|
Monday, 16 June 2008 20:06 |
|
Today, Chris Matthews continued his ongoing canonization of Tim Russert. Early in this evening’s Hardball show, Matthews repeated a segment of his original tribute to Russert’s career. By doing so, he either shamelessly established Russert as a leading 9/11 gate keeper or a blithering idiot. I strongly suspect the former.
Of all the endless possibilities, Matthews chose to memorialize Russert for some uncanny and privileged insight into the truth about what happened on September 11th. He wanted us all to know that
“[Tim Russert] knew on that horrid morning of September 11th that the hijackers had grabbed the transcontinental flights because they’d have enough fuel to melt the girders of the World Trade towers.”
Wow, just like that, on the morning of 911, Tim Russert KNEW the motivations of a whole group of incinerated hijackers. That’s really fantastic. He also KNEW the planes had enough fuel to melt the girders of the World Trade towers. He just KNEW the temperature of burning jet fuel, and he KNEW the melting temperature of steel. Tim Russert was not only a mind reader of the dead, but an undeclared expert in aviation practices and thermal physics. I’m impressed.
But I’m also outraged. Real or imagined hijackers aside, there are a myriad of questions that still remain answered about 9/11. In this article, I will address ONLY TWO. My purpose is not to delve into the mountains of evidence that have utterly decimated the nonsense in the official story of the attacks and the fairy tale known as the 9/11 Commission Report. That can be done by any one with the ability to use a search engine on the Internet.
My intent is to put to rest the notion that Tim Russert KNEW anything before or after there was any pretense of investigation by anyone. I also want to to illustrate how Matthews' commentary effectively thwarts the attempts by the 9/11 Truth community to expose the truth or even raise the vital questions about what happened on that day. For the record, let's look at the Russert quote with some sense of reality. For starters, in relation to the Russert quote, there is significant controversy about how much fuel would have been on board either 767 on that fateful morning. One theory that bears serious consideration has been outlined by people with far greater scientific credentials than Tim Russert. Here’s the counterpoint:
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.
So much for Russert’s unsubstantiated knowledge of the use of aviation fuel.
Second, there is considerable challenge to the claim that jet fuel from the 767 could cause the collapse of either of the Towers. Even at the maximum possible temperature a jet fuel could reach at combustion, there is serious question that a 767 aircraft could melt 96,000 tons of steel, and crumble 14,000 cubic foot concrete slabs between floors into dust particles. That becomes even more enigmatic when you consider that the pool of fire created by the impact of the planes was consumed in less than five minutes.
Perhaps Tim Russert knew something the rest of us do not, but I wonder why did not KNOW why the clever ‘hijackers’ opted against using the larger 747, with its greater fuel load. As it stands, we, too, will never know.
So, there goes any confidence in Tim Russert’s knowledge of thermodynamics.
Chris Matthews insists that Tim Russert knew things simply ‘because new them.’ Now there’s a credible reason for stating that he KNEW what has never been truly investigated or in any way corroborated about the events of 9/11.
This evening, the official nonsense fed to the public about the attacks of that day was reinforced in spades. Chris Matthews used Tim Russert’s passing to elevate the man’s credibility beyond challenge by the average American. That leaves a huge burden on those of us who know that all has been smoke and mirrors, and that nothing we have been told about 9/11 by anyone in the government or the mainstream media is true.
And that is why I took the time to write this article. I could not sit by and allow Chris Matthews to slide this lie past the public, unnoticed.
Ironically, in his tribute, Matthews also compared Russert to Tom Sawyer. That’s interesting, because one thing we all associate with Tom Sawyer is the term ‘white wash,’ Tom conned his friends into white washing a fence. That was harmless and innocent.
But using Tim Russert to help white wash the truth about 9/11 is neither harmless nor innocent. It is the calculated work of a complicit corporate gate keeper. |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 16 June 2008 23:24 )
|
|
Friday, 13 June 2008 14:26 |
It’s not on the network news programs, because, in fact – it’s kind of secret. Even the print media, where they’ve covered a bit of this story, don’t know very much about it. Whatever it is, U.S. officials refuse comment on the details. Even members of Congress are out of the loop, but it really does sound super!
It’s got one of those feel good Bushco names, - you know – like the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies, and – of course, Operation Iraqi Freedom. All these clever captions successfully sold Americans some really toxic legislation, and anesthetized their free fall into dictatorship and economic collapse.
So what’s to worry about a US-Iraq Security Pact with our good buddies in Iraq?
Heck, Americans want security and surely Iraqis want security, - and don’t we all just want to get along? It does sound eerily comforting after so many years of killing and maiming, so maybe our compassionate leader and his cohorts are really working to provide us with peace and prosperity after all. So why all the behind-closed-doors stuff? And why, after months of bargaining has it come to a no-deal dead end?
Lets’ take a look at what we do know… with a one important caveat. George W. Bush and his neocon handlers will make sure that the American public believes that Iran is behind this failure, while Bomb, Bomb Iran is played as background music to their claim. Don’t buy it. Iran is surely frightened that this pact might succeed, and for very good reasons is pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Al- Maliki to develop a backbone and reject it.
But Iran is NOT behind what’s going on,
Bear in mind that ‘negotiations’ between the US and Iraq began last November. The story remained pretty much under the radar until earlier this month when a British paper leaked details of the ‘secret’ agreement between the US and Iraq. Just as suddenly, Iraqi legislators began to wail loudly about being railroaded into an agreement they did not want and could not accept. Here’s a recap of what went on:
• November, 2007: - U.S. and Iraqi leaders sign a non-binding plan for bilateral relations, setting the stage for formal negotiations about the long-term presence of American troops in Iraq. It is lovingly called the Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America. Wouldn’t you think this would stop the carnage? Nah.
• December, 2007 – In accordance with the November plan, (and under the direction of the US) Maliki asks the UN to extend the mandate that gives Bush the right to keep troops in Iraq. The mandate ends at the end of 2007, but is extended to 2008. That allows time for a sixth year of deaths and horror and pretense that the war is one of progress and success
• March, 2008 – Uh-oh, only months to go until the end of the 2008 mandate and a presidential election in which there is talk about bringing the troops home. Bush wants a permanent presence in Iraq, and negotiations begin for a binding, long term agreement that would supersede any attempts by the next US President to end the occupation of Iraq.
• June 3, 2008 – Trouble begins to brew in the open for the first time, - but not as a dispute between the US and the Iraqi leaders being bullied into an unending occupation. Instead, the AP reports that “a proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement is shaping up as a major political battle between America and Iran, as the debate over the future of troops here intensifies ahead of the fall U.S. presidential election.”
• June 4, 2008 – The UK Independent publishes an exposé headlined: Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control. The American MSM ignores the revelation.
According to the article, “A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November."
"The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to the Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.”
• June 4. 2008 - A majority of the Iraqi parliament writes to the US Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave.
• June 7, 2008 - Prime Minister Maliki arrives in Iran for talks aimed at improving relations between the two countries. The following day he publicly assures Iran’s President Ahmadinejad that Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran.
• June 8, 2008 – The cat is out of the bag. A leading Iraqi Shiite cleric states that the status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad could lead to an uprising in Iraq. He says, "It is not to the benefit of the U.S. as a major power to lessen the sovereignty of Iraq. This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it,"
• June 9, 2008 – Bush tries to avert the total breakdown of the talks. He concedes for the first time that the United States may not finish a complex security agreement with Iraq before leaving office. US officials also try to soften the flashpoint phrase, ‘permanent bases,’ by stating that ” the proposed agreement would allow U.S. troops or personnel to operate out of U.S., Iraqi or joint facilities through either short or long-term contracts.” A rose by any other name is till a permanent base.
• June 10, 2008 – McClatchy News Services report that Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed ‘status of forces” agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely. Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties claim that “… the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” They fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran. Wonder why Iran objects so strongly to this pact.
• June 10, 2008 – Despite “a storm of rising" opposition from Iraqi lawmakers, David Satterfield, the State Department's top adviser on Iraq expresses ‘confidence’ that a deal will be finalized between the US and Iraq by July. As usual, US arrogance reigns supreme.
• June 11, 2008 – More opposition is voiced by Iraqi officials who denounce the intention of the US to maintain 60 US military bases in their country. They call for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year.
• June 13, 2008 – Prime Minister al-Maliki announces that talks with the United States on a new long-term security pact are deadlocked.. "We have reached a deadlock,” Maliki says, “because when we started the talks, we found that the U.S. demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept.
And so, the agreement is on hold, at least for now.
At TVNL, we have followed these stories with alarm. All are linked on our ‘war-at-a-glance’ pages. The large majority of the American people are totally clueless that such a deal was in the works at all. The faux news networks, with minimal exceptions, have once again selected to report the stories that their corporate masters decide upon.
Rest assured that Iran is being set up as the fall guy for the failure of this falsely labeled ‘security’ agreement. Today, Israeli hawks once again pushed for strikes against Iran. Fear and loathing are the call words of the day, as the US continues its relentless efforts to carry out the PNAC agenda in the Middle East.
They will not go quietly into the night. Trust us on that. |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 15 June 2008 11:47 )
|
|
|
Sunday, 18 May 2008 20:51 |
|
I don’t know who is writing George Bush’s speeches nowadays, but it has to be someone with really serious mental problems. It’s embarrassing enough when this clueless president attempts to speak spontaneously. Left to his own devices, he cannot string together a handful of simple words with any coherent continuity; just as he cannot offer rational responses to questions he apparently is unable to process. But when George Bush has a prepared speech to deliver to an apprehensive audience of 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders in the Middle East, you’d think he would say something intelligent. Think again.
It’s seems almost ridiculous when you do think about it, - but today, the President of these United States sought to lecture men whose cultures he does not understand, and whose history he does not know, and whose societies he has never studied, and whose people view him with distrust and disrespect, on how they should conduct their lives.
At an international conference of Arab notables, this arrogant, unpopular, ineffective, and insensitive man – George W. Bush - dared to pass himself off as a staunch defender of peace and freedom in the world, as well as the reigning champion of political freedom and women’s rights. According to the AP, he assumed a ‘decidedly tougher tone,’ when making the following claims:
"America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled...I call on all nations in this region to release their prisoners of conscience, open up their political debate and trust their people to chart their future,"
Are you laughing yet? I know I am. But it’s laughter of disbelief and incredulity that seems to be the only response I can muster to this ongoing madness. George W. Bush, the man who has done more to violate political freedom, oppose women’s rights, suppress freedom of information and the press, and and who prides himself on being a 'war president,' is lecturing others to reform the ills of their governments. It is beyond insanity. Having George Bush lecture anyone about peace and freedom is much like Charles Manson giving a talk on positive group dynamics. After all, this is a man who lied the American people into an endless war. This is a man who spied on his own citizens in violation of their Constitutional rights. This is a man who has led the most secretive government in the history of this country, and has imprisoned people without charges and without right to counsel. This is a man who has condoned and approved of torture and rendition flights, and this is a man who is totally committed to denying women the right to privacy or equal pay and to giving gays and lesbians the same civil rights enjoyed by other Americans. This is a man who refused to allow an investigation into the tragic events of 9/11 for a full year after they occurred, and who still stands in the way of any discussion or exposure of the fallacies of the official account of that day. This is a man who sent military officers with ties to war profiteers to shill for his wars on the complicit “news” networks. And this is a man who will not allow the American public to see the flag-draped coffins of the troops he sent into a senseless meat grinder called “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” This is a man who has supported the most repressive Middle Eastern leaders when it has been profitable for him to do so, and who has slaughtered countless innocents in the region when that has been equally profitable for him and his handlers. This is the man whom Condoleezza Rice has the temerity to describe as “pro-democracy and pro-peace." And yet, this is the man who dares to lecture anyone on earth on the virtues of peace and freedom. At TvNewsLIES, we have spent most years of the Bush presidency reporting the crimes that the thugs of this administration have perpetrated on this country and the world, and for which this President and his cohorts will never be held responsible. Like others in the alternative world of real news, we have written over and over about the deterioration of our freedom and the horrors of the wars that the Bush cartel has waged in our name. Frankly, right now, I’m tired of doing the same thing over and over. Perhaps I’ll just have a good laugh. It’s really quite ludicrous after all. |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 21 May 2008 19:01 )
|
|
Thursday, 15 May 2008 17:14 |
|
I can think of no greater mystery in all of American politics that the reasons behind the blind support the US gives to Israel.
There is an old joke about why Israel will never become the 51st state of the United States…it is because that would mean that they only have 2 Senators!
Time and time again I have watched politicians publicly declare their support for Israel. Politicians who will never ever make a decision that affects Israel still feel the need to pledge their allegiance publicly. Local assembly people, mayors, dog catchers…every American politician must declare their support for Israel or else they risk losing their office.
Why? In my entire 44 plus years on this planet I have never heard one damn reason why we have to pledge blind and unconditional support to Israel. Not once. Not from a politician and not from a pundit. The reasons for our support are as deep a secret to the public as are the agendas of secret societies, the global power broker group know as the Bilderberg Group and the goals of our Project for a New American Century (PNAC) government.
Somebody tell me what Israel has done for the US during my 44 years? During my 44 years I have watched Israeli persecution of the people who lived on Palestinian soil prior to the creation of the Jewish state. I have watched dozens of UN Security council violations ignored while others were voided by sole American vetoes. I have watched billions of American tax dollars head over to Israel while I had to walk by homeless New Yorkers on a daily basis. Yet in all my life I have never witnessed a single event that made me feel that our friendship with Israel benefited my own nation.
This is a truly one way relationship yet I am not sure which way it actually goes. I am not sure if the US is controlled by Israel or if Israel is an arm of the US. One of these two scenarios has to apply for nothing else makes sense. Then again maybe, as with many governmental issues there are things we do not know.
There is a great deal of speculation out there, and there has been a great deal of research done on this topic. We can end the speculation if a single American politician would come forward and deliver, along with his or her pledge of allegiance to Israel, a clear and valid reason to support a nation that under present circumstances clearly does not deserve our support.
Somebody…please explain this to me!
Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLIES.org (Originally published on my blog - 12-June-2005)
Context: Anti-Semitism office planned at State Department - LINK (This article was on the Washington Post website. It has been removed) - President Bush plans to sign a bill passed by both houses of Congress that would establish a State Department office to monitor anti-Semitism around the world, despite the department´s strong objection, administration officials said yesterday. More: Under fire for saying that the United States should be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, 2004 Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean Wednesday said he would not abandon the long-standing policy of strong U.S. support for Israel. Link. JESSE’S COMMENT: Why would someone have to defend himself for saying such a fair statement?More: Israel's Mr. TV slams the Israeli occupation (Link vanished) JESSE’S COMMENT: You never hear in the American media about the Israelis and Jews who object to the actions of the Israeli government.More: In Congress, support of Israel at peak pitch - White House faces lawmakers eager to lay down markers of solidarity with longtime Mideast ally. LinkMore: Law of Belligerent Occupier - Link - What are the rights and obligations of “Occupying Powers,†the legal term for countries that occupy an adversary's territory? RELATED DVDs:- Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land - U.S. Media & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - LINK
- Tragedy in the Holy Land - The Second Uprising - LINK
- Lifting the Fog - Intrigue in the Middle East - LINK
- Gaza Strip - LINK
- Death in Gaza - LINK
RELATED BOOKS:- Speaking the Truth - Zionism, Israel, and Occupation - LINK
- Suicide in Palestine - LINK
- Unequal Conflict - The Palestinians and Israel - LINK
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 15 May 2008 17:45 )
|
|
