1. More evidence that Oklahoma City was also a controlled demolition, just like all 3 WTC buildings, and that of course McVeigh didn’t do it:
“Additionally, he told his original council that he was only supposed to blow out a few windows of the federal building but that the truck had been switched possibly without his knowledge.” After confronting McVeigh about this, his council noted that he became highly angry, and stated that he thought he had told the previous lawyer this information in confidentiality.
That the damage to the Murrah building was much more severe than could be expected from the Lone Ryder truck bomb, is not only supported by his first defense attorney, but also by the mysterious source D himself, who says that McVeigh’s government handler instructed McVeigh on the morning of the bombing, to park the Ryder truck in front of the Murrah building and then meet him at a nearby restaurant. However, D says, things did not go according to plan, and at 9:02 A.M on the morning of April 19, 1995, the Ryder truck, which was filled with ammonium nitrate and a large amount of C-4, detonated. Immediately afterwards, D claims, “strategically placed charges” blew out the four main building supports. D’s statement also align with original media accounts, first responder transcripts, seismographs and expert witnesses who believe the destruction done that was done to the building, was caused by much more than a “Lone Ryder.”
…
D then says that certain watchdog agencies, who had been tracking McVeigh for months before the bombing, had achieved their objective because the militias and skinheads were blaming the Feds and vise versa, and that in the midst of this confusion, then President Bill Clinton was able to pass his new Anti-Terrorism bill, which had been continuously shot down prior to the bombing. This bill, when read carefully, looks like a close relative of current post 9/11 legislation, including then widely expanded and unprecedented domestic spying capabilities and the erosion of habeas corpus.
Perhaps D is correct. Regardless, the fact that there is now much evidence to show that McVeigh’s role was much more obscure and intentionally hidden than previously thought, should be a concern of students of history, as well as those who support such needless legislation, such as the current H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, also called by many a “thought crime” bill, out of fear for the next Lone Nut Domestic Terrorist.”
http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/47235313/a-guilty-agent-the-shadowy-role-of-timothy-mcveigh
2. A new article in a professionally-reviewed journal that proves conclusively the WTC could NOT have come down from melting due to fire:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf
3. The character Franco on the TV show ‘Rescue Me’:
“9/11? Inside job. Plain and simple. And all you gotta do is connect the dots. … I am talking about a massive neoconservative government effort, been in the works 20 years. Ever heard of PNAC? Project for a New American Century? According to them, the end goal of their effort is American global domination. Full spectrum dominance, they call it. Now, first question that pops into my mind is: How do you pull that off in this day and age?”
Answer: You blow up the Towers — though in the scene Sunjata states it much more elegantly and forcefully.“
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2009/01/rescue-me-chara.html
4. “We scored an amazing mass media victory this week, which we must
immediately build on and expand, when first Keith Olbermann took note
of the fact that the number one question on the Obama “change” site
was asking about a special prosecutor for the torture and wiretap
crimes of the Bush administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPTHvMJYKLY
Then George Stephanopoulos asked Obama himself to answer the question
directly on This Week on Sunday. First, Obama tried to duck the
question with a talking point that could have come straight out of
Karl Rove’s twisted mouth, that he was “looking forward not
backward”. But, when pressed by Stephanopoulos, Obama also suggested
that it would largely be up to Eric Holder, his attorney general
nominee.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/obama-leaves-do.html
Bingo, that’s it. We must now literally FLOOD the phones of key
selected members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with calls for
Eric Holder to answer how he will uphold the rule of law with respect
to the crimes of the outgoing administration. The confirmation
hearing starts this Thursday at 9:30 AM, so we have to jump all over
this in the couple days between now and then.
…
Beside the points specific to each senator, our two general talking
facts are that
1) the number one question on Obama’s own site was a special
prosecutor for torture and wiretapping by the Bush Administration,
and
2) Obama said in response (to Stephanopoulos) that Eric Holder was
“the people’s lawyer” and that “his job is to uphold the
Constitution.”
So we need to lead in with, and find a way to weave both of these
talking facts into ALL of our communications this week, in some
paraphrase or another. The corporate media is already working to
marginize both, so we must REPEAT them as much as possible. In this
way we create a powerful mantra vibration.
THIS LAST POINT IS ABSOLUTELY DROP DEAD CRITICAL
If we can get at least one Senator to simply STATE these two facts on
the record during the confirmation in their own questioning we are on
our way to victory. If you are really motivated, call progressive
radio shows and propagate the talking facts there too.
If you click on the link for the Stephanopoulos interview above you
will notice that the third section (about Eric Holder) has been CUT
off the video, even though it is still on the page in the transcript.
This is no accident. The whole thing was there in the video when
first posted, and then it got cut short. Why? Because our the sworn
enemies of the people in the corporate media will try to propagate
only the “look forward not backward” talking point.“
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19083
5. “Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War?
A very large delivery of US weaponry to Israel consisting of 3,000 tons of “ammunition” is scheduled to sail to Israel. The size and nature of the shipments are described as “unusual”:
“Shipping 3,000-odd tons of ammunition in one go is a lot,” one broker said, on condition of anonymity.
“This (kind of request) is pretty rare and we haven’t seen much of it quoted in the market over the years,” he added.
“Shipping brokers in London who have specialized in moving arms for the British and U.S. military in the past said such ship charters to Israel were rare.
…
Analysts have hastily concluded, without evidence, that the 2 shipments of “ammunition” were intended to supply Israel’s armed forces in support of its military invasion of Gaza.
“A senior military analyst in London who declined to be named said that, because of the timing, the shipments could be “irregular” and linked to the Gaza offensive.” (Reuters, January 10, 2009)
These reports are mistaken. Delivery of ordinance always precedes the onslaught of a military operation. The ordinance required under “Operation Cast Lead” was decided upon in June 2008.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19078
6. “All of the suffering in Gaza – indeed, all of the suffering endured by Palestinians under Israeli occupation for the last eight years – could have been avoided if Israel negotiated a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat when it had the chance, in 2001.
What chance? The official Israeli position is that there was no chance, “no partner for peace.” That’s what Israeli leaders heard from their Military Intelligence (MI) service in 2000 after the failure of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David. Arafat scuttled those talks, MI told the leaders, because he was planning to set off a new round of violence, a second intifada.
Now former top officials of MI say the whole story, painting Arafat as a terrorist out to destroy Israel, was an intentional fiction. That’s the most explosive finding in an investigative report just published in Israel’s top newspaper, Ha’aretz, by one of its finest journalists, Akiva Eldar.“
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/chernus.php?articleid=14070
7. Israel commits a war crime against the UN:
“Israel Attacks UN HQ in Gaza With ‘White Phosphorus’ Shells
The headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Gaza Strip was attacked today by Israeli artillery, sparking a fire which continues to burn. The compound was reportedly housing 700 civilian refugees and storehouses of increasingly scarce food aid at the time of the attack.
But perhaps even more pressing is the nature of the attack, which UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness said was hit with shells containing the incendiary agent white phosphorus. “What more stark symbolism do you need?” asked the spokesman. “You can’t put out white phosphorus with traditional methods such as fire extinguishers. You need sand. We don’t have sand.”
…
The use of white phosphorus as a weapon of war in civilian areas is banned under the Geneva Conventions’ Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, though Israel has repeatedly denied that it is doing so. Still, rising evidence is putting that story, like so many other official stories during this war, in serious doubt.”
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/15/israel-attacks-un-hq-in-gaza-with-white-phosphorus-shells/
8. Absurd:
“The International Criminal Court declared today that it has no jurisdiction over the actions of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip, meaning that the growing number of calls by humanitarian organizations to investigate Israeli activities in the Gaza Strip cannot lead to any action by the Hague-based court.”
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/14/world-court-claims-it-has-no-jurisdiction-over-gaza-war-crimes/
9. “On the Streets of New York, Calls to “Wipe Out” Palestinians; Friedman: Hit Civilians to Teach them a Lesson
But these sentiments are not just on the street. They are even on the op-ed page of America’s newspaper of record.
Uh, calling for or endorsing war crimes is itself a war crime, and some people were tried for that sort of thing after WW II.”
http://www.juancole.com/
10. “Israel deploys military units along the border with Lebanon amid growing concerns that the assault on Gaza was the onset of a multi-front war.
Nineteen days after the start of the Israeli offensive against the Gaza Strip, the Lebanese daily Al Safir reported Wednesday that southern Lebanon had witnessed the build-up of Israeli armored vehicles – tanks, military vessels and Apache helicopters – along the border.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11806
11. “The word “liberal” has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last eight years. All that has been necessary to qualify is a belief in such radical, exotic and fringe-leftist concepts as search warrants before the Government can eavesdrop on our communications; due process before the state can encage people for life; adherence to decades-old Geneva Conventions restrictions which post-World-War-II America led the way in implementing; and the need for an actual, imminent threat from another country before we bomb, invade, occupy and destroy it.
Now added to the pantheon of “liberal” dogma is the shrill, ideological belief that high government officials must abide by our laws and should be treated like any other citizen when they break them. To believe that now makes you not just a “liberal,” but worse: a “liberal score-settler.” Apparently, one can attain the glorious status of being a moderate, a centrist, a high-minded independent only if one believes that high political officials (and our most powerful industries, such as the telecoms) should be able to break numerous laws (i.e.: commit felonies), openly admit that they’ve done so, and then be immunized from all consequences. That’s how our ideological spectrum is now defined.
…
Second, and quite relatedly, is that establishment elites have, by definition, a vested interest in glorifying and protecting the Washington establishment. It’s perfectly fine to have a President who is inept or even somewhat corrupt. A titillating, tawdry sex scandal is also fun, even desirable, as that keeps entertainment levels high. That’s all just part of the political cycle.
But to acknowledge that our highest political officials are felons (which is what people are, by definition, who break our laws) or war criminals (which is what people are, by definition, who violate the laws of war) is to threaten the system of power which, above all else, they are desperate to maintain, as it is their role within it as royal court spokespeople that provides them with their access, prominence, wealth and self-esteem. Their prime mandate is to protect and defend establishment Washington — most media figures are integral parts of that establishment, not outside of it — and that means, above all else, attacking anyone who would dare suggest that the establishment has been rotten, criminal and evil at its core.
…
The political/media establishment isn’t desperately and unanimously fighting against the idea of investigations and prosecutions because they believe there was nothing done that was so bad. They’re fighting so desperately precisely because they know there was, and they know they bear much of the culpability for it. They fear disruptions to their own comforts and prerogatives if any more light is shined on what happened. The consensus mantra that the only thing that matters is to “make sure it never happens again” is simply the standard cry of every criminal desperate for absolution: I promise not to do it again if you don’t punish me this time. And the prevailing Orwellian Beltway battle-cry — look to the future, not the past! — is what all political power systems instruct their subjects when they want to flush their own crimes down the memory hole.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
12. “What is it that connects the death of Emmett Till, the abandonment of largely poor African-Americans in New Orleans, and the deaths of innocent children in Gaza? All three are tied together by the racialized logic of disappearance and disposability implemented under the practices of a modern state. All three reference, as David Theo Goldberg points out in his newest book, The Threat of Race, populations marked as targets to be dispensed with, “heel on face eating dust when they have anything to eat at all … deserted, reduced to philistinism, untrusted because untrustworthy. And once deserted, having nowhere to turn, no one to appeal to but a few folks of conscience, they are fair game.”
All three embody the ideology of a racial state in which it is assumed that in the absence of African-Americans and Palestinians, including children, there would be no police violence, threats, insecurity, checkpoints, blockades, economic problems, immigrants—just a racially cleansed society no longer at war with itself and others. What unites all three events is the shame of racist violence and the practices of state terrorism, hardly a legitimizing foundation, normative or political, for the repulsive images and deadly actions of the type we see in Gaza promoted by Israel in the name of democracy.”
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
Leave a comment