1. Kean is part of the cover-up, so OF COURSE he doesn’t want a criminal trial:
“Can the defendant explain to the court how you managed to bring down WTC7, where you got the nanothermite from and how you managed to get tons of it into the towers without being noticed by security…
…
If the they really do take this thing to a trial, I am certain that nano-thermite, 105′ free-fall, molten iron, 1.3 diphenylpropane, 100′s of references to explosions by firefighters and news reports and other eyewitnesses, NASA Thermal images, multi-ton steel beams flung 100′s of feet, statements from Flight school instructors (all except for 1 maybe), and much much more will never make it into the courtroom either thrown out by the judge or never even mentioned by the preselected patsy defense lawyer selected to represent him.
They might even let KSM represent himself like Moussaoui did (or am i thinking of the shoe bomber Reid. I know Moussaoui had a lawyer for the sentencing phase). I am sure KSM cannot explain how the terrorist listed a naval base as their home address on their drivers license or stayed with an FBI informants. It will be a show trial in the grandest style that Lenin himself would be proud of.
Many feel (MSM talking heads that is) his confession is all that is needed. Never mind he was waterboarded 186 times. He confessed and that’s all we need to know. Don’t check his confession for accuracy, just take it for what its worth and throw him jail. It won’t matter that confessions are never really taken at fact value, just ask John Mark Karr (He confessed to the JonBenet Ramsey murder). He’d be in jail today if we just took his confession at face value. No, it was checked for accuracy and never passed the sniff test. He was let go. I would bet KSM’s confession could pass no such test. So with a bunch of fabricated, indirect, and non-verified evidence, he will be convicted. I think the ultimate purpose for this trial is to re-inforce the offical story because lately, the OCT has suffered many setbacks. It will take years to undo the brainwashing effect this trial will have.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21899
2. “
“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.
When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn’t trying to dictate the result.
…
KSM’s “trial” will be a classic kangaroo style affair, the type commonly witnessed in dictatorships or police states. Obama’s just given the show away… the verdict is already set in stone: Guilty, regardless of anything. This won’t be a proper trial, or anything even resembling such…. but the mainstream weasel media will gloss it over and couch it in obscure legalese to give it some air of phony “legitimacy”. Why even bother with any form of “trial” when the only acceptable verdict is a “guilty” one?
This trial will also set a dangerous precedent: the authorities will soon be empowered to torture anyone and bring the garbage “evidence” extracted by such into the court room to use against the defendant.
Mr. Obama is an even sicker puppy than I thought a few days back…. as are anyone involved in this unfolding travesty of justice.
or sociopath, if you prefer.
The problem with sociopaths is that they are often extremely skilled actors. Their entire lives are spent emulating emotions that “ordinary” people feel; since they lack ordinary emotional responses relating to guilt, empathy and fear, they can also come across as supremely confident and assured in their opinions. They are the ultimate “confidence” (ie con) men.
In hierarchical societies we are taught from birth to “respect authority”, so we tend to admire people who display these characteristics. This, combined with the sociopath’s amorality, allows them to rise to the top of the pyramid both in politics and finance, where capitalist ethics reward the greediest, most corrupt individuals.
Some may argue that Obama is actually a decent person trapped in the great spider web of politics; he has to “pick his battles” and pander to certain fascist elements in order to stay in power (let alone stay alive). Even if this were true, it merely demonstrates that the current political arrangement is untenable. If even a “decent” man (which Obama is surely not, but let’s pretend that he is) can become this venal after one year in power, the entire system needs to be rethought. We need systems that are directly responsive to the needs and desires of the mass of the population, and that means more than “representative democracy”.
Concerning Obama’s statements on the patsies, I would expect nothing less. What truly appalls me is the silence ie tacit endorsement of his position by practically the entire intellectual class. Even on the “left”, I have only seen one or two prominent journalists pointing out the FACT that no reliable evidence has been produced to indicate the guilt of these men, nor the FACT that an abundance of information has been gathered by the 911 truth community suggesting that the guilty parties lie considerably closer to home, and that these men may very well be completely innocent.
Yet another indication that 911 has corrupted everything under the Sun, and needs to be exposed for the lie that it is.
the deafening silence of “intellectuals” concerning all themes and subjects related to 911 is highly revealing of a deep mass psychology. It is beyond corruption, I believe. I think that the “corruption” may actually be a terror of the chaos that they imagine would ensue when it is publicly acknowledged that what on some level they all know has happened did indeed happen. If we just pretend not to see it, it isn’t really there. With the publication of the nanothermite material there can no longer be any doubt: we were attacked by our own military; our media was complicit in covering this up and using it to start wars that would otherwise be unpopular. Our “elected officials” all seem complicit as well. The shake up would be so disasterous no “intellectual” or member of the “white collar class” will take the first step in that direction. They have way too much at stake in the way things are. And the “working class” is so taken up with just “putting food on their families” they don’t have time to even think about it. It is not exactly “cognitive dissonance” anymore since that is more of a “shock” reaction…..It is this festering and immobilizing guilt that also includes fear…fear of punishment and chaos.
Talking about 911 in a university setting is considered “inappropriate” Journalism is no longer taught there Instead the students study “communication”. This means that you learn to communicate what you are told.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21891
3. Switching off cell-phone transmitters is EXACTLY what the government did on 9/11 and at Fort Hood:
“It is ironic that President Barack Obama would travel to China and speak against government control over the internet. If the American Department of Homeland Security has its way new cybersecurity laws will enable Obama’s administration to take control of the internet in the event of a national crisis. How that national crisis might be defined would be up to the White House but there have been some precedents that suggest that the response would hardly be respectful of the Bill of Rights.
Many countries already monitor and censor the internet on a regular basis, forbidding access to numerous sites that they consider to be subversive. During recent unrest, the governments of both Iran and China effectively shut down the internet by taking control of or blocking servers. Combined with switching off of cell phone transmitters, the steps proved effective in isolating dissidents.”
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/11/18/internet-under-siege/
4. “If total visual control of the wider Manhattan area was a top priority of the 9/11 psyop, it would have been essential to impede any authentic footage to be captured in NY that morning. Electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF or HPM) is routinely used in war zones to jam the enemy’s electronics. Read about it here . Conceivably, this technology was used to prevent any private footage being recorded throughout the limited (102min) time-window in which the defining 9/11 events took place (from first “plane” strike to last tower collapse). To be sure, the research into this field has long been a top military priority: with this in mind, one may reasonably consider that this technology was employed on 9/11. It is, all in all, a hypothesis grounded in logic and (military) common sense.
Do we have any indications from the day that may back-up this hypothesis? Indeed, we do: it is a well-known fact that thousands of electronic devices malfunctioned – or blacked-out altogether. These include:
* 1) : all New York cell phones… Read More
* 2) : the firefighters’ NYFD radio-transmitters
* 3) : the WTC’s internal communication system
All these disruptions were in fact widely reported- and (officially) explained away with claims such as:
* 1) : “the NY cell phone network was overloaded”
* 2) : “the NYFD had faulty radios/was confused over new T-R channels”
* 3) : “the WTC intercom wiring was damaged by the crashing airplane”
5. “We often forget that the power wielded by government exists only because there are those willing to carry out its orders. The “Government” is not an Artificial Intelligence that exists in a science fiction movie. Rather it comprises real people who have the choice to either follow or refuse an order.
…
What then occurred was a 30-minute interrogation at which any given time a half dozen individuals were crowded in the small office. At first a police officer entered and informed me that I did indeed have to tell the TSA where I worked. Upon my asking for clarification he backed off his initial statement. When a second police officer entered, the interrogation continued. Amid threats of involvement with the FBI and DEA, I saw firsthand the strong-arm tactics that unfortunately some in law enforcement use. The questioning went back and forth between myself, TSA, police officers, and random individuals entering and leaving. Consistently I kept my responses simple, yet polite, and asked questions in return. “Am I legally required to answer that?… Does the law state I have to tell you that information?… Can you please tell me what my rights are concerning that inquiry?…” As I continued, I was either yelled at or accused of refusing to comply.
At one point I was informed, “If you have nothing to hide, just answer the question.” I cringed as I listened to the argument used by those who give preeminence to the state over the individual. This line of training had apparently been bred into in these agents and was unfortunately well engrained in whatever type of training they had received.”
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=371
6. “Retired military officers cash in as well-paid consultants
Six months after Marine Lt. Gen. Gary McKissock retired in 2002, he did what many other ex-military leaders do: He joined the board of directors of a defense contractor, a company doing business with his former service.
McKissock also had a second job. The Marines brought him back as an adviser, at double the rate of pay he made on active duty. Since 2005, the Marines have awarded McKissock contracts worth $1.2 million, in addition to his military pension of about $119,000 a year.
McKissock is one of at least 158 retired admirals and generals the Pentagon has hired to offer advice under an unusual arrangement. Most of the retired officers, one to four stars in rank, have been paid hundreds of dollars an hour by the military even as they worked for companies seeking Defense Department contracts, a USA TODAY investigation found. That’s in addition to pensions of $100,000 to $200,000 a year for officers with 30 or more years of service.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-17-military-mentors_N.htm
7. “The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American
Shouldn’t the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?
Back in 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses could be forced to recite the pledge, and then, in 1943, in the midst of a war against totalitarian states, the court reversed its earlier opinion.
Individuals like Phillips and Newdow who publicly challenge the Pledge of Allegiance can expect to provoke not only harassment by their neighbors but also cyclones of bloviation emanating from elected leaders who, unwilling to fix healthcare or pay for infrastructure, always have time to defend the pledge or the flag. In response to the Newdow case, 150 members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge, stressing “under God.” To show its understanding of the phrase “liberty and justice for all,” the Republican-controlled House in 2004 passed a law stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction in cases involving the pledge; the bill died in the Senate, proving that the system of checks and balances sometimes succeeds in its intended function of thwarting mob rule.
Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance, which today is most fiercely defended by white conservative Southerners whose Confederate ancestors tried to destroy the United States in the 1860s, was written by a Yankee socialist from New York in the 1890s. Francis Bellamy was a progressive Baptist minister and a Christian socialist who composed the pledge for the 400-year Columbus anniversary in 1892 and published it in a youth magazine.
…
In the course of the 20th century, support for the pledge migrated from the collectivist left to the reactionary right. The original Bellamy pledge read: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” In 1923 WASP nativists prevailed in having “my flag” replaced by “the flag of the United States of America,” to make sure that young Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, among others, knew they weren’t pledging allegiance to the old country. In 1954, Congress inserted the words “under God,” following an influential sermon by a Protestant pastor who argued that the model for the United States in the Cold War should be ancient Sparta.
Could anything be more foreign to America’s enlightened 18th-century liberal and republican traditions than this toxic compound of collectivism, nativism, Spartan militarism and theocracy?
The very idea of a pledge of allegiance, in any form, is completely at odds with what is often called “the American Creed,” inspired by the 17th-century philosopher John Locke’s theory of natural rights and government by popular consent. The concept of “allegiance” is feudal. In medieval Europe, the liegeman, or subject, pledged allegiance to his liege lord. But in Lockean America, there is no government outside of society to which the members of the society could pledge allegiance, even if they wanted to. As the scholar Mark Hulliung explains Lockean liberal theory in “The Social Contract in America: From the Revolution to the Present Age” (2007):
There is a social contract by which the people bind themselves to one another, but no subsequent political contract [between people and government]. The rulers hold power temporarily, as mere “trustees” of the people … What the people give they can take away whenever they please, because they are bound by no contract between governors and governed.
In a republic, the people should not pledge allegiance to the government; the government should pledge allegiance to the people.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24007.htm
