29 October, 2010

757 Pentagon - nice recap


Victor Thorn Interviews Former CNN Reporter Who Was First on Scene at Pentagon on 9-11

  By Victor Thorn

There's an old saying: Don't spit on my leg and tell me it's raining. Likewise, don't show me a photo taken only minutes after the 9-11 Pentagon "event" and insist that a Boeing 757—which is 155 feet long with a 124 foot wingspan and weighs 100 tons—crashed into America's military nerve-center.

During an Oct. 19 interview, this writer questioned former CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre about the 200,000 pounds of missing wreckage. McIntyre was one of the first establishment reporters on the scene soon after the Pentagon event and has been cited repeatedly by researchers exploring alternative views about what happened on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

McIntyre tried to explain, "What was left of the plane broke into thousands of tiny pieces. Most of it was destroyed."

However, McIntyre's own words delivered during a  live CNN broadcast on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 betray this sentiment. "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

That tragic morning, he continued, "There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."

Later, as possible "damage control," McIntyre objected that his comments were taken out of context. But were they? Pentagon officials initially excused the lack of physical wreckage by saying the plane, including its black boxes and flight data recorders, "vaporized."

Yet, deceased employees and passengers were identified by DNA, fingerprints and drivers licenses. How could aluminum and high-grade steel completely disintegrate, while flesh and plastic documents remained intact?

McIntyre responded, "It's inexplicable how some stuff survives. It's a fluky situation what makes it through and what doesn't. It's not inconsistent for some fragile things to survive while other strong things don't."

In other words, we're supposed to believe this preposterous spin instead of our own eyes. Also, why is only one 18-foot hole visible on the Pentagon's exterior ring? Government spokesmen said it was created by Flight 77's fuselage, yet a Boeing's nose is described by aviation experts as a weak eggshell, a sausage skin, or an empty beer can. Airplane mechanics cast serious doubt on whether a fuselage could penetrate three immensely strong reinforced concrete walls.

McIntyre admitted to AFP that never once did he interview any structural engineers to determine why the plane's five-ton engines didn't create any holes. In fact, McIntyre never interviewed a single pilot to determine if Hani Hanjour—who could barely drive an automobile and was refused permission to rent a Cessna prop plane months before 9-11—could have commandeered the large, sophisticated, unwieldy aircraft said to have hit the Pentagon. He called the matter "immaterial."

Moreover, McIntyre failed to interview any air traffic controllers to ascertain whether a Boeing 757 could execute a 7,000-foot drop in 2.5 minutes while pulling a sharp 270-degree turn. Nor did he interview a single airline technician to verify if this aircraft could perform such top-gun maneuvers. Neither did he contact a single physician in regard to whether Hanjour would have lost consciousness in flight, due to the G-forces.

McIntyre also neglected to interview any photographic experts or search-and-rescue workers in regard to why no wreckage appeared in the initial photos. Additionally, prof. A.K. Dewdney of Western Ontario University conducted numerous experiments which determined that cell phone calls could not have been made by passengers that morning. Such technology only became available in 2004. Pilot Russ Wittenberg confirmed to AFP that these devices couldn't lock onto cell phone towers from the heights or speeds claimed by the government.

Inexplicably, McIntyre didn't contact a single electronics expert to verify the authenticity of these calls. When asked if he viewed any of the 84 confiscated videotapes that the Pentagon has refused to release under FOIA requests to this day, McIntyre responded in the negative. AFP followed-up, "Has there ever been any conclusive video footage where Flight 77 is unmistakably seen striking the Pentagon?"

McIntyre replied, "As far as we know, there is no video footage comparable to WTC 2 being struck in New York."

Despite the Pentagon's enormous surveillance systems,  the government can't produce even one identifiable photograph of Flight 77 crashing into this highly secure facility. Moreover, McIntyre didn't witness the crash, and only arrived on the scene 45 minutes later. Worse, he confessed to not doing any research into alternate explanations, while adding, "I'm not aware of anyone at CNN exploring these subjects in any detail."

By his own admission, McIntyre couldn't provide evidence of interviewing a single individual whose perspective differed from the government's official version of 9-11.

He justified this lack of intellectual and journalistic curiosity with the following mantras: (a) All evidence points in only one direction, (b) There are no plausible alternatives, (c) These aren't relevant lines of questioning, and (d) All this might make sense if we didn't know whether American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But we do know that for a fact, so all this other debate and analysis is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, McIntyre still does not realize that this type of lazy elitist arrogance is why a growing number of Americans don't trust the corporate media.

He did acknowledge, "It's good to keep an open and skeptical mind because the government doesn't always tell the truth."

But by neglecting to investigate a single aspect of this story that contradicts the government's version, CNN, McIntyre, and his mainstream media colleagues, epitomize lapdog journalism at its shoddiest.

(there is a great youtube video)

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Friday, October 29, 2010 0 comments

27 October, 2010

The 4th Age - it ain't Hobbiton

As you know we don't live in Hobbiton - where the the state,
corporations and us -- are one happy community, and
we all try to help each other. 

We live in 2010 and in the last 5 years alone -- while we
people have been fast asleep -- state and private power has expanded into full-time
. Records are never deleted and shared widely among the powers.

*in* 5 years you will see autonomous electronic agents setting traps for us,
based on data that is collected now.... controlled by the "powers".

Conclusion:  The best we can do is to fill the databanks with erroneous data,
and make laws that restrict sovereign information DRASTICALLY -- and put it
under guard.

We live in the beginning of the THIRD REVOLUTION, where democracy
is suffering under the onslaught of the digital madness.

Today "WE" have to work on OUR autonomy!

While energy autonomy is around the corner,
in a network of information there is no autonomy, hence the precautions.

The First Technical Revolution:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_revolution
The Second Technical Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
The Third Technical Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computing_1950%E2%80%931979
The Fourth Technical Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_4._Revolution_%E2%80%93_Energy_Autonomy


A joke for the end of this depressing blog entry

Not to be confused with the 4th Age where Sauron has been defeated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Age   Sauron lives!

more necessary reading:

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Wednesday, October 27, 2010 0 comments

20 October, 2010

novel weapons FALLUJAH - Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009

Dr. Chris Busby, a world famous UK based physicist, was at the UN last week with the results of his health survey comparing the health of the city of Fallujah, Iraq with 38 Hiroshimas.

The results were truly astonishing, even to the jaded eyes of UN representatives, old retired war fighters and politically connected bureaucrats. No armed force had accomplished this level of death and disease in a civilian population before.


There it was in black and white, on paper, from an internationally respected physicist – the utterly unbelievable, but certified results: Fallujah's leukemia rate was 38 times higher than Hiroshima after the US Atomic Bombing in 1945. The questions were fast and furious.

Questions include:

  1. How did the US do that? and,
  2. What weapons did the US deploy on the civilian population to cause so much cancer? and,
  3. Did the US nuke weapons labs develop a Cancer Bomb?
Many diplomatic representatives were probably wondering how their government could get some of those weapons.


The Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in California and the Lethality Center at Picatinney Aresenal in New Jersey were most certainly involved


"A documentary on Italian television on Tuesday accuses American forces of using white phosphorus shells in the assault on Fallujah last year not just for nighttime illumination, their usual purpose, but to burn to death Iraqi insurgents and civilians. The mainstream American news media, whose reporters had witnessed the fighting and apparently seen no evidence of this, largely ignored the claim."

"They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud," Abu Sabah, another Fallujah refugee from the Julan area told IPS. "Then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them."


Dr. Chris Busby

Abstract: There have been anecdotal reports of increases in birth defects and cancer in Fallujah, Iraq blamed on the use of novel weapons (possibly including depleted uranium) in heavy fighting which occurred in that town between US led forces and local elements in 2004. In Jan/Feb 2010 the authors organised a team of researchers who visited 711 houses in Fallujah, Iraq and obtained responses to a questionnaire in Arabic on cancer, birth defects and infant mortality. The total population in the resulting sample was 4,843 persons with and overall response rate was better than 60%. Relative Risks for cancer were age-standardised and compared to rates in the Middle East Cancer Registry (MECC, Garbiah Egypt) for 1999 and rates in Jordan 1996–2001. Between Jan 2005 and the survey end date there were 62 cases of cancer malignancy reported (RR = 4.22; CI: 2.8, 6.6; p < 0.00000001) including 16 cases of childhood cancer 0-14 (RR = 12.6; CI: 4.9, 32; p < 0.00000001). Highest risks were found in all-leukaemia in the age groups 0-34 (20 cases RR = 38.5; CI: 19.2, 77; p < 0.00000001), all lymphoma 0–34 (8 cases, RR = 9.24;CI: 4.12, 20.8; p < 0.00000001), female breast cancer 0–44 (12 cases RR = 9.7;CI: 3.6, 25.6; p < 0.00000001) and brain tumours all ages (4 cases, RR = 7.4;CI: 2.4, 23.1; P < 0.004). Infant mortality was based on the mean birth rate over the 4 year period 2006–2009 with 1/6th added for cases reported in January and February 2010. There were 34 deaths in the age group 0–1 in this period giving a rate of 80 deaths per 1,000 births. This may be compared with a rate of 19.8 in Egypt (RR = 4.2 p < 0.00001) 17 in Jordan in 2008 and 9.7 in Kuwait in 2008. The mean birth sex-ratio in the recent 5-year cohort was anomalous.

Normally the sex ratio in human populations is a constant with 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls. This is disturbed if there is a genetic damage stress. The ratio of boys to 1,000 girls in the 0–4, 5–9, 10–14 and 15–19 age cohorts in the Fallujah sample were 860, 1,182, 1,108 and 1,010 respectively suggesting genetic damage to the 0–4 group (p < 0.01). Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Wednesday, October 20, 2010 0 comments

16 October, 2010

Zionist Settlers burn Palestinian Olives

Israel settlers start fires amid West Bank harvest

By Philippe Agret (AFP) – 7 hours ago

FARATA'A, Palestinian Territories — Thick black smoke billows from the
olive grove under the gaze of Israeli soldiers as Palestinian farmers
use branches to try to beat out the fires lit by Jewish settlers.

It's olive harvest time in the occupied West Bank.

The firebombers swooped down from Havat Gilad, a wildcat Jewish
settlement unauthorised even by the Israeli government.

Encircled by barbed wire, the makeshift dwellings glower down on the
surrounding Palestinian olive plantations from a hilltop in the
northern West Bank.

"We were gathering the olives when the settlers arrived. One of them
started a fire," says olive grower Shaher Tawil.

He points to a bearded man wearing a T-shirt and a Jewish kippa or
skullcap, now safely behind an Israeli military barrier.

"When we saw the flames, we called the fire service but the soldiers
wouldn't let them come any closer to prevent clashes with the
settlers," the old man says.

The young Israeli conscripts, visibly embarrassed and restricted by
their uniforms in the oppressive midday heat, finally let the
fire-truck through after about an hour, by which time the flames have
already been well-fanned by the wind.

At last the fires are put out, as again the soldiers look on.

Tawil says that last week settlers from Havat Gilad harvested the
fruit of 800 trees belonging to his family.

"Every year they steal our olives and burn our trees," he says.

The Havat Gilad settlers are among the most hardline in the West Bank
and believe they have a God-given right to land they know by its
Biblical name of Samaria.

For them, the villagers in whose midst they have set up home are not
"Palestinians" with a right to a state alongside Israel but "Arabs"
who are interlopers on Biblical Jewish land.

The settlers are wont to quote a saying by one of their spiritual and
ideological gurus, the late rabbi Mordechai Elyahu.

"This land is the birthright of the people of Israel. If a gentile
plants a tree on my land, the tree and its fruit are mine."

A few hours earlier, in the village of Azmut near the northern West
Bank city of Nablus, a group of youths from the settlement of Elon
Moreh, four kilometres (two and a half miles) away, dispersed
Palestinian olive harvesters with shots in the air, witnesses said.

The settlers said they had come under attack first.

"We began the harvest at 7 am. At 9 am while we were having breakfast,
they turned up with these automatic weapons," said Pauline Marechal, a
57-year-old Frenchwoman.

"They began firing in the air. The children were screaming and crying.
The settlers were chanting: 'Out. Out'," said Marechal, an activist
with the Palestinian solidarity group, Darna, which helps villagers
with the olive harvest each October.

"Every year, it's the same thing," she said. "They come with their
ladders and their tea urns and they steal the olives."

A report released by aid organisation Oxfam on Friday said attacks and
other acts of harassment by Jewish settlers against Palestinian olive
farmers "are common and often increase during the time of the

The group said that the olive sector, "which contributes up to 100
million dollars (71.4 million euros) in yearly income for some of the
poorest Palestinian communities, could bring a brighter future for the
Palestinian economy, provided its full potential is realised."

It said that about 45 percent of farmland in the West Bank and Gaza is
given over to olive cultivation, with approximately 10 million trees.

The Israeli army says it does all it can to protect Palestinian olive
growers. So far this year there have been no casualties at least. But
neither have the police made any arrests.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Saturday, October 16, 2010 0 comments

14 October, 2010

USA Hillary Clinton apologizes for ONE atrocity in Central America


Oct 01, 2010

U.S. apologizes for 1940s medical experiments on Guatemalans injected with STDs

but does not apologize to the victims of mass murders slaughtered by right-wing death squads sponsored by an illegitimate US-installed and sponsored Guatemalan regime!

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today apologized for "abhorrent" and "clearly unethical" medical experiments in the 1940s in which U.S. Public Health Service doctors injected Guatemalan patients with syphilis and gonorrhea without their knowledge to study the effect of venereal disease

Doctors from the U.S. Public Health Service injected hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhea in the 1940s without their knowledge or consent in a study of the effects of venereal disease, NBC news reports.

Information on the experiment was discovered by Susan Reverby, a professor of women's studies at Wellesley College, and can be seen today on her website. 

Reverby says the "syphilis inoculation project" was co-sponsored by the PHS, the National Institutes of Health, the Pan American Health Sanitary Bureau and the Guatemalan government.

She says one of the doctors was also involved in the infamous "Tuskegee" syphilis study in which hundreds of already infected African-American men in Alabama were left untreated for 40 years while doctors observed the effects of the disease.

The Guatemala project involved 696 people, including prisoners and mental health patients.

Reverby writes:

The doctors used prostitutes with the disease to pass it on to the prisoners ... and then did direct inoculations made from syphilis bacteria poured into the men's penises or on forearms and faces that were slightly abraded when the 'normal exposure' produced little disease or in a few cases through spinal punctures.

She notes that unlike in the Tuskegee experiments in Alabama, the subjects in Guatemala were given penicillin after they contracted the illness, although she says it is unclear whether everyone was cured or received adequate treatment.

NBC News reporter Robert Bazell says mental patients and prostitutes were unwittingly injected in the experiments from 1946 to 1948.


It's a bit rich.

And it begs the question. Will the US come clean, and wholeheartedly apologize, and give reparations, for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians slaughtered by right-wing death squads sponsored by an illegitimate US-installed and sponsored Guatemalan regime?

The 1940s experiments in Guatemala were part of a wider, now well-documented, pattern of US imperial interference that escalated in the context of the 1994 democratic revolution that brought the Arbenz government to power. US official attitudes to the democratization of Guatemala were candidly described in a variety of now declassified internal documents I discuss in this paper.

In 1952, US intelligence noted the rise of "militant advocacy of social reforms and nationalistic policies identified with the Guatemalan revolution of 1944", resulting in 10 years of democracy - before the US intervened directly to secure strategic interests. "The radical and nationalistic policies" included "the persecution of foreign economic interests, especially the United Fruit Company", and had won "the support or acquiescence of almost all Guatemalans." The government had generated "mass support for the present regime", proceeding "to mobilize the hitherto politically inert peasantry" via agrarian reform and labour organization, undermining the hegemony of large foreign landowners. But democracy was not to be lauded - it was a serious problem: "Guatemalan official propaganda, with its emphasis on conflict between democracy and dictatorship and between national independence and 'economic imperialism', is a disturbing factor in the Caribbean area", the US concluded.


In other documents, the US noted that the democratic revolution of 1944 had contributed to "a strong national movement to free Guatemala from the military dictatorship, social backwardness, and 'economic colonialism', which had been the pattern of the past". The "social and economic programs of the elected government met the aspirations" of the impoverished, and "inspired the loyalty and conformed to the self-interest of most political conscious Guatemalans." Hence, "neither the landholders nor the [United] Fruit Company can expect any sympathy in Guatemalan public opinion." Worse still, the government's "agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon; its broad social program of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American neighbours where similar conditions prevail."

Cold War 'Domino theory' was not seriously concerned by the threat of 'international communism' per se. It was more worried about the danger that a whole region might be inspired by a successful model of nationalist economic independence. So something had to be done. In the words of a 1949 CIA assessment, this programme was "distinctly unfriendly to US business interests". Similarly, the US State Department acknowledged that such policies constituted a threat to Guatemala as "a place for capital investment". (See Mark Curtis' Ambiguities of Power, Zed, 1995 p. 152)

So in 1954, the US and British teamed up to violently overthrow Arbenz's reformist democratic administration, and installed Col. Castillo Armas. To keep the new, illegitimate, counter-democratic dictatorship in power required extensive 'force projection', in particular the creation and support of a lethal network of government-backed right-wing death squads whose sole task was to slaughter peasants into submission.

Amnesty International (AI) reported at the time that "tortures and murders... are part of a deliberate and long-standing program of the Guatemalan Government" and that the "selection of targets for detention and murder, and the deployment of official forces for extra-legal operations can be pin-pointed to secret offices in an annex of Guatemala's National Palace, under the direct control of the President of the Republic." Upwards of 60,000 people were killed by the 1980s. Further tens of thousands were killed after, and untold hundreds of thousands throughout this process were displaced in a conflict that spanned decades.

One report from Stephen Kinzer in the Boston Global in 1980 says it all. Kinzer cites a report from the National Council of the Jesuit Order in Guatemala as follows: "... it is only necessary to open one's eyes to realize that here we are ruled by a system of anti-Christian power which destroys life and persecutes those who fight for life... This anguishing situation is being maintained with a repression among the most severe in Guatemala's recent history. A regime of unjust force is trying to prevent the working people from reclaiming their just rights." The Council reported over three thousand killings in the first ten months of 1979 alone, by government-backed death squads acting "with total impunity. It is axiomatic that in Guatemala there are no political prisoners, only the dead and disappeared."

This kind of analysis could go on ad nauseum. The history is well-documented.

So the question remains. Will the US say "sorry" for the destruction of democracy in Guatemala, for the hundreds of thousands lives lost, for the millions repressed?

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Thursday, October 14, 2010 0 comments

11 October, 2010

sheer idiocy - Afghanistan - Halliburton (michael moore)

A Senseless War Begins Its 10th Year
 ... an address to the nation from President Barack Obama (as reported by Michael Moore)

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

My Fellow Americans:

Nine years ago today we invaded the nation of Afghanistan. I'd just turned 40. I had a Discman and an Oldsmobile and had gotten really into LiveJournal. That was a long time ago. It was so long ago, does anybody remember why we're even there? I think everyone wanted to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. But he got away sometime in the first month or so. He left. We stayed. Looking back now, that makes no sense.

Needing to find a new reason for the mission, we decided to overthrow the religious extremists who were running Afghanistan. Which we did. Sorta. Unlike Osama, they never left. Why not? Well, they were Afghans, it was their country. And, strangely enough, a lot of other Afghans supported them. To this day, the Taliban only have 25,000 armed fighters. Do you really think an army that tiny could control and suppress a nation of 28 million against their will? What's wrong with this picture? WTF is really going on here?

The truth is, I can't get an answer. My generals can't quite tell me what our mission is. If we went in there to rout out al-Qaeda, well, they're gone too. The CIA tells me there are under 100 of them left in the whole country!

My generals have also admitted the following to me:

1. There is no way we can defeat the Taliban. They enjoy too much popular support in the rural areas, the majority of the country.

2. Even though we've been there nine years, the truth is the Taliban, not us, not the Afghan government, control the country. After nine years, we've only completely run the Taliban out of 3% of Afghanistan.
3%!! (Just for reference, it took us only ELEVEN MONTHS after D-Day to entirely defeat the Nazis across all of Europe.)

3. Our troops and their commanders are still trying to learn the language, the culture, the customs of Afghanistan. The fact is, our troops are simply not trusted by the average people (especially after they've killed numerous civilians, either through recklessness or for sport).

4. The Afghan government we installed is corrupt beyond belief. The public does not trust them. President Karzai is on anti-depressants and our advisors tell us he is erratic and loopy on many days. His brother has a friendly relationship with the Taliban and is believed to be a major poppy (heroin) dealer. Heroin poppies are the #1 contributor to the Afghan economy.

The war in Afghanistan is a mess. The insurgency grows -- and why wouldn't it: foreign troops have invaded and occupied their country! The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer there. So why are we? Why are we offering up the lives of our sons and daughters every single day -- for no reason anyone can define.

In fact, the only reason I can see is that this war is putting billions of profits into the pockets of defense contractors. Is that a reason to stay, so Halliburton can post a larger profit this quarter?

It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die. Their deaths do not make us safer and they do not bring democracy to Afghanistan.

It is not our mission to defeat the Taliban. That is the job of the Afghan people -- if that is what they choose to do. There are many groups and leaders of countries in this world who are despicable. We are not going to invade 30 countries and remove their regimes. That is not our job.

I am not going to stay in Afghanistan just because we're already there and we haven't "won" yet. There is nothing to win. No one from Genghis Khan to Leonid Brezhnev has been able to win there. So the troops are coming home.

I refuse to participate in scaring the American people with a phony "War on Terror." Are there terrorists? Yes. Will they strike again? Sadly, yes. But these terrorist acts are few and far between and should not dictate how we live our daily lives or make us ignore our constitutional rights. They should never distract us from what our real priorities are in making our country safe and secure: Everyone with a good job, families able to own a home and send their kids to college, universal health care that's coordinated by your elected representative government -- not by greedy, profit-hungry insurance companies. THAT would be true homeland security.

And what about Osama bin Laden? Nine years and we can't find a 6'5" Arab man who apparently is on dialysis? Even after offering $25 million to anyone who will tell us where he is? You don't think someone would have taken us up on that by now?

Here's what I know: Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire -- and if there's one thing I've learned about the rich is that they don't live in caves for 9 years. Bin Laden is either dead or hiding out in a place where his money protects him. Or maybe he just went home.

Just like we should do.


My condolences to the families of all who died in this war. Most of them signed up after 9/11 and wanted to do their duty because we were attacked. But we were not attacked by a country. We were attacked by a few religious extremists. And you don't defeat a few thugs by shipping halfway around the world thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That is just sheer idiocy.

And it ends tonight.

God be with you.
I'm not a Muslim.
(End of speech, as transcribed by Michael Moore)


Dear Michael. 

  • We ARE in Afghanistan because
  • OIL
  • Minerals
  • pipelines
  • halliburton and private profits (blackwater)
  • military jobs
  • weapons testing
  • elite forces getting "wet" (get hardened by killing)
  • myth-stabilizing (needed, because we were NOT attacked on 911, it was an inside job)
  • continue crime coverups
  • torture continuation
  • next war preparation
  • blackmailing the allies
  • CIA black budget

This, Michael, is America.  Now, you don't want America to change, or do you?
We are the good guys.  Imagine if our fellow mericans would understand that we
are the bad guys. That would mean they'd be of the same opinion as Hamas and
Ahmadenijad.  What would it mean to the doctrines?  Nobody would believe anything
that was said in USA media any more. Which is different from "Most people
believe many things in US media are untrue"

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Monday, October 11, 2010 0 comments

10 October, 2010

Hugh Shelton - 9/11 False Flag agent provocateur hypocrite

Warning.  This man is responsible for 911.
He should face a firing squad if the
USA was a country with any self-respect.


Gen. Shelton: Cabinet member suggested killing U.S. airman
Chairman of joint chiefs of staff during 9/11 recalls request before Iraq war

General Hugh Shelton, who was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff during 9/11, chronicles his journey to the highest level of the American military in his book, "Without Hesitation." In this excerpt, he writes about a request from an official that left him seething.

Early on in my days as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we had small, weekly White House breakfasts in National Security Advisor Sandy Berger's office that included me, Sandy, Bill Cohen (Secretary of Defense), Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State), George Tenet (head of the CIA), Leon Firth (VP chief of staff for security), Bill Richardson (ambassador to the U.N.), and a few other senior administration officials. These were informal sessions where we would gather around Berger's table and talk about concerns over coffee and breakfast served by the White House dining facility. It was a comfortable setting that encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues of the day.

During that time we had U-2 aircraft on reconnaissance sorties over Iraq. These planes were designed to fly at extremely high speeds and altitudes (over seventy thousand feet) both for pilot safety and to avoid detection.

At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event—something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough—so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?"

(I am sure this happened .. just google GLADIO to understand how USrael does much much worse things)

The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode.

Poor old Hughie-boy.  I am sure he has authorized the killing of many innocent human beings.  What a chadband.

I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, "Of course we can . . ." which prompted a big smile on the official's face.

"You can?" was the excited reply.

"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go."

The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. "I knew I should not have asked that. . . ."

"No, you should not have," I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. "Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don't operate like that here in America."

No, we operate much much bloodier and much more perfidious.

I left the room that day but I never forgot it. I went back and I shared it with the Joint Chiefs—not revealing who the official was—but nonetheless getting into how it had played out. "You may not think those types of things still happen in Washington, but trust me—they do, and I've just been exposed to it. Keep your antennas up and do not ever fall into it."


911 happened on H Shelton's watch.

Looking back on the thirty-four years of my career that led up to my appointment as Chairman, I felt comfortable with the man I saw in the mirror. I had earned a solid reputation as an honest, straightforward role model for integrity, ethics, and selflessness—a leader whose moral character was beyond reproach. Now, as I proudly stepped into my position as highest-ranking military officer in all of the United States Armed Forces—the principal military adviser to the President and the National Security Council—I was excited to serve as a living example to the three million-plus men and women of our armed forces that it really is possible to rise to the top of one's profession through character-based leadership and without its being at the expense of others.

But what was I stepping into behind the heavily fortified walls of the Pentagon's inner circle? Would subsequent White House gatherings attempt to drag me into more revolting conspiracies? I'd had bosses who asked me to steal for them, others to access and falsify their records. I'd seen my share of cowards and relieved them of duty. But never in those thirty-four years had I seen—or even imagined—anything that came close to a senior Cabinet member suggesting I be party to killing one of our great airmen in hopes of starting a war. Was this typical of what really went on at the highest levels of the United States government, the country I had passionately devoted my life to serve?


THREE buildings were disolved .. wtc 1 wtc2 and wtc7 at 5 int he afternoon.

If my first few weeks as Chairman were any indication of the challenges the next four years would bring, I would have countless opportunities to call upon those principles deeply ingrained within me as a young boy in a small North Carolina town called Speed.

From "Without Hesitation" by General (Ret.) Hugh Shelton, 14th Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, with Ronald Levinson and Malcolm McConnell. Copyright © 2010 by the authors and reprinted by permission of St. Martin's Press, LLC.


Could this chapter be a hint at 9/11?   Hugh Shelton was in a plane to London on 9/11, no doubt to give instruction to the UK government.

you really believe the official story? just check the facts for 10 minutes. 

During the events of September 11, 2001, Shelton was on a plane to London, England. Then-Vice Chairman Air Force General Richard Myers took charge and on October 1, 2001 became his successor.

He is a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE), he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth (for rescueing the western capitalist system with an endless war and oil booty


According to the publisher, General Shelton goes on the record to reveal, for the first time, the following:
  • High-ranking Cabinet member proposes intentionally allowing an American pilot to be killed by the Iraqis to have an excuse to retaliate and go to war.
  • Details of a contentious Camp David meeting among President George W. Bush and his National Security Council immediately after 9/11, where internal battle lines were drawn---and Shelton (along with Colin Powell) convinced President Bush to do the right thing.
  • How Rumsfeld persuaded General Tommy Franks to bypass the Joint Chiefs, leading to a badly flawed Iraq war plan that failed to anticipate the devastating after-effects of the insurgency and civil war.
  • Attempts to kill Usama bin Laden that were shot down by our State Department.
  • CIA botched high-profile terrorist snatches, leaving Shelton's Special Operations teams to clean up their mess.
  • How Shelton "persuaded" Haiti's dictator to flee the country.
  • And much more.

Yet, according to the publisher, it's Shelton's amazing personal story that puts his military career in perspective. It began with a fall from a ladder in his backyard, resulting in total paralysis from the neck down---and a risky experimental procedure, so dangerous that if it didn't cure him, chances are it would kill him.

clinton lewinsky

cigar monica lewinski

bill clinton lewinski deception distraction

titilation for distracting the public of the important things

harmless fun ...  unlike the killings and the fraudulent US military

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Sunday, October 10, 2010 0 comments

01 October, 2010

Turgut Özal - Gladio news

Ozal did the things that the vulgar-capitalist west (usa/cia) wanted... PRIVATIZATION
But was he not pro-USA enough and was killed by the CIA like rohwedder palme lumumba
herrhausen ....?

from voltairenet

Did NATO attempt to assassinate Turkish President Turgut Özal?

Ahmet Özal, son of former Turkish president Turgut Özal (1927-1993), registered a complaint against General Sabri Yirmibeşoğlu, former secretary-general of the National Security Council and Commander of the Special War Department.

M. Özal has accused General Yirmibeşoğlu of having conducted an assassination attempt, on 18 June 1988, on the life of his father who was Prime Minister at the time.

For many years, the rumor has circulated that President Özal did not die of a heart attack on 17 April 1993, but was assassinated by Gladio; that is to say, Turkish agents operating under NATO's orders.

General Yirmibeşoğlu denied the accusation. However, in responding to the press, he acknowledged that his services had taken part in covert operations, including some grievous manipulations. He inadvertently confessed to having ordered the burning of a mosque in Cyprus, in 1974, to manipulate the Turkish Cypriots (mainly Muslim) and pit them against their Greek orthodox compatriots.

The retired general had already admitted that his services were implicated in the 6-7 September 1955 riots in Istanbul. His agents, acting under the authority of Gladio, perpetrated an attack against the museum dedicated to Mustafa Kemal in Thessalonica, Greece. The attack, perceived as a sacrilege, inflamed Turkish extremists who took it out on the Greek communities in Istanbul and Izmir. The progroms claimed 16 lives and left 32 people seriously injured; some 200 women were sexually assaulted.

President Turgut Özal advocated a eurasist foreign policy that foreshadowed the neo-ottoman policy currently in place. For fifty years the United Kingdom and the United States have used Gladio to systematically orchestrate false-flag attacks to set up their Greek and Turkish allies against each other in order to weaken them.

Halil Turgut Özal  October 13, 1927 + April 17, 1993
was a Turkish electrical engineer, a high level civil servant and politician,
who was Prime Minister of Turkey from 1983 to 1989 and President of Turkey 
from 1989 to 1993. As Prime Minister, he transformed the economy of Turkey by paving the way for the privatization of many state enterprises. This improved relations with the western world, especially the United States. Özal described his dream as transforming Turkey into a "little America"

On June 18, 1988 he survived an assassination attempt during the party congress. One bullet wounded his finger while another bullet missed his head. The assassin, Kartal Demirag(, was captured and sentenced to life in prison but pardoned by Özal in 1992.

Demirag was allegedly a Counter-Guerrilla, contracted by its hawkish leader, General Sabri Yirmibesoglu.
Two months later, Yirmibesoglu became the secretary general of the National Security Council.
During Yirmibesoglu's tenure as secretary general,
Özal heard about the allegations of Yirmibesoglu's role in the affair and forced him into retirement.

In late 2008, Demirag was retried by the Ankara 11th Heavy Penal Court and sentenced to twenty years in prison.

On 17 April 1993, Özal died of a suspicious heart attack in office, leading some to suspect an assassination.  His wife Semra Ozal claimed he was poisoned by lemonade and she questioned the lack of an autopsy; allegedly a requirement in such circumstances. The blood samples taken to determine his cause of death were lost or disposed of.  Özal sought to create a Turkic union, and had obtained the commitment of several presidents. His wife Semra alleged that the perpetrator might have wanted to foil the plan.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Friday, October 01, 2010 0 comments

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites