the site that I thought was particularly noteworthy (actually I looked at this article a long time back, but haven't looked at it recently).

This page gives in my view the most compelling case for explosives being used to bring down the WTC towers. In particular, look at the middle of the page, where they use a red box to outline the large chunk (about 30 floors) that is the top of the tower breaking off just before the collapse. Notice how in frames 227, 241 and 255, the box is much longer than the top section of tower that is visible. The bottom half of this broken-off top section (some 15 floors) has completely disintegrated very early on in the collpase sequnce. However, there is no clear reason for this to happen (if one doesn't believe explosives were involved). This 15 floor lower section of the broken-off section was not hit by the plane and was barely affected by fires. There is no clear reason why the whole 30 floor chunk of building shouldn't remain intact as it falls down. In the pancake collapse model, you might expect this top section to drive the collapsing of the lower floors, but what is exerting pressure on this top section for it to cave in so severely?

If the force from the upper 15 floors being pulled down by gravity is causing the lower 15 floors of this broken-off section to collapse, what is exerting a counterforce beneath this lower 15 floors, since the lower part of the tower below the break-off point is also collapsing?

Or put it another way-- what is exerting such a collapsing-strength force on the part of the tower BELOW the break-off point if the lower part of upper broken-off chunk is disintegrating at the same time?

Thus-- how can it be that the floors both above and below the break off point are collapsing and disintegrating at the same time by a gravitational collapse model? The only way you would see this pattern of collapse is with explosives that would cause equally distributed disintegration.

Basically, it is as if the collapse is going both upwards and downwards-- and both collapses are originating from the same spot in the building!

This simply makes no sense-- unless you invoke explosives!

(Related note-- NIST still has not returned my two e-mails asking about explosives in the WTC collapse and if they tested for the presence of explosives.)
Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 22, 2004

What Can the 9/11 Truth Community Realistically Expect?

Given that:

1) the legend of 9/11 has been built up over more than a decade of covert operations,

2) the 9/11 legend and the resulting "War on Terror" has been carefully interwoven into the very fabric of US society, US politics and the US economy.

I conclude that the lies that prop up these two foundations of modern American foreign policy (9/11 and the war on terror) have been essentially institutionalized.

Thus, there is clearly now, and will continue to be, incredible institutional resistance to 9/11 skepticism.

Is it at all possible to tear apart the whole structure of lies surrounding 9/11 and terrorism without tearing apart America itself?

Is it be possible to tear down the terror myth without causing a large-scale economic and political collapse?

Is this possible without some sort of massive popular revolution? Is even such a popular revolution possible in America today?

Is there any precedent for uncovering government secrets on such a massive scale?

Can 9/11 truth ever really move into the mainstream of American society?

I fear the answers to all these questions is "no".

Of course-- this won't stop from from trying to promote the truth about 9/11 and other terrible events. This won't stop me from trying to effect change.

I believe with all my heart that this country needs some sort of massive truth movement that will rise up and clear out the institutional corruption existing in Washington DC today.

I am just having a hard time seeing how such a thing will realistically happen.

Side-thought: For the past six months or so, ever since I realized the extent of the 9/11 scam, this truth about 9/11 and this country has been burning me up inside-- it really hurts to know these things. On the other hand, knowing these things is in effect a type of secret, special knowledge. Is there a way to harness this secret knowledge and use it for our benefit?
Bookmark and Share

Iran and North Korea-- the Nuclear Threats

After writing my previous post--"The New Al Qaeda Legend"-- I had a chilling thought.

There are two countries left in the axis of evil who we haven't attacked, and it is clear the administration would like to deal with them.

The problem is that Iran and North Korea are much more formidable militarily than Iraq. There's basically no way we can invade them like we did Iraq.

However, we could subdue these countries and effect regime change if we were allowed to nuke them. Particularly using tactical nukes-- or the heavy duty bunker busters nuclear weapons the US has developed.

Right now, if we used nukes on these countries without sufficient provocation, we would become a true outlaw or pariah state. The international condemnation would be devastating to us-- at least economically.

So what would provide sufficient provocation for us to use nuclear weapons in attacking Iran or North Korea?

Answer: the US getting hit with a nuclear weapon first-- even if it was from "Al Qaeda". (After all, the conventional wisdom that the 9/11 attacks were from the stateless Al Qaeda terrorist organization were not much of an impediment for going into Iraq.)

Certainly, the US "homeland" getting hit with a nuke would clearly break the taboo of us using nukes against an opponent.

This brings this new Al Qaeda nuclear legend into new and chilling light. Michael Scheuer ("Imperial Hubris"), the former CIA man who used to keep tabs on Osama bin Laden, is conveniently going around now and spreading the new nuclear legend on all the news shows.

Clearly, Washington is starting to ramp up the drums of war for Iran. Realistically, we are tied down in Iraq and don't have the means to take them on. So we need a new provocation for war-- for a pre-emptive nuclear war.

Furthermore, what would support such a war is that the Al Qaeda nuclear legend meshes with the fact that we would be going after Iran or North Korea precisely because we are worried about THEIR nuclear capability. Thus, the US being hit with a nuclear device would give us the PERFECT excuse to strike pre-emptively at the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. (Maybe, we could even hear Condi Rice get to reprise her famous line about we don't want the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud-- and obviously in this context, it would carry much much more weight.)

The truly frightening thing is, if I am right about this, then we are looking at some sort of nuclear attack on the US in one to two years from now. By then, Americans may be catching on to this administration finally and Bush's approval ratings will be tanking-- and the economy will probably be tanking as well. The draconian policies of the radical chrisitan right will also provide further dissatisfaction. A new terror attack will provide a perfect distraction from these domestic worries and give the administration a pefect mandate for more war.

I really, really, really hope I am wrong.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 21, 2004

The New Al Qaeda Legend

Osama wants to hit the US with a nuke.

I suspect we'll be hearing more and more about this story in the next couple of years.

The problem right now is that Osama just can't seem to get his hands on a small "suitcase" nuke.

I really fear somehow, one way or another, this crazy dream WILL become reality-- just like his crazy dream of hijacking commercial airplanes and flying them into major US targets.

Wait-- I know what will happen.

In order to prevent this threat, the US will stage drills with a planted agent who has a fake nuke bomb somewhere, and US agents have to "get him" before it goes off.

And then one day, they'll decide in order to make the drill truly realistic, they will do the drill with a "real Al Qaeda" terrorist (that they've recruited just for this job) who is hiding a real nuke.

And then something will go wrong. Something terrible and tragic.

The CIA will have given all these warnings, but the president (whoever it is) will have not responded appropriately because he doesn't know exactly what to do. But the CIA will be proven correct in predicting the threat. And despite hundreds of thousands of people dying, no one will lose their job.

And the US will go under martial law, and will start nuking countries it deems as threats.

Your basic nightmare scenario.

How do I know?

That was basically what happened on 9/11. Except next time it will be a thousand times worse.

(maybe this is how they intend to bring down the population of the world to contend with "peak oil"-- See Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon")

Grim thoughts, but better to have them in the open than this be a huge surprise to everybody.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, November 20, 2004

Adding It Up

When you add this: the huge unexplained discrepency in exit polls

plus this: an unexplained increase in votes for Bush in Florida counties that used electronic voting

plus this: "Nearly three-dozen Kerry supporters in Florida said they had to repeatedly override the machines to avoid having their votes recorded for Bush."

Doesn't it equal vote fraud?

If the machines were defaulting repeatedly to Bush, this gives a clear mechanism for vote fraud. How many thousands of people who voted for Kerry didn't double check their votes?

It's not calculus we're talking here-- it's simple arithmatic.

This equals stolen votes.

GOP bastards.
Bookmark and Share

Election Questions Starting to Echo Louder

Although I tend to have problems with some of the editorial opinions of What Really Happened, the site IS good for finding a lot of interesting articles and they have had fairly comprehensive coverage of the post-election questions about the vote.

In any case, here are some pertinent articles I found there relating to the election:

CNN actually has an article dealing with election concerns and fraud, and discusses academic research into election analysis. They don't really draw any major conclusion, but of course say there's no sign of a stolen election.

Keith Olbermann on his blog, discusses the Berkeley analysis of the Florida vote. The most interesting bit was Olbermann says the Berkeley group analyzed Ohio and didn't see e-vote discrepencies.

Truhtout discusses the vote suppression story I have been upset about of late. Thankfully, someone else has picked it up!

This article discusses election fraud theories in general, focussing on the internet angle, and actually talks about Atrios, who I dissed in my earlier post.
Bookmark and Share

Lawyers Will Challenge the Ohio Vote!

Due to vote suppression and other irregularities, lawyers will challenge the Ohio vote.

This somewhat reassuring, but the article says nothing about the Democrats. Are they not involved in this, or they are involved and the article doesn't mention them, or they are involkved and they don't want to be publicly associated with this effort?

In any case, it is strange. Where are the Democrats in this?????

I can sort of understand why the "so-called-liberal-media" are picking up on this vote suppresison story-- they don't want to deny Bush his "very special victory" or even taint it in any way.

But where are the liberal bloggers? They have some power nowadays. At least a lot of people pay attention to them. Why aren't the Atrioses, the Kosses, the Talking Points Memos picking up and amplifying this story?

This story is truly a national disgrace-- and everybody of any note seems to be ignoring it.

Atrios in particular has been a major disappointment after the election. (He has either lost his motivation or has sold out completely to the bigs.)
Bookmark and Share

The Berkeley Study Showing Abnormal Gains for Bush in E-voting Counties in Florida

First off, I am not a statistician, so I can't make sense of their data.

Crooked Timber has a post analyzing the study, and it is worth a read. The most interesting point I think, is that the abnormal increase in Bush votes really came from two counties: Broward and Palm Beach. Thus, there is not a general trend towards extra Bush votes in all e-voting counties.

Assuming THAT analysis is correct, we therefore have to postulate either that:
a) there was e-vote fraud in just these two counties, or
b) there was a true increase in Bush votes in those counties.

The second possibility could be explained by an increase in Bush support from Jews in those two counties (which do have high numbers of Jews). It's possible-- but such a huge increase?

I also need to note that these are two of the largest and most Democratic counties using the electronic voting systems-- so they are ripe targets for machine-assisted vote "switching".

Overall, I still find it hard to believe that Bush got so much extra support in this election. Maybe it IS true and I just don't want to accept the fact that a majority of this country supports Bush and his dishonest and disastrous policies. But maybe there was rampant funny business.

Of course, this speculation would all be moot, if the exit polls WEREN'T so screwy OR if we had a GOOD EXPLANATION for why the exit polls WERE so screwy in many states.

There is also the sinister comment made by Representative Peter King (see here) that the Republicans would win because they would be in charge of counting the votes.

My basic premise is that these Republicans are radicals, and they will do anything to hold onto power. And we know there was clear black voter suppression in Ohio. Thus, unless someone can show me otherwise, I will continue to maintain the theory that there was some sort of vote counting fraud in this election.

But then again-- I am just a wacky conspiracy theorist. So who wants to listen to what I say?
Bookmark and Share

Friday, November 19, 2004

Screwed and Betrayed

The more I think about this story, the angrier I get.

I posted this earlier, but it deserves a repost.
Where the hell are the Democrats & John Kerry?
Columbus, Ohio—-Hour after hour the testimonies are the same: angry Ohioans telling of vicious Republican manipulation and de facto intimidation that disenfranchised tens of thousands and probably cost the Democrats the election.

At an African-American church on Saturday and then at the Franklin County Courthouse Monday night, more than 700 people came to testify and witness to tales of the atrocity that was the November 2 election.

Organized by local ad hoc groups, the hearings had a court reporter and a team of lawyers along with other appointed witnesses. At we will be making the testimonies available as they’re transcribed and organized, and we will present a fuller accounting of the hearings, along with a book that includes the transcripts.

But one thing was instantly and abundantly clear: the Republican Party turned Ohio 2004 into an updated version of the Jim Crow South.

The principle overt method of vote suppression was to short-change inner city precincts of sufficient voting machines to allow a timely balloting. In precinct after precinct, virtually all of them predominantly black, poor, young and Democratic, the lines stretched for two, five, eight, even eleven hours. The elderly and infirm were forced to stand in the rain while city officials threatened to tow their cars. No chairs or shelter were provided. Crucial signage was mysteriously missing. Thousands came to vote, saw the long lines and left.

How many thousands? Enough to turn the election? Almost definitely.

None of this was accidental. This was a well-planned GOP attack on the right to vote, and on Democratic candidacies. Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was also co-chair of the Ohio campaign for Bush. A right-wing Republican was in charge of the Franklin County Board of Elections.

They all said the election went “smoothly.” By their standards they were right. At least 68 voting machines sat in a warehouse while precinct managers called desperately for help. Republican precinct judges and challengers harassed would-be voters. The names of long-time activists mysteriously disappeared from registration lists. The arsenal of dirty tricks was virtually endless.

With it the Bush/Rove team deprived countless Ohioans of their right to vote just as surely as if they’d levied a poll tax or invoked the grandfather clause.

In the coming days we’ll issue a more complete accounting of these devastating hearings. No one who cares about democracy and fears the consequences of its destruction could come away from them without being both infuriated and terrified.

But one thing also stood out—-the complete lack of Democratic support for these hearings or for the larger vote count movement. Nationally, it all stands in the shadow of the complete disappearance of John Kerry, on whose nominal behalf this was done.

A successful grassroots effort involving the Green and Libertarian Parties, among others, has raised—<>in just four days—some $150,000 to force a recount of the Ohio vote. (Ralph Nader has forced a similar recount in New Hampshire). But where were the countless millions raised by the Democratic Party and Kerry campaign by trusting American citizens who expected them to fight for democracy?

Right up to election day Kerry repeated his solemn vow to, in light of what happened in Florida 2000, guarantee everyone’s right to vote. But now that another highly dubious election has occurred, where the hell is he?

Rumors are circulating that he is biding his time, waiting for the right time to jump in. Or that the Democrats themselves have something to hide. Or that there’s a magic bullet just waiting to be fired.

Similar rumors spread about Al Gore four years ago. We’re still waiting for that fateful shot.

This election was not about apathy. Tens of thousands of smart, eager, fiercely dedicated volunteers came out this year, desperate to rid this nation of the curse of George W. Bush.

An escalating avalanche of evidence indicates a true vote count would have thrown Bush out of the White House.

But once again, the Democrats have dissed the grassroots. Once again, a candidate who promised democracy has disappeared with barely a whimper in the face of those who would destroy it. His silence has allowed an orgy of media bloviation in homage to a bigoted, war-crazed America that, if it won at all, took this election not by national consensus, but by the Rovian staples of dirty tricks and voter suppression.

The upcoming Ohio recount is fraught with danger. The Republicans battled successfully to prevent the state’s voting machines from including paper trails that can be reasonably recounted. These “black boxes” will require extreme sophistication to be properly evaluated. Unless intensely supervised down to the last detail, the Republicans who control these machines will turn this recount into a “proof” that the election “went smoothly.”

So a true recount will require serious additional financial resources and a very aggressive, well-organized team. So far we hear not a peep from the mainstream Democrats. So far, they seem utterly deaf to the cries of fury and despair from those who were so wrongly deprived of their right to vote.

Democracy itself was lynched in Ohio on November 2, by both high and low tech means. Our freedoms may be the ultimate victim. But where is the Democratic Party?

Think how horrible these people must feel. Screwed by the REpublicans and betrayed by the Democrats. I am not surprised by the Republicans, but what is wrong with the fucking Democrats?

Bookmark and Share

Dear Media... (#3)

Could you please put together the huge unexplained discrepency in exit polls with the fact that there was an unexplained increase in votes for Bush in Florida counties that used electronic voting -- and figure out what it means?

Wait-- I'll tell you.


So why in God's name isn't this all over the the pages of your newspapers and web-sites?

Has the Bush administration and 9/11 sucked out your soul so completely?
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 18, 2004

The Best Evidence Yet of Electronic Vote Fraud

In Florida of course.
Read it and weep:
A research team at UC Berkeley reported Thursday morning that irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more in excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study showed an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods.

Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance -- the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team, led by Sociology Professor Michael Hout, formally disclosed the results of the study at a press conference and called for an immediate investigation by Florida officials.

“The three counties where the voting anomalies were most prevalent were also the most heavily Democratic counties, not the [conservative] Dixiecrat counties you’ve all heard about before, but the more heavily Democratic counties that used e-vote technology, including Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties in order of magnitude,” said Professor Hout.

The statistical patterns in counties that did not have e-touch voting machines predicted a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush’s share of the 2004 vote in Broward County, but the machines actually tallied an increase of 51,000 votes for a net gain of 81,000 votes for the President.

With the research team’s statistical model, it was expected that President Bush should have lost 8,900 votes in Palm Beach County but instead he gained 41,000, a difference of 49,900 votes.

And President Bush should have gained only 18,000 votes in Miami-Dade County but in fact gained 37,000, for a difference of 19,300 votes.

“ The disparity in favor of the incumbent President Bush cannot be explained away by other factors. The study shows that counties that used electronic voting resulted in disproportionate increases of votes for the President,” said Professor Hout.

Furthermore, statistical adjustments for the size of the counties, the number of votes cast, income, ethnicity and other factors, do not explain or account for the discrepancy why the President received so many votes in heavily democratic counties that used electronic voting.

Hout made this appeal: “For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting, someone needs to explain the statistical anomalies that we found in Florida. We’re calling on officials in Florida to take up this task and to take action now.”

See how it works, fifty thousand votes here, fifty thousand votes there. Pretty soon we're talking about election-changing numbers of votes.

I'm calling this fucking election for Kerry.
Bookmark and Share

Politics as an Exercise in Irrationality

Disturbing on a general level for understanding how voters think.

Just a small part of the post:
Undecided voters aren't as rational as you think. Members of the political class may disparage undecided voters, but we at least tend to impute to them a basic rationality. We're giving them too much credit. I met voters who told me they were voting for Bush, but who named their most important issue as the environment. One man told me he voted for Bush in 2000 because he thought that with Cheney, an oilman, on the ticket, the administration would finally be able to make us independent from foreign oil. A colleague spoke to a voter who had been a big Howard Dean fan, but had switched to supporting Bush after Dean lost the nomination. After half an hour in the man's house, she still couldn't make sense of his decision.

There's a lot more, and it gets worse.
Bookmark and Share

These Stories REALLY Should Be a National Outrage

See my previous two posts.

&#%$%#@! media!
Bookmark and Share

More Voting Outrageousness--

In Florida.

From Bev Harris.
TUESDAY NOV 16 2004: Volusia County on lockdown

County election records just got put on lockdown

Dueling lawyers, election officials gnashing teeth, film crew catching it all.

Here's what happened so far:

Friday Black Box Voting investigators Andy Stephenson and Kathleen Wynne popped in to ask for some records. They were rebuffed by an elections official named Denise. Bev Harris called on the cell phone from investigations in downstate Florida, and told Volusia County Elections Supervisor Deanie Lowe that Black Box Voting would be in to pick up the Nov. 2 Freedom of Information request, or would file for a hand recount. "No, Bev, please don't do that!" Lowe exclaimed. But this is the way it has to be, folks. Black Box Voting didn't back down.

Monday Bev, Andy and Kathleen came in with a film crew and asked for the FOIA request. Deanie Lowe gave it over with a smile, but Harris noticed that one item, the polling place tapes, were not copies of the real ones, but instead were new printouts, done on Nov. 15, and not signed by anyone.

Harris asked to see the real ones, and they said for "privacy" reasons they can't make copies of the signed ones. She insisted on at least viewing them (although refusing to give copies of the signatures is not legally defensible, according to Berkeley elections attorney, Lowell Finley). They said the real ones were in the County Elections warehouse. It was quittin' time and an arrangment was made to come back this morning to review them.

Lana Hires, a Volusia County employee who gained some notoriety in an election 2000 Diebold memo, where she asked for an explanation of minus 16,022 votes for Gore, so she wouldn't have to stand there "looking dumb" when the auditor came in, was particularly unhappy about seeing the Black Box Voting investigators in the office. She vigorously shook her head when Deanie Lowe suggested going to the warehouse.

Kathleen Wynne and Bev Harris showed up at the warehouse at 8:15 Tuesday morning, Nov. 16. There was Lana Hires looking especially gruff, yet surprised. She ordered them out. Well, they couldn't see why because there she was, with a couple other people, handling the original poll tapes. You know, the ones with the signatures on them. Harris and Wynne stepped out and Volusia County officials promptly shut the door.

There was a trash bag on the porch outside the door. Harris looked into it and what do you know, but there were poll tapes in there. They came out and glared at Harris and Wynne, who drove away a small bit, and then videotaped the license plates of the two vehicles marked 'City Council' member. Others came out to glare and soon all doors were slammed.

So, Harris and Wynne went and parked behind a bus to see what they would do next. They pulled out some large pylons, which blocked the door. Harris decided to go look at the garbage some more while Wynne videotaped. A man who identified himself as "Pete" came out and Harris immediately wrote a public records request for the contents of the garbage bag, which also contained ballots -- real ones, but not filled out.

A brief tug of war occurred, tearing the garbage bag open. Harris and Wynne then looked through it, as Pete looked on. He was quite friendly.

Black Box Voting collected various poll tapes and other information and asked if they could copy it, for the public records request. "You won't be going anywhere," said Pete. "The deputy is on his way."

Yes, not one but two police cars came up and then two county elections officials, and everyone stood around discussing the merits of the "black bag" public records request.

The police finally let Harris and Wynne go, about the time the film crew arrived, and everyone trooped off to the elections office. There, the plot thickened.

Black Box Voting began to compare the special printouts given in the FOIA request with the signed polling tapes from election night. Lo and behold, some were missing. By this time, Black Box Voting investigator Andy Stephenson had joined the group at Volusia County. Some polling place tapes didn't match. In fact, in one location, precinct 215, an African-American precinct, the votes were off by hundreds, in favor of George W. Bush and other Republicans.

Hmm. Which was right? The polling tape Volusia gave to Black Box Voting, specially printed on Nov. 15, without signatures, or the ones with signatures, printed on Nov. 2, with up to 8 signatures per tape?

Well, then it became even more interesting. A Volusia employee boxed up some items from an office containing Lana Hires' desk, which appeared to contain -- you guessed it -- polling place tapes. The employee took them to the back of the building and disappeared.

Then, Ellen B., a voting integrity advocate from Broward County, Florida, and Susan, from Volusia, decided now would be a good time to go through the trash at the elections office. Lo and behold, they found all kinds of memos and some polling place tapes, fresh from Volusia elections office.

So, Black Box Voting compared these with the Nov. 2 signed ones and the "special' ones from Nov. 15 given, unsigned, finding several of the MISSING poll tapes. There they were: In the garbage.

So, Wynne went to the car and got the polling place tapes she had pulled from the warehouse garbage. My my my. There were not only discrepancies, but a polling place tape that was signed by six officials.

This was a bit disturbing, since the employees there had said that bag was destined for the shredder.

By now, a county lawyer had appeared on the scene, suddenly threatening to charge Black Box Voting extra for the time spent looking at the real stuff Volusia had withheld earlier. Other lawyers appeared, phoned, people had meetings, Lana glowered at everyone, and someone shut the door in the office holding the GEMS server.

Black Box Voting investigator Andy Stephenson then went to get the Diebold "GEMS" central server locked down. He also got the memory cards locked down and secured, much to the dismay of Lana. They were scattered around unsecured in any way before that.

Everyone agreed to convene tomorrow morning, to further audit, discuss the hand count that Black Box Voting will require of Volusia County, and of course, it is time to talk about contesting the election in Volusia.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Vote Suppression in Ohio-- The Latest

Pretty outrageous stuff.

But one thing was instantly and abundantly clear: the Republican Party turned Ohio 2004 into an updated version of the Jim Crow South.

The principle overt method of vote suppression was to short-change inner city precincts of sufficient voting machines to allow a timely balloting. In precinct after precinct, virtually all of them predominantly black, poor, young and Democratic, the lines stretched for two, five, eight, even eleven hours. The elderly and infirm were forced to stand in the rain while city officials threatened to tow their cars. No chairs or shelter were provided. Crucial signage was mysteriously missing. Thousands came to vote, saw the long lines and left.

How many thousands? Enough to turn the election? Almost definitely.

None of this was accidental. This was a well-planned GOP attack on the right to vote, and on Democratic candidacies.
Bookmark and Share

I Couldn't Agree More

Do the Democrats Have Balls?

What John Kerry needed, and what the Democrats horribly lack, are balls. The simple courage to hang the polls and tell the public the straight story. To give them their medicine, no matter how nasty it may taste at first. When things are “fucked up,” say so openly and not just to a Rolling Stone interviewer. If personally attacked, challenge the accusers immediately and forcefully with withering contempt. Temper that frankness with an ounce of self-deprecating humor, a dash of laughter at the expense of the sitting President and the national press Corps, and voila, you have a winning recipe.

For decades now the Democrats have been afflicted with an insidious disease I’ve come to call SWNS, or Sudden Withdrawal of Nutsack Syndrome.

My feelings exactly. I refuse to support the Democrats anymore until they show true signs of "balls". And this means taking on the 9/11 cover-up as well.
Bookmark and Share

Updated Working Hypothesis for the Events of 9/11

Before reading this, please read my post "The Important, Well-Documented Evidence that EVERYBODY Needs to Know About 9/11", linked above.

My working hypothesis for the 9/11 attacks is very similar to what is outlined by Michael Ruppert in his book "Crossing the Rubicon"

The model is that:

1) the 9/11 hijackings, as described in the 9/11 Independent Commission report, were a covert operation run by the CIA, using Al Qaeda operatives (likely as patsies).

2) the key to 9/11 is that these hijackings were merged with ongoing military hijacking exercises, specifically Operation Vigilant Guardian and Operation Vigilant Warrior, that were being run on 9/11.

3) these military exercises were "testing" the scenario of commercial planes being hijacked by terrorists and crashed into major US buildings. (The US military has been documented by major news organizations to have run such drills prior to 9/11.)

4) on 9/11/01, NORAD was running LIVE-FLY hijacking exercises: Operation Vigilant Guardian and Operation Vigilant Warrior. Vigilant Guardian was likely the defense portion of the exercise, and Vigilant Warrior was likely the part of the exercise mimicking hijacked planes. In this exercise, commercial airplanes were used to simulate hijacked aircraft. This had been done before in previous exercises (as documented by USA Today and CNN)!

5) the four 9/11 hijacked flights (AA11, AA77, UA 93, and UA175) were part of these hijacking exercises. I think it is very likely the pilots and the crew and even some of the passengers of these planes were in on the hijacking drill. This explains why the hijackers were able to penetrate the cockpits so easily (with box-cutters!) and take over the plane without the pilots alerting air traffic control.

6) I think it is highly likely either that a) the hijacked planes were taken over by remote control by the CIA/military on a pre-set course to crash into the WTC, OR b) flights 11, 175 and 77 did not crash into the WTC and Pentagon, but were piloted out over the ocean and shot down by a NORAD pilot thinking he was shooting down mock-hijacked drone planes. On 9/11/01, distress calls were heard from three planes over the Atlantic. Drone planes were then remotely piloted into the WTC and the Pentagon. Since the US government is concealing the contents of the black boxes found at Ground Zero and the Pentagon, we can't really say for sure what planes hit there. Other reasons to think drones hit the WTC and Pentagon:
i) careful analysis of the first WTC plane hit shows that the plane does not look like a Boeing 767-- it does not appear to have wing-mounted engines.
ii) careful analysis of the second WTC plane hit shows that the plane does not look like a Boeing 767-200 (see here.)
iii) The blatant anomalies of the Pentagon hit have been well-documented by many different 9/11 sites.

7) The key aspect of the military hijacking exercises is that they delayed and confused the normal FAA and NORAD response to hijackings. It is very clear both of these agencies were confused and disorganized in response to the 9/11 hijackings. As part of the hijacking exercises, extra "blips" were inserted into NORAD radars simulating hijacked planes. This is probably why some people thought there were as many as eleven (such as FAA administrator Jane Garvey) or even twenty-two (Rudy Giuliani) hijacked planes on 9/11.

8) Dick Cheney appears to have been the person in charge of the 9/11 military exercises, and he had motive and opportunity to see that things went wrong (see "Crossing the Rubicon" for more on this angle.)

9) Thus, the 9/11 attacks were the result of a merge between ongoing NORAD hijacking exercises and a covert hijacking operation set-up by the CIA under the guise of Al Qaeda. In one sense, 9/11 was a military exercise gone wrong. All the known facts indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was purposefully sabotaged by elements of the government. Real hijackers were put onto planes and inserted into the exercise to confuse the response. As part of the exercise, commercial planes were fitted with remote control technology and were programmed to strike key buildings such as the WTC and Pentagon. These planes may have been flown empty (in which case the real flights were shot down over the ocean/remote area) or were loaded with pilots, crew, passengers and hijackers. In either case, NORAD was supposed to shoot these drone planes down before they hit their targets. Unfortunately, and tragically, the exercise became confused by too many planes on the radar, and NORAD couldn't respond normally.

10) Flight 93 was likely a real hijacked plane, and evidence suggests it was shot down. I am still analyzing flight 93 to understand how it fit in with the other hijackings, but I think that flight 93 may have been set-up differently from the other three 9/11 flights.

11) In this scenario I have outlined, very few people had knowledge of the whole operation. However, lots of people probably knew something would happen on 9/11. NORAD is probably very suspicious of what happened on 9/11, but probably can't prove anything. NORAD was probably not involved in remote control piloting of the planes-- this may have been done by the Pentagon. There is speculation that the people controlling the remote control drones were either in the part of the Pentagon that was hit or in WTC7 which collapsed late in the day of 9/11. WTC building 7 housed a CIA office.

12) I strongly suspect that the WTC towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. How this was done or why is not exactly clear, but the pattern of collapse of the WTC towers simply does not make sense with respect to the official explanation. Certainly the collapse of the towers on 9/11 made the terror of that day much much worse than if they hadn't come down.

This overall hypothesis explains:

1) the confused and conflicted explanations provided by the administration. Condi Rice was lying blatantly when she said no-one could imagine hijackers using airplanes as missiles and crashing them into buildings. It was a giant lie concocted as part of a massive cover-up.

2) the fact that the administration clearly didn't want 9/11 investigated.

3) the fact that the FBI and CIA knew so much about the hijackers and had nice photos of them to release after the attacks. The CIA and FBI were simply lying when they said they had no idea of the 9/11 plot.

4) the obvious planting of evidence by the FBI/CIA: Korans, wills and Arabic flight manuals in the hijackers' cars and luggage, hijacker's passport found on the street near the WTC.

5) the many other anomalies of 9/11 not described here.

Unresolved Issues:

1) Exactly what kind of planes hit the WTC towers and the Pentagon? Were they really flights 11, 175 and 77? What was on the black boxes that were recovered?

2) Were the hijacked planes definitely remote-controlled? If so, who controlled/programmed the flights?

3) Were all the hijackers named by the FBI actually on the flights? Where did these names come from and what were the real identities of the hijakcers who used fake names?

4) Were all of the cell phone calls and airphone calls made from the hijacked planes legitimate or could some of them have been clever fakes?

5) Who planted the explosives that brought down the WTC buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7)?

6) While Bush and Cheney must have known about the NORAD hijacking exercise, did either of them know the full-extent of the plot?

The US government and in particular the Bush administration, clearly benefited hugely from 9/11. It is also clear that the Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq, and 9/11 brought an almost perfect pretext. I believe the CIA actually wanted to go into Afghanistan in order to control the opium market, and the Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq. This is part of the conflict between the Bush administration and the CIA. The anthrax attacks were another synthetic terror attack, like 9/11, and provided a stronger incentive for going to war with Iraq-- think WMD.

I believe that 9/11 is the greatest crime our country has ever witnessed, that elements of the US government were intimately involved in the attacks, that there is a massive cover-up going on, and that we simply CANNOT let them get away with it.

Bookmark and Share

And You Wonder Why You Lost, Mr. Kerry?

From the
Washington Post:

It's been two weeks since Kerry lost to President Bush. "The votes have not all been counted in New Mexico and Ohio," says Kerry's campaign and Senate spokesman David Wade, who is waiting for Kerry outside the strategy meeting. "And if you believe some of what you read on the Internet. . . . "

Wade is referring to the litany of conspiracy theories about voting irregularities. He says this while rolling his eyes. Message: Kerry is back at work.

Bookmark and Share

Bush and the CIA

How is it that Bush can get away with purging the CIA with seeming impunity?

Possible explanations:

1) the CIA is really composed of just a bunch of harmless and nerdy "analysts" who can be pushed around by a powerful leader like Bush.

2) Bush may be exerting control right now, but the CIA will get revenge on him.

3) the CIA agents who are being purged don't have any real power in the organization, and are controlled by conservatives who are aligned with Bush.

4) Bush knows the details about CIA involvement in 9/11, and is using this info to his advantage. He knows they can't manufacture another terror attack, because that will allow him to declare unlimited power under martial law.

These are the possibilities I can think of right now. I think the truth is most likely some combination of 2,3 and 4.
Bookmark and Share

Do You Believe Concerns About Electronic Voting are Merely a Crazy Conspiracy Theory?

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

So Much for Freedom of Speech

An e-mail I recived today from 9/11 Truth:
David Ray Griffin has received confirmation that Kevin Ryan, site manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories, was fired today by the parent company, Underwriters Laboratories, apparently for writing a letter questioning certain common theories of the Twin Towers collapses to the leader of the U.S. government NIST team researching the World Trade Center events.

Kevin Ryan's letter and a story about it are here:

Assuming this is true, it is quite disgusting.

On the other hand, maybe the WTC collapse is a vulnerable point for attack, if the powers that be are so touchy about it.
Bookmark and Share

Purges at the CIA

Lots of articles lately, for instance here.


I don't get it, frankly. Seems like you really wouldn't want to screw around with the CIA-- especially clandestine service people.

The only thing I can figure is since GHW Bush was the top CIA man, GW Bush can get away with this.

Side note-- in the NYTimes piece, they had this bit:
The officer designated by Mr. Goss to take over the operations directorate was stripped of his Latin America post for attempting to intervene on behalf of a boyhood friend who had been arrested on narcotics charges in the Dominican Republic. An intelligence official noted that Mr. Goss had chosen him "in full knowledge'' of that episode, saying, "The guy served his time in the penalty box, and he went on to do good things.''

... and so it goes....
Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 15, 2004

The Important, Well-Documented Evidence that EVERYBODY Needs to Know About 9/11

The following facts were all reported by mainstream media outlets. Unfortunately, the media, just like the Bush administration, is not very interested in "connecting the dots".

First, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) has strong links to both Al Qaeda and the US CIA. In fact, several ISI agents are also Al Qaeda operatives. The CIA helped build the ISI as well as the Muhajadeen that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden had contacts with the CIA and his family had relationships with the Bush family. An incredibly important piece of information is that the director of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed approved a money transfer to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta-- this occurred via a ISI-Al Qaeda double agent, Saeed Sheikh. Interestingly, back in 1999, an ISI agent named Rajaa Gulum Abbas visited the US and made threats to an FBI informant about blowing up the World Trade Center. Given the fact that the CIA has strong connections to the ISI as well as leverage OVER the ISI, it is certain that the CIA had forewarning of the 9/11 attacks and probably also had control over the attacks themselves. If the US felt burned by Pakistan after 9/11, they didn't show it, since they forgave Pakistani debts and approved sales of military hardware to the Pakistanis.

Second, in terms of the 9/11 hijackings themselves, these interesting facts have been almost completely ignored by the mainstream media:
a) Before 9/11, the US government as well as NORAD ran multiple exercises that simulated hijacked jets being crashed into major US buildings.
b) On 9/11, NORAD was actually running a live-fly hijacking exercise (Operation Vigilant Guardian/ Vigilant Warrior).
c) On 9/11, the National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO) was running an exercise simulating a plane crashing into their building.

The importance of the hijacking exercises that were run before 9/11 and on 9/11 is shown by the fact that Condileeza Rice blatantly lied about even IMAGINING a plane could be used as a weapon.

The importance of the hijacking exercises that were run before 9/11 and on 9/11 is shown by the fact that the 9/11 Independent Commission completely ommitted this incredibly relevant information from its report.

The Commission does however, obliquely mention the hijacking exercise. In the first chapter of their report, they have an exchange between the FAA and the North East Air Defense System (NEADS).

When alerted of a hijacking by the FAA, NEADS says: "Is this real-world or exercise?"

The FAA then says: "No, this is not an exercise, not a test."

Got that? The commander of NEADS is confused whether the reported hijacking is part of their exercise or something else. This is IN THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT!! But of course, since the report is a classic Washington cover-up, it does not address the incredible significance of these words.


9/11 DID NOT result from a lack of intelligence on the "terrorists"!

9/11 DID NOT result from a lack of planning!

9/11 certainly DID NOT result from a "failure of imagination"!

9/11 was most likely a CIA-run covert operation that willfully and maliciously took advantage of what was described above.

The facts outlined above are the chinks in the armor of the official 9/11 story.

We must attack these weak points and reveal the truth about 9/11 for the future of this country. Even if we can't do it in the short term, we still must work towards making these facts available to the greater public in the long term-- even if this is a virtually impossible task.


A great reference for the Pakistani-ISI connection is Paul Thompson's extensive 9/11 timeline (which links to mainstream sources).

A great reference for the hijacking exercises is "Crossing the Rubicon", by Michael Ruppert, chapter 19.

Bookmark and Share

Dear Media... (#2)

Dear Media--

Would it bother you very much to determine how many war crimes have been committed by the US in the past three years?

Thank you,

Bookmark and Share

Bush Insults the World-- Again

By naming Condi-liar Rice as his next Secretary of State.

When will the insanity end?
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Failure on 9/11

from John Pilger:
The most important evidence to the commission came from General Ralph Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad). "Air force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring towards the World Trade Center and Pentagon," he said, "if only air traffic controllers had asked for help 13 minutes sooner... We would have been able to shoot down all three... all four of them."

Why did this not happen?

The Kean report makes clear that "the defence of US aerospace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with pre-existing training and protocols... If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC)... The NMCC would then seek approval from the office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance..." Uniquely, this did not happen. The commission was told by the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Authority there was no reason the procedure was not operating that morning. "For my 30 years of experience..." said Monte Belger, "the NMCC was on the net and hearing everything real-time... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings... and they were always listening in with everybody else." But on this occasion, they were not. The Kean report says the NMCC were never informed. Why? Again, uniquely, all lines of communication failed, the commission was told, to America's top military brass. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld could not be found; and when he finally spoke to Bush an hour and a half later, it was, says the Kean report, "a brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed." As a result, NORAD's commanders were "left in the dark about what their mission was".

The report reveals that the only part of a previously fail-safe command system that worked was in the White House where Vice-President Cheney was in effective control that day, and in close touch with the NMCC. Why did he do nothing about the first two hijacked planes? Why was the NMCC, the vital link, silent for the first time in its existence? Kean ostentatiously refuses to address this. Of course, it could be due to the most extraordinary combination of coincidences. Or it could not. In July 2001, a top secret briefing paper prepared for Bush read: "We [the CIA and FBI] believe that OBL [Osama Bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."

Interesting-- this supports the idea that Cheney was the Maestro behind 9/11.

The rest of the article is just as disturbing-- how the most appalling things have become very mundane in this country.

It is so true and people mostly seem numb to it-- at least 50% of them anyway.

God this is depressing.
Bookmark and Share

The GOP Attack Machine

Atrios talks about how the GOP demonizes the Democrats.

Then he says:
Stop. Blaming. The. Victim. You fucking morons.

By which I assume he means that we shouldn't blame the Dems when the big bad old GOP picks on them, and that we're morons if we do.

Well, I have to disagree. We're not talking about people stealing candy from a baby or a woman getting raped because she wore a short skirt.

We're talking about about supposedly sophisticated political parties and their candidates. If they can't take the heat, they shouldn't be in the business. And is John Kerry a victim? That seems like an insult to Kerry.

My thinking is the Dems have to get IN on this demonization business, or at least better at it. Kerry was pretty weak as far as I could tell in attacking Bush-- considering how many vulnerabilities Bush had and how many scandals have occurred over the past four years.

Bottom line-- if the GOP demonizes the Dems, then the Dems have to demonize the GOP.
Bookmark and Share

Uh Oh

Solidifying the nuclear terror legend.

Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, says the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist.

This is very worrisome-- in the sense that I worry that "somehow" OBL or Al Qaeda will get hold of a nuclear device and threaten the US.

Even the threat of such a thing could lead to martial law, I fear.

God help us all.
Bookmark and Share

Dear Media...

Oh splendorous media,

oh bounteous media,

oh merciful media,

oh great and all-powerful media,

in your infinite wisdom and all-encompassing knowledge,

could you please deign to explain
how in nine battleground states,
such as Ohio, Florida and Minnesota,
the vote tallies from these states favored Bush by an average of about 5% of the vote over the exit poll results?

Dr. Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania has calculated that the odds of all these exit polls being off by such a wide margin are one in 250 million.

The exit polls suggested a Kerry landslide, while the real vote tally gave President Bush a narrow win.

Could you please explain this to your lowly, poor and ignorant subjects?

Thank you.

Your humble servant,


Bookmark and Share

A Chilling Message

from Indira Singh:
Currently, anyone taking on the Bush administration's complicity in 9/11 is treading on seriously dangerous grounds. Any redemption that I might have gained from a change in Administration, a change in people taking a chance to hire me, has gone. Secret grand juries are as dangerous a concept as secret trials.

Therefore I am seriously making plans to leave the country. I became a citizen of the United States of America, not some Saudi or Nazi version thereof.

For me, this is real. I hold real data implicating the Bush Administration in the events of 9/11. For me to do something with it, I have to leave, if only to be able to breathe.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Major Election Fraud Has Been Predicted for a While

My parents (who are very suspcious of this election as well) sent me this article from 2003.
Bookmark and Share

Diebold and Election Fraud in Indiana

In Franklin County.

I really need to go check this out.

Thanks to bin'dare for the tip!

Additionally, I have always been suspicious if my precinct REALLY has 75% Bush voters. We use ESS electronic voting machines. Could they have been padding the numbers a little here?
Bookmark and Share


I must say, Ralph Nader is looking a lot better to me after this election than he did before.

I always liked Nader's politics (for the most part), and he raised important issues that the two parties didn't dare bring up. My biggest beef with him was that I knew he would never get elected, and he was tilting the election towards Bush.

But maybe, if there is some sort of strong popular uprising as a result of all the Bush bullshit going on, then maybe Ralph will have done us a favor. (I know this was his plan. We'll see if it works out at all.)

All I know, given the embarrassing lack of response from the Democratic leadership over this apparent election theft, I am looking very hard at third parties. (Heck-- maybe I'll run for office myself.) And DEFINITELY, in the absence of MAJOR changes in the DNC (which I feel are unlikely), I am not giving another cent to the Democrats.

I feel like there is a lot of popular dissatisfaction rising up in this country-- maybe we're on the brink of some sort of major change. Our system needs major overhaul all acorss the board-- the political parties, the elected government, the election systems, the intelligence services, the media-- all the power brokers in Washington-- they need to go. They are obese, corrupt and rotten institutions.

All I can say is we really need some change.
Bookmark and Share

The CIA, Exit Polls and the Election

If the CIA, or at least a part of it, is really at war with George W. Bush, as David Brooks avers, could they have manipulated the exit polls in such a way to cast doubt on Bush's election?

Just a thought.

I don't really believe it, but I can't rule it out either.

Stranger things have happened.
Bookmark and Share

Stolen Election 2004-- A Growing Movement

While the public interest in the possibility that the 2004 presidential election was stolen continues to grow-- as judged by letters to the editor, calls and e-mails to radio shows, and conversations with people at work-- the media continues to keep their head buried in the sand.

I have just one question for the media here:


Shouldn't this be fucking obvious?

My only conclusion is that either the media is covering up the stolen election in a BIG WAY, or they are just fucking idiots. Perhaps both.

NOTE: Even more appalling is that the big liberal bloggers aren't even pushing this story. I guess it is too much of a "conspiracy theory" for them-- which is not too surprising given how they wouldn't even discuss the most rudimentary questions in the official 9/11 story. Both these issues have dramatically hastened my dissatisfaction with these people.
Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger